“In reality, the best way to make sure the Second Amendment is protected from overreaching gun laws is to reduce gun violence. And the best way to reduce gun violence is to expand background checks so that the number of places criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill can get guns is drastically decreased.” – Democratic Congressman Mike Thompson, chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force [via politico.com]
I don’t think the guy selling stolen guns out of his trunk has a computer to check the NICS. Even if he does have a smartphone, I still don’t think he’ll use it. But keep putting on a show Mr. Thompson.
With “friends” like him, Pelosi, Chucky, and the others in the gang looking out for our well being, the crime rate should be as low as in DC, Chicago, LA, St. Louis, Baltimore and other liberal paradise’s.
These people want registration and they’ll say just about anything to get it. They think it’s their business what you own.
Well of course they should know. I mean they are our almighty governMENTAL intellectual superiors. Thy will shall be done!
I’ll show my guns when they show their *TRUE* income and tax dodges, donations,fees,etc. Problem solved.
It would be interesting to know who had their hands up their @sses making their mouths move.
My favorite recent counter to their BS is demanding everyone have the same background check as a slew of mass murders have.
It forces the true anti’s to take it further. The incremental steps they go for are part of their strategy. Force the hand and get them to propose the big steps they really want.
Why can’t I just wish them all to the cornfield?
Why can’t I just wish them all to the cornfield? – Love it.
@Shire-man, the original story for the Twilight Zone episode titled “It’s a Good Life” was written by Jerome Bixby, father of our own frequent commenter Russ Bixby.
Sounds legit to me. I would assume there are just piles of reports to back this up? I mean these criminals would have been stopped by more background checks right? That must be the case or they wouldn’t be pushing for this… What other reasons could there be? I’m drawing a blank so I guess it’s for the kids.
This idiot thinks that criminals who buy/sell/steal guns on the street (accounting for about 40% of criminal firearms sourcing) are going to conduct background checks. And the bill he’s written explicitly exempts transfers from family and friends (accounting for about another 40% of criminal firearms sourcing) from needing to conduct background checks.
As usual, he’s proposing gun control legislation that will have zero impact on criminals.
Gun control always has zero impact on criminals. Its all about control of the people so they can do what they will.
This is too deep and high-brow for me, their words confuse me. They say one thing but mean another, I guess I agree because that’s how stupid I am.
Duplicitous — deceitful.
“treacherous, duplicitous behavior”
Although I can bring several somewhat coarse, but accurate, slang definitions of what gun-grabbing politicians do with their weasel words. ******** Two-headed snakes is the mildest I can post here.
That must be Frau Pelosi’s “O” face……. scary!
“In reality, the best way to make sure the Right to Vote is protected is to reduce voter fraud. And the best way to reduce voter fraud is to expand background checks so that the number of places criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill can vote is drastically decreased.”
Always swap how they would regulate RKBA for how they would regulate the right to vote.
That bizarro circular logic is what I noticed. “The best way to protect the 1st Amendment is to reduce irresponsible speech. And the best way to reduce irresponsible speech is to repeal the 1st Amendment.” America should just be renamed The Republic of Stupidia.
What is so special about a “background check”. We got along fine until 1968 with no background checks. To me, it looks like the background check is part of the problem. Before the checks, violence all across the board was leas, Hell, we had no “gun violence’ at all.
Someone get Mr. Thompson another glass of Kool-Aid.
right. Clearly this approach has worked so well in NJ, MD, and CA. There are no overly broad hyper-reaching ridiculous laws in NJ that mandate 10 years for possession of an unlicensed flintlock pistol. For example.
Let’s just juggle a few words of that and propose “You have to have a gun to vote.” instead.
Right on James.
The only way to decrease this country’s rate of “Gun Violence” is to radically and positively change the culture of the communities where it overwhelmingly occurs.
Start by disbanding the NAACP (FIFTY YEARS of FAILURE to live up to their name), marginalize and discredit the race baiters and politicians that profit financially and gain political power from keeping down the segment of society they pretend to “defend”. Out those who promote “victim hood” mentality. Form a group of real leaders who will laser focus on rebuilding those communities.
What he’s implying is that if the crime rate goes any higher (than it’s current historic low) there will be no way to defend gun rights because the people will demand infringement. Like how their hands are tied when the homicide rate drops, and they are forced to restore righ HEY WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Wrong, and also wrong.
Pretty sure the way to “protect the second amendment from overreaching gun laws” would be to get rid of those overreaching gun laws.
And the best way to reduce what is improperly referred to as “gun violence” is to focus on the actual problems – suicide, gang violence, domestic violence, common violent criminals, negligence, etc.
When the waves (and I mean that literally, watch the video, they are tripping over themselves in the dark down here) of people crossing our southern border coalesce into something violent, I will bus them into the fenced in and mined border area called weapons proving ground #1 a/k/a California.
Should we be invaded by China (prevented now only by China’s current lack of piqued desire to do so than anything put together by the WH) who’s going to hand out the weapons and ammo? Nobody, get and keep your own, don’t count on cops being there to help you, Holder’s DOJ will have them all shot in the face by then.
