Skip to comments.Trick or Treat (Fred Thompson on the 2nd Amendment)
Posted on 10/31/2007 9:01:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week, Sturm, Ruger & Company (NYSE: RGR) stock took a licking in the marketplace after Ruger officials admitted their revitalization plan wasn't quite on the rails the way they had envisioned. Yesterday, Smith & Wesson Holding Company (SWHC) received a similar spanking after earnings came in below analysts' expectations of 12 cents a share. Notice there were earnings, they just weren't the earnings the market analysts expected. Rather than 12 cents, earnings were a nickel less. In exchange, Smith & Wesson Holding Company took a big tumble, losing nearly 40% (39.67) in heavy volume with more than 14 point seven million shares changing hands.
The fall began at the opening bell, with the first trade at $13.75, quite a change from Monday's close at $20.09. Smith & Wesson officials say the cut in expectations were due to lower than expected demand for rifles and shotguns. Since the acquisition of Thompson/Center Arms last year, Smith & Wesson has been more dependent on consumer markets, with the company's progress over the past year having already doubled the stock price.
With yesterday's news, however, analysts say a slowdown in hunting and consumers postponing sales will continue to hurt the stock value. Market followers say the "adjustment" to Smith & Wesson's near runaway performance over the past year was inevitable, and long-term the company's health is not in question.
Meanwhile, presidential hopeful Fred Thompson is making his bones with the firearms community. He has issued a statement regarding his position on the United Nations and their campaign to regulate "small arms" globally. We don't have a favorite in the Republican primary candidates, but it would seem former Senator Thompson from Tennessee has taken a page from the playbook of another plain-spoken Tennessean Senator, Senator Davy Crockett. Rather than paraphrase, we'll let you read Thompson's comments for yourself. FYI, we'll run the comments from other candidates when (if) they ever make a definitive statement on firearms, the Second Amendment and litmus-test issues with shooters.
That having been said, Senator Thompson:
"Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, "It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ," and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth."
There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.
So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren't so perverse.
Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, and enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries' citizens' possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it."
As always, we'll keep you posted. -- Jim Shepherd
He hits all the right points, but ... quoting Grotius? Not exactly stirring.
I’m still undecided on fred. the RKBA is number one with me but I have heard he is a CFR guy and I understand that those people are in favor of “global gun control” anybody heard anything regarding this? if so I’m all ears.
This is a very important issue. And we must look carefully at each Presidential candidate to see where they stand on the 2nd Amendment. We must look at each candidates record of collaberation with UN policy. Voting record (if applicable) statements regarding the 2nd Amendment, and statements regarding support of UN programs.
Anyone too friendly with the UN should be construed as potentially an enemy of the 2nd Amendment and the right of self protection. Furthermore, anyone friendly with the uN should be suspect as someone who would bargain away our rights and sovergnity in exchange for some unknown agreement that benefits some elitist or corporate entity.
I think Fred Thompson is very clear that He is a friend of the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution. he is also a friend of US sovergnity.
If a polotician does not trust me with my weapons, why should I trust them with theirs. RTKBA, secures all other rights, that is why they are trying to take this one away from as many as they can.
Hunter and Thompson seem to be the only two who understand the 2nd amendment. Excellently articulated piece.
I'm not exactly a Fred Thompson fan, but I wouldn't criticize this approach. His persona is that of a "country boy" who has tremendous intellectual depth. While I think both sides of that persona are more spin and less substance than what his supporters believe, he doesn't hurt himself playing the issue this way. He makes clear to RTKBA voters that he opposes what the U.N. is proposing, but he does so in a way that doesn't evoke images of a redneck with a "cold dead fingers" bumper sticker.
I have no doubt that Duncan Hunter would be stronger than Mr. Thompson in defense of the Second Amendment, and if this writer hasn't heard from any other candidates, then he isn't listening to Mr. Hunter. I wish this Mr. Romney would make a similar statement. Of course, I mostly hope that whoever is elected will do more than talk about preserving our rights.
If any of you are willing to abide by the UN law and want to sell your SKS or lever action rifle before you get in trouble, CONTACT ME FIRST.
Either way, I agree that the cartoon is amusing and sadly true. The anti-gun fanatics target the average gun owner because the average gun owner is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen who respects the right of other citizens to disagree. There's no danger for the anti-gunners in attacking the average gun owner while there's danger in targeting either the radical racists or the criminal class. The anti-gun lobby is made primarily of cowards.
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
He is also a member of the American Enterprise Institute, and actually has participated in that organization. I can find no evidence that Fred has even written a single paper or been involved in a single CFR function.
“AEI’s purposes are to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.
Its work is addressed to government officials and legislators, teachers and students, business executives, professionals, journalists, and all citizens interested in a serious understanding of government policy, the economy, and important social and political developments.”
I did a search for “sovereignty” on their site. It came up with this as the first result:
Short Publications Section (397)
By John R. Bolton
Posted: Saturday, January 1, 2000
Undebated Questions about UN Peacekeeping
By John R. Bolton
Posted: Saturday, September 9, 2000
Do We Really Want to Place the U.S. Navy under International Judicial Supervision?
