The LA Times calls Thompson (D-Ca) the “Voice of sense in gun debate”
As the national firearms debate reaches a crescendo, a California congressman is proving that you can be both a gun lover and a gun controller.
Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, a moderate “blue dog” Democrat who represents the rugged North Coast and the premier Napa-Sonoma wine country, puts the lie to the National Rifle Assn. demagoguery that this is a firefight between pro-gun and anti-gun forces.
So, he’s already gone barking moonbat. So much for being the “voice of sense”.
“As a hunter and gun owner, I will not give up my guns and I will not ask other law-abiding Americans to give up theirs,” says Thompson, 62, a former state legislator and eight-term congressman. “But as a father and grandfather, I also know we have a responsibility to keep our kids, communities and country safe from gun violence.”
And boom, there you have, the typical liberal position: they won’t make changes in their own lives, yet have no problem slapping restrictions on Someone Else.
“My philosophy is it’s not gun control, but gun violence prevention,” he asserts. “We ought to have reasonable laws that protect the 2nd Amendment and keep our communities safe, and I think we can do both.”
What does he want? Common sense legislation we can all agree on? Not by a long shot. He’s behind Diane Feinstein’s scary looking weapon ban because they “give a bad name to gun owners.” Really?
Thompson also wants a federal ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. He’s calling them “assault magazines”. This is a guy from a state that wants to restrict gun ownership for 10 years for anyone who has been convicted of two DUIs within 5 years, because one has something to do with the other, and surely highlights that Democrats aren’t interested in going after criminals who use guns, but (mostly) law abiding citizens (you know what I mean).
Gun nuts are always trying to claim that gun control means no guns for anyone. Most Americans want more control of firearms, especially those that can be used to kill dozens of people quickly. Most people believe that the Lanza household should not have had those weapons accessible to a nut case. Gun nuts say that the 2nd Amendment trumps common sense. These wack job gun nuts say that Americans have an UNRESTRICTED to bear arms.
Ronald reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons way before Feinstein
And he wanted tougher gun control laws BEFORE he himself got shot.
John’s position is that people who believe in a God given, natural right are somehow “whack jobs” and “nuts.” As usual, this demonstrates that a liberal cannot argue facts and must resort to character assisination.
(Not that john ever has the guts to actually engage in an honest debate.)
But john does try to distort some facts here. Reagan did support an ban on certain weapons such as automatic weapons. He did not suppurt a ban on semi-automatic weapons and was, in fact, an owner or several semi-automatic weapons.
But john and others want to equate semi-automatic with fully automatic weapons and say are “war weapons.” This is contrary to all facts and relies on ignorance of the population. That is what is required for the left to make converts -ignorance.
Lastly, john tries to say that people shouldn’t think that the government would take all guns away. This despite Biden’s comments to the contrary, as well as police showing up on doorsteps of law abiding citizens looking to confiscate legally owned weapons.
John needs to actually read the 2nd Amendment and then try to explain how banning weapons matches up with “shall not be infringed.”
But we all know he won’t do that.
And by the way john, why don’t you address the point of the original post? That an elected official won’t give up their guns and rights, but wants the rest of us to do so?
Is that too difficult to undetstand?
What john needs to do is explain how weapons bans would effect violence in the US. Maybe banning movies would do the job, or locking up the liberal nut jobs who run around killing everyone.
John said,
Yeah, and the media and press never roll out the shield of 1st Amendment, right john? They never claim, “no matter what, I have a 1st Amendment right to do it” Right john?
And actually, john, the Bill of Rights, all of them, even the Constitution and Declaration of Independence from ALL TYRANNY were based on common sense.
You ever read Thomas Paine’s book, “Common Sense”, john? That book was one of the reasons we took our stand against Tyranny john.
It was our demand for common sense treatment.
You want gun control john, then I demand common sense gun control laws that will actually do something about illegal gun crime by criminals and people with known mental health problems.
Let’s start off by you declaring what a common sense control on illegal guns would be, john.
We’ll wait………
[…] at Pirate’s Cove, is blogging about Voice Of Sense†Rep. Mike Thompson (D) Won’t Give Up His Guns, But Has No Problem Taking […]