Thompson is no 2nd Amdt supporter.

There was a guy in Denver who got into an argument with his wife. He tried to leave the situation. The door to the garage was in the kitchen and she blocked it by placing her body against one wall and her foot against the other. He pushed her leg down so he could exit the house.

She threatened to call the cops so he did it for her. They came and because there is a rule in Denver that one party must be removed from the home, which is nearly always the male, they arrested him for "assaulting" her. He plead guilty to the misdemeanor, as most men do to get rid of the charge, was placed on probation and released.

With the passage of the Lautenberg Act, he lost his firearm rights for life. The fact that the offense was prior to the enactment of the law meant nothing as the law is an ex post facto law. The fact that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws did not stop the Congress from passing the law.

Does that qualify as "beating the crap out of his wife"?
 
What are the chances that every effort will be made to keep two -- COUNT 'EM -- two Thompsons on the ballot to exploit voter confusion?
 
With the passage of the Lautenberg Act, he lost his firearm rights for life.

I do agree with you in that the Lautenberg Act, as being interpreted, is a perversity and needs to be changed. The whole “restraining order” thing is a slippery slope.
Of course, there can be more to the story than presented. In your example, “He pushed her leg down so he could exit the house”, How did he push it down, with his hand or with a size 12 boot or a baseball bat? What level of “violence” was involved? (Reminds me of the story of the guy stating to the judge that he was just standing there peeling an apple when this guy ran around the corner and onto his knife….. 13 times.)
If there wasn’t enough to prosecute, there shouldn’t be any lasting repercussions. Unfortunately, for every story like yours where nothing really happened there is also one where “hubby” did come back and “beat the crap” out of the wife (or worse.)
 
You have still not addressed the issue of the Lautenberg Act being an ex post facto law. What thinkest thou about that?

He pushed her leg down off the wall so he could exit the house. He was trying to run away from the situation.

If he had used a "size 12 boot" or a baseball bat I would have said so. He used his hands to push her leg foot down to get her foot off the wall. That's all.

As for the restraining order thing, a friend of mine got a divorce and the first thing his wife did was to get a restraining order against him so he had to move out of his own home. He had never hit her nor had he ever threatened her. It was just a boilerplate order.

The restraining order also had a more insidious purpose -- she wanted his $35,000 worth of firearms. Luckily, she did not know the combination to the safe and he was able to get them out of the house without her knowing it. By the time she got a locksmith out there to open the safe they were gone.

Restraining orders have become the weapon of choice in divorce actions, especially where there are kids involved.

I've never been divorced nor has my wife. We have both been married once and then for, coming up next month, 37 years so none of the above comes from bitterness on my part -- in case anyone was wondering.
 
Back to the subject at hand ...

There was this which happened yesterday. What effect would this move have if Bloomberg were to become president or what effect would his run have on the election ala Ross Perot?

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/june/0620_bloomberg_gop1.shtml

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Leaves GOPBy SARA KUGLER
Associated Press
June 20, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

''Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,'' he said in a statement.

Despite his coyness about his aspirations, the mayor's decision to switch stokes speculation that he will pursue the White House, challenging the Democratic and Republican nominees with a legitimate and well-financed third-party bid.

Bloomberg has an estimated worth of more than $5 billion and easily could underwrite a White House run, much like Texas businessman Ross Perot in 1992. Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, including $85 million when he won his second term in 2005.

The 65-year-old mayor has fueled the presidential buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, including New Hampshire last weekend; a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

''The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy,'' he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

A Bloomberg entry would roil the already volatile and wide-open race to succeed President Bush.

''If he runs, this guarantees a Republican will be the next president of the United States. The Democrats have to be shaking in their boots,'' said Greg Strimple, a Republican strategist in New York who is unaligned in the race.

The belief among some operatives is that Bloomberg's moderate positions would siphon votes from the Democratic nominee. Others say it's not clear and his impact would depend on the nominees.

Former Democratic Party Chairman Donald Fowler said Bloomberg would be ''a disturbing factor to both parties,'' but the mayor would probably draw more Republican votes simply because ''Republicans are more disenchanted than Democrats.''

''Democrats are pretty happy with their candidates,'' Fowler said. ''The Republicans are absolutely in disarray.''

He called Bloomberg ''an exceptionally capable guy'' who is ''hard-nosed and accomplished,'' but argued that the obstacles for a third-party candidate are so daunting that it would be nearly impossible for Bloomberg to win.

