Dakota Beacon

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will loose."
James Earl Jones

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady


Has it occurred to anyone that there is a sort of method at work in the weird world of mass murder? Think about how this works. Every time a crazy person mindlessly takes a gun and starts killing innocent people there is a predictable knee-jerk reaction. It is as regular as clockwork, as routine as the sun rising in the morning.

First there is the shock, the gasp of horror that any normal person or populace would experience. Then two other things happen. Immediately, the idiot media begin analyzing the killer as to his “right-wing bias”. Every angle is researched in this effort. Is he known to be “Christian”? Has he expressed distaste for Sharia? Does he harbor any patriotic feelings of nationalism? Did he ever post an anti-jihad comment on a website or quote someone else who has? Does he have any suspicious “heroes” like John Paul II or Charlemagne? Is he a Zionist? Did he grow up in the Midwest? Does he have blue eyes and is he blond? Does he have an Anglo or Germanic/Scandinavian name? What respectable, Conservative writers and spokesmen can he be tied to –what “right-wing” books and blogs did he quote? In other words, the media engages full out in ex post facto profiling as, reeling, the sane world ponders and the grieving families bury their dead and wonder what could have happened to cause this tragedy.

The second effect, following closely upon the first, is usually a call to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, in accord with the maxim that the world will be a “safer place” once guns are in the hands of only the military, the police and the criminally insane. It is this latter conclusion we will address here.

First, let us consider the categorical fact that nearly every demographic will have an occasional lunatic in the population. There are demented Sikhs, Lutheran ministers, pharmacists, gymnasts, hockey coaches, farmers, mechanics, nurses, policemen and teachers. Every nation experiences the occasional crazy person. Sometimes they lure young girls to their basements where they put them in the freezer as coldcuts; sometimes they spray the kids in a school with gunshot. Sometimes they make and mail bombs to innocent people. It just happens. They are environmentalists, jilted lovers, religious fanatics, jihadists and anti-jihadists, whatever. There has, as far as can be determined, never been a population without some nuts. So we can just count on one coming along every so often, like Jared Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Malik Nidal Hasan, or Tim McVeigh. We need only wait patiently and one will eventually appear and a terrible killing ensue.

In other words, these people do not need a real-world political agenda. The voices in their own heads are sufficient to motivate them to their violent deeds. It is easy, given this phenomenon, then, to extrapolate a method for disarming of sane, law-abiding citizens and rendering them helpless. I do not believe in taking guns away from innocent, law-abiding people and leaving them naked against assaults by armed terrorists. But if I did, I would set up “gun-free” zones – places like Columbine, the University of Virginia campus, Utoya Island, and then sit back and wait.

A certain amount of planning goes into these attacks. A lunatic will prefer to do his shooting where he can get a lot of people killed without being interrupted by someone else with a gun. The Virginia Tech killer locked and chained the doors before he began his spree so as to prevent anyone entering with a gun or exiting alive. The Muslim terrorist Hasan went to the mess hall where no one was expected to be armed. Breivik went not to an open area where the gun factor would be unpredictable, but to a place where it was known that guns were not allowed and no one there would be armed. That a place is a “gun-free” zone is always well known. It is boasted of and advertised as such deliberately.

If the public outcry, fomented by the lathering press, resulted in a demand to take guns away from “everyone” (“everyone” being everyone who is law-abiding enough to let them be taken away), an important item on the socialist/”one-world” agenda will have been advanced. Think about it from the point of view of someone who believes that guns should be only in the hands of those in power, the government. You know that nothing succeeds with swaying the public like emotion. You haven’t the power yet to confiscate guns, but as a government or, in some cases a quasi-governmental body, you can set up gun-free zones.

Innocent people will be lured to these places. Nothing may happen, even for a long time, but the more of these “safe” zones there are, of course, the greater the opportunity for an attack by someone such as Anders Behring Breivik. When, as is inevitable, a sensational massacre finally occurs, you will call for an end to gun ownership in the private sector. The more times this happens, the more effective the technique. It fits in with everything the anti-gun lobby and the promoters of world government want in order to disarm us. Once we are finally disarmed they know we will be unable to physically resist anything else they wish to impose to control us.

