Quote of the Day: Fudds R Us Edition

920x920

“(The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act) is also pro-Second Amendment. I’m a hunter and a gun owner. I support the Second Amendment. If this bill undermined the rights of gun owners, my name wouldn’t be on it.” – California Rep. Mike Thompson in Lawmakers rally around expanded background checks for gun sales [at thehill.com]

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Klansman Thompson still living in fear of uppity negroes causing a ruckus. Old white Fudds. Always good for a gun control vote rooted firmly in racism.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      There’s a plant in the room, and it’s not the rubbery-looking palm thingy.

      Probably just like NAGR or that CO pro-Dem, “pro-hunting” anti group.

  2. avatar DickDanger says:

    Rough translation: I got mine, screw anyone who disagrees with me.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That sums it up well.

  3. avatar JD says:

    Because the 2nd was written so the people could hunt for food. The people who wrote it never dreamed that a government could become a danger to freedom, that had never happened. They also knew that firearm technology was advanced as far as possible and that nobody would need the ability to fire more than two shots a minute. They also believed that all personal property should require permission from the government before you could sell or give it to someone else. Basically they were just a bunch of old white guys who owned slaves and didn’t like answering to a king on the other side of the planet. So they got together and made up a bunch of rules to make themselves king. Those rules were very flexible and could be interpreted to suit the needs of those kings who followed them. That set of rules placed restrictions on the subjects who they would rule. NOT the government they formed.

    1. avatar Kent W. says:

      Have you been talking to some of my Liberal friends?

      1. avatar JoshtheViking says:

        I think he forgot the sarcasm tag.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      This guy gets it…

      You can’t protect the security of a free state by hunting with guns that hold a whole of bullets in them.

      You know, that whole part about the militia, the free state, necessary security, and being infringed, that’s just fluff to add substance. It’s all about hunting.

      I mean for seriously, the founders didn’t know anything about life and couldn’t just say what they meant.

      They didn’t have Twitter or iPads back then, how could anyone back them clearly express themselves without memes. That would just be unpossible!

      Be sides, hunting is wrong, so we don’t need the 2nd A. Hunters should just buy their meat at the store, like everyone else, because they just make the meat there.

    3. avatar TCINETN says:

      JD. You base your comment on just the words of the 2nd Amendment. You need to read the Federalist Papers. This is the “diary” of the men who wrote the Constitution. You will see that the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” was to insure that we could be ready for any country that tried to invade this coundry. Mainly, it was to insure that the citizens could be armed against government tyranny. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. So by your thinking, the 1st amendment freedem of the press no longer applies because when the constitution was written, printing presses were manually operated to print one or two sheets per minute. Now printing presses print hundreds of pages per minute. So we should have printing press control, and background checks on anyone who owns or operates a press.

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        Someone needs to recalibrate their sarcasm detector…

      2. avatar Static NAT says:

        Come on now … you and I both know that anybody who owns and operates a press is already on a Government watch list

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Well said, JD. Most people on the gun-controller side of the argument are exactly as you describe them. They’re largely emotionally and intellectually divorced from the genuinely revolutionary values our founders carefully inscribed in our national documents. At the time of the revolution, there were plenty of people with attitudes similar to today’s gun-controllers. They were called Tories. Most of ’em moved to Canada.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:

    Expanded background checks do nothing except pry into people’s right to privacy and make it more difficult for the law abiding to obtain firearms legally. Criminals will still be able to obtain guns on the black market. Also, there would be an emerging market for untraceable guns and more criminals would seek to steal them from the law abiding.

    Again and again and again – should I be hampered to buy kitchen knives because some wacko somewhere else used one to kill somebody. Why are firearms any different??

  5. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    Another politician whose words do not mesh with reality.

    Would it “not undermine” a preacher’s first amendment rights if the government had a mandatory background check before you could preach?

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    Good thing this bill has exactly zero chance of passing or even hitting the floor of the House.

  7. avatar Gatha58 says:

    Not sure why we need expanded background checks ? The ones we have now seem to work for the law abiding citizens that follow them and the legal gun shops. The criminals and black market dealers ignore them, as always. How would these expanded laws do anything to prevent crime or violence? How are these expanded laws different or better than what we have now ? Or are they just more intrusive for the folks that obey the laws?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “They must be better – they’re all shiny and new. And I thought of them, so they’re the super bestest.”

      These people really do live in a fantasy world. They’re plain delusional.

  8. avatar John L. says:

    Well that settles one thing for me.

    I’m never gonna buy a break action shotgun. Way too close to that photo for comfort…

    1. avatar Herb says:

      Posing with a broke-open O/U shottie goes back to 1992 & Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska whose Ruger Red Label was a `beautiful gun’ compared to those `ugly black guns’ (ARs, AKs, etc) due to be banned by AWB ’94.

      BTW, If Elmer Fudd were around today he’d be OC’ing an AR-15 into a Starbucks where Bugs Bunny works as a barista.

  9. avatar Chrispy says:

    At least he didn’t say, “I support the second amendment, but…”

    Even if in reality he actually did say that.

  10. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    What most people who really view themselves as sensible and law-abiding fail to realize, is that these expanded background checks are really just a means for disarming the population. I know, I know, crazy kook theories. Got it.

