Crazy Words From A Crazy Person

Representative Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh, who owes over $100 thousand in child support to the mother of his children, is very, very ashamed.

Ashamed because he has failed to support his children? The unemployment rate? The number of uninsured persons? His complete lack of tact and knowledge?

No. Because his state does not allow concealed handguns.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) told an audience in Illinois that he was ashamed of his state for not allowing concealed handguns, warning that they were the “last line of defense” if Americans need to revolt against their government.

“We are an embarrassment (in Illinois),” Walsh said Tuesday night at a Tea Party rally, according to The Daily Herald. “We are the last state standing when it comes to concealed carry. There’s no issue when it comes to freedom that matters like this, like the Second Amendment. The most important amendment in that Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. It protects every other amendment. It is the last line of defense between us and our government.”

This fantastical idea conservatives have. The idea that the diabolical federal government is going to come take your guns and force you into purgatory is just that. Fantastical.

It's not a new idea either. It goes back decades. This conspiracy theory has been peddled to the gullible as far back as the John Birch Society and beyond, and the last thing we need is for it to be legitimized by the ravings of an elected lunatic.

The reality is no one other than law enforcement needs to be carrying concealed weapons. The reality is Joe Walsh is the embarrassment. An embarrassment to America.

  • watchdog_prime

    This whole second amendment thing is beyond silly. I always laugh at these idiots who claim the second amendment is the one that allows all others to stand, if that were remotely true, it would be the first amendment then.
    He’s concerned about his states lack of a concealed carry law which would prevent people from standing up to a tyrannical government….except that the only kind of concealed weapon is a handgun, and you cannot fight and win a war with just a handgun.
    Because I don’t believe for a second that such a situation will ever come to pass, I’m certain that all will occur is a bunch of idiots tacking up arms and finding themselves in another Ruby Ridge situation, which they will easily lose.
    It doesn’t matter if some of these fools have military background, they don’t have military equipment; what do they plan on doing against recon aircraft, assault helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, Strykers, Predator Drones? These idiots have nothing that can counter that, and trust me the military is not going to side with a bunch of traitors to the US.

    My point is, the whole bit about fighting the government is stupid in the extreme. It doesn’t matter how many guns you stockpile, you can only ever fire one at a time. They will not have the numbers to take on a well-trained military force, nor the ordinance. Even if I were inclined to believe their ridiculous definition of the second amendment, I recognize that it could never work in this day and age.

  • Sean Flynn

    Imagine if the Occupy Wall Street protests were also 2nd Amendment “pry it from my cold, dead fingers” nuts. Not only do they have real grievances, but on the national level they have popular support for many of them.

    Instead of dragging the likes of Lloyd Blankfein or Jaime Dimon out to the public square and putting two into the backs of their heads, they are protesting peacefully.

    As they are gathering in accordance with their constitutional right to assembly they are getting beaten and pepper-sprayed by white-shirt commanders of the NYPD.

    Instead of reacting to this behavior, which is more police-state-esque than anything a gun owner has ever experienced in modern American history, with violence they are simply recording it with their cameras.

    I don’t understand how a cop who’s had his pension pilfered by psychopathic bankers and traders can justify beating up the protestor who wants those bankers and traders held accountable for their misdeeds.

  • mrbrink

    I’ve never been to war. Never fired a gun.

    Born on the North side of Chicago. Lived in Illinois my whole life.

    I’ve been shot at, but never shot.

    I’ve had nervous suburban cops draw on me more than a few times in confused panic.

    Latin Kings, Gangster disciples, and Vice lords have all flashed guns in my face.

    A crazy uncle; a paranoid best friend–

    I’ve lost several friends to gun violence– Even my high school sweetheart, who a few years after we parted ways– was living with her boyfriend who came from an upper class family, but was selling weed to make ends meet– Were both bound and executed on the living room floor of their apartment. Reports say she was wrestled to the floor as soon as she opened the door coming home after night school. Shot in the back of the head twice. They never did get the pound of weed that was in the closet. Rolo Tomassi.