In 1992, Perot captured 19 percent of the popular vote as Democrat Bill Clinton seized the presidency from incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush. Independent Ralph Nader played the spoiler in the 2000 race, taking votes from Democrat Al Gore in a disputed election won by President George W. Bush.

Most polls find Bloomberg drawing votes from Republicans.

''He could have a significant impact on the campaign,'' said independent pollster Scott Rasmussen. ''Nationally there's a significant segment of the electorate that would give serious consideration to Bloomberg as a candidate.''

Strategists say he could mount a third-party campaign by stressing that he is a two-term mayor in a Democratic city and that he built his reputation as a political independent, social moderate and fiscal conservative.

Throughout his 5½ years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But he never seemed willing to part with the GOP completely, raising money for the 2004 presidential convention and contributing to Bush and other Republican candidates.

Just last year, he told a group of Manhattan Republicans about his run for mayor: ''I couldn't be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican.''

On most occasions, Bloomberg has rolled his eyes at the suggestion that he might one day be a presidential contestant. But during a holiday party with City Hall staffers last December he performed a Bruce Springsteen rendition of ''Born to Run.''

Appearing Monday at Google Inc.'s California campus, Bloomberg teased questioners about a presidential bid, refusing to rule out the prospect but repeating that he plans to serve out his term through 2009. And he didn't debunk a report that he talked about an independent presidential bid with former Sen. David Boren, D-Okla.

Asked about a hypothetical independent candidate entering the race, Bloomberg launched a broad critique of the Bush administration and Congress and lamented the presidential debates to date.

''I think the country is in trouble,'' Bloomberg said, citing the war in Iraq and America's declining standing globally.

''Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years,'' he said. ''We've had a go-it-alone mentality in a world where, because of communications and transportation, you should be going exactly in the other direction.''

His entry into the campaign would give the presidential contest a decidedly New York flavor, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York senator on the Democratic side, and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Republican.

------

Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti, Jim Kuhnhenn and Libby Quaid in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
The Lautenberg Amendment is a perversity period. There is no benign "interpretation" of it. It was patently unconstitutional, as Mr. Peel has pointed out at least three times.

Not that that gave Congress so much as a moment's pause.
 
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.
Precisely.

As I've said elsewhere, consider the differences between gun laws today and gun laws back in the 1920s or even the 50s. THAT is what happens over time when people continue to insist on voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Keep voting for mainstream GOP politicians, and I 100% GUARANTEE that two generations from now semi-autos will be treated like full-autos are treated today (at best). If some nutcase commits another Virginia Tech-style massacre with one, then it will be even sooner.

If people like Ron Paul don't have a chance, then gun rights don't have a chance (short of an armed uprising). It's just that simple. At best, we will only delay the inevitable death of the Bill of Rights.

threegun said:
Dr. Paul is damaged goods. After his foot in mouth episode he has no chance. Damaging the remaining republican field isn't going to change Paul's snowball's chance. All you do is strengthen the admitted enemy of the RKBA.
Paul didn't put his foot in his mouth; he spoke the plain truth that intelligence experts on the Middle East have known all along. That truth may be unpopular with the GOP kool-aid drinkers who support anti-gun socialists like Giuliani (I'm not saying you're one of them), but facts are stubborn things.

Second, Paul has gotten a lot of press from the GOP establishment's attempts to smear him and has a lot of crossover appeal. He may be a viable third-party candidate if/when the GOP doesn't nominate him.
 
So GoSlash starts a thread about Thompson's support for the second amendment, and the Ron Paul fans just can't stop talking about Ron Paul. Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul. :(
 
This thread has turned into the better of evils arguement. If you vote for evil. (Regardless of what the individual might consider evil) You are going to get evil plain and simple, no ifs, ands or buts.
 
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/

Also:

In a recent appearance on the program Hannity and Colmes, Fred Dalton Thompson stated very clearly that getting the Illegal Alien Trespassers out of the country “is not gonna happen” and that the solution is to “work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship”

http://conservativesagainstfred.wor...-in-favor-of-amnesty-as-long-as-its-not-easy/

Thompson is CFR and that's all that really needs said if one understands that groups' stated goals.
 
So GoSlash starts a thread about Thompson's support for the second amendment, and the Ron Paul fans just can't stop talking about Ron Paul. Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul. - Fremmer

When I saw a thread title about Thompson, I knew what to expect to find. Thanks to your post, I didn't have to read very far to decide to move along. Paulistas would be peeing on the campfire ad nauseum.
 
Back
Top