Quote of the Day: Extremists R Us Edition

California Rep. Mike Thompson (courtesy hdnux.com)

“I know a lot of NRA members and I don’t know of any who think they should have the same weapons as the police or military — or should be able to buy a gun without a background check. What we’re hearing from is the real extreme.” – California Rep. Mike Thompson quoted in Voice of sense in gun debate [via latimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar In Memphis says:

    -CALIFORNIA Rep. Mike Thompson

    Key word emphasized

    1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      his district has been blue every election since 1949.

    2. avatar SD3 says:

      Zactly.

    3. avatar SCS says:

      And here I thought the key word was, MORON.

      1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

        words to describe us-MOLON LABE

        words to describe Thomson-MORON BABBLE

        1. avatar .9mm says:

          words to describe Thomson-MORON LABIA

    4. avatar DDay says:

      Thompson is a lying POS. He had town hall meetings that were on CSPAN in January where there were dozen’s upon dozens, non stop speakers who said they were NRA members and were against all this garbage.

      Thompson was nasty and a real ass to many of them. He’s a POS.

      1. avatar john Doesky says:

        I think you meant to say…. He’s a LYING POS.

    5. avatar Pat says:

      I want to smash the morons lower jaw with a Ball-Peen Hammer.
      Liberalism is a mental disorder. Why less than the police you effing commie.

    6. avatar IdahoPete says:

      “Moderate blue dog Democrat” California representaive. A California Dem who is “moderate” is called a flaming Marxist in bedrock America.

      “Hey, I know lots of members of the Democrat Party, and I don’t know of any who think they should NOT be able to control every aspect of our lives.”

  2. avatar Jim L says:

    Yeah, well, I know an entire forum full of NRA members and they ALL either have or want them. So FOAD.

  3. avatar Gregolas says:

    Mister, IF you know any NRA members you DON”T talk to them! To your mind anybody who would join such a screwed-up organization is a troglodyte unworthy of your time and attention. So quit making up stories! It’s as pathetic as the bigot who whines “I have lots of black friends!”

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    Another gun grabber with a lot of fictional gun owning friends.

    I am going to start carrying a bunch of snap caps ranging from 223 through 300 win mag. Whenever I get into an argument with a gun grabber about weapons of war I am going lay them out and tell them pick the AR-15 round.

    Q: You know what a non select fire AR is?
    A: A varmint rifle.

    The AR-15 that is available to the public is not a weapon of war.

    1. avatar Jim L says:

      That’s a great idea. 🙂 +100

    2. avatar Ted says:

      Just yesterday my sister came to visit and she took a tour of my gun safe. I showed her an AR rifle and a Remington 700 in .308. The Rem 700 sure looks the part of “hunting” rifle in mossy oak camo.

      The first words out of her mouth on seeing the AR were – “that’s a scary gun”.

      Then she looked at the 700 and said – “that’s a deer hunting gun right”?

      I showed her the cartridges that went in each rifle and she was surprised. She thought the .308 cartridge went in the “scary” rifle.

      The uninitiated really do think that “scary” guns are the most powerful guns you can buy.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Y’know, I’ve a 1939 Mosin, and to the uninitiated it’d look pretty much like an antique hunting gun what with the bolt action and all the wood.

        And I do hunt with it, but countless Germans and Austrians dead and maimed will attest that ones quarry need not be four-legged.

        Weapon of war? Indeed, and rightly so.

    3. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      Correction, the AR-15 is indeed and in fact, a weapon of war and that is exactly why it is an American citizen’s inalienable right to own such an instrument. I don’t know many knowledgeable firearms users, professional or amateur, who would feel terribly under-gunned were they to be forced into a situation where they had to defend themselves against armed and hostile opponents with a semi-automatic, detachable box magazine fed rifle that’s reliable, rugged and of sufficient power and accuracy to meet such a challenge.

      Saying that the AR and other similar semi-automatic firearms of martial utility aren’t “weapons of war”, that only select fire and fully automatics are “true” “weapons for war”, makes us look disingenuous, silly and lacking a solid historical perspective. Ask any WWII veteran whether or not he considered his M1 Garand or Carbine a “weapon of war”.