    Really, though, expanded background checks, in practice, mean that you may only buy a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Without that license, a gun dealer is a gun trafficker, aka, criminal. Essentially, this makes private transfers of firearms illegal, as people acting in their own private capacity and selling a personal firearm are not dealers. They’re not engaged in regular commercial activity for profit. Forcing them to abide by background check laws forces them to go through a federal firearms licensee (FFL), making their own private transfers illegal. Why is that bad? Well.

    The federal government controls what it costs to get an FFL, what regulations are required to keep it, and even who gets one at all. They can price the license out of people’s reach, they can impose onerous recordkeeping an physical security standards on licensees, they can even flat out limit the number of licenses granted. They can harass licensees. They can intimidate them.

    Through an assortment of menacing means the government can effectively throttle the supply of licensees and thereby introduce a bottleneck on the firearms market and drastically increase out-the-door prices of firearms. All of this has the effect of smothering the legal firearms market and people’s exercise of their Second Amendment rights. This isn’t fiction or speculation. In many states, what we unaffectionately refer to as “slave states”, those highly restrictive places like California, Illinois, New York, and others, such tactics as these have already been employed to great effect. The problem is, the effect only impacts law-abiding citizens. Criminals, whether in maniacal and murderous Chicago or “Killadelphia”, always manage to get their hands on firearms, regardless of the law. All that such anti-constitutional regulations do, on the street, is disarm victims and create black markets for illicit arms.

    It’s extremely difficult to accept that the nice ladies and gentlemen down at the local state or city bureaucracy really do want to confiscate your firearms, by hook or by crook, but it’s true, and it’s happening in major population centers across the country. Whether by well meaning or ill intentioned individuals, such freedom snatching measures never, ever end well and haven’t for any society ever. Contact your congressional representatives and urge them to reject this assault to liberty.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Spot on, for proof of this, look no further than the upcoming M855 ban. Bureaucrats, ordered by a single man, to ignore the words and intent of written law and ban ammo, increasing the cost of and thereby discouraging, honest, law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

  11. avatar J. Zoss says:

    It is pretty telling when you have to explain that a bill with 2A rights protection in the name “is also pro-2nd Amendment”. If dishonestly naming bills wasn’t allowed at any level of government he wouldn’t have to explain his lie. His proposal only diminishes the 2A and should be named accordingly, at least not named the opposite of what it would do. It certainly would not increase public safety either.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      It’s Newspeak.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Lies are Truth, Slavery is Freedom, The Second Amendment Protection Act.

      The Ministry of Truth busy at what it does best.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Indeed. It’s like when they declare up front of their latest infringement attempt that “This bill protects the Second Amendment, while…….”

      Protects it? From what? The Second Amendment sat there proudly printed, if awkwardly worded, and unprotected for more than a century with nobody so much as bumping it on the subway, let alone assaulting it with legislation. From what, exactly, if not legislation, does it need protection? Overdraft protection? Purchase price protection? Identity theft protection? Unwanted pregnancy protection? Protection from the germs that may cause bad breath? What?!

      All that the politicians have to do….is nothing. Just do nothing. Nothing. No new regulations, restrictions, fine tunings, updates, reinterpretations, re-imaginations or anything else is required. Just leave the damn gun laws alone (unless you want to repeal one or a fifty of them), and there’ll be no “protection” of the Second Amendment necessary.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        They are protecting it from those who would “ruin it for the rest of us.” I suspect that deep down a few who seriously comment here against open carry would understand and agree with the thinking behind the bill.

        Fortunately, the Second Amendment infers a solution to its violation. IMHO, the 2A needs no protection beyond the protection stemming from the People standing behind the principles it represents. If the People stand firm then the government cannot infringe no matter how badly it wants to. We’ve arrived where we are today because the People have not insisted on shall not be infringed vigorously enough in the past.

  12. avatar Mirgc says:

    So how well is it working in California?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Or Washington, where the cops have to go out of state to get qual training with loaner guns.

  13. avatar Mike says:

    Owning a gun does not make you pro 2A, this has been proven over and over again by hypocrites everywhere.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Oh look, he has a high end double barrel shotgun over his shoulder…

    He surely must support the 2nd A and be just like us… 8\

  15. avatar slow says:

    Looks like another “They are not going to take my Shotgun” Joe Biden “butt buddy.”

  16. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Most guns sold are through FFLs and go through a background check anyway; even at gun shows. Feel good legislation to tack more things on besides a basic 4473 check.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    So what? Are there any good politicians in commiefornia? At least in my state of Illinois there are a lot of pro 2A dumbocrats(but I stilldon’t trust “em)…

  18. avatar Mark N. says:

    “The Hill” lives up to the reputation of the institution for which it is named, full of lies:

    “But the gun safety legislation comes in stark contrast to recent Republican bills that would expand concealed carry laws across the country and allow hunters to use armor-piercing ammunition.”

    Which means that concealed carry is anti-safety, and the M855 is armor piercing ammo”used by hunters.” Idiots.

    “Most gun shops are already required to conduct background checks, but the rules don’t apply to firearm sales made online and at gun shows.”
    Ummm, no.

  19. avatar BlueBronco says:

    Elmer, is that you? You going wabbit hunting Elmer?

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