In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said "surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn't you? How would that be problematic?"
And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?
There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it's the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it's just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal.
59 comments
Why put any limits on anything, then? I mean, if you say that you can't drive 100 MPH in a residential area, then what's to stop you from saying that people shouldn't drive at all?
So, marriage should be limited to ONLY two people; one man and one woman, but saying that guns should be limited to ONLY have two rounds is preposterous?
I have no problem with making all guns illegal. I don't have that much of a problem with polygamy either, I just think it might be a bit hard to keep the equality.
Animals can't enter into contracts, nor can children.
Traditional marriage hasn't been eliminated, it has barely even been adjusted. It's still a contract between two consenting adults. I'd say that the change from being an almost exclusive business deal to being a thing of love and attraction was a much larger change, than just removing the gender specifics.
So let me get this straight, you are arguing against limits on magazine size by promoting limits on marriage. In what twisted mind does limits = no limits? And, in what universe does the size of a gun magazine have anything to do with marriage? That's like saying, "We can't pull our troops in Iraq because we need to eliminate farm subsidies."
With magazines an arbitrary 10 rounds seems a good place to start (though I think it is still too many) and we have to start somewhere. Banning huge magazines is not a step toward taking your rifle away.
With marriage, I don't think it would be violating anyone's rights to ban marriage to non-humans... though if some nutter wants to marry his lemon tree I don't see how that really harms anyone.
... it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more,then you're sucking on the barrel to try to make it up to them... for stealing their virility, you know. Next thing you know they come in your mouth and blow your mind, but not in a good way... and that's why no one should be allowed to marry a gun that's embarrassed by its clip size. We must not defend marriage with inadequate firearms. Thank you. I cede the rest of my time to my esteemed colleague, Rep. Meatwhistle.
Gohmert is part of my nightmare scenario. In it, he and Michele Bachmann have an affair, and a child is born. The child is stupidity incarnate, thus creating a tear in the spacetime continnum that destroys the entire planet.
I hate agreeing with retards- but as they say, the argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Yes, ten-round magazine limits are stupid. That would be taking away or limiting rights. Kind of like not allowing gays to get married. Get it?
And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten?
Because most ordinary hand guns or hunting rifles don't hold more than 10 rounds as standard equipment, so a 10 limit would still allow those weapons with factory-stock clips. Weapons that hold more than 10 are usually either military-style assault weapons or have had after-market clips installed, so you usually have to go out of your way to have more than 10.
There are a few handguns that hold 11 rounds, and I guess if someone (or the manufacturers) wanted to argue "let's make it 11" so those guns are still legal, I doubt if most gun control advocates would offer an objection. Lowering it to 9 would knock a lot of automatic handguns off the market, and you'd hear a lot more screaming from owners and manufacturers.
"Why not let a baboon or a rock represent us?"
I would take either over Gohmert. Neither would be so aggressively stupid, and with the baboon wacky hijinx would ensue, a win for those of us watching at home.
See Canadian gun law, all mags can only hold 5 rounds or are pinned to 5 (cheaper to modify the existing design than make Canada mags).
Not that I agree with arbitrary round limits (I tend towards who can own rather than what people can own), but that limit seems to work well for them.
I do agree that large capacity mags (30+) are not needed on the civilian market, perhaps compromises can be made there?
What are they saying? I cant have 4 wives? Only ONE?!? What's to stop them from saying you can't get married, AT ALL? Allah Akbar!What's to stop them from saying you can ONLY marry another MAN? WHAT'S TO STOP THEM FROM SAYING YOU CAN ONLY MARRY YOUR CAMEL?!?! Have you SEEN my camel? That motherfucker is HUNG! O'Allah this slope is slipperier than a son of a bitch!
@1524470
Yes, but it's worse than that, if this gets too out of hand, it will lead to animals marrying assault rifles. Then where will we be?
Well if you're going to make slippery slope arguments should we draw the line at the bottom of the hill and nobody gets married, because if it's OK for a man and woman to get married that whats' wrong with animals, or even your children? I mean if you're going to have limits. Limit it all.
