“I’m just trying to stop the bad guys from getting guns.” – California Congressman Mike Thompson in Rep. Mike Thompson is fired up over gun-violence gridlock in Congress [at pressdemocrat.com]
I see a bad guy with a gun in that photo.
Good luck with that, bad guys are going to get the tools they need to cause havoc unless you stop the person.
So being mugged with by a knife or gang beating is preferable? I was a little worried this morning when I saw the bombings in Brussels, but since it was mainly bombs, not guns, I now don’t have to worry. I thought is was just bad people going bad things regardless. Thank you Rep Thompson for clearing that up. Now can you buddies in the media cover something else other than Brussels since it is apparently no BFD.
Thanks but no….. I will keep my family and I safe. My way. There is no “safe” in what you are trying.
With the 4A in place, you can never exactly single out the bad guys who’ll start killing once they have guns.
With the 2A in place, anyone shall own any weapon (only CBRN MAY be slightly restricted based on overall social utility considerations).
So it comes to a simple rule:
The 2A rights of anyone not in jail or mental, shall not be infringed.
When a person decides to kill, methods are only limited by their imagination. The only way to prevent that is total incarceration. Restricting freemen are doing way more harm than good.
Nope, it’s ALL of us. It would be like saying the 1st only covers “Printed Media” because that’s all they had when it was written. I know that’s a hard pill to swallow but that’s how it was written. There’s a reason it was written that way, the founding fathers wern’t sleepy that day and in a hurry to go play golf. It’s not a mistake or an oversight because they knew the “goverment” could find away around it.
Actually once you have been convicted and sentenced for crime(s) committed your many of your rights are limited/revoked and for good reason. It’s not just your 2A but also your 4A, 1A and too many others to count. Don’t become a felon
And who gets to decide which of us is a felon, and which felony is minimum for the permanent “revocation” of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? For God’s sake, the Second Amendment was specifically intended to prevent the government from making exactly those decisions.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
If you concede that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of the very government the Second Amendment was intended to protect us against, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of that list?
What’s legal or illegal has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. Out of jail, guns back
Dont become a felon??? Easier said then done, laws against everything. One of my favorites. It is a felony to commit suicide. Another one, not felony but misdeamnor,. In kansas you must have windsheild wipers on your vehicle…. but in Kansas you dont have to have a windsheild. Go figure
Out of jail, guns back….
Once released, rights restored…..
Uh huh, right……
That’s easy to say here. Are you willing to let Bernie Madoff handle your finances, once he’s released? He’s barred from the industry for life, as is typical for swindlers even after incarceration.
Would you allow Jarrod Fogle to work making sandwiches at your kid’s school after his release? Even after release, pedophiles are barred from living with or working with minors.
The fallacy of your thinking is that incarceration is the only penalty available, or that it’s the final punishment. Many released felons have continuing encumbrances, often for life. The constitution allows for deprivation of life, liberty and property, subject to due process. That can be open ended, if necessary, and include loss of some liberties for life.
Now, regardless whether there’s validity to the old saw “if they can’t be trusted with a gun, then they can’t be trusted on the streets”, that’s a public policy matter to be decided in the political arena. It’s not a constitutional question.
The other fallacy of in your is that the old “can’t be trusted” bit actually is valid. There are plenty of ex-cons who can lead normal lives, provided they’re kept from former temptations. Firearms are such a temptation for some.
You don’t get to set up the false dilemma for us all by imposing the choice of either lifelong incarceration or else return of all former freedoms. There does exist a middle ground of post-incarceration with limited freedoms. That’s what parole itself is, after all. This all or nothing stance is a nonstarter.
@Jonathan – Houston
Here we go, i saw it coming a mile away. Putting words in my mouth, equating things that can’t be equated, and bringing what’s on paper into a discussion of what’s right or wrong.
I never said incarceration is the final and only punishment/deterrant. I never said there can’t be middle grounds.
Nobody here believes that working on Wall St., or making sandwich for kids, is comparable to the preservation of one’s life.
And since when did I ever mention “public policy”, “political arena”, or the Constitution?