    I’ve also had friends who’ve committed suicide. Overdoses and hanging. My favorite Aunt threw herself in front of an oncoming train in her mid 40’s.

    In my experience with people who are susceptible to depression(aren’t we all?)a gun would just make it all too easy.

    And in my experience, a poor education in a depressed economy is the breeding ground for gun violence.

    But throughout all of this, not once did ever I think, “I’d stick around and shoot it out, or be quicker to the draw, if only I had a gun.”

    Not once did I think, “a gun would have prevented all this gun violence.”

    The funny thing is, to me, is that I’ve never been shot– simply because I just ran the other way.

    For me, the best defense against me getting shot has always been my head, and my heart.

    • bphoon

      I certainly respect your words here. I respect your perspective and mourn your losses.

      I, too, have never been shot. Never been shot at. Never had a gun brandished in my face. Doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, though.

      Like I said, emergencies come without warning. If I have the opportunity to save myself by running away, fine, I’ll run away. On the other hand, if my running away puts another at risk but my having a weapon allows me the chance to defend myself or them then, yeah, I may stick around and do what’s necessary. Not all situations are the same.

      I don’t mean to sound like having a weapon at hand will always make everything OK. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes the bad guys get the drop on you. Life on life’s terms.

      Sometimes though, yes, having a weapon can make a difference. I can think of a few people who might–might–be alive today if someone other than Colin Ferguson had had a weapon and knew how to use it that night on the LIRR, for instance.

      • mrbrink

        Thanks for the acknowledgement, bphoon. I was not expecting feedback. I totally respect your position( I have several hunters and gun enthusiasts in my family) and you’ve articulated it very very well, with consideration and thoughtful introspect.

        I don’t mind guns when they’re not in my face. I just think that carrying a weapon when you’re walking around the mall, or protesting liberals, warps and diminishes the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment. Gun extremists are the reason pot has not been decriminalized. Look at em’. They are the epitome of uncool. Keep that shit on the down-low, people. Be cool. Pass it around with discretion.

        “Screw you, lawdog!”

        “It’s my right!”

        That doesn’t make it right.

        I trust you’re cool with your right to bear arms. Lots of people are.

        But I think carrying a gun “just in case” is a terrible way to go through life for that off chance you’ll save the day.

        But I also think every household in the country should be provided one shotgun– by the government. If you want it, you can have it. If not, that’s fine, too. No one could accuse the government ever again of coming for our guns. But they still would, I suspect. La Pierre would something like, “the government is providing a shot gun to take it away later! Don’t be fooled!”

        Maybe they’d complain about all the socialism involved.

        Having said all that, I think anytime the word “illegal” is presented in the context of the 2nd Amendment is subjective, and quite possibly a flawed interpretation when imprisonment is the automatic result.

        Observing contemporary gun lovers and mild fanatics carrying in public for the sake of gratuitous rebelliousness, or “rugged individualism,” might have had an altering effect on the wording of the 2nd amendment had the authors seen what they’re doing to its honor.

  • Lexamich

    Yeah, this Walsh scumbag is going to get caught doing something dirty, and hopefully not too many people get hurt in the process. He’s a walking scandal just waiting to happen. The deadbeat thing will pale in comparison to what’s coming, and he’s probably going to shed tears.

    Look at that dude’s face and tell me you don’t see it. He looks and acts like a gunsel Eliot Ness blasts in an Untouchables scene.

    Joe Walsh is the prime example of a person that should just shut the fuck up so their personal attitudes won’t live up to their personal appearance.

    Christie and Perry, too.

    Oh, and Bachmann, with that vacant stare and plastered smile of hers.

    Ah, and Palin, with that scowl of hers.