      Saying that the AR isn’t a weapon of war is the kind of cute, cheeky semantics and obfuscation that our adversaries engage in. We would do well to dispense with that kind of shenanigans lest we become more like them. Remember that the 2A isn’t about the right to go duck hunting, to having a rousing round or two of sporting clays with our chums at “The Club”, to shoot a high power or IDPA match, or even to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones against the criminal element. Yes, the 2A encompasses all of that, but the primary and fundamental reason for the 2A is to enable We The People the means to act as an insurmountable bulwark against those who would subjugate, oppress and tyrannize us, for our own good of course, we being the the poor ignorant slobs who can’t manage our own affairs without the tender, gentle guiding hand of an all powerful and knowing government.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The only characteristic that makes a 223/5.56 caliber a weapon of war is the select fire capability. The 223 cartridge is the lowest powered centered fired rifle round you can use. The only reason that the M- 16 was used as standard infantry weapon was it’s full auto mode. You would never even think of equipping your troops with a cartridge that lacks penetration if you had a better alternative. It puts your soldiers at risk. If the Army had a better alternative than the already in production AR platform they would have gone with it.

        The comparison with the M-1 is apples and oranges. You can drop a 2000 lb moose in its tracks at 500 yards with a 30-06. I have a Remington 750 in 30-06. You can buy 20 round magazines for it and in a self defense firefight I can blow through a brick wall and kill my attacker on the other side at 250 yards with a quarter of the magazine. Is the Remington 750 a weapon of war?

        1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

          I’m quite familiar with the history of Stoner’s invention and that of the .223/5.56 round.

          The small arms doctrine for riflemen in the Marines and other services has never included a default to full auto fire as a general matter.

          2000 pound moose? Here’s what’s is believed to be the record; an excerpt – “Closer and closer he came to the calls, as close as 250 yards away, then something happened. Bob didn’t know if it was the wind, old bull intuition, or what, but this moose made up his mind that he was out of there! Bob knew he needed to act quickly and positioned himself with a solid rest on a neighboring spruce tree. At what was estimated to be nearly 400 yards, the bull presented himself for a shot. Bob pressed the trigger on his Browning .375 H&H sending 270 grains of lead screaming toward the moose. It was a hit…a good hit. This seasoned hunter wasn’t going to let this bull get too much further away if he could help it, so he quickly reloaded. One can almost hear the classic sound of a rifle bolt being quickly actioned and hear the hollow brass giving way to a fresh cartridge feeding into the chamber. Before the bull reached 500 yards, Bob sent another 270 grains toward the animal, delivering the clincher. Done deal, this bull was down!”

          That particular moose came in at about 1500 pounds. There you go exaggerating again.

          This was from 2004. Here’s the link, http://www.thealaskalife.com/featured/a-record-breaking-alaskan-bull-moose/

          Yes, the Remington 750 is a weapon of war. That’s not a bad thing.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I guess that makes my Savage Mark II a weapon of war. A lot of people are killed with 22LR

          Moose run up to a ton and a well place 30-06 will bring one down at 500 yards. Just because you have a story with someone using a 375 H&H mag doing it at 250 yards doesn’t mean squat. You can kill the same moose with that round at ranges well over 500 yards. I can take the same moose inside 100 with a 243 to the head.

          I can see you probably are not a hunter.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          Most of the moose and elk hunters that I know shoot them with a .30-’06. That round will take most big game in the lower 48.

        4. avatar Greg in Allston says:

          According to the following source; http://www.mooseworld.com/biologist.htm

          “Kristine Rines (née Bontaites) is the moose biologist for the state of New Hampshire. A native of New Hampshire, she received her bachelor’s degree in wildlife management from Michigan State University. After working for the state of Michigan, she returned home to New Hampshire, where, after working as an animal damage control agent for two years, she was hired as the state’s first moose biologist in 1985. In 2006 Kris was named Distinguished Moose Biologist by the North American Moose Conference.”

          “Kris developed and implemented the state’s first moose season in 1988. She is responsible for moose management and research as well as being the regional biologist for the central region of the state.”

          When asked the following question; “What is the largest moose on record, and how much would it need to eat to sustain itself?”