By Jeremy A. Rabkin
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A search on gun control came up with this:
Events Section (16)
The Bias against Guns
Monday, May 19, 2003
What Is the True Meaning of the Second Amendment?
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Friday, October 3, 2003
Books Section (3)
The Bias against Guns
Posted: Saturday, March 1, 2003
More Guns, Less Crime
Posted: Saturday, April 1, 2000
By Michael S. Greve
Posted: Saturday, January 1, 2000
“I don’t feel all that bad about Fred Thompson, but I don’t feel all that good about him either. I’ll spare you the usual list of why I don’t feel all that good about him. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him, and I’ll do my usual volunteer work for the local Republican party. I may or may not identify myself as part of the Thompson campaign, but my volunteer work will include support for the entire GOP ticket.”
I know what you mean.
Fred Thompson has to help. (or even lead)
Then you disagree with this position statement? Which part of the 2nd Amendment do you feel this candidate does not understand?
I share our Founders belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
- H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
- H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
- H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
- H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.
I can’t see how any gun company can stay in business. How many new cars would be sold if the old ones were reliable and usable after 100 years?
I have a Winchester model 1897 12 Ga. that was made in 1914 a LeFever 16 double made in the 30’s and a 1903 Springfield for deer hunting. They all work fine and look really cool.
Does anyone suspect this is just an economic decision unrelated to internal business practices or conditions.
A response to the potential of a second Clintoon Presidency?
I think we will see the same thing occurring in many companies across the board in the following year.
Ron Paul is not popular with the pro war armchair heroes on this forum. Obviously they have an exceedingly poor grasp of history if they think the threat from a few smelly rag heads half way across the world is greater than the threat to our liberty represented by people like Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Guiliani Romney, McCain, and last but not least King George II (I will sign any assault weapons ban that reaches my desk) Bush.
There needs to be a clear declaration that no treaty can over-ride our Constitutional freedoms. Otherwise, that would be a backdoor way of amending the Constitution.
The Scotus should just as easily rule suspect provisions of any treaties entered into “unconstitutional” as they would any other law enacted by the legislature.
The threat from the smelly ragheads around the world IS being used as a crutch by the leftists in America. While the jihadi are indeed a threat, many of the knee jerk reactions by lawmakers specifically target the rights of Americans. A totalitarian state has a firm grip on the conduct of it’s population. in the name of fighting terrorism, notice that terrorism has been redefined to include the manufacture of hate crimes.
As for Ron Paul, I am not impressed. Running from problems overseas is not going to strengthen America one iota.
Weakness is the strength in the credibility of the United Nothings. They only can exert their manipulation on weak nations. Strong nations can just blow them off because the UN, without concensus, is weak and unable to accomplish anything of substance.
Beware of deception. Candidates are very good at disguises. Public record speaks volumes compared to rhetoric.
I'm less unimpressed with Ron Paul than the leading Republican three stooges. Romney Guiliani and McCain represent a real threat to individual liberty in the USA. Ron Paul does not although he is far from perfect.
And what are the overseas threats and how serious are they? Are they as serious as the statists would have us think? Unlikely, yet even on this so-called conservative forum you have people praising the grossly misnamed patriot act and clamoring for more government control and intrusion in the lives of citizens.
I used to be a member of the John Birch Society and the problem presented by CFR and the other globalist organizations is something to which I've dedicated over 20 years of research. There are a few things you need to understand about CFR: They were behind the failed League of Nations post WWI and they created the current version of the U.N. They rule DC. Every President since Woodrow Wilson has been heavily infested with CFR appointees from the top of the cabinet to the bottom. Reagan was NOT a member but his VP and every member of his cabinet and their primary assistants were members. So if you want to be elected President you don't have to be an Orchestra member, you just have to know who the musicians are and dance to the right tunes. That's FACT. Write the CFR and ask for their latest annual report. They'll send it to you for free. Then look up the names of their members -- only about 3,000 in the USA. You'll find a Who's Who of CEOs, high level politicians; hot shot media elites and extremely high level military officers. They've covered all the angles. They cannot be stopped. They're not supposed to be stopped...according to Bible prophesy. But they can be delayed, perhaps.
I think Fred is one of the Good Guys, here. As far as I'm concerned, he is no RINO. He's the real deal as far as conservative ideology is concerned. However the key is who will occupy his cabinet. You can bet his veep and primary agency heads will be CFR. The only way a single man, even the President can slow this agenda is by refusing to act on the key elements of their agenda in a timely manner and by using his veto powers carefully.
There is another factor to consider: The core of the CFR cabal is a very small group of ultra rich or ultra influential power brokers. They're also members of the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome and the Bilderbergers. Think George Soros. Unfortunately, membership rosters for those other groups are more difficult to come by.