    Yes, and McConnell, whose pasty, clammy, bloodless face and beady eyes makes him resembles Emperor Palpatine and one of The Visitors from the original V. Yeah, and of course, an albino Sleestack.

    Ok, I’m done insulting scumbag con-servative Republibums.


  • Anon Collie

    I have a buddy who’s in the local State Police, and it’s a mandate from his job that he be packing while off duty, because he’s well, a cop. Truth be told he’s about the only one I trust to be carrying around a handgun, because he’s been drilled over months about it’s use and is a proficient marksman. If he’s ever jumped, or otherwise forced to draw his weapon in public – I know that he’ll have a respect for what it can do and act accordingly. Same friend is also a Fox News nut, but I still trust him because he’s a consummate professional. He’s able to detach his politics from his job.

    But if he wasn’t a trained officer? I’d be nervous as hell, especially with his politics.

  • Terypat

    Whoever elected this deadbeat dad to congress is an embarrassment to America, so needless to say the American citizens of Joe Walsh’s congressional district embarrass the heck out of me.

  • bphoon

    I have a concealed carry permit and I carry most of the time but not so I can defend myself against the government. Call me paranoid, but there are lots of bad guys out there with their own weapons. I simply won’t allow myself to be in a position where, if the unthinkable happens, I become by default a victim with no chance of recourse.

    Now before you go all Brady Campaign on me, please hear me out. I think we can agree that an armed home invasion, for example (and something that happens with alarming regularity in my small Midwestern town), is pretty much an emergency situation. I think that we can also agree that, by definition, emergencies happen with little or no warning. So, given that I wish to be in position to handle most any emergency that might befall me or my family, I believe in staying equipped and prepared.

    But then, I’ve been trained in the use and deployment of various weapons. I seek out opportunities to take retraining periodically. I study the laws governing the use of deadly force and self defense. This is a far cry from the bullshit that Wayne LaPierre, Joe Walsh and people like them put out.

    Like motor vehicles, weapons are potentially dangerous, especially when in the hands of someone untrained in their use. Like motor vehicles, I believe deadly weapons–and not just firearms–should be registered. Like motor vehicles, I believe someone who desires to own and operate a deadly weapon should be trained and required to prove satisfactory completion of said training. And, like motor vehicles, I think operators of deadly weapons should be licensed.

    I believe that more thorough background checks should be done before any citizen who is not a sworn peace officer is allowed to operate a weapon, whether for hunting, self defense or target shooting. I believe the gun show circuit should be shut down.

    While black market weapons falling into the hands of criminals will continue being a problem, I think measures such as these will help to reduce the instances of “a whole town full of rednecks toting their deer guns, and shotguns” and, maybe, reduce the number of accidental shootings in this country.

    I agree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment gives individuals in this country the right to keep, and bear, arms. However, with this kind of freedom comes responsibility. Of prime importance is to know, understand and abide by the law. Of prime importance is to seek out the best training one can afford.

    Before anyone makes the decision to bring deadly force to bear, they need to be able to make a swift, cold, systematic evaluation of the circumstances and risk for error. They need to be able to exert the self discipline it takes in an amped-up emergency situation not to fire if the risk for error is too great. Before anyone makes the decision to carry the power of life and death on their hip, they need to make up their mind whether they are willing to risk a lifetime in prison or the potential of being killed in a gun fight or the potential of killing an innocent bystander before acting on that desire.

    The Second Amendment and all its ramifications is serious shit, not to be taken casually like dipshits like Joe Walsh seem to take it.

    • Alan Fors

      Like motor vehicles, weapons are potentially dangerous, especially when in the hands of someone untrained in their use. Like motor vehicles, I believe deadly weapons–and not just firearms–should be registered. Like motor vehicles, I believe someone who desires to own and operate a deadly weapon should be trained and required to prove satisfactory completion of said training. And, like motor vehicles, I think operators of deadly weapons should be licensed.