          The expert wildlife biologist replied, “To the best of my knowledge the heaviest harvested moose weighed in at 1,697 lbs (Alaskan bull). Moose on average need to consume approximately 2.5 – 3.5% of their body weight in dry matter/day in the summer. In the winter this drops to approximately 0.5 – 1.3 %. The water content of forage differs both by forage type and time of year of consumption. The actual or wet weight of forage will therefore differ from the estimated dry matter intake.”

          Yes, moose and other large game animals have been taken with all sorts of greater and lesser rounds. So what? And can you site a single confirmed example of a 2000 pound moose?

          No, I am not a hunter. Nor am I a professional astronomer, but I can still find Polaris and navigate by it and many other stars. Your point being what exactly? Would a real hunter take a 500 yard shot at a moose with a 30-06? I’ve always thought that ethical hunters will do everything that they can to get within a range that will all but assure that the shot will produce a sure, clean kill. If the point of the exercise of hunting is to drop a bundle of cash with a guiding service and come home with a trophy no matter what, then from that standpoint many will think that’s OK. To each his own. BTW, in 1995 I canoed from northern BC to the Dalton Highway in Alaska via the Teslin and Yukon Rivers for 50 days, covering over 1400 miles, solo and completely self contained. That was just one of my wilderness adventures. I’m pretty comfortable in the woods.

          “You can kill the same moose with that round at ranges well over 500 yards. I can take the same moose inside 100 with a 243 to the head.” Bullets of different types at different ranges can kill. That’s good to know, I’ll try to remember that. Thanks!

          But back to the original point. If a firearm has martial utility, it is a de facto weapon of war. Our armed forces have fielded .22lr’s, suppressed and not. They would be considered weapons of war. It’s all good and depending on the situation a particular instrument may have martial utility. YMMV. But when we, the pro 2A community, tries to be cute and say that our sweet little old AR’s are nothing more than sporting equipment for recreation, I call bullshit. You see, when you play those kinds of games you fall into a trap. Hence the whole utterly bogus “sporting use” definition that the ATF uses in interpreting the 2nd Amendment and what is suitable for we “civilians” to be able to keep and bear. Sure, the whole weapons of war thing scares the sheeple. To that I say so what? The truth will set you free.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Your definition of a weapon of war is tautological. All firearms can be used in warfare. So can knives, so I guess my fancy ass carving knives are weapons of war. They are just as effective as a K-bar. By your definition a Springfield Model 1795 Musket could still be considered a current weapon of war.

          What makes something a weapon war in a meaningful sense is that it is in common use by the average infantry soldier. That means a select fire M-16/M-4. It doesn’t mean an M-1 Garand, or a Mauser 98. They may have been used as weapons of war in the past but they no longer are. The are relics that still have some utility in an armed conflict but you wouldn’t equip your troops with them nor would you send troops off to war with a civilian semiautomatic AR-15.

      2. avatar 16V says:

        “…with a semi-automatic, detachable box magazine fed rifle that’s reliable, rugged and of sufficient power and accuracy to meet such a challenge.”

        You mean an AK-47 in 7.62? Because given a choice, the last gun I want to stake my life on in a real combat scenario is one of Stoner’s finicky jam-fests that pukes in it’s own mouth and chambers a round that might stop a small pig – after 3 hits. .223 was always a small game round, and it always will be.

    4. avatar Mikeinid says:

      “a lot of fictional … friends.”

      Ain’t that just the definition of a politician. It is a short leap from fictional to invisible.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Only if pro 2A voters turn out in adequate numbers to turn him out…if that is even possible in this socialist fashionably liberal “progressive” state!

        Bear in mind, progress can be backward as well as forward.

  5. avatar ProfShadow says:

    Any time I hear a Democrat/Liberal start out “I know a lot of …” I know a lot of B.S. is following.

    Funny thing, Mikey, I know a lot of NRA members that feel completely differently, including myself.

  6. avatar stateisevil says:

    Mmmmm. I’m and NRA member and I believe that if I can’t own a certain weapon, then the the government shouldn’t be allowed to own it either. And I should be able to buy a gun without a “background check”.

  7. avatar Dave D says:

    Just another Californian declaring how proud he is to be ignorant, intolerant, insular and misinformed. The face of the modern bigot.

