Mass public shootings seem to be happening more and more often. First Columbine, then Virginia Tech, then Aurora, Colorado and now Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately, we have not seen the last of mass public shootings and the ante keeps getting upped each time. The Sandy Hook shooting has been dubbed the “second most deadly shooting,” just behind Virginia Tech. What’s next?
With each shooting, the liberals gather together with an outcry for gun control, and the conservatives rally against them, citing our second amendment right to bear arms and even going so far as to suggest that arming the public – even teachers – will stop these senseless tragedies from happening. Who is right? Who has the solution?
Let’s take a look at the possibility that the argument for and against gun control has been created. That the fear of guns is being manufactured, and that the public outcry for gun control has been cultivated with the express purpose of removing our right to bear arms. Of course, the government couldn’t simply take away our second amendment rights without revolt. We have to ask for it.
Consider the Patriot Act, which removes many of our freedoms so the government can properly search out and catch suspected terrorists. Would we have given away those freedoms or even allowed them to be taken from us before 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror? Doubtful. However, in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, people were not only supporting the Patriot Act and what it stood for, they were demanding that the government protect us. Losing many of our freedoms in the process was well worth it, right? Consider the possibility that 9/11 was orchestrated just for this purpose – to gain access into our homes, our bank accounts, or phone lines with the simple excuse of “suspected terrorism.”
Apply that line of thinking to mass public shootings. Is there a possibility that the shootings – or at least some of them – are being orchestrated to cause the American people to demand gun control?
In the case of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, some things just don’t add up. The shooter appeared to have access to “a rifle, two handguns, a knife, a bullet proof vest, a ballistic helmet, a gas device, a gas mask, military SWAT clothing and unidentified explosives,” and wore “a gas mask, a ballistic helmet and vest as well as leg, groin and throat protectors during the shooting,” according to CBS News. Just where would this kid have gotten access to equipment of this caliber? These are not things you can simply get at your local Army surplus warehouse.
The New York Times recently suggested that the FBI has documented cases in which it orchestrated domestic terror plots, only to “bust” them right before they happened in an effort to seem relevant and as though the agency were actively stopping terror. Take the case of the man in Portland, Oregon who was provided an explosive laden van - driven by an FBI agent - to drive into a packed Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Except when the guy called the cell phone that was supposed to detonate the bombs, he got caught instead.
So if the Colorado shooter was provided with the tactical equipment and weaponry to conduct a mass public shooting, why didn’t the feds bust him prior to the shooting as is their M.O.? Consider the possibility that the completed mission was more valuable to the government in terms of getting the public to demand gun control than it would have been if it were intercepted.
A similar tactic is used in child rearing. You can easily get a child to do something you want by simply convincing them that it was their idea in the first place.
Is this what the government is doing with the American people? Are they creating situations in which we demand gun control in an effort to convince us that it was our own idea to give up our right to bear arms?