“Outlaw Divorce, Not Guns”: Bill Whatcott

Jesus H. Christ. At the other end of the link in this tweet, Whatcott reprints a Lifesite news article by some awful dude named Michael Cook about mass murderer Elliot Rodgers that includes such nuggets of reason as:

Gun control is opposed by many Americans because gun-toting is said to be a fundamental freedom. But what about the fundamental freedom of quick-and-easy no-fault divorce? Marriage breakdown is one of the most serious problems faced by the US – and every other Western society. It destroys lives. And, as the latest rampage killing demonstrates, not just the lives of the kids of the divorced couple. Perhaps they wouldn’t need more gun control if they had better divorce control.

And:

Behind the deluded self-pity, it seems clear that Elliot Rodger was a lonely youngster starved for a father and shaken to the core by his parents’ divorce. A curious boy who had no one to talk to about the facts of life. A sick teenager who had no one to guide him through adolescent temptations

And:

It’s a familiar story. Most of the men on the never-ending list of rampage killers in the Unites States came from homes where the parents were divorced or separated. Predictably, their own relationships were fraught as well.

Yikes. I hope most people recognize that this bullshit is part of an insane and terrifying worldview.

Adds Whatcott:

Excellent article! My parents divorced when I was six and my grandparents divorced when my dad was young, and so might have my great grandparents and that was back in the day when divorce was rare! No doubt this sad family legacy had something to do with my criminal activity and drug use when I was a teen and perhaps even laid the groundwork for my own broken marriages. The good news is Christ can bring healing to this sort of tragedy.

It should be noted as this article has noted that what I term as a tragedy (broken marriages and kids without parents) Hollywood loons and far left judges call progress.

We definitely don’t need gun control. Back in the bad old days when Canadian families were intact and going to church there were lots of guns laying around and no one was dying from them.In fact in Canada one could purchase a hunting rifle without any more difficulty at the local hardware store than one could buy a hammer. What needs to be controlled is our unelected and vile judges and probably we can learn something from Putin over in Russia and put controls on the Hollywood trash that is polluting us too. Once we aren’t exposed to Hollywood porn and filth and once we have non-Marxist judges, we could definitely look at curtailing divorce. Then our actual rights, right to free speech, right to legally own guns, right to be openly Christian, etc…. could be restored. Imagine that!

Bill Whatcott

Well I think that pretty much speaks for itself. But in case it doesn’t…

Anti-abortion extremists are irrational and dangerous, flat-out, full stop. They are a big reason Canada needed a gun registry — a registry that was a response, by the way, to a massacre of women by a deranged Canadian “rampage killer”. Of course, Canada’s long gun registry was dismantled by the political party with the most anti-abortionists. Big shock there. For some people, God and guns go together even better than repressed homosexuality and self-hatred.

We needed a gun registry, not to stop hunters from owning rifles, but to keep powerful weapons away from people obsessed with narrow, fundamentalist religious “moralities”. People who appear to be absolutely terrified of sex, and incapable of coping with 21st century culture.

And it’s gone. Good job, Conservative voters. Thanks.

Anyone know if Whatcott — our own special anti-abortion, anti- same-sex marriage, anti-birth control and apparently pro-gun Christian activist (who may or may not have had a court date today for peddling his extreme views at the University of Regina) — has any guns? Because it sure as fuck seems unsafe to to me to allow Whatcott to keep them.

Hat tip to the friend who I’m not going to name here who posted this monstrosity on Facebook.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth will never, ever pass up a chance to make a Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo pun.

16 thoughts on ““Outlaw Divorce, Not Guns”: Bill Whatcott”

  1. I guess you could just as easily say, “Outlaw Marriage” then, or “Outlaw Procreation” if you want to save innocent kids from messed-up, confused adults. I’d say cost of living, followed closely by an inability to mange the cost of living, are the two top reasons for family breakdown and unhappiness in society. Maybe Bill should be working for greater wealth redistribution across society, coupled with material-want-reduction strategies to help curb needless debt.

  2. As evidence for this bullshit, Cook cites five mass shootings from 2011 to now (six if we include this latest). This article lists 12 mass shootings in the US in 2011 and 2012 alone, meaning Cook has utterly failed to demonstrate his assertion that “Most of the men on the never-ending list of rampage killers in the Unites States came from homes where the parents were divorced or separated.”

    Here’s a non-exhaustive list of recent American mass shooters from married couples: James Holmes (“Dark Knight Rises” guy), Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords shooter), One L. Goh (technically his dad was widowed), Eduardo Sencion (the IHOP shooter). This is in the first five names I checked from the article above (I couldn’t find info on the fifth). Considering the US divorce rate, there appears to be no correlation between marriage status of parents and mass shootings. And let’s not forget the iconic school shooters: Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold. All of them had married parents.