      Exactly my thinking, but with one addition: like motor vehicles, a deadly weapon should be insured with a policy that will cover any and all damages caused by use of the weapon even if not used by the official owner. If your gun is stolen and you don’t report it stolen, your insurance still pays. Etc. etc. If that makes it too much of a financial burden to own a weapon, so be it.

      • bphoon

        I don’t know why but the insurance requirement slipped my mind. Good call.

      • Jennifer Hofstetter

        While I completely understand where you’re coming from, I totally disagree. Your 2nd Amendment right shouldn’t be based on whether or not you can afford it.

        It’s not just so called “gun nuts” who own guns. It’s farmers who have to have to kill varmint and other animals who are a nuisance to their crops or livestock. They shouldn’t have to wait to get some kind of exterminator who’s licensed to come kill a coyote or rabbit while they watch their paycheck get eaten.

        It’s folks that live in high crime areas who don’t feel like the police can offer protection fast enough. I live in a major city that is divided by two counties, and the 911 dispatchers regularly notify the wrong police department, slowing down response time. The fact is, we don’t live in a magical utopia where you can trust police to do their jobs efficiently, for whatever reason. Self defense is a valid argument for the 2nd Amendment.

        I don’t believe my income should affect my Constitutional rights.

        • Alan Fors

          So wait, you’re saying here that guns should be given out freely to anyone who wants one? Because if you can’t afford one, then your rights are being violated?

          • Jennifer Hofstetter

            There is a difference between paying a one time charge (and tax) for materials that were put together by a manufacturer, and paying an arbitrary number some actuary came up with regularly, be it annually, quarterly or monthly, for the length of time that you own the gun.

            Especially when it is unnecessary. People who do illegal things will always do illegal things, and putting restrictions on law abiding citizens is a waste of time and taxes.

          • Alan Fors

            I wasn’t specifically referring to illegal activities. More for the accidental shootings, or careless behavior, or the crime of passion in a fit of rage.

            Or the careless owner who allows his weapon to be “borrowed” or stolen to subsequently be used in a crime. If they were held accountable for it, then it’s less likely they would be so careless.

            And finally, it would hamper those who buy weapons and turn around and supply them to criminals and thugs who could not accquire them legally.

          • Jennifer Hofstetter

            I respect your argument and logic, but again, I disagree.

            Accidental shootings, while sad, are few and far between, and guns are not the only weapon used in crimes of passion. The statistical probability of these occurrences are low, and while I might support this were guns a privilege, I do not believe in passing legislation that could hamper a persons right to bear arms. It is a right. Repeal the right if you want, and then get back to me. But until then it is my right, and passing a law that could restrict my right is…wrong.

            Look. I was definitely a pro-gun control advocate not too long ago. I didn’t understand the self-defense argument, I thought hunting was barbaric, and shooting for sport just seemed like a redneck excuse for destroying perfectly good paper. Or hay bales.

            But I watched what happened in England during the riots when citizens didn’t have the right to bear arms, and what’s happening in Mexico every single day. The wrong people will ALWAYS get a hold of guns, whether there are laws in place or not. Harsher punishment is clearly not a deterrent.

            I’ve learned to respect firearms. I don’t ever want to have to shoot someone, but you better believe I’m going to defend myself if it’s my only option. That does not make me a “gun nut” or a crazy homicidal person. It makes me a survivalist.

            I apologize for getting on a little soapbox but I think when there are debates about the second amendment, the “pro second amendment” folks are spearheaded by buttheads like Joe Walsh and Rick Perry and the NRA (I HATE the NRA, btw). I’m liberal, through and through, but I feel like the liberal pro-gun voice is rarely heard and easily dismissed.

            I’ve enjoyed debating with you, and I hope I haven’t offended or come off as too terribly ignorant.

    • incredulous72

      I’m in full agreement. I do not own a weapon, and don’t know if I ever will (I live in New York; the gun laws are very strict in these parts), but there should be uniformed, national gun laws and registry. If we do all of this for vehicles then why isn’t there the same regulations for guns?