If you are from a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino the problem is Part-of-You, you are permanently damaged, and your efforts to disarm me and mine will be rewarded by your regret at not having armed and sympathetic fellow citizen neighbors. But, Nature’s rule #1 the dumb must suffer; rule #2 suffer in silence.
Odd statement, since gun violence has gone down as more people bought guns… yet still more calls for tightening gun laws.
Why the hell is the a “house gun violence prevention task force” ? How much of our tax dollars are being wasted on that?
I’d like to make a motion that we disband the “House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force”. All those in favor?
“How much of our tax dollars are being wasted on that?”
Worse, how much foreign $ has been donated (in support of this) to overthrow our Constitution?
Please check the contraindications before taking Viagra and any psychotropics.
Didn’t Obama just tell us it was easier to get guns than a salad in some neighborhoods? Seems like they should focus on those neighborhoods where it is hard to get a salad and leave everyone else alone.
Begging the question fallacy much? Who established that background checks are the best way to reduce violent crime?
Our nation had very little trouble with violent criminals using firearms in the 1950s — long before background checks. How is that possible if background checks are the best way to reduce violent crime?
Leland Yee was unavailable for comment.
Why the heck is there even a “House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force “? It’s like they are making up useless committees to self fornicate themselves over when getting together for a DC cocktail party.
Oh, that’s the best part of it. When I read that he’s a Democrat and Chairman of…anything….in a GOP-controlled House, I knew something was up. Controlling party appoints all committee members and all chairmanships go to members of their own party.
This “Task Force” is just a b.s. pre-packaged media venue created out of thin air by Pelosi in 2013 post-Sandy Hook. It’s not an official government committee or subcommittee or agency of any kind with any power or legal stature of any kind. It’s purely an official-sounding, hollow group consisting of one Chair and TWELVE Vice Chairs, all of whom are Democrats. It’s no more official than the silly “Congressional Wine Caucus”, of which this guy is also Co-Chair.
This so-called task force’s entire purpose is to issue anti-firearms freedom press releases and lend an unearned, undeserved mantle of legitimacy to the gun grabbing bills the Dems already introduce on their own. They want the public to believe that their partisan, rights-snatching handiwork is the unbiased output of earnest, fervent solution-seeking by serious, learned task force professionals. Please. Don’t anyone fall for their trick.
The best way to protect the second amendment is to follow what it says. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What do those four words mean congressman? The second amendment has nothing to do with gun violence and it does not need any protection if you just simply follow what it says.
We have all kinds of laws against gun violence, knife violence, fist violence, or just plain old violence. If you would deal with those who break the laws doing violent acts instead of giving them multiple chances to repeatedly offend, maybe you would see a reduction in crime. If more of the honest nonviolent types had access to guns they would even help with your goal.
I just posted about this kind of thing the other day. Once again we have a rights-raping Democrat bragging about being pro-chastity. It’s obscene.
Firearms have only two natural enemies: rust and politicians. The Second Amendment doesn’t need your laws to protect it. If anything, it only needs our votes (or those of five intellectually adept and honest SC Justices) to protect it from your laws. Otherwise, just leave it alone and it’ll be fine.
That schmuck Thompson will never acknowledge the truth — that what protects 2A is guns — 300 million of them — and their owners.
+1
I would like to see the results of a survey that interviewed every criminal that used a gun in a crime, and asked they they got the gun by going through a “background” check!
They did. The drug dealer on the corner who also sells stolen guns made sure they had a criminal background.
How much jail time have the mental – midgets at atf done for enabling all their killings ??? Fast and ( Forgotten) Well Brian Terry is NOT forgotten. Continue to PUSH your Reps. and Senators to control, and then ELIMINATE
this ZOMBIE agency. HR 1130 and HR 1329. Ammo protection / ATF disbanding. Next time they will NOT ask for comment , just ram it through…. DENY that possibility.
How much jail time have the mental – midgets at atf done for enabling all their killings?
If you are also asking about Waco and Ruby Ridge, the answer is no time at all.
I guess Ralph…although the word “midget” is now outlawed-sad because it’s apt.
I wonder if Mike Thompson is related to Jack Thompson (the anti-video game lawyer who was eventually dis-barred)? They kinda look alike, in that they’re both ignorant, delusional old guys with white hair. Jack Thompson just thought video games promoted violence. Even went so far as to blame them for school shootings.
It’s kind of a shame Jack isn’t around to jump on the anti-gun bandwagon. Well, not really, but it would’ve been hilariously entertaining for us and horrifyingly embarrassing for the anti-gun crowd. Even ol’ Shannon would’ve facepalmed when he opened his mouth. Then again maybe not, I think she’s as batsh*t crazy as Jack.
No apparent relation except that they both have the batsh1t crazy gene.
Please explain to me how a background check (which these are not background checks for the record. It’s a Buy No-Buy list
Controlled by the Goverment) prevents a criminal from buying a gun from the trunk of a car behind 7-11?. And let’s face it how does a background check prevent a normally sane law abiding person from waking up one day and going insane and killing people?. Hell I have this argument with my pro gun friends that support back ground checks.
Comments are closed.