safe_image

A reader who prefers to remain anonymous writes:

Recently I read an article accusing Mike of being ‘Fudd’.  I am here to tell you right now Mike Thompson is not a ‘Fudd’ (as in Elmer Fudd of Buggs Bunny fame).  I have voted for Mike faithfully for years.  He has done many good things for my district. Charles Michael “Mike” Thompson is the U.S. Representative for California’s 5th congressional district, serving since 1999. He is the current Chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He is also stated as being a gun owner and ‘avid’ outdoorsman . . .

Mike believes we have an extreme problem with gun violence and our government must work to end it as soon as they can.  To that end he is the Chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.  He assures if the new legislation in the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act is passed the legislation will not impede on hunters’ Second Amendment rights.  We also need to do it for the children (is his intention, in my belief).

Mike Thompson is a Constitutional Scholar.  He well understands the Founding Fathers came up with the Second Amendment to protect hunters’ rights.

Mike is against the evil black guns which do so much harm and I am sure he will be against the evil ‘Cop Killer’ ammunition which is felling our brave policemen at an astounding rate.

I think eventually he will want all guns to be registered, ammunition cataloged and registered, and a full vetting of each and every person who wants to own a gun.  (Except all military, government and police personnel.  They can have anything they want.)  That way, NOBODY can own a gun if the Benevolent Government does not think they should.

The Second Amendment was only created to protect the hunters’ rights and NOT so the population could defend itself against an oppressive government. (Obviously, by Mike and others interpretation of the Second Amendment.)

According to Wikipedia the United States ranks 111th in the world for gun violence. If you take out the large Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Oakland and a few others, we rank lower than 200th.

In my personal research I have yet to find one police officer who has been hurt by M855 ammunition.  What I did find was the colonists had as good or better rifles than the British, their oppressive government at the time.

The Second Amendment was put in place to protect us from the GOVERNMENT and not to protect hunters’.

Mike Thompson and other ‘legislators’ of his ilk want to ensure the populace is incapable of defending itself through gun control.  Others such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the short guy with the funny mustache (no, not Yosemite Sam) whole heartedly agree.

No, Mike is not a Fudd. He is a Socialist along with his master and their ultimate plan is control of the population though gun control, healthcare control, and ultimately the militarized police force.

Vote for him again? Are you Daffy?

Signed,

I.M. Nobody
(because I don’t want to get cavity searched next time I fly)

PS: On a recent trip to Washington one of his staffers happily told me he regularly has lobbyists  ‘helping’ with legislation. He never responds to my e-mails. Wait, that’s a lie…I get robo replies. Yes, he is a man of the people (If you are a socialist or very rich). And, of course, the GOP is no better….

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  1. “He well understands the Founding Fathers came up with the Second Amendment to protect hunters’ rights”

    Wrong. So very wrong.
    So you just proved he’s worse than a Fudd.

      • Sure did! It became clear he is a socialist asshat with an agenda to violate our Constitution with impunity. He knows better than you do. And his claim to be a constitutional scholar is completely unfounded, a clear lie.

        • Oh no, he and his ilk ARE Constitutional scholars. Know thy enemy, and all that.

      • Not quite Swiftian but good nonetheless. We have to deal with REAL Fudds all the time. The guys with the classic guns who want NOBODY to have ARs. I never owned and AR. Not likely I will. I hunt with an early 19th Century flintlock, a longbow and a bolt action rifle but if YOU want an AR in a deer caliber like 6.8 or 6.5 Creedmore or whatever and it’s LEGAL in your state for hunting then knock yourself out.

        Ray

        • .223 is plenty for deer at reasonable ranges…and yes, its legal for deer hunting in my state.

          And yes, you sound pretty Fuddish. The purpose of guns is to be the 4th branch of government. That fact that you can also hunt with them is just a nice bonus.

        • @Aerindel,

          So he doesn’t care for AR-15s personally, as a matter of taste, and that makes him a Fudd?

          I think you are confusing his personal tastes (which do resemble those of some Fudds) with what he thinks he can force on other people–but it’s the last item that makes one a Fudd, not a coincidental similarity in taste in firearms.

      • “…..He is the current Chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. He is a member of the Democratic Party.” Republicans control the house therefore Republicans only can be chairpersons. Stopped reading after this fail!

        • Wrong. This is not an official committee. It is a group of democrat representatives who are dedicated to pushing whatever gun control measures they think they can get passed. There are no republicans on this “task force”.

  2. Your subtle sarcasm nearly slipped past me for the first few paragraphs. It is not smart to fool General Zod.

  3. I believe actions speak louder than words, what has he done to “protect” gun rights?

    Oh yeah, nothing.

  5. In short, as you said, “He is a member of the Democratic Party.”

    Good article though, you had me going there for a second until I realized the obvious.

  9. Not only did the sarcasm go right over some heads, it did a slow roll and the wings never even mussed their hair. LOL

  11. While I don’t strictly disagree with anything said, especially about the virtues of the politician in question, there is one thing I would point out, in the interest of being nit-pickingly accurate. In 2013, a total of 3 officers were killed in the line of duty while wearing body armor by weapons in the .223/5.56 caliber (2 by the first, 1 by the second). In addition, two others were killed while wearing body armor, but the caliber of weapon involved wasn’t reported. While it doesn’t differentiate between M855 and any other type of 5.56 round, it wouldn’t be unbelievable for it to have been used. What is more important, though, is that while the ATF was claiming that the danger stemmed from handguns capable of firing M855, there is, as far as I can tell, absolutely zero instances of a .223/5.56 handgun ever being used in a crime, much less being used to kill a police officer. In the rare instances that the caliber in question was used, it was exclusively used in a rifle.