Weapons are as important as breathing, eating, and drinking. I can work next door to GoldmanSachs, i can make sandwichs in a Subway beside a public street, but tell me what do i replace my confiscated weapons with?
I know, i know, some dbags just SHOULDNT own guns, and “right deprivation” IS a means of punishment/deterrant. But last time I checked nobody got a sentence saying “you’re barred from drinking water for life”.
Restricting these survival essentials only empowers the govt over the citizens. Applying a weapon’s prohibition is only *that much* from executing the guy right off the bat. If you’re not satisfied with the length of their sentence, you know what, extend the sentence. You want middle ground? Apply other prohibitions that hinder but not destroy their lives. Dont go off and make policies that make nobody safer but cruel to the ones punished for no reason.
A weapon’s prohibition does very minimal (i’m not saying nothing) to prevent the punished individuals from harming people again. As punishment, it’s unnecessarily cruel. And most importantly, you are trusting the govt to regulate your gadgets that may be used against them? Conflict of interest, anybody?
I’m a 2A extremist and a gun nut, no apologies
@ Johnathon – your examples are non starters. Being a sandwich maker or a financial adviser is not protected by the constitution and can therefore be subjected to limitations especially considering their proximity to the original crime. The 2A is protected and in some cases felons can be made from non violent/non firearm offenses.
Once they are released, the rights should be restored.
including the right to vote. What better way to keep scumbags in office than to block the very people they are putting in the jail? Granted the reason they were in jail probably wasn’t political but what if it was??
Im fighting a domestic battery charge, just got back from court, I didnt touch her, she got mad because I got drunk. She called the cops n said I shoved her. Went to jail, took firearms, going to kerp them —-‘forever–‘- if I cant prove she lied. No marks, bruises, torn clothes, nothin, dont matter, “he shoved me” Im looking at 6 months if they wanna stick me hard. 1st time offense misdomeanor, had one traffic ticket 8 years ago. Evil evil wife beater, you cant own, be around, pocess ammo, or knives with blade more then 3 inches long, you evil evil wife shover you
“I didnt touch her, she got mad because I got drunk.”
Right there looks like a good place to start.
(That observation comes from someone with extensive past personal experience in that area…)
if your initials stand for tony hullman classic, then you were probably really drunk.
@Geoffpr. Your right about me fckin up,gaurantee it wont happen again. But loss of firearms for a violent act based on hearsy is wrong. I dont wanna go to jail, but if I do, serve my time, meet all parole requirements, youd think after 365 YEARS you could own a firearm. The latenburg act was put into place to dissarm people. The fact is being charged with a felony can be expunged after 10 years and (with enuff $) a person can pocess a firearm. Under the lateburg act a misdeamnor prevents( short of a goveners pardon) that. And heres the rift, Im still going to carry a firearm, yeh its against A law, n if I get caught Im in more trouble. But its not against the 2A. The latenburg act is a gun grabbers dream.
It’s a good thing the bad guys here never use bombs and can’t get materials to make bombs. Also a good thing they are being stopped from legally buying guns. That is such a huge relief to me here in California
Nothing to see here, liberty is being strangled to death, move along until you need a coroner
On its face, the quote is nothing to get upset about. The goal is noble, laudable, and universal. We all want those who would do us harm to have as few options available to them, both for our safety and to discourage wrongdoing.
The trouble is the baby/bath water. A lot of the ideas coming out of CA believe that sacrificing the baby is acceptable if it means no more bath water. A lot of our ideas accept that if we want to keep the baby, some bath water will remain. When it isn’t your baby, it can be all to easy to accept the loss of the child.
+1,000. Best description of the utopian progressive mindset I’ve heard in a long time. That one’s getting saved to the quote bank.
This election cycle I’ve been growing concerned by all the talk about” keeping America safe” while that is important, doing what is right, is far more important to me. Fearfully playing it safe seems to be a great way to end up in a disarmed police state.
I just want to keep you louse free and warm in the oven – Hitler
Then go after bad guys with guns
This is the critical issue right here.
We all know that what these men say is totally irrelevant. They lie as easy as they breathe.
