Today's Wingnut

That should prob'ly be "today's best blog post headline" - from Wonkette:

LOUIE GOHMERT: IF YOU LIMIT THE NUMBER OF BULLETS IN A CLIP, POLYGAMISTS WILL GAY-MARRY YOUR DOG

Mr Gohmert, if you please:

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.

Wonkette's summary (as usual) is just too too - y'know - too.

So we should never limit how many bullets can be in a murder-death-kill machine, because freedom, but we SHOULD limit how many people you marry to exactly one opposite sex person, because freedom. Is that right? We have no idea. Let’s try it another way. If you limit the amount of bullets people can cram into a magazine, then you can’t limit people from marrying friends, neighbors, the dog, and some birch trees en masse? Wonket is in favor of this tradeoff! Less bullets, more group marriages! (Though not with dogs because setting aside the ewwww factor, sexytime with the unable to consent is not cool. We’re sort of neutral on if you want to sex up a tree though.)