Dakota Beacon

Apparently, Canada is at war at home.  Today we hear that the nation’s Parliament is under attack and under “lockdown”.   Jihad has broken out in Quebec and Ottowa as we speak.  Canadians are perplexed as to “why” they are so targeted, although for some time there has been consternation about Canadian-born citizens making their way to the Middle East to fight with ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Canada has responded with travel restrictions, not allowing these young radicals to go there.  Now they fear that these young jihadists will carry out their mission on home ground.  Today they seem to be doing just that.

Ottowans are advised to stay inside and away from windows.  One young soldier was shot and killed at a war memorial.  Havoc reigns today in this peaceful, decent country. 

One asks oneself, how long before ISIS takes control of the Mall and Capitol in Washington (it might appear to some that they have controlled the other end of the Mall for the past 6 years).  I would think that perhaps one deterrent is that in America, the guy buying the newspaper down on the corner might, just might, have a loaded gun.  You see, all of Canada is, for most intents and purposes, one of those “gun-free” zones, like Utøya in Norway.  As a frequent visitor at one time, I recall always being asked upon entry whether we had any firearms or mace.  A couple who vacationed there frequently, joggers, as it happened, inadvertently crossed the border in possession of mace, forgetting to declare it.  It was discovered, they were arrested, they were then deported and no longer are allowed into the country. 

Canada, a decent and benevolent nation in most respects, you see, has this blind spot.  Guns are “bad”.  Mace is “bad”.  In their twisted view, these articles of self defense make criminals of us.  But multi-culturalism is “good”.  At least some of it –that which challenges their legal system, imposing elements of foreign culture such as Sharia.  Which brings me to the other piece in the puzzle – why would a good and decent people permit atrocities to go forward uninhibited?  Possibly because speaking out against it is defined in Canada as “hate speech”.  Ask Mark Steyn.  Those who call out these culture-enrichers on their abuses are brought up on charges themselves.  They are either convicted or are at least required to exhaust their fortunes and mortgage their futures in defending themselves in court.  This is unfortunate, especially in a country with a rich culture and history of its own.

This leads to a less robust public debate to be sure.  How is the public to form an opinion?  Based on what, exactly?  Upon the pablum the government dishes out or approves others to dish out?  So how are they to respond when their country and their culture are at risk?  The answer is: they haven’t, for the most part.  No one wants to be the one to get the summons for speaking out or writing a letter to the editor.  Actually, the latter probably happens as rarely here as it does in Canada due to the self-censorship rampant in the press.  They usually just refuse to print anything they don’t agree with or that doesn’t fit their formula. 

Canada could have learned from Britain’s example.  Over there they have gone from no guns to no free speech (for native Britons, that is) to “grooming gangs” which kidnap and rape young girls and make them prostitutes, to sending their objecting fathers to prison for “disorderly conduct”.  Now they have jihad in their backyards, literally, acid-throwing at those of whom the Muslim “conservatives” disapprove and beheadings of British soldiers in uniform on their public thoroughfares.  Canada could have stepped back from their self-righteous gun and speech bans and thought, “hmm, maybe self defense and free speech aren’t really a bad thing”.  But, no.  So today we have gunshots ringing out in the capitol building, ground-zero for a government that promotes multiculturalism and stifles free opinion . . . and by the way, bans guns.

I will say, though, that some of the violence was done by simply running random victims down with automobiles.  Canada might consider banning cars next. 

They have responded to the shameful defection of young Canadians to foreign jihad with restrictions on travel abroad.  Again, imposing restrictions on those at home.  Here’s my, albeit, unsponsored, unsolicited and un-approved, thought on the subject.

1)      The travel restriction should never be used to keep people in the country.  That’s what China and Cuba do.  The restriction should be used to keep people out of Canada who have gone abroad to take up arms against Canadian interests and shoot at or help kidnap Canadian citizens, military or civilian.  Just don’t let them come back into Canada.

2)      The restriction on freedom of speech in favor of Sharia, Islam and Jihad is indefensible in a civilized free Western nation.  If Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant have something to say, for heaven’s sake, let’s hear them.  We don’t need someone to protect us from opinions.  We need to hear a lot of information and a variety of educated opinions in a free country. 

3)      What on earth makes anyone think that a ban on guns will lead to public safety?  Apparently, as it happens in American movie theaters and college campuses across America, the evil-doers always have the guns.  Somehow, the ban on guns, just like the ban on murder, is observed only by law-abiding citizens.  It’s not the lawful citizen we need to worry about having a gun in the first place, of course.  You know, we could just assume that someone who is not going to break the law will be safe with a gun, and the one who will break the law will not be deterred by a ban on guns.  But just try to get that across without being called a “tin hatter”.  But if there is a right to bear arms in the general public, there is always the constraint on the terrorist or lawbreaker that SOMEONE could take them out before they make headlines.

I regret Canada’s troubles.  That nation is our closest ally, our closest neighbor, our closest friend as a nation, very nearly our brother as a nation.  I really do love Canada and wish them well.  But more than that, just as Canada could have averted a lot of trauma and bloodshed in its midst by observing the errors in Britain, so can we avoid worsening our situation in America by taking away some lessons from our northern neighbor.  Because, quite clearly, we are setting ourselves up with more vigor than they did.

We need to listen to those who understand the importance of our Second Amendment and refuse to be silenced by those who would repeal it and take away our self defense. 

We must now close our border, even at this late hour.  We must absolutely NOT countenance any more discussion of green cards, visas or amnesty.  Call your Congressmen and Senators (the number is 202-224-3121).  Let them know you don’t want jihad on Main Street – or on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It’s past time we stood up and made our opinions known in Washington and in our state capitals and in our own city councils.  If we clean up our immigration policies, perhaps at some point down the road, we might be able to look at these so-called “New Americans” without fearing that they are sleeper jihadists.  We can re-establish in the public mind our right to our self defense, our guns.  We can accept that opinions may not be shut off if they don’t jive with the government script or if they challenge the status quo or popular ideas.  We can regain confidence in our own government.  We cannot afford to do otherwise.  The alternative is America in lockdown.  Is that acceptable?