Recent events in Arizona have pushed guns back into the media. And for good reason. All it takes is some nut-job to come along and whack off a couple of innocents right? I mean, why would our responsible reporters report an explication about why guns need to be controlled BEFORE something tragic happens. After all, isn't it the American way to criticize things AFTER they already happen? We are bar-none, hands-down the greatest after-the-fact commentators in the universe (yes, even worse than the jagons from the horse-head nebula).

Let's step back a few years. After the massacre in Colorodo, the uppity-socialist Michael Moore attacked the issue of gun control in his documentary "Bowling for Columbine." While his idealistic musings make Geraldo look like a genius, it's difficult to disagree with his stance on guns. Do we as civilians need access to these harbingers of destruction? The answer is and always will be a positive no. Anyone who disagrees is senseless and inconsiderate. I highly doubt mr. NRA member would sing his "my gun is my right" tune the day after his child is murdered by a gun registered to his name. Because, and let's be brutally straightforward here, guns only serve one purpose. This purpose CAN be a good one. There are many things/people/rodents that deserve a lead nap of the eternal kind. However, these are just outliers. Life is everything. For each individual it's the ONLY thing. After life, there lies nothing. So that brings me (quite easily) to the point of this entire article:

What the fuck is a 20 year-old assmonger with a sub-hundred IQ and a library card doing with a semi-automatic assault weapon? Is there REALLY debate about this? I can't fathom one, NOT ONE, scenario where ANYONE needs a semi-automatic weapon. What happened to the good old days when issues were solved with a punch to the noogin' and a swift kick to the junk. Have we really cheapened life SO much that when a kid kills two people quicker than he farts, we are willing to call it his "civil right"? And if these "righties" really need to emasculate themselves in a field while shooting at defenseless animals, then so be it. I could give a donkey shit what those creeps do in their spare time. But they don't need a handgun for that. They need 3 foot long rifles that you could spot from a mile away. After all, a turkey doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a handgun. As a sidenote: is it even difficult to hunt turkeys? They are slow as shit. Dumb as shit. Deaf as shit. (Do they even have ears?) Where the fuck is the fun in hunting a deaf, slow, retarded animal? (Yes, I'm still talking about turkeys and not George W.) I'm confused.

So I propose a solution to our problem. If you REALLY feel the need to go out and shoot something, under my new laws, you still can. We take anybody who wants the rights to own a gun, stick them in a huge field like Gettysburg (how amazingly apropos that would be). Then they get to go out with their guns and hunt each other. It will be like that kids game "manhunt" but instead of going to jail you get put into a coffin. The hunt doesn't end until there is only one prick.....excuse me, hick.......excuse me, dick.......excuse me, man standing. Then you put this man up on a pedestal, put a big shiny ribbon on him and shoot him in the fucking head. (I know, I know. George Carlin) Then you televise the entire thing and all the proceeds from the advertisements go the families of innocent victims who have died because of these assholes and their "civil rights." Afterwords, you have a big ceremony (a la survivor) where a bunch of blind people use the bodies of the dead assholes as pinatas until their entrails spill down like a bowl of spaghetti that drops on the ground.

So, there you have it. Fuck guns. We don't need 'em. Never have. End of story. Case solved. Issue closed.