Assholery Gun Fetishists

Asshole of the Day

Joe the Unlicensed Plumber is sorry about your dead kids but, actually, no he’s not sorry at all.

Wurzelbacher: “It’s a tragedy.

I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

It’s a tragedy. But: fuck you and yours.

Is “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights” now the official GOP platform? I’d say it has been for some time, but this is the first time I can recall it being stated so bluntly and crassly. Who else can we get on camera stating this? Don’t be shy.

I’m old enough to remember when former presidential candidate Senator John McCain turned Joe the Fraudulent Plumber into a heroic figure of the Republican party. Who else did John McCain unleash on an unsuspecting nation?

  • Brutlyhonest

    I guess he accomplished his mission of having people remember/talk about him.

  • nathkatun7

    “Joe the Unlicensed Plumber” is one EVIL SOB!

    • Victor_the_Crab

      I wouldn’t call him evil. Just utterly and totally ignorant.

      • nathkatun7

        I suppose you are right about him because I really don’t know him personally. But as a parent who has lost a child, I was totally disgusted by what he said. He really should have kept his mouth shut! I don’t know about any one else, but as much as I revere the Constitution, I would not appreciate any one telling me, after the senseless slaughter of my child, that his constitutional right to own guns is more important than the life of my child. I don’t always use the word evil, but I really thought that in this context it was the only to understand his mindset!

  • Nefercat

    Joe? Sam? Asshole? You are wrong. So very wrong. As usual. Because you are a fucking moron with no critical thinking skills at all.

    From the Declaration of Independence:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Unalienable, Joe. Unalienable. Look it up. It has nothing to do with aliens, dumbass. Endowed by their Creator, Joe. You know, God.

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution on the other hand, is an amendment to the original document. Yes indeed, Joe. An amendment. That means the Constitution, a document written by men, can be changed. We can even amend that amendment, Joe!

    For instance, like so:
    “The first fucking clause of this amendment is first, gunhumpers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you are not part of a well-regulated militia (i.e., the National Guard), of course your right to bear arms will be infringed. How stupid are you?”

    So, Joe. Our unalienable right to life does in fact trump your rights to jerk off to news stories about murdered children.

    Roast in hell, John McCain. Your other Frankenstein’s monster finally outdid that braying bag of dog shit, Palin. What a legacy. You must be so proud.

    • priscianusjr

      Actually, your suggested amendment is unnecessary, since it only restates what the second amendment already says. But it’s good to see someone pointing that out every now and then.

  • Lady Willpower

    “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights”

    The same people who think you’re a murderer if you get an abortion.

  • LeShan Jones

    “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”

    They do when you’re too stupid to know what rights the Constitution actually grants. Even the conservative activist judges on the Supreme Court say that the second amendment allows for regulation and gun control, so you’re just wrong and stupid.

  • ninjaf

    Actually, I thought Conservatives were all about “Your rights end where my body begins” or am I remembering their usual talking points wrong? So, yes, his dead kid DOES trump Joe’s Constitutional right.

    • Badgerite

      All constitutional rights, even the most fundamental ones, will give way to a truly compelling societal interest. Dead kids had constitutional rights as well and they most assuredly would trump Wurlitzer’s right to own an arsenal. Scotus rulings have identified gun ownership as a fundamental right. But that right can and should be regulated up the kazoo for obvious reasons of public safety. Kids and their parents have a right to be secure in their persons from unrestrained gun violence. All fundamental rights get balanced against other fundamental rights and societal interests. None are absolute.

    • nathkatun7

      There are no absolute constitutional rights!

  • Victor_the_Crab

    To pissdrips like Joe Wurzelbacher, a weapon specifically designed to take a human life is far more important and valuable to them than an actual life, like Chris Martinez.

  • Robert Scalzi

    I will certainly be happy when this skid mark on Americas undies is no longer breathing and stealing oxygen from someone more deserving

  • FlipYrWhig

    Hey, remember the “Ground Zero mosque”? What was the balance between mourning and constitutional rights on that one? I’d say “pray tell,” but, you know.