We have to look at what they do, this is the only thing that is important.
And they are not keeping bad guys locked up, and they are not keeping the guns away from them.
And they are trying to prevent the law abiding from owning and using a constitutionally protected thing.
They are lying, and what this man says is worthless.
The last time I checked the Second Amendment does NOT include the words, “…shall not be infringed, so long as they are law-abiding.”
By definition, citizens who have reached the point of needing their arms to defend against a tyrannical government are NOT law-abiding in the eyes of that government. That is why there are no qualifiers int he Second Amendment.
Have you read this one?
or, then go after bad guys, with guns!
GET A CLUE BUDDY, IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT.
He is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore and spits on the graves of all the fellow soldiers that died defending the freedoms of this country; from our founders to the present day.
A traitor to our country and to our constitution.
This is an inherently flawed line of thinking, right up there with “keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.” the legal definition of what constitutes “bad” or “crazy” would expand over time to eventually include everyone who didn’t vote for the “correct” candidate last election. The act of defining disqualifying criteria for gun ownership thus transforms into a political weapon a la tyranny by the majority.
Your choices as an American in 2016 are as follows: Accept the realities of life on earth and that the best defense from danger/trouble/hardship is to stay alert, tool up accordingly, react deliberately, and fix whatever problem befalls you; be a timid milquetoast whose nightmares are populated by images of self-reliant Americans taking care of business on their own, demand a myriad of laws are passed to destroy that way of life and protect your imagined “right to be/feel safe,” and rely on mommy and daddy Gov to make everything fair, equal, and “free” because you’re emotionally/psychologically incapable of moving out of your parents’ house.
And when you really cut through all the deflection, double-standards, and other mealy-mouthed politico bs, those are the two kinds of people that exist in America today.
That may be a massive generalization, but it’s pretty damn accurate.
Just want you disarmed for the coming war
– (D) liberal_progressive_communist
“People have to lobby … I get that,” Thompson said. “But as members of Congress we need to rise above that and do what’s best for the American people. I’m most angry at the leaders in Congress who refuse to do something that will saves lives and make communities safer for all.”
Please explain how registering a gun saves lives and make a community safer for ALL? Dose it stop a murderer?…No. Does it stop suicide?…No. Does it stop rape?…No. Does it stop assault?…No.
Does it infringe…Yes. Does it delay ownership…Yes. Does it prevent lawful self protection?…Yes. Does it empower criminals?…Yes.
So what does ink on paper do to make a community safer? NOT A DAMN THING.
Ink on paper? Hell no, such laws will be eventually written in blood – that of the very citizens they thought they were going to protect.
“And if the price of that is keeping guns out of the hands of everybody, I’m okay with that, too,” he continued.
There ya’ go! I might just add, “Except me and my politically-connected duck-hunting buddies, of course…”
Then disarm the Secret Service first.
Walk your talk
I think I just found the definition of “hagiography”. Also “Fudd”.
“I’m just trying to stop the bad guys from getting guns.”
That is an admirably goal Rep. Thompson, it really is. I do have to ask, however, if all you want to do is stop the bad guys why do all of your suggestions and plan focus on anyone and everyone EXCEPT the bad guys? Because your actions, your suggestions, your very ideas make it seem like you might not really understand which ones are the ‘bad guys’ and which ones are the ‘good guys.’
And once again we have to ask – Who decides who the “Bad Guys” are? If it is the government that decides, how is that not infringement? The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to once and forever make it impossible for the government to decide who may or may not keep and bear arms. And that includes The Supreme Court. Their only function in this issue should be to state unequivocably, “The Second Amendment means exactly what it says.”
Bad guys should not have guns.
Bad guys are bad guys only whilst doing bad guy things. (They cease to be bad guys after they finish)
Thus the only person that is able to tell the good guy from the bad guy is the victim(s). Therefore the only person in a position to keep guns away from bad guys is the victim(s). The only way for the victim(s) to perform this service to society is to permanently retire said bad guy. So society must make it easy for the victim(s) to possess the requisite tools to retire bad guys. Now add in the fact that anyone at anytime may become the victim(s) and you are left with one inescapable truth.