    • So, perhaps we should focus on prohibiting any and all ammunition that has the ability of penetrating officially sanctioned police and military body armor? Body armor penetrating would then become the default test for all ammunition sold within the US. There’s legal precedent for this. We saw something similar happen with car safety and emission standards in the 60’s and 70’s. It would be entirely legal to have any handgun or long gun you desired . . . so long as the ammunition for it met government standards.

      • Absolutely not, and if they tried it, I have high hopes that it would beaten down before it ever hit Congress. My point was more towards the fact that the ATF’s stated excuse on the subject (that M855 was capable of being fired from a handgun, handguns are more dangerous because of their concealability, and therefore M855 is a danger to police) has no actual supporting evidence, as the only times that an officer has been killed by that particular caliber, they’ve exclusively been fired from rifles.

  12. Boy, that went over all y’all’s heads, dinnit it?

    Hell, most of you didn’t even read the whole thing.

  13. The sarchasm (the gulf between the guy being sarcastic, and the people who didn’t realize it, is a sarchasm) is wide and deep on this one.

  14. “Mike Thompson is a Constitutional Scholar. He well understands the Founding Fathers came up with the Second Amendment to protect hunters’ rights.”
    Now that’s one funny Oxymoron.

    • Chip,

      it’s a little dry in the beginning until the full sarcasm unfolds. Overall i gave the article a 9/10 on the win factor but subtracted a point since this isn’t an origin story that allows for the slow wind up.

    • We used to have quality trolls here like mikeybnumbers and hmmmmmm. More fun than the current crop of clueless amateurs we have now.

  17. The 2nd amendment wasn’t put there for hunters! We have the right to protect ourselves from our own government and to defend ones rights. Hunting is a sport, duh. Be safe out there, protect your flank.

  18. Cute. BUT..

    ” I have voted for Mike faithfully for years.” Hence the problem. Did he just become all these terrible things? Hell no!

    He has been a “faithful” socialist for years. But you still voted “faithfully” for him. You, sir, are the problem. Without idiots like you, dear ol’ Mikey would have to get a real job where he couldn’t inflict his twisted world view on the rest of us.

      • No, got the sarcasm. But he writes, ” I have voted for Mike faithfully for years.” Later he writes, “Vote for him again? Are you Daffy?” Which further leads me to believe his earlier statement, that he voted faithfully for him.

        Sounds like he only recently discovered what a danger this guy is to personal liberty. Maybe if he, and others like him, had been a bit more perceptive we wouldn’t be where we are. Bet me a dollar this guy voted overwhelmingly Democratic before his “come to Jesus” moment.

        All those acting dismayed at our despicable president’s total disregard for the Constitution have no reason to be. He TOLD you his goal was to “Fundamentally change” the USA. And that is exactly what he is doing. Just lie the man said, “Elections have consequences.”

  20. Hah, I had to read half-way through before the dime dropped.

    Well played, sir or madam, well played indeed.

  21. “According to Wikipedia the United States ranks 111th in the world for gun violence. If you take out the large Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Oakland and a few others, we rank lower than 200th.”

    I would like to see that research. I’m not challenging the assertion. I’ve done some work of my own in that area, so I’d love to see the numbers that generate this statistic.

    • Our ranking in gun violence is irrelevant. Look instead at our rank in overall violence and especially violent deaths by any means. Then subtract violent deaths that are suicides. Next subtract violent deaths in metro areas that are “gun free” zones and see what is left. Bottom line is that if you live somewhere other than an inner city ghetto you are probably less apt to suffer from violence than almost anywhere else in the world. And, I suspect, a large part of the reason for that is that our citizens are armed in those areas. Here is a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
      You will note that MANY other countries have much darker colors than the USA.

    • It wouldn’t matter if private, individual firearm ownership sent rates through the roof. The alternative is to have a disarmed people, which leads to tyranny.

      The wisdom of shall not be infringed is immutable. I won’t be disarmed.

  22. Article is OK but a bit confusing. From my understanding of the 2nd amendment it has NOTHING to do with hunting at all. Where do these guys get the interpretation? Don’t think that the 2A says anything about hunting so why would they assume that ? It has to do with freedom and keeping all of us free. That interpretation seems far more likely and goes along with the spirit of the Bill of Rights, doesn’t it ? What the HELL does hunting have to do with anything in the Bill of Rights ? If this guy is a constitutional scholar I am a rocket scientist. Where are his credentials ? His statement that the 2nd amendment has to do with hunting is asinine.

  23. Man, so much fail amongst the readers this time out. We need an instructional article on Sarcasm. Oh wait, maybe this very post will serve.

  25. No, Mike is not a Fudd. He is a Socialist along with his master and their ultimate plan is control of the population though gun control, healthcare control, and ultimately the militarized police force.

    I got trolled for the first few paragraphs! 😀

    Well played.

  26. I have a coworker who refers to him as “mike ‘three round’ thompson” or sometimes just “ol three round” because if you have ever heard him talk about mag limits he will always bring up that you can only have 3 rounds in your hunting shot gun.

  27. “Mike Thompson and other ‘legislators’ of his ilk want to ensure the populace is incapable of defending itself through gun control. Others such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the short guy with the funny mustache (no, not Yosemite Sam) whole heartedly agree.”

    Yeah…somehow I can’t see Yosemite Sam being a huge proponent for gun control.

  28. Ok, I have to admit I am absolutely clueless here. In past reference to Fudd, I have always associated those folks with a hapless, harmless, and blissfully ignorant character. It seems to me that in this case Mike Thompson is absolutely not a Fudd. He is not hapless, harmless, and blissfully ignorant. It appears to me he is willfully ignorant and very dangerous. If the second amendment was Buggs, somehow I think the citizens of California will be eating wabbit much sooner than later.

Comments are closed.