1
   

Conservatives against Fred Thompson

 
 
92b16vx
 
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 11:18 am
Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record ? Conservatives Against Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson?s Anti-Gun Senate Record
The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily verified. Summary:

1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )

On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing ?roving wiretaps? allowing government officials to wiretap one?s home if a person under investigation visits the home ? even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct ?fishing expeditions? and secure one?s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the ?Randy Weaver entrapment provision? which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

2. Anti-gun terror bill ? final passage

On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an ?anti-hunter? rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use ?secret evidence? against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.

3. Taggants in gunpowder

On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment ? which Thompson voted for? would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.

4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban

On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home ? ?offenses? as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.

5. Free Speech restrictions

On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an ?Incumbent Protection Bill? (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA?s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.

6. Smith ?Anti-Brady? Amendment

On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an ?Anti-Brady? amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the ?immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.? Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney?s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.

7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment

On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.

8. Anti-gun Surgeon General

Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.

9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill

On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) ? a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.

10. Young adult gun ban

The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic ?assault weapon.? While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a ?semiautomatic assault weapon?? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the ?immediate and supervisory presence? of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents ?immediate? presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.

11. Adopting the ?Gun Control Lite? strategy

On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators ? including Thompson ? defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

12. McCain?s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)

By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)

This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.



A gungrabbing globalist, actor lobbyist in sheeps clothing. Don't be fooled. NOT a conservative.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,726 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 11:22 am
@92b16vx,
Thompson Exploited the American troops to Sell Identity Theft Insurance


Possible presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson is lending his voice to radio commercials for a company that says it fights identity thieves and that was co-founded by a man accused of taking money from consumer bank accounts without permission.

The one-minute commercials are airing across the country on behalf of Tempe, Ariz.-based LifeLock Inc., which said nearly 200,000 customers pay about $10 a month for services that include placing fraud alerts on their credit files.

LifeLock was co-founded in 2005 by Robert J. Maynard Jr., whom the Federal Trade Commission accused in 1996 of deceiving consumers with advertisements that suggested his credit-repair company could remove records of bankruptcies and delinquent payments.

????????????????????????

In Thompson?s commercials, the deep-voiced actor recounts a tale of military heroism in Iraq, then introduces himself and says LifeLock?s service can stop identity theft and is offered free to deployed members of the military.

?While our heroes are protecting us, we have a duty to protect them,? Thompson says in his familiar, folksy cadence.

?I urge you to contact LifeLock.?
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 12:57 pm
@92b16vx,
I see no reason whatsoever to get excited about Fred Thompson. None.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 01:05 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;34316 wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever to get excited about Fred Thompson. None.



:headbang: :headbang: :thumbup:
0 Replies
 
carryabigstick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 07:40 pm
@92b16vx,
People seem to like him though. The GOP base has to realize that without devine intervention he can't win the main election.
carryabigstick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 07:40 pm
@92b16vx,
P.S. That is why we should vote Ron Paul. He (in my opinion) has the best chance in the general election. Well, plus he is the best candidate.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 07:48 pm
@carryabigstick,
carryabigstick;34422 wrote:
People seem to like him though. The GOP base has to realize that without devine intervention he can't win the main election.


He has duped many with his "good ol' boy" BS. People forget he ACTS for a living, and is what else? A specal interest lobbyist.

Move along folks, no one to trust to fix America to see here.
carryabigstick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 08:01 pm
@92b16vx,
Oh I agree mate. People need to see that if they want a republican in office, it wont be one that is like the last. Bush isn't exactly popular right now and anyone on the Bush band wagon probably wont do so well.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 08:33 am
@carryabigstick,
carryabigstick;34423 wrote:
P.S. That is why we should vote Ron Paul. He (in my opinion) has the best chance in the general election. Well, plus he is the best candidate.

Best chance means you have to get into the general election to have a shot. IMO ronny has none.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 08:38 am
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;34424 wrote:
He has duped many with his "good ol' boy" BS. People forget he ACTS for a living, and is what else? A specal interest lobbyist.

Move along folks, no one to trust to fix America to see here.
I would say that is one thing Ron leads in, getting people duped. So do you know how Fred got into acting? Can you tell me it there are any lobbyists that are not special interest?

Dollars says Fred in and Rons out?
Freds not in yet and he still places higher then Ron?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 08:39 am
@carryabigstick,
carryabigstick;34431 wrote:
Oh I agree mate. People need to see that if they want a republican in office, it wont be one that is like the last. Bush isn't exactly popular right now and anyone on the Bush band wagon probably wont do so well.
They will do better then Ron Paul.
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 09:48 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;34454 wrote:
I would say that is one thing Ron leads in, getting people duped.


Hmmmm, um....no? Yea, that's it, no.

All you have to do is look at voting records versus rhetoric. You will see that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that has a consistant record of doing what he says.

But hey, let not let facts get in the way of ignorance when people can be good little lapdogs.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 09:53 am
@92b16vx,
Too bad you can't convert us huh? You can almost taste it. It's not your fault, it Rons.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 10:01 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;34476 wrote:
Too bad you can't convert us huh? You can almost taste it. It's not your fault, it Rons.


Not trying to "convert" anyone, just giving the information help open your eyes. If you want to keep them shut and get more of teh same, that's your problem.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 10:16 am
@92b16vx,
Sure.
0 Replies
 
Ghost Man
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:25 pm
@92b16vx,
I wouldn't vote for F. Thompson on a bet. I have no idea what all the excitement is surrounding him. I can only think it's because America watches to much TV.

Tancredo is getting my vote, period. If he's not on the ticket when the time comes, I'll write him in. I have to vote my conscience. No voting for this person just to vote against that person. I voting for who I want, period.
Crito
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:40 am
@92b16vx,
Rupert Murdoch likes Thompson and his vote is the only one that matters.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:45 am
@Crito,
Crito;35366 wrote:
Rupert Murdoch likes Thompson and his vote is the only one that matters.


Sad. Of course, I expect nothing more from a candidate that wants to continue selling America to the commies and other foreign interest.
0 Replies
 
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 08:47 am
@Ghost Man,
Ghost_Man;34861 wrote:
I wouldn't vote for F. Thompson on a bet. I have no idea what all the excitement is surrounding him. I can only think it's because America watches to much TV.

Tancredo is getting my vote, period. If he's not on the ticket when the time comes, I'll write him in. I have to vote my conscience. No voting for this person just to vote against that person. I voting for who I want, period.


If F.Thompson is against abortion, most of the Republican Christians will vote for him, and that is what all the excitement is about. The next president will be able to appoint two more surpream court judges, and that may very well end abortion here in America. That's what we Christians have been working for.
If Hillary becomes the President, the Islamics will have a real field day with us.
Bin laden will be laughting so much, we might actually be able to find him.
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 08:51 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;34316 wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever to get excited about Fred Thompson. None.


Well I don't get to excited about anyone, but I'm voting for Fred. Especially if he's against abortion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Conservatives against Fred Thompson
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 09:20:17