For the good of society, everyone must be allowed to carry a gun everywhere.
A) The road to hell is paved with such intentions.
B) I’m pretty sure you’d go ahead and lump me in with bad guys without knowing anything about me.
So thanks, but no.
His statement casts 9 million California gun owners as “bad guys” and shows the true mindset of the gun-haters in Sacramento.
Just like all Democrat Party Operatives, they are not against gun ownership. They just don’t want us commoners, especially those are not loyal to them, to have guns…unless of course we are part of their security detail, then it is okay…at least for a little while.
Someone needs to file a “gun violence restraining order” on him. Cops can arrive, tell him he is a bad guy, and confiscate his shotgun.
“I’m most angry at the leaders in Congress who refuse to do something that will saves lives and make communities safer for all.”
Great…the ole “if it saves ONE life, it’s worth it” chestnut. My favorite. (/sarc)
This is why recreational skiing (among many other recreational sports) should be banned as well. Think how much safer we’d be! If you won’t do it for your country, do it for Sonny Bono…
Aha–ban skiing! I’m gonna steal that if I ever hear that “if it saves one life” crap. Maybe “ban swimming pools” too.
Don’t forget boats. The only difference between guns and boats is that I actually know people who have died while boating. Guns? Nope. Perhaps I’m an aberration…
Boats are dangerous as Hell. You can’t go a day without reading about some tragic boating accident on this site.
Mike Thompson: ‘I know what’s best, because I said so. After all, I can shoot a shotgun and am a Vietnam Veteran’.
I have seen more Vietnam combat than most and think you are full of crap, Mikey. Go away.
Ok so you decide who is a bad guy. Got it.
Just trying to stop the bad guys from getting guns…by making it impossible for good guys to get guns. Got it.
Excellent. Demonstrate how your proposal will do that, and will likewise not burden people who are not bad guys from “getting guns”, for self-defense, target shooting, or simply because they want them, and we’re for people doing what they want. (Or are you of another opinion?)
For extra credit, demonstrate how laws or regulations like you propose *have* kept the bad guys from getting guns, allowed good guys to get guns (if they want), and reduced *illegal activity like murder and assault* in general, and using guns.
So far, you are unconvincing. Try harder.
Looky here a bad guy! Get ‘is gunz!!
Let’s make gangs illegal and actively hunt and terrorize them the way they do people in their communities.
I recently watched a group of young males gathered together. They had no idea I was watching them. You see I had been riding my motorcycle. I needed to pee so I pulled off in an old industrial area to see if I could find myself a spot. I ended up riding up a ramp on to a loading dock of some sorts. So I figured I may as well take a break and relax. A few minutes later I heard lots of loud talking and commotion. Accross the way from me and down the street I saw a group muster in to a gathering of about 30 or so. It was apparently time for them to initiate a new member as well as take some pictures together. As I watched this I thought back to my days as an Army Ranger hunting Al Qaida. I kinda laughed and thought how easy it would be round them all up and make it impossible for to conduct their business. I will let you draw your own conclusions how that would be accomplished.
Mr Senator you want to keep people safe? Then let’s have a conversation about what makes us unsafe and who is responsible. Until we have that conversation our leaders have noting to say worth hearing.
Whow 30 person gangs, thats pretty scarey, used to be 8-10, my how times have changed.
Yeah well you failed. Now sit down, shut up, and stop trying to help.
Want to make California safer? Decriminalize DGUs.
A step in the right direction but not far enough. Permit-less OC.
A standing order to LEOs: DGU users are the victim by default, do not under any circumstances, arrest, detain, handcuff or harass. Copy their ID and drive them home.
A standing order to the DAs: DGU users are to have no charges filed unless compelling forensic (not testimonial) evidence can be brought forth to suggest homicide.
CA Democrats Just Want to Keep Us Safe?
I don’t believe that for a minute, that’s just one reason why I avoid that state. (Which is a shame, there’s a lot of things in CA I’d like to see.)
Shooting clays with no eye protection? Idiot.
Shhhhhh dont tell him. Maybe he’ll get the Darwin Award.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.