Doug Giles

As most of you know, Vice President Joe Biden has been appointed by Obama to make certain that another Sandy Hook never goes down on American soil. Being an American who digs freedom, I’m not getting the warm and fuzzies about this legislative venture. A myopic cyclops staring into the sun can see where this duo is heading.

And as most of you can guess, Biden and Obama are talking about levying an executive order on our populace that would ban certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It’s a similar policy to the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban that did nada to stem school and workplace violence from 1994 to 2004. Matter of fact, school shootings spiked during that epoch. What is it they say about the definition of insanity?

Anyway, as the Left gears up to bear down on law-abiding people because some demoniac’s murder spree has left us all reeling, I would like to put forth a proposal that doesn’t mitigate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms but rather makes it more difficult for people to hook up and breed. It’s an expanded version of what Dennis Miller alluded to back in the mid ‘90s—namely the Brady Bunch Bill: a waiting period before people get married and start a family.

Yes, I’m more worried about high capacity idiots than I am about high capacity magazines. Look, you and I can ban such tools all day long, but demented tools will still find a way to get at them or switch deadly devices. For some reason evil people won’t obey our laws. Indeed, the crazy will search for other ways to McVeigh us into McSmithereens. BTW, all Timothy needed was fertilizer and a Ryder truck; an extended magazine didn’t come close to accomplishing what that satanic soul had in mind. Should we ban ammonium nitrate, nitromethane, racing fuel and rental trucks?

No, I think we should point our policy and derision not upon firearms but rather upon crappy parents who don’t raise their kids right or who don’t rein them in when they’re going off the rails on a crazy train. Pardon me for sounding simplistic, but until people who wish to bump uglies and have kids prove to us that they’re going to superintend their brood into becoming an amicable part of the American collective, I say we prohibit their reproductive rights.

Check it out. Here’s what I propose: Those desirous to mate or adopt would have to pass a thorough psychological and criminal background check and a five-year (at least) proving period where they would have to affirm the following:

1). Will you stay married and work your crap out so that it doesn’t decimate your children to the degree that they one day take their rage out on kindergarteners?

2). Will you raise your kids to obey the Golden Rule? No? Well then, forced sterilization for you.

3). Will you love and nurture your offspring versus pawning their upbringing off on satanic pop culture, violent videos, paranormal peers and Hollywood death flicks? Huh, D-bag?

4). Will you refuse to allow your kid to have a petty entitlement mentality and a woe-is-me vengeful spirit of hatred?

5). Will you quit going about business as usual if your kid starts worshipping Satan and giggles when he hears or sees people murdered or raped?

6). Will you turn your kid in if he begins talking to imaginary people while stockpiling a weapons cache that rivals a small nation’s battery?

7). Will you, in the event that the aforementioned has not helped to move your kid away from the morose, refuse to teach your child how to shoot and either get rid of your weapons or lock them in a vault that he cannot crack nor move with a Hyster 36-48T forklift?

8). And finally, will you take full responsibility (to the point of prosecution and imprisonment) if your teen or twentysomething kid kills anyone because you have fundamentally failed doing your duties as a parent?

If a couple cannot answer in the affirmative and do not show responsible and respectful behavior during the preliminary five-year waiting period then we disallow said couple to breed. How’s that?

Look, folks, we can ban all manner of weapons until the cows come home, but until parents start raising their kids right and steer them clear of this rancid culture this junk is going to plague us ‘til the end of time.

Finally, my advice to the policy wonks is this: Until the Brady Bunch Bill is put into effect, stay the hell away from our guns because we’re going to need the wherewithal to put down your bad seed should he attempt to kill our innocent sons and daughters.

Possibly related posts:

• Gloat #2: Special thanks to bunch of people who helped conservatives
• The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go
• Bill Clinton’s New Glow Job
• Big brother, big mother, and big nanny state know-it-all LIBERALS pass “anti-spanking” bill
• The Solution to Somali Piracy

 

Don’t you love how the Left and their step-n-fetch media mavens are trying to make law-abiding gun owners the bad guys? You don’t? Yeah, me neither.

From Hollywood’s heavily armed guarded elite to the radical, anti-gun commie rag Journal News, peaceful and upright average Joes are being isolated and concentrated on as the bane of America’s existence just because we righteously and lawfully keep and bear arms.

Hollywood has even cobbled together a little tsk-tsk black and white video demanding our government do something about gun violence. That would be the very gun violence they have glamorized on the big screen for the last few decades. Hello.

I believe the total head count of the people slaughtered on film from all the participants from the “Demand a Plan” anti-gun clip comes out to a whopping 100,000 on screen murders.

Yes, Hollywood, please lecture us about gun violence wrecking our culture. Life imitates art, morons, and your films probably spawned half of the killers’ bloody dreams for the last two decades. Lecture us? Please. Physician, heal thyself.

Check it out: When upright, law-abiding Americans want your opinion on guns we’ll give it to you, Hollyweird. Now, go back to Spago and suck on some edamame beans, you duplicitous little dandies.

Oh, and by the way, if you truly want to stem the tide of violent deaths, you should have made a video about the danger of hammers and clubs, as the FBI reports they kill more people every year than rifles do. Dorks.

You know what else is funny? The multitudinous politicians and pundits—mostly progressives—telling us what type of guns we should and should not own. “Oh, we shouldn’t have semi-automatic weapons with thumb holes and extended mags,” they say. “You should only have hunting guns,” they opine.

First off, if you think for a second that Leftists are cool with hunting and Americans owning any type of firearms then you are definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

These tree-humpers would have banned hunting and hunting guns yesterday if they had the wherewithal to do it. Secondly, the right to keep and bear arms was never about putting the bam to Bambi; it was always about the right to self-defense, especially against oppressive governments. Ah-hem.