  8. avatar dwb says:

    if there are any NRA members who do not understand that an M1 Garand, Browning BAR safari, or just about any 12 ga with #4 buckshot – none of which are “assault rifles” – are just as deadly as an AR then they should have their NRA card revoked.

    I am sure its a minority of people who dont get it, and, i’d bet that all 5 of those igits lives in his district.

  9. avatar DJStuCrew says:

    I just sent this to the author of the article:

    As a long-time NRA member, I charge Rep. Mike Thompson with FRAUD. After his boasts to establish his gun nut credibility, he spews one lie after another. The first one is that nobody wants to “grab guns.” Does he think the American public has no memory? That we don’t recall the registrations that happened in New York, and then the subsequent proclamation of several varieties of guns suddenly being dubbed “assault weapons” and being seized door to door? Or how about the SKS ban in California, where once again gun owners were told that registering their guns would “never lead to confiscation,” and then shortly after trusting gun owners complied, the registry was indeed used to seize guns, including one from a police officer who also collected firearms. This is how the gun ban forces work: they say nobody wants to do exactly what they’ve ALWAYS DONE.

    Then Thompson reiterates the lie about “assault weapons.” First, it’s a misnomer. No true assault weapons are legal to civilians. Beyond this deceit, he talks about citizens having the same weapons as police or military. This ignores the FACT that, sporting purposes aside, American citizens may ONLY use their weapons for lawful self-defense! This is the EXACT SAME LAW under which police operate! So why should there be ANY distinction? Some police units, such as SWAT, are allowed to use true assault weapons (that can be switched to fully automatic fire) that are forbidden to the average citizen, yet cops otherwise use weapons under the same regulations that any CCW permit holder or lawful gun owner must abide by. A weapon is a weapon. Thompson is using the ignorance of the average reader and his self-proclaimed gun expert status to push the political agenda of the civilian disarmament industry.

    If he indeed DID carry an assault weapon as a soldier in Vietnam, then he knows the distinction and is willfully deceiving the public! A primer for the general public on what is a HUGE distinction between “assault rifles” and regular hunting/self-defense rifles, see:

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=651:assault-weapons&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

    And the excellent video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

    This leaves out entirely the uselessness of a new ban on fake assault weapons. We know it is useless because we have real world data to show it: the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. It ran for a whole decade and is nearly identical to the currently proposed ban, yet the Clinton Justice Department — no friend to gun owners or the NRA — wrote that the ban had “no discernible impact” on violent crime, and the 10-round magazine limit didn’t change the number of those killed or injured at a typical spree shooting. The use of ANY rifle in a homicide is rare — about 4% of all “gun crime” — and fake “assault rifles” are a small subset of all rifles! The focus, then, on these demonized weapons is misguided and clearly political gamesmanship.

    Thompson ignores another important aspect: POLICE WANT EXEMPTION in any magazine size restriction! Why? Because they know that when someone is actually trying to kill you, your body goes through some involuntary reactions, none of which improve your hand-eye coordination. Even the best trained officers, then, are going to miss. And miss a LOT. So why do gun ban idiots like Thompson believe that a single mother or a senior citizen facing 2 or more home invaders will prevail with only ten rounds? He makes no sense and does NOT represent a majority of NRA members or anyone else familiar with guns.

    The last lie is blurted by Garen Wintemute, whose claim that “alcohol abuse is a huge risk factor for being a perpetrator” is easily dismissed when looking at Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter (no record of alcohol abuse), the Aurora CO shooter (ditto), Jared Laughner, who shot Gabby Giffords (nada) and on and on. All they’re trying to do is exclude more Americans from gun ownership. Nobody is championing problem drinkers to be armed, but having a DUI or two in their past should not be grounds to quash a basic civil right! How many of us have had a few youthful indiscretions? Such things are best left up to a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis.

    I do agree with one thing: I do hope legislators will talk to people who know guns. That obviously does NOT include Representative Thompson.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Great letter. Too bad they won’t finish the first sentence before deleting it.

    2. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      DJStuCrew, you said in the second paragraph above; “No true assault weapons are legal to civilians.”. Well, you might want to run that across to all of the NFA weapon owners out there. If you’re going to call a man a liar, and Rep. Thompson is indeed a liar and a tool, you would be wise not to make yourself a liar at the same time. Just sayin’. But I do get your point.

