Why is the first reaction always to hamstring the helpers?

OK, while it’s technically a spoiler, it’s from the trailer, so I’m not sorry. We know that the main plot of Captain America: Civil War is that the governments of the world want to force the Avengers to accept someone being in control of them, and that causes a split. We also see in the preview, General Ross (although he’s not named beyond his title of Sec. of State) showing clips of NYC (Avengers,) DC (Winter Soldier,) Sokovia (Age of Ultron,) and Lagos (Civil War,) as if to cement his assertion that the Avengers are the problem, when that’s only mildly true in the case of Sokovia, since Tony and Bruce did create Ultron, who then caused the destruction in Sokovia. In the case of NYC and DC, it was “SHIELD” either messing with things they shouldn’t (the Tesseract) or Hydra acting from within SHIELD to kill millions. Now, let’s look at each instance where the Avengers were not responsible for the issue being present, meaning all but Ultron.

Avengers, Fury was trying to make better guns, which caught Loki’s attention, and ultimately led to an alien invasion. The Avengers were only brought in when it was clear Fury’s soldiers weren’t able to find or capture Loki, and he then was silent about their getting involved. Yes, he did try to stop the plane he thought was going to nuke New York, but that’s all he did in regards to the Avengers acting against the Chitauri. In Winter Soldier, it’s Hydra exposed as running SHIELD, and their plan to kill millions “to save Billions.” Fury tried to stop the launch of their plan, and when he was killed, had Steve and the others not acted to stop what they had zero part in starting, well, I don’t think General Ross would be alive to sign those accords, nor would T’Chaka or T’Chala be around to glare at those who didn’t sign them. Finally Lagos, without spoiling the movie, it’s Steve’s team acting to stop someone they know, but that acquaintance is the only connection. It’s the same as if a S.W.A.T. commander had worked with someone in the past, then he and his team had to storm a building to stop a drug ring, and in the firefight, more than just the bad guys went down. Is it S.W.A.T.’s fault that they were fired on, and since they ducked and took cover, the bullets continued flying?

This is the argument we hear today, the “if you hadn’t been reckless” or “if banning guns saves even one life” as if that’s possible. The same people who scream these arguments to any camera they can are those who belittle and demean the police when they don’t act fast enough for their liking. When it’s a police officer in a shooting situation that takes cover, leading to the criminal killing others that they expect to show up in seconds and violently arrest the “evil man who didn’t knock when he wanted to read the meter” or some other plainly idiotic thing. When it’s pointed out that “banning guns” would only remove firearms (a gun is any weapon with a smooth barrel, a pistol/rifle with a rifled barrel is not a “gun” just FYI) from legal owners who aren’t going to use them for criminal reasons, they rant about how you “just don’t get it” or “how naive” you are. They point to some family of a robber who is wailing on TV about their “poor child who just wanted some money to get a meal” while ignoring the pages and pages of criminal history, and while ignoring the victims of illegally owned firearms, since it doesn’t fit the narrative.

So, what do you think?

Leave a Reply