Therefore, when a progressive tells you what kind of gun you should and shouldn’t own, you should yawn and go out and buy what they just said you shouldn’t have, like millions of other Americans have.

Finally, can you imagine if King George told our original rebels that they shouldn’t own a musket? The Brown Bess, the Charleville and the Kentucky long rifle were the military/police weapons of the day, ladies and gents. “Yes, by George, you colonists shouldn’t have a musket. Who needs a musket? You can hunt with a bow and arrow or a slingshot or a snare. No one needs a dangerous musket. We have the muskets, and we’ll protect you … maybe.”

Our founding rebels with a cause would have said (did say), “Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, Georgie Boy. We’ll leave our self-defense to ourselves. Now bugger off, you snaggle toothed oppressor, and don’t make me use this.”

Oh, one last thing: Here’s a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note, Americans.

Check out our latest video: The State is My Shepherd, I Shall Not Want.

Possibly related posts:

• Bitter, Clingy Gun Owners of America
• Hey, Chris Matthews: I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie
• Music World Ltd. founders K & E Pindoff add another $5 million to Asian aid
• I’m Telling Your Commie
• PC Alert: Rev. Franklin Graham Banned by the Pentagon for Telling the Truth About Islam

 

As most of you know, during a football game last week Bob Costas lectured us po’ goofy Americans about the evils of a “gun culture” and how we need to evolve away from being obsessed with firearms. As soon as I heard that drivel roll off Mr. C’s tongue I ordered another 30/06, a sweet Walther PPK and a custom .416 Rigby turnbolt. Cowabunga, Bob. Thanks for reminding me to buy more guns.

First off, let me help you, Robert: Guns do not kill people. Dads with daughters do. Oh, and BTW, Planned Parenthood kills a lot of people … like real innocent babies … like the most vulnerable form of all humanity. Why don’t you piss and moan about PP, Roberto? What’s that I hear? Crickets? Yep, crickets from Costas on the evils of the abortion mills. I would’ve thought that crime would have made Bobby incensed. Oh, well.

Another thing I thought was weird was Bob launching into an anti-gun diatribe during a football game. A football game, BC? Look, I know he was trying to be relevant in his commentary as it related to Belcher’s murder/suicide, but whizzing on guns to a football crowd is like pooh-poohing pasta and red wine to Italians. You should have saved that lecture for a figure skating event where the male contestants are sashaying to Spandau Ballet, doing pirouettes and floating around in unitards with glitter in their hair. You could have come on during a gentle moment and said, “Don’t you think we have too many guns? You do? Me too.”

When it comes to the topic of self-defense I couldn’t give a flibbertigibbet what the heavily guarded Bob Costas says about my right to keep and bear as many firearms as I want. On such a serious topic, I take my cue from a high power. No, I’m not talking about Chuck Norris. I’m talking about Jesus Christ. Yes, what saith the second person of the godhead is what I want to know.

Now, when discussing what Christ would green light in regard to defending one’s self, it’s usually good to actually go to the gospels, read them and then draw conclusions. Here’s what I’ve gotten after scouring Scripture a few times:

1. In His earthly ministry, Jesus didn’t carry a weapon except the time when He took a whip (a whip! You gotta love it!) and drove the TBN clowns out of the temple. He didn’t chide them or write them a strong but tasteful e-mail asking them to please not do that kind of stuff in church.

What did the meek and mild Messiah do? He whipped them. I wonder if the Christ-is-a-pacifist-wuss Christian can picture sweet Jesus laying the leather to the backs of the marketers who were making His Father’s house a place of merchandise.

If Christ were to do that today He’d be thrown in prison, and 99.9% of churches in the USA wouldn’t have Him speak at their annual Hallelujah Aren’t We Fabulous conference because Jesus wouldn’t be behaving very “Christ-like.”

2. It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus didn’t need weapons because He had at His disposal an angelic host that could flatten armies. I unfortunately don’t have that capability.

Christ had supernatural protection, and His disciples carried swords. I, too, believe that God supernaturally protects me, to some degree, because I should have been dead a long time ago. However, should my guardian angel be napping or busy doing something else other than trying to keep up with my dumb ass, I’ll be okay because Smith & Wesson art with me as well.

3. Lastly, in Luke 22:36-38 Christ told His disciples, even though He personally did not pack a weapon, that they, in light of His departure, should get a deadly weapon—namely a sword. Check it out …

And he [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Jesus told them—didn’t ask or mildly suggest—but told His buddies to sell their leather jacket if need be and buy a sword. The sword that Christ told His compadres to purchase was not a QVC decorative Claymore to hang on their walls to commemorate the good times they had when Yeshua was around. The original word used for sword in this text was a large knife used for killing animals and cutting flesh. It was particularly fashioned for short, deadly thrusts in hand-to-hand combat.

Jesus didn’t tell them to carry a whistle, a shofar horn, or a bag of sand to blow in bad guys’ eyes, but a dagger-like sword—a vicious, nasty and deadly weapon not used for cutting vegetables, spreading butter or splitting a bagel but for violently tapping a lung or heart in case of an attack. Now, in a 21st century WWJD context, even though He didn’t personally carry a weapon, what do you think He thinks about His followers defending themselves with deadly force, huh, Mr. Costas?

Possibly related posts:

• Would Christ Carry a Concealed Weapon?
• Bitter, Clingy Gun Owners of America
• Hey! Listen to the U.N.-lovin’…
• The resurrection of the son of God
• Turning Legal Gun Owners Into SOCIAL LEPERS