      • Jennifer Hofstetter

        Because whether you like it or not, according to the Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court, owning a gun is a right. Owning a car is not.

        • Alan Fors

          That’s a poor argument against rational and reasonable licensing and insurance. With rights come responsibilities.

          • Jennifer Hofstetter

            I’m not saying that gun owners shouldn’t act responsibly. Or even that there shouldn’t be reasonable licensing (though I’m sure that our definition of “reasonable” differs). However, comparing ownership of a gun, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and ownership of a car, which is not, is comparing apples and oranges.

            There are certain restrictions on owning cars or obtaining insurance that, if applied to purchasing or owning a gun, would make it more difficult to obtain one – a violation of the Constitution. Felons are not allowed to own a gun. Background checks are used to obtain that information. I’m not sure what more should be required when it comes to licensing and registration without crossing a Constitutional line and infringing on rights.

            The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights as much as the First and Fifth are. Regardless of your stance on guns, it’s there. It hasn’t been repealed, and as such, putting too many restrictions on ownership, just because it makes part of the population uncomfortable, is wading into dangerous territory.

          • Alan Fors

            At the risk of being absurd, one could argue that car ownership is constitutionally protected by the ninth ammendment.

            I really don’t see how it would violate the constitution to require one to prove they have been trained to safely own and operate a weapon. Nor how it would be a violation to prove that you can cover any financial damages caused by the use of a weapon you own. Yes, there is a cost associated with both of those, but it’s not a restriction.

            I have a right to own property, but that doesn’t mean I am free of all costs and regulations associated with that ownership.

            Oh, and please, don’t assume to know my definition of “reasonable”.

          • Jennifer Hofstetter

            I believe that extra costs associated with obtaining firearms, in general, is a restriction. Period. Aside from the insurance, what would be the cost associated with proving you have been trained properly? Would it be like going down to the DMV? Who would pay for facility and employees associated with that? Would you require a government provided and required class first? Who would pay for that? Would it be paid for by taxes? Or by fees charged to the person trying to obtain a firearm.

            I’m sorry, but to me, and to a large portion of the population, associating fees with the 2nd Amendment opens the door to associate fees with any other amendment, and that is a slippery slope.

            And I didn’t assume to know your definition of “reasonable” only that mine clearly differed from incredulous72 and yours did not. Therefore I only assumed that ours differed. Transitive property.

        • incredulous72

          I’m fully aware of the Constitution and what is in The Bill of Rights. And judging from your “conversation” with Alan, you cannot “assume” to know what my position regarding the 2nd Amendment is, nor what I constitute as “reasonable”. My point was, there should be more comprehensive national guns laws in this country, specifically associated with obtaining a gun permit. There are statutes regarding the parameters of free speech, but that doesn’t take away our right of free speech.

          • Jennifer Hofstetter

            I never assumed to know what your entire position on the 2nd Amendment is, only that I specifically disagreed with your rhetorical question – “If we do all of this for vehicles then why isn’t there the same regulations for guns?” You said also “there should be uniformed, national gun laws and registry,” and I made the assumption based on your rhetoric that you think the national gun laws should be stronger and that you believe there should be a national registry. If this assumption is wrong, than I’m sorry to have offended you. If this assumption is right, then I respectfully disagree with you.

            I believe having laws against convicted felons owning firearms is enough. I don’t think we as a country need to place restrictions on the rights of law abiding citizens, out of, what I think, is misplaced fear.

            And I do realize that there are statutes regarding the parameters of free speech, and I think there shouldn’t be. Because, again, for me, placing parameters on our basic rights is a slippery slope.

            Now, if you want to talk about repealing the Second Amendment and putting firearms into the category of privilege rather than right, that’s a whole ‘nother story, and while I’d still disagree, I wouldn’t be as nervous about the precedent it would set.