    • reginahny

      I can’t even say “nice try” because this is so uninformed and unrelated to the post as to be absurd. Building a Community Center (not a mosque) near the 9/11 site has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Brushing off dead children with a callous statement about gun rights has nothing to do with getting building permits. Getting building permits has nothing to do with people who died near a site, nor were those who died in any way referenced or disrespected by those making the request. Ugh. I’m already tired and know you didn’t post that drivel hoping for a thoughtful response.

      • Treading_Water

        I think you missed the point. There is a Constitutional right to build a mosque anywhere they have permits and a lease, and that right is not trumped by the mourning of those who lost people in 9/11. Almost all of the protests against the mosque had to do with “it’s too soon to allow those who bombed the NYC towers to build a church (trophy) there”. So in that case, the argument was that their mourning trumped the mosque’s Constitutional rights.

        • Robert Scalzi

          No dipspittle it is you and the other intelligence challenged douche that doesn’t get it – your poor analogy just proves my point

          • Treading_Water

            Dipspittle? Nice argument, asswad.

        • reginahny

          No need to clarify my thoughts from a different direction. Yes, there is an obscure relationship between building permits and the 14th — with most court cases deciding against any specific building limitations as a Constitutional right — but you know, and I know that was not the snide point the poster I was responding to was making.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            I think FlipYrWhig’s point was that the vocal opposition to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque — irrespective of its rationality — was essentially based on the idea that it was somehow “inappropriate” to have a Mosque (or a Muslim-owned or Islamic-themed community center) so close to that particular place, in part because the victims’ families might be upset by it. Meaning, the potential emotional discomfort of a small cohort of individuals was more important than the property rights and/or Free Exercise rights of the Park 51 owners.

          • FlipYrWhig

            Thanks for the save.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Well, I guess what I wrote didn’t work at all. My point was that in one recent case the right wing swung its rhetoric ENTIRELY in the other direction, saying that the First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion (at the mosque/cultural center) were, in fact, trumped by an emotional reaction to certain deaths. They argued that because people died nearby, the Constitutional rights of others didn’t apply. In other words, they don’t actually believe in any consistent way that there is a right relationship between emotional reactions and the Bill of Rights — even though they claim that their views are clear and obvious. They’re not. They like what they like, guns and xenophobia, and they make up arguments about liberty to suit those preferences.

        • reginahny

          I understand, my thoughts got muddled — thanks for taking the time to explain and I see what you meant.

        • nathkatun7

          You make good points.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    This is nothing new; we’ve heard this before. Who was it (some RW radio talker) who said, addressing the Sandy Hook families, paraphrasing, “The loss of my liberty is a far greater tragedy than your loss.”?

    This is such a grotesque thing to say that one can hardly muster a response. The amount of solipsistic self-regard one would have to have to feel that way, let alone express it out loud, is staggering.

  • RamOrgan

    Who else? Umm … let me think …

  • muselet

    Once, just once, it would be nice to hear the ammosexuals express condolences after a fatal shooting without adding a gratuitous rebel yell of, “Yee-haw! Guns!”

    I’m not so naive as to think Samuel Wurzelbacher would be the gun cultist to behave decently. It’s just not in him, especially since his fifteen minutes have already elapsed and he feels the burning need to get back into the public eye. Instead of behaving like an actual human being with actual human feelings, Wurzelbacher chose to screech at Richard Martinez, the father of one of the killed UCSB students, which is a proven way to get attention (and any attention is good attention, right, Mr Wurzelbacher?).

    Can we please go back to pretending the desperate, tasteless and irrelevant Samuel Wurzelbacher doesn’t exist?


    • Robert Scalzi

      I LOVE your new word !!! I will be using it profusely

      • muselet

        It is a good word, isn’t it? Betty Cracker was in fine form when she wrote that post.


  • 1933john

    “…. your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”
    To kill kids?