      1. avatar DJStuCrew says:

        As you may have noted, being concise isn’t a skill I possess. That said, speaking in broad generalities is my feeble attempt to stay focused and narrow the conversation down to the basics. After all, when you’re arguing with antis, you don’t want to throw Knob Creek at them. I think they’d poop their bloomers. 🙂

  10. avatar surlycmd says:

    Since it would be wrong to demonstrate the efficiency of force application by a ball peen hammer on Rep. Thompson’s toes, we should flood his phone lines with “I am a member of the NRA and I want the same weapons as military and police.”

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      I just made that call. It’s Sunday – fill up his flippin’ machine.

      My message was “Sir, while I approve of background checks, my wife shouldn’t require one before I hand her a gun and say ‘cover him.’ Further, since I AM the first responder, I want as much weapon as I can afford to purchase and feed. While an invasion force landing in Kansas is a tidge unlikely, it’s less unlikely than your being elected here. At any rate, enemies can be domestic as well as foreign and I like to be capable – just in case. You and yours are part of the reason why I escaped from California. Good day, sir.”

      Good day, sirs and ma’ams.

  11. avatar Joe says:

    I am a member of the NRA and I want better weapons than our military and police!

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Well this clown has not met me, I’m an NRA member and I’m with Joe on this one.

  12. avatar CJ says:

    Knows a lot of NRA members in the same way bigots know people of color.

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      EXACTLY what I was thinking. “Wha? I’ve got nothing against people who own guns! Why some of my best friends are in the NRA!”

      If that were even remotely true, the part where he claims he know people who are members, it’s probably not true any more. I don’t see his friends the NRA members returning his calls anymore these days.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Ask the same people if they think the USG should have a complete database of every firearm and it’s owner in huge searchable databases and see the reaction. It’s all about how a question or issue is framed. What it ends up as is predictable.

  14. avatar squashpup says:

    So, he’d have us believe that, although the AR-15 (used by many police departments) is the single most popular rifle in America, none of the people who own them are in the NRA.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

  15. avatar jwm says:

    Extremist? So where Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington. I think I would prefer their company to this dumb ass.

  16. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I would like to go back in time and beat the snot out of the first person that called a fellow American “extremists”. Further proof that Democrats are the party of divisiveness.

  17. avatar brian says:

    When I read that, this is what I heard:

    “I don’ t know anyone that voted for Richard Nixon”

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Another lying sack of sh!t Democrat.

    Sorry for the triple redundancy.

  19. avatar Jeh says:

    The bullsh*t in his statement is so thick…

  20. avatar RKflorida says:

    Mike Thompson is a liar.

  21. avatar Dave says:

    “The same weapons as the police”:

    If cops find it prudent to have 17 rounds in their sidearms, so should everyone else who buys a gun for self-defense. That’s just common sense.

  22. avatar Ash says:

    “I know a lot of NRA members…”

    HaHaHa, yeah ok. Sure you know NRA members, do you get to know them after the confiscations?

    I bet Geobbbels knew a lot of Jews too.

  23. avatar William Burke says:

    The “Islamist” (a downright insulting and profane insult to any Muslim) went kinda stale; white gun owners (and all gun owners to a more subdued degree) are der Homeland’s brand new tree-shaker. It’s not going away anytime soon.

  24. avatar Dave S says:

    I Am a member of the NRA, I own and support MSRs for sport and protection of the Constitution of the United States, as a retired member of the unorganized Militia.

    I oppose background checks that create records, or deny transfers or ownership without good cause and rights of appeal and judicial, not administrative review.

    So now sir you know of an NRA member who supports the civilian ownership of MSR and large magazines.

    I encourage a vote for any opponent challenging your seat, and the contributions to your opponent’s campaign. Even if he is worse then you are, your seats seniority would be minimized by replacing you.

  25. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Yeah, california mike, I can just feel the brilliance. First sign of trouble hes on the blower to the cops to bring their AR’s, Randy

  26. avatar Jake says:

    Double hearsay?

  27. avatar everandanon says:

    We’re in Thompson’s district. Before redistricting we were in George Miller’s district. Thompson is a huge step up!

    In the same way that eating dog food is a step up from eating old raw roadkill. But still way better than Miller.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email