    In conclusion, fuck you Michael Cook and Bill Whatcott. Capitalizing on a tragedy to promote your bullshit is bad. Making shit up on top of it is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

  3. I just noticed that Cook spelled “United States” as “Unites States”. Whatcott copied the mistake, Steve copied it from him, and then I copied it from him. This may be my first fourth-order typo.

  4. “Maybe Bill should be working for greater wealth redistribution across society, coupled with material-want-reduction strategies to help curb needless debt.”

    Priorities,Talbot. Priorities.

  5. I think it’s both good and bad that these idiots have a public forum.
    The good: we see how twisted these people really are and take action to keep them from holding public trust positions. Good on Trudeau for trying to eliminate wingnuts from his party.

    The bad: those who are unable to think for themselves (and there are many) will be more likely to believe them and support the garbage that spews out of their mouths and keyboards while they make their way to the polls to vote Conservative.

  6. Steven Whitworth;
    You live in a country where we have the gift of free speech.
    You live in a country that was founded on Christian moral principals.
    You are employed by a company that allows you expression of your ideas.
    You are granted the ability to do the right thing and spread truth and integrity.
    So what do you do with all these gifts?
    You squander them on promoting an evil degenerate ideology.
    You demonize good people who will always be better than you, so you can spew your delusional antipathy towards upstanding, morally sound, responsible members of society.
    You screech hysterically like a girl, pissing your bigoted, intolerant and hateful ugliness throughout your community, like some horrible disease.
    ‘People’ like you represent the lowest, slimiest, smelliest most disgusting face of the human race.
    Your self righteous chauvinism and morally bankrupt decrepitude has earned you a special place in hell. Enjoy…

  7. Aw, Dan! I’m listening, but you’re just not selling me!

    You sound sad. Hugs,

    Steve

  8. The usual M.O.: Invoke freedom of speech. Criticize you for exercising your freedom of speech. Condemn you to hell.

  9. Just wondering why you refer to Anti-abortion extremists as irrational and dangerous? The Prolife and Anti-abortion platform is entirely based on promoting life . It would be completely heretical to use a gun to kill someone – while crying over the fact that the unborn have no rights at all. I have personally met one of Canada’s most famous Anti-abortion activists , and she is the most unassuming grandmother like figure you could ever imagine. She has literally given up her life to fight for the rights of the unborn. She is not dangerous to society, yet she has gone to prison . I’m failing to see the violent connection that this article is trying to make.

  10. No, the pro-life and anti-abortion platform is entirely based on being afraid of sex and suppressing women by promoting forced pregnancies. It entirely belongs in the middle ages, not the 21st century.

    But go ahead, defend those fetuses! People like me will stick up for women who just want to live their own lives and make their own decisions.

  11. Colin Keith. This woman you speak of. She did not “literally” give up her life to fight for the rights of the unborn. Or, you know, she’d be dead. (Also, you spend a lot of time saying she’s an unassuming grandmother but end off by saying she went to prison. My grandmother was pretty unassuming, and she never went to prison. Because, you know, she didn’t break any laws).

  12. Stephen. You didn’t answer my original question. What criteria are you using to qualify a person who is against abortion as ” dangerous” . The original article refers to ant- abortion extremists as ” irrational and dangerous” . Please don’t tell me you feel that any one who is against abortion is an extremist . I believe women ( and men) have a choice when it comes to abortion , that choice is made when they choose to have sex. An unplanned pregnancy is a result of that choice . Just like we all get to choose to engage in many other activities with consequences. In my mind an abortion is a “cover up” for a decision with consequences that we didn’t intend.

    Max . Ok you got me. she didn’t ” literally” give up her life. She did however give up everything that we all hold as important , to protest the laws of this country that permit abortion ( IE family , freedom , dignity etc. ). Martha Stewart went to jail and you wouldn’t define her as dangerous. Wondering why Stephen would identify our anti-abortion grandma as dangerous?

  13. “I believe women (and men) have a choice when it comes to abortion, that choice is made when they choose to have sex. An unplanned pregnancy is a result of that choice.”

    Gee, that’s not an extreme viewpoint at all.

    I’m not here to “answer your questions”, Collin. I don’t know how to answer them anyway. They’re stupid and awful, and come from a place of shame, ignorance and fear.

    I CAN tell you that nonsense like yours drives good people away from Christianity, a religion that has more than a few great ideas (charity, kindness, etc.). I just talked to a gay friend last night who told me that Christianity was ruined for him by people who told him that the way he is — the way God made him, if you prefer — is a sin.

    Maybe that’s what people like you want?

  14. I Really wish you would define what is dangerous about those who disagree with abortion. Your article has vilified them/us , and I take exception to that.

    No doubt your gay friend has been hurt and offended by Christianity. I honestly wish I had the opportunity to speak with a gay person about this . Lately everywhere you turn there is a discussion about homosexuals. I have only ever met one person in my life who was a homosexual . We had a meal together , and a great time. But we never really got down to the issue of homosexuals and Christians. The most effective way to understand one another is to have conversation – not conflict.

Comments are closed.