Thompson is no 2nd Amdt supporter.

GoSlash27

New member
He voted in favor of the Lautenberg amendment. (confiscation/ rescinding 2nd amdt rights without due process for misdemeanor domestic disturbance)

He voted against the Smith amendment. ( which barred federal registration through the Brady act)

He voted to end the fillibuster against S.254 (urban crime gun control)

He voted for the "young adult assault weapon ban" (felony offense for allowing a minor to handle a semiauto assault weapon without direct supervision)

He may talk a good game about the 2nd Amdt (don't they all?), but his voting record doesn't support his words.
 
And what are the other options? Grab-em-all Ghouliani? Assault-weapon-ban liberal-in-a-Reagan-hat Romney?

Thompson is more 2A than any of the other ones who can win, at this point!
 
That's because people can't be bothered to vote for him "because he's not likely to get past the Primaries."

You vote for more of the same, you get more of the same. Don't cry about your precious gun rights if you can't be bothered to vote for a true 2A supporter because you only bet on the horse that has the biggest chance of winning the race.
 
Yep, it's fascinating to watch: "He can't win cause nobody will vote for him so I'll vote for somebody else even if they suck!" :confused: Sometimes we are our own worst enemies, just not for the reasons some around here would claim. :barf:
 
I have given this some thought, and have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to vote for someone unless I actually feel good about them taking office. I'm also not going to pi$$ away my vote, and if the above criteria are not met, I'll simply not vote at all.

I've been voting since carter was pretending to be president, and in retrospect there have been only two elections where I have really felt good about the vote I cast for that office. Until we have a perfect human who runs for office, voting will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils. Whether one participates in that process or not, the decision will always have consequences.
 
Thompson sucks - thanks for heads up

The last 3 posters speak very wisely. I will write in Ron Paul on the general election ballot if he's not on there. Can't vote in the repub primary, because registered as independent. I wouldn't be caught dead formally affiliated with either wing of the republicrat uni-party, at this point in my life. Besides, if you are republican, if you don't vote for Ron Paul, at the very least vote for Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee, who are true "conservatives". But Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above all the other candidates stacked together.
 
Post removed because I thought about it and I don't trust my source of information. Sorry about that, everyone.
 
Last edited:
Fred Thompson says NO to "gun free" zones

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee
 
He may talk a good game about the 2nd Amdt (don't they all?), but his voting record doesn't support his words.

Is it possible that the senator has "seen the error of his ways" and now fully embraces the 2nd Amendment? Cant a fella change his mind?

Or is it just my perception alone that the VT massacre has galvanized a huge portion of the fence sitters to go pro-gun....and ol' Fred wants to ride the wave?

Maybe Fred should be grilled on this issue at the next debate. Just to be sure his heart is in the right place.


PS: I like what he has to say in his article. He has my attention.
 
He voted in favor of the Lautenberg amendment. (confiscation/ rescinding 2nd amdt rights without due process for misdemeanor domestic disturbance)

Call me oldfashioned, but I think that if some jerk beats up his wife and gets a domestic charge, he OUGHT to get his guns taken away. (Don flame-retardant suits NOW!)

He voted for the "young adult assault weapon ban" (felony offense for allowing a minor to handle a semiauto assault weapon without direct supervision)

Hmmm.... Sounds like promoting adult supervision in safe and proper handling of firearms should be a GOAL of this forum. Interesting...

He voted against the Smith amendment. ( which barred federal registration through the Brady act)

He voted to end the fillibuster against S.254 (urban crime gun control)

Ok, but what ELSE did the Smith amendment do? Did the bill make sense? Did Thompson vote against it because he wanted federal registration, or did he vote against it for some other reason? And, since when is fillibustering good? As I understand it, fillibustering is a political loophole designed to prevent the exercise of free democracy. You're really gonna burn Fred in effegy because he voted to end a fillibuster?!?

... sounds like somebody's got some personal political agendas on the block, here...

p.s. - Oh, and for the record, the above-listed Fred Thompson-authored article is spot-on. I think Fred's got his head in the right place.
 
From the NRA's website
THOMPSON WON’T SEEK REELECTION


U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment,announced he will not seek re-election this year. His support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will certainly be missed.

Guess the NRA approves of Thompson GoSlash. Does Ron really need this kind of help?
 
Call me oldfashioned, but I think that if some jerk beats up his wife and gets a domestic charge, he OUGHT to get his guns taken away. (Don flame-retardant suits NOW!)

Then make it a felony and get a conviction. Otherwise, not interested.

Hmmm.... Sounds like promoting adult supervision in safe and proper handling of firearms should be a GOAL of this forum. Interesting...

Yup. But since that has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation in question, which would make it a felony for someone under 18(21?) to handle what is nebulously called an "assault weapon"(what are those again?) regardless of their experience, your point is...?

Ok, but what ELSE did the Smith amendment do? Did the bill make sense? Did Thompson vote against it because he wanted federal registration, or did he vote against it for some other reason? And, since when is fillibustering good? As I understand it, fillibustering is a political loophole designed to prevent the exercise of free democracy. You're really gonna burn Fred in effegy because he voted to end a fillibuster?!?

No, because he voted against a bill restricting government regulation and for ending opposition to a bill expanding same. Doesn't matter what they "might" have done or what you think of fillibustering.
 
Haven't decided who I will support in the primary. So I would say that I'm nobody's do boy YET.

Often it has been noted on here how questionable some of the NRA's ratings are. NOW, though, we're to just accept this one because...

Wasn't a rating. Just a comment from the NRA stating that Thompson has been a staunch supporter of the second amendment. The OP stated that Fred is no 2nd amendment supporter and the NRA disagrees, nothing more nothing less. Since I don't know the reasons Fred supported certain bills I look at a group that has defended our RTKBA. They say he is a good guy............thats enough for me.
 
Seeing as how I disagree with Ron Paul and the GOA's version of the 2nd Amendment, I'm going to take a hard look at Fred. So far he sure looks better than any of the other offerings.
 
Back
Top