Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Rep. Mike Thompson to host forum in Santa Rosa


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

http://www.pressdemo...09762?p=1&tc=pg

 

6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday in the supervisors chambers at 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa, CA.

 

Unfortunately, I have to be at work then.

 

From the link above:

 

The two words [gun control] "create a divide that's not bridgeable," Thompson said, acknowledging the Second Amendment right to bear arms and saying "nobody's going to take that right away."

 

 

God bless D-Rep Thompson

 

He seems to "get" it.

 

 

Waimea

 

:FlagAm:/>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link above:

 

The two words [gun control] "create a divide that's not bridgeable," Thompson said, acknowledging the Second Amendment right to bear arms and saying "nobody's going to take that right away."

 

 

God bless D-Rep Thompson

 

He seems to "get" it.

 

Waimea

:FlagAm:/>/>

As does "Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, an NRA member, [who] said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" that the reported proposals were 'way in extreme' and would not pass." [from the Washington Post]

 

But let's not let our guard down for a moment. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link above:

 

The two words [gun control] "create a divide that's not bridgeable," Thompson said, acknowledging the Second Amendment right to bear arms and saying "nobody's going to take that right away."

 

 

God bless D-Rep Thompson

 

He seems to "get" it.

 

 

Waimea

 

:FlagAm:/>/>

 

Yeah, but it also says: "At the same time, Thompson reiterated his personal opposition to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which he has said “have no place on our streets or in our communities"

 

And from His Website: '“Everyone agrees our schools, movie theaters shopping malls, streets and communities need to be safer. But we need a comprehensive approach that goes beyond just arming more people with more guns to make this happen.

 

“Closing holes in our mental health system, addressing our culture’s glorification of violence, improving background checks for everyone who buys firearms, and reinstating the ban on assault weapons and assault magazines all must be part of a comprehensive approach to reduce and prevent gun violence.” '. Now, just what the heck is an "assault magazine?" He'll be in lock step with the Divine Ms. Di.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it also says: "At the same time, Thompson reiterated his personal opposition to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which he has said "have no place on our streets or in our communities"

 

And from His Website: '"Everyone agrees our schools, movie theaters shopping malls, streets and communities need to be safer. But we need a comprehensive approach that goes beyond just arming more people with more guns to make this happen.

 

"Closing holes in our mental health system, addressing our culture's glorification of violence, improving background checks for everyone who buys firearms, and reinstating the ban on assault weapons and assault magazines all must be part of a comprehensive approach to reduce and prevent gun violence." '. Now, just what the heck is an "assault magazine?" He'll be in lock step with the Divine Ms. Di.

 

I should read more carefully. Maybe he's just a talking head.:angry:/>

 

POOP

 

 

Waimea

 

:FlagAm:/>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should read more carefully. Maybe he's just a talking head.:angry:/>/>

 

POOP

 

 

Waimea

 

:FlagAm:/>/>

 

People Offended by Offended People? What do they have to do with Thompson? ;)

 

While he isn't quite as doctrinaire as some, he usually toes the party line pretty closely. In a way his type is more dangerous than the obvious hard cases like the Divine Ms. Di and Chuckie Schumer because he can sound so reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My email to the Hon. Mr. Thompson:

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am unable to attend the forum you are hosting in Santa Rosa tomorrow night on the issue of firearms, so as a concerned citizen I'm sending you my thoughts in an email.

 

First, we need to get some of the terms straightened out. There are no "gun rights." None. What the second article of the Bill of Rights (here after BoR) does is to protect from government predation our civil right to keep and bear arms. If the other rights enumerated in the BoR are "civil rights," then, since the Constitution is consistent, the right protected by the Second Amendment is also a "civil right."

 

And we are not talking about assault weapons. What the uproar is about is a politician and press inspired hysteria about some purely cosmetic features that yield scary looking black rifles. As one who served in the military, I'm sure that you know that true assault weapons are select fire or fully automatic, and as such are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Under the last Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), and today in California, one could take a perfectly legal semi-automatic rifle, change out the stock - a purely cosmetic change - and instantly have a banned assault weapon. Does that make any sense? Also, as one who has used true assault weapons in combat, you know that the issue of magazine size, in the context of the rare mass shooting, is totally irrelevant. How long does it take to change out a magazine? Two seconds? It would take longer than that for one of the intended victims to realize that the cowardly thug is changing out magazines and act on that knowledge.

 

On your website I saw the term "assault magazine." I'm unfamiliar with that term, can you define it, please? Did you by some chance mean designed capacity, or full capacity?

 

Second, Democrats are now talking about taking away a civil right protected by the Constitution. I listened to one of the Sunday press shows in which our senior member of the US Senate said, basically, that it was time to take away the rights of the few (an aside - and for all these years I thought that the BoR applied to us all) in order to make the majority feel safe. I'm sure that many agree with that sentiment. I respectfully suggest that all who agree with her drive over to the Owens Vally and look up a place called Manzanar. Then come back and tell us about taking away the civil rights of the few so the majority can feel safe.

 

Third, the last AWB did nothing to stop crime. California still has an AWB in place, but we still have a fairly high rate of crime. Keep in mind that the two young thugs shot up a high school in Littleton, CO while that AWB was in effect. Recently in GA a woman survived a home invasion attempt. She and her children cowered in a closet, which is the self defense recommended by those who fear honest citizens with firearms, but the criminal found her and her children. Fortunately she had the foresight to arm herself, contrary to the wishes of our Senators and many of our members of the House and most of the CA legislature. She emptied her revolver into his face and neck, got five hits in six shots (pretty good shooting, most law enforcement officers don't do that well). She then tried to bluff him with an empty gun. After laying on the ground for a few minutes, the thug was able to get up and drive away. Shot five times and gets up. What if there had been more than one attacker? She and her children would likely have been killed. But many on the left of the aisle say that she should not have had the ability to offer any armed resistance, much less have the means to fend off multiple attackers. Look at how often police have to go through their "high capacity" magazines without bringing down their target. And think back to the Rodney King Riots. Remember the images of the Korean shop owners defending themselves, their homes, and their businesses from racist mobs by standing guard with "assault weapons?"

 

Those who want to take firearms out of the hands of honest citizens make the assumption that all gun owners are trigger happy morons looking for any excuse to start shooting at random in a crowd. Sorry to disappoint them, but honest gun owners as a group are more law abiding than non-gun owners. A study by the FBI, or maybe it was the USDOJ, show that teens who had legal, safe access to firearms are significantly less likely to commit crimes than teens who have not been taught the self control and self discipline that responsible gun use instills in people. Those who have to beg the state, um, I mean obtain a license to carry concealed weapons in their states, are found to be more law abiding than even law enforcement officers. Don't punish at least 40% of the population for the rare atrocity committed by a few thugs.

 

To close, since I'm fairly sure that a new AWB will be enacted, even if only by the president issuing an executive order to get around the protections of the BoR, when the next atrocity is committed under it, will those who believe that only the government and its agents should have firearm be willing to admit that, as studies by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Science have show, laws that punish honest citizens do not result in a decrease in crime and violence and so repeal all the laws that abridge the civil right of honest citizens to keep and bear arms?

 

Cordially,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe that is one fine letter. They had a town hall meeting in Napa last night that the news reported got pretty heated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.