Let us apply simple logic, along with our experience. A crazy person gets a gun and wants to make headlines for himself by killing as many people in cold blood as possible. One or two don’t make headlines. Eighty dead make huge headlines, for weeks. The desire is to become a celebrity, of course. What is the one thing that might prevent this? The unknown gun factor. If you see an armed guard at a “gun-free” zone, he can be taken out first. Then it is only a matter of finding everyone else. The unknown guns are what can stop this, the law-abiding citizen who carries a gun for his own protection. The only thing that finally stops the shooting is a greater force applied. This can be a SWAT team or just an ordinary citizen with a gun. At Ft. Hood it was a policewoman with a gun who stopped Hasan with a bullet. Had the soldiers been armed, firstly, Hasan wouldn’t have done it there; secondly, if he tried, he might have got only one before he was stopped.

The mass killer does not usually go to a gun club. He won’t usually show up at an NRA convention. If he tries it at a Tea Party rally he takes a great risk of not getting very many victims, hence no big worldwide headlines, before someone stops him. A bullet will stop a madman with a gun who is intent on massacre.

After a tragedy such as the one experienced in Norway we must try to learn something from it. It is, in these cases, far less relevant to know just what motivated the killer (these factors are imponderables in a crazy person anyway) than it is to know what made it possible for him to act out. After all, the motives of an insane person don’t apply very well to other situations. The nature of the victims, more truly representative of society, or rather the state of the victims (unarmed) and the conditions of the killing site are far more relevant than what the killer has been reading. But this would be objective and constructive in helping to prevent the next incident, which we can expect someday, and most likely in such a place. Sadly, the media is not interested in this body of mundane fact.

The press is more interested in sensationalism and how it can further the aims of the forces that wish to control the population of the world in general and the people of the free world specifically. This means that they, the MSM, will look for “clues” as to what writers the bad guy quoted and read, with the idea that maybe we can enforce censorship through either force or simple PC intimidation. It helps that most of the writers whose opinions challenge them and whom they thus fear most, are also most distressed by senseless acts of violence. No decent person can be unaffected by this outrage, and Conservative writers/bloggers are deeply distressed. The “clues” and the perpetrator’s “background”, then, are used to silence other legitimate, informed opinion and shut off debate. (It has been reported now that Breivik had been planning this attack for ten years, but we can still expect the three-year-old Tea Party movement to be blamed.)

Then the attention turns to disarming us. The public is swept along in the emotional tide as these cynical objectives are advanced. And all because of what? Because statistically there are bound to be crazy people in our society. We can’t “outlaw” craziness. More and more, people formerly confined to mental hospitals are in the mainstream. They don’t need many. One will do. And they will need places to act out the drama. These are provided for them and maps published to show just where they are. It is like setting up a game preserve and then sitting back and waiting for the hunt to begin. They know it will happen. It is how we react, either intelligently or in a blind emotional storm, that will determine the effectiveness of the technique

Indeed, if I wished to institute a mostly gun-free one-world order I would establish as many gun-free zones as possible on whatever pretext, I would publicize them and just wait for nature to take its course. Then I would reap the rich harvest of blinded public outrage. If the first episode were insufficient to the ends, I would use it to set up more gun-free zones and wait for the next one, knowing that each time it happened my hand would be stronger to exert my will and enforce my program.

As sane, reasonable and decent people, we need to focus on what we can do, not what we can’t. We can’t predict the wayward urges of a madman or discover what makes him tick. We can, however set the stage for a tragedy by arranging conditions so that he can act out successfully or decline to provide that setting for him. That environment IS within our control. We should stop trying to study the biographies of killers. Each is individually afflicted. What was wrong with McVeigh will be different from what was wrong with Loughner. Even if we figured it out it would not apply to normal people. It is really a waste of time, that is, if our goal is to help protect the innocent in the future.

The result, should the governments and left-wing media succeed in their spin of these tragedies, would be to deprive us of our First and Second Amendment rights in America and corresponding rights such as might exist in other democratic nations. And the irony, of course, is that the world will be safer the more responsible, sane people are armed. Just listen and hear what you hear and watch and see what you see. Oh, and while there are still options, I wouldn’t enter a gun-free zone.

"We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"
Joseph Stalin


Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party