But to really be a BAD guy you've got to be a made man so to speak with that inner circle. Everybody else is a member for self serving reasons (a critical ticket to be punched in terms of political and monetary success). I think Fred punched his ticket as he was no doubt instructed to do. You can tell who the real members of the conspiracy are and they're usually NOT the folks who blindly defend the 2nd Amendment as Fred has done recently.
You want to get read into the whole plot? Just take a look at the book list on my FR home page. The books by William F. Jasper, James Perloff and G. Edward Griffin are the most critical. If you care enough to really READ.
Maybe not enough coffee yet, but I read the whole thread thinking 'campaign finance reform' CFR.
I admit I hadnt heard much about these 'clubs' and think you might get some hits with a well linked post and maybe open some other eyes about how the royalty of the world works [ its all about $$$=power] and advertising to the masses.
Hopefully we have a covert operator working inside the club which would do the right thing and ignore the pure lure of power. Kinda the way politicians used to be, serving the people instead of ruling...
Great article. Great man.
While the overwhelming number of members are academics, like almost all think tanks, there are "opposing viewpoint" members as well.
Something to consider and worth further study if need be. Jeane Kirkpatrick was a member and there was even a research chair established in her name at the CFR.
Kirkpatrick was Reagan's UN ambassador and a trusted ally in the fight against communism. She was no globalist.
Neither is CFR member John Bolton...
If you are having trouble hearing them, it is because they are dead, being killed by a few smelly rag heads.
But I have been assured that they said
Its because I don’t have a Winchester Model 97 yet.
Or, what I REALLY want, a repro Model 87 lever action shotgun in 12 gauge.
Or a shootable Mauser C96 or reprod, preferably in .45 (the Chinese a bunch of these...) or 9mm. (I’d LOVE to show at IPSC with one...)
Or a Springfield XD compact in .40 or .45.
Or a S&W Schofield (or Italian Repro).
Ya get the idea? I may have more guns than I need, but I’ll NEVER have as many as I want...
The RKBA is at the top of my requirements for a candidate. All other freedoms come from the fact that the populace, if they have the guts, can fight back. This is why Rudy will NEVER get my vote.
It may be the most important issue for me as well, although there are others.
Sorry, Ron Paul is scratched off my list of consideration, I don’t even read his positions. He’s screwed himself with me with his anti-war position, even if he’s right on this issue.
(s)but but but the futures traders at intratrad are tanking the futures market comodity shares for Thompson! hee is doooooooooooooooooooooooomed!!!! AND dick moris hates Thomspon!!! AND Huckabee has a Giutar!!!! AND Giuliani was mayor on 9/11 and Hillary was senator on 9/11....DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!! (/s)
could not help myself. Just waiting for the one issue attackers to demand we focus on one issue of Hillary Clinton (aka Rudy Giuliani)
Oh and btw since you're into pictures here are some people who would say worry about your own government
People lined up for the gas chambers at Auschwitz
That’s right. Bush IS Hitler! Thanks for clearing that up, buddy.
Which Book you want me to pull back off my bookshelf?
How about Rayfield's book on Stalin?
Would you like for me to see if I can dig up my History Honors paper on Nazism's impact on German Culture? OUR GOVERNEMT BET THOSE GUYS...
Why, because WE ARE NOT THEM.
You bunker types worrying about "the man" and trying to get legal drugs and all that crap make me sick. Your patronizing idiocy is entertaining at best.
Wake up and smell the 21st century.
Those "Smelly Ragheads" are after some real weapons and want us dead. No one is listening to your conversation or cares unless you have some connection to the "ragheads".
Damn, just damn...
A. I'm not your "buddy" I try not to be buddies wih jackasses. And B. Show me where I said that.
Oh, I get it. The real threat is Nazi Germany, not our own government. Thanks for clearing that up, pal.
And if those "smelly rag heads" (wonderfully racist of you (FOG), by the way) manage to get their hands on a nuclear device, as their obvious intention is to do?
Don’t worry.. we won’t care because the US government will have turned us all into lampshades by then.
No pork obviously...
Damn, just damn...
Touche. But they are still bigoted.
The German people were not them either. It only took a few nefarious leaders to make what happened there. In a country where Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Presidency and Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house, how can you say that could never happen here (regardless of your feelings about Ron Paul or the comparative threat posed by the Islamists)?
OUR GOVERNEMT BET THOSE GUYS... Why, because WE ARE NOT THEM.
We "bet" (sic) those guys in the '40s; however, the USA has been racing down the slope to socialism ever since. Gun control, wealth redistribution, estate tax, all right from the Marxist handbook Komrade. And if you're too blind to see it, then you're the one who needs to wake up and look at the 21st century.
Your patronizing idiocy is entertaining at best.
Your pompous and militant ignorance is not in the least entertaining - just a sad commentary on the lack of thought in the general populace.
I freely admit to being prejudiced against islamic terrorists - so what?
The Council on Foreign Relations has all kinds of folks in it; those considered liberals and those who are conservatives. All kinds of ideas are presented by its members, and from what I can tell, there is no consensus among them about any sort of 'global government', though I'm sure there are some members who would approve of such a thing.