He's comparing:
1. Putting a limit on something. (numbers of rounds in a magazine)
2. Expanding the limits of something. (People who can get married).
So his argument is that limiting or expanding anything is bad.
In fact, you could use his own argument against him thus: "Once you start putting limits on who can be married, then it's just really easy to have laws that make all marriage illegal".
I'm not sure what your point is. Oh, wait, you're Louie Gohmert. You don't have a point. You're just a fucking moron.
But good job protecting us all from those "terror babies".
It's like he's got some sort of sexual fetish for bad arguments. Slipperyslopophilia?
@Draken:
He may well be, but it's pretty close between him and Bachmann.
You could make that argument against any law and it would be just as stupid.
These laws don't even get rid of high-cap mags, they just make them extremely expensive. People act like we never had an "assault" weapon ban before.
As someone who is both pro-gay and pro-gun, I have only this to say to Gohmert Pyle here regarding gun restrictions:
STAY OFF MY SIDE, YOU DOLT!
Doom Nugget, you scared the fucking Beejeebus out of me!
I'll never get the idea of Rep. Gomer and Michelle "One L" Bachmann bumping uglies, and the resulting manifestatino of stupid that such a mating would produce.
The one hope we have is that they're both so stupid they couldn't manage to fuck. I'm sure Marcus has not been able to give his beard any instructions in that department.
You're absolutely right, Representative. Having an arbitrary limit on the number of signatories to a marriage contract would be absurd. So long as the contract is mutually understood and acted upon in good faith I see no reason it cannot have as many partners as desired. Of course a categorical limit, such as age or species, would be a different matter entirely; akin to a highway which accepts cars with any number of passengers, but not go-carts.
Who wants to bet that by the end of the year, Louie will have been caught in a four-way with a man, a sheep, and a modified assault rifle?
You lost me at "it's kind of like marriage".
At its crux, marriage is a legally binding contract. For that to be so, you need two consenting adults entering it of their own free will. So, your argument that goat-fuckers will start marrying their goats falls flat on its face. Apart from that, why impose any kind of restriction on marriage? It doesn't affect anyone who you marry or how many marriages you enter. Let's say a commune of gay hippies wants to get every member in it married. Sure, let's do it, why not? It's nobody's business but theirs.
And seriously, if you're going to make the argument that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is arbitrary and therefore meaningless, you really should be arguing in favor of loosening up the definition of marriage, if you wish to be logically consistent.
That said, it would be really nice if people didn't conflate issues like gay marriage and gun rights. They're separate concepts entirely.
Making guns illegal would be stupid, especially rifles. Imposing proper regulation, on the other hand, is common sense.
And this is a slippery slope fallacy. Then again, nobody is perfect.
Speaking of Bachmann; what is it with her and her husband, and their love of dark-colored phallic foods?
image
image
Not to mention, other republicans and their issues with the same food group...
image
image
Surely a conservative would agree we should derive the limit based on the founder's original intent--right?
Given that they wrote the second amendment to vest citizens with the right to bear single-shot muzzle loading long arms, obviously we should limit the number of rounds in a magazine to one.
"Well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven?"
Eleven is more than ten.
EDIT: Wait, this is coming from a US Representative? Not some random idiot on an online forum?
I... I have no faith in humanity.
"Wait, this is coming from a US Representative? Not some random idiot on an online forum?
I... I have no faith in humanity."
Scarier still is that this is his fifth term. His third and fourth terms he ran virtually unopposed, and even last year he garnered over 70% of the vote against a Democratic challenger. I don't think he's going anywhere for a long time if he wants to stay.
Here's another way to look at it.
Republicans could quit confusing social issues with ridiculous superstitious dogma so they can take peoples minds off important issues and continually cater to big business.
Surely you can agree to that,,,if you were an honest person.
I'm against banning magazines...but I'll compromise what I'm really worried about is another''assault weapons " ban.....but I'm guessing that's an unpopular opinion here,and I'm not trying to start a flame war so I'll shut up now..... my point is its people like these who really do nothing but hurt there own side.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.