  • Groobiecat

    Well, wait, the premise here–if we can discern a basic premise from an apparent midwestern militia member elected to congress–is that to protect yourself from the government, you need to be able to carry a concealed weapon? Because assuming you needed to protect yourself against the government (and the main threat to people at this point is coming directly from the majority in the House), how would conceal carry laws have any weight whatsoever?

    Sure, crazy is what these people are, but what’s been really amazing to me is how aggressively unable their are to put together the most basic, coherent, logical thoughts. These people aren’t just crazy, they’re violently stoopid. And yeah, in other news, water is wet, fire is hot, etc….

  • dildenusa

    No question that republicans and their tea party republic base live in a fantasy world. Here in Arizona, any law abiding citizen without a felony conviction or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can carry a concealed firearm. It’s a bogus law because the law doesn’t say that those wishing to carry concealed must know the laws and be proficient using firearms. So today the only thing the concealed carry permit in Arizona gives someone is the ability to buy guns without a background check since the permit requires a background check.

    As far as domestic insurrection goes, the question is, will the police obey orders to do sweeps, confiscating guns without a warrent. Conventional wisdom says no. The police will join citizens and wait for the army and national guard to come in. Even with private security companies the military doesn’t have enough forces to occupy the entire nation. Then what?

  • Razor

    I honestly don’t see the problem with concealed carry laws. I’m not a fan of guns, I would never own a gun, I do support many gun control laws… but 49 states have some sort of law allowing it and it’s not Wild, Wild West out there, at least not until I have the right to bear a giant metal spider.

    So I don’t think it’s really that big of an issue. Of course there will always be people shooting each other, but that’s going to happen regardless of whether or not we let some rednecks compensate for their tiny cocks.

  • holyreality

    One fact is that an armed populace will be much more difficult to control in a police state framework.

    The Second Amendment was about a man’s home being his castle, he could defend it from criminals, wild Indians, and an oppressive government.

    Another sadder fact is a whole town full of rednecks toting their deer guns, and shotguns would be decimated by a small trained group of military forces.

    If, if, (a very big) if the US government ever did fail, and an invading force did manage to take over, the public’s duty would be survival. House to house searches for weapons must surrender the arms or the owner will be killed. If you are killed for not surrendering your arms, who will take care of your family?

    This is the fact of life in an occupied police state. The focus must be to survive the famine, and disease, then maybe organize to fight an eventual insurgency.

    There will always be arms when an organized effort to oust whatever occupying regime is mounted. It worked this way in every country across all of history.

    But fantasizing about free, armed men fighting an oppressive government warms the heart far more than a rational pragmatic look.

    • Bob Rutledge

      Agreed, but for …

      “Another sadder fact is a whole town full of rednecks toting their deer guns, and shotguns would be decimated obliterated by a small trained group of military forces.”

      I don’t think “decimated” fully conveys the contempt with which trained forces would destroy the “patriots”.

      • holyreality

        Would American troops fire on their own people?

        Many rednecks and yokels are vets with special forces experience, in any case it looks ugly.

        • Bob Rutledge

          Would American troops fire on their own people?

          If the townspeople were in rebellion….

          See: War, The American Civil

          • holyreality

            That horrible episode was an aberration to this prospective scenario.

            Grey versus Blue, two clashing military forces are not National Guard shooting civilians.

            I’d like to think that “our boys” would defect if ordered to shoot us. But with the indoctrination the military uses in training, “our boys” may not be ours when the rubber meets the road.

            There is always hope that soldiers can, and do exercise their conscience.

        • D_C_Wilson

          Would American troops fire on their own people?

          Next question.

          • holyreality

            Funny how I was thinking of Kent State as I typed.

            Tianamen Square had their lone hero, the Arab Spring had theirs.

            ROTC, and National Guardsmen who “love” America may think twice about shooting Americans, but shooting a bunch of America hating hippies? Apparently not in Ohio in 1970.