State Rep. Thompson: Gun rights backers shouldn’t ‘take steps backward’

Advocate staff photo by BILL FEIG -- State Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Bossier City, speaks Monday at the Baton Rouge Press Club about gun rights and his new statewide campaign called 'Defend Louisiana,' which he says is designed to defend gun ownership in the state.

A north Louisiana legislator who is a staunch advocate of gun ownership rights said Monday that now is the time for supporters of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to “draw a line in the sand” amid renewed gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.

“We can’t take steps backward,” state Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Bossier City, told a Baton Rouge Press Club luncheon audience.

Thompson is the founder of “Defend Louisiana,” a new statewide campaign to defend gun ownership rights.

The initiative was launched in the wake of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 students and six teachers.

Thompson’s appearance at the Press Club came two weeks after Baton Rouge lawyer Lewis Unglesby addressed the same group and said assault weapons should be banned because they are dangerous and meant only to kill.

“To be for these weapons is stupid,” Unglesby told the group Feb. 4.

When asked about Unglesby’s remarks, Thompson replied, “He can keep his comments; I’m going to keep my guns.”

Thompson’s statewide campaign asks supporters to sign a pledge to “defend the right for law-abiding citizens to protect their families” and “work against attempts to restrict my right to keep and bear arms.”

The campaign held just one event so far, in north Louisiana, but already some 3,000 people have signed the pledge, he said.

“We can’t allow knee-jerk reactions criminalizing law-abiding citizens,” Thompson said.

He also is co-sponsor of legislation, to be considered in the regular session that opens April 8, that proposes to ban state enforcement of any new federal restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.

The bill, by state Rep. Jim Morris, R-Oil City, was prefiled last month.

The Sandy Hook massacre sparked renewed gun control efforts by President Barack Obama. Among the potential federal initiatives are a ban on assault weapons and creation of a better national database to ensure that felons and the mentally ill cannot purchase guns.

Thompson said there must be “meaningful debate” about any proposed new federal gun restrictions, saying the mere fact that something emerges from Washington, D.C., “doesn’t mean it’s constitutional.”

“We’re not much for having things crammed down our throats from D.C.,” he said.

Thompson also said he does not favor limiting the number of bullets in a gun magazine.

“How many bullets do I want? One more than I need,” he said.

Thompson said he also supports having armed people in schools, and giving educators the ability to “take out” an armed threat.

Comments

1) Comment by nimby? - 19/02/2013

those who respect , obey the law will suffer at the hands who don't . the majority of gun owners in the U.S. don't belong to the NRA , they are not guntottin rednecks , right wing gun nuts or fox news zombies , and don't appreciate being referred to as such . they are concerned parents , grandparents . they play by the rules , secure their weapons , teach their children proper gun safety and care .

2) Comment by swinham - 19/02/2013

I hope, in addition to the votes those who always have a knee-jerk reaction to even the most modest attempts at gun control, Mr. Thompson is getting some kind of financial support from the gun dealers who can't keep enough assault weapons on hand to supply the demand caused by his and others' tilting at windmills in the name of protecting the American way.

3) Comment by postscript56 - 19/02/2013

find OUT - not find our. Also the right to free speech does not include the right to endanger others, slander someone, or deliberately deceive for profit. The right to worship does not include the right to practice human sacrifice or abuse children. Why is it only the Second Amendment that can never be clarified further?

4) Comment by postscript56 - 19/02/2013

26 people are murdered by a guy with a gun but to talk about taking action on guns is a "knee-jerk reaction." That's why I oppose the gun nuts. For the record I own two shotguns and a rifle I use for hunting. I can easily defend both my person and my home with any of them. Doubters are welcome to find our first hand. The belief that the Second Amendment affirms the Divine Right to own and use any gun that has ever been or ever will be made and can never be defined/limited/restricted in any way is dangerous and just plain ignorant.

5) Comment by Whatnow - 18/02/2013

Unglesby's comments offended me. That was hate speech. Massacres happen in city's like Detroit and Chicago every day, just not all in one place. You never hear the politician's talking about banning criminals guns or controlling the crime in those cities. They just want to turn law-abiding citizens who follow the laws into criminals. They want to make new laws and they can't even enforce the ones we have now. How many criminals do you think will register their guns, put them in a locked safe, or teach their children gun laws and safety? Law abiding citizens aren't the ones stealing guns, killing each other everyday in their neighborhoods and gang warfare. They aren't the ones killing each other over drugs and drug money. Not all gun owners are basket cases that lose it. Enforce the laws we have now and put the blame for the everyday atrocities where they belong. Soon the economy will be so bad that they won't be satisfied to stay in their neighborhoods, thus the semi-automatics. You don't see it coming? That's because the MSM doesn't report anything that supports self defense episodes. They just report the President's agenda and can't stop glorifying him.

6) Comment by Buck - 18/02/2013

Do tell, if this is the firearms industry position as proposed by Rep. Thompson, you would think it would be a slam dunk to counter it's arguments, but sadly we must remember that this will go before the Louisiana Legislature. Years ago when I first heard of Mr. Duke's rants I thought, surely my fellow citizens would deny him any creditability. You may recall he was nearly our Governor. Hopefully Thompson quotes had a little more substance then that reported in the article. If not it raises some concerns. Are our legal education institutions in need of some serious review, or is our governmental dysfunction such that it's basic precepts are being impacted by an industry who's main marketing plan is based on maintaing a fear driven customer base? I'm often reminded of Pres. Eisenhower parting words. Thanks jedleland for your post re. Dr. Michaelson. Now if we could simply take his facts and put them in a content that our esteemed policy makers could understand. But silly me, I propose that maybe a better approach is to share his perspective with the general public. Again I go back to the Duke time and note that only 10% of the community was totally acceptance of his message. (Interesting that 10% is also the same that represents the addictive population.) It was when the economic forces realized his election would have a negative effect, that they engaged in the campaign. In the case of firearms, I suggest that when the public health providers begin to point out the facts about having another dangerous product in the home and the economic implications, there will be a public shift in the perception of firearms in our society.

7) Comment by SouthernAttorney - 18/02/2013

I think you misinterpret Warp7's assertion, but we can agree to disagree. Maybe he can clarify at a later time. But I do like your proposal of taxing out of state purchasers to support education and other worthy causes. That way the next generation will have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the legislation is in the best interest of the state or deserves repeal. We shouldn't decide for them. We can only elect legislators to represent us in the hopes that they do what we feel is best for our generation.

8) Comment by HRoark - 18/02/2013

SouthernAttorney, Warp7 didn't assert that it was unconstitutional. He pointed out that federal law constitutionally trumps state law, which you agreed with. The point is that proposing to ban enforcement of a federal assault weapon ban is an idiotic idea. Will semiautomatic weapons only be available to registered citizens of Louisiana, or will Louisiana become the arms dealer for the mid- south? If the latter, I hope Jindal will attach a big tax on out of state purchasers to support education so the next generation will have the sense to repeal the legislation.

9) Comment by SouthernAttorney - 18/02/2013

My point was that his proposal to ban enforcement of federal gun regulations does not violate the Constitution and the Warp7's assertion that it would be unconstitutional was incorrect.

10) Comment by HRoark - 18/02/2013

Southern Attorney, a little research will not prevent Mr. Thompson from being an idiot, so what's your point?

11) Comment by SouthernAttorney - 18/02/2013

@Warp7: Your statement is one of ignorance. You are correct that the Constitution and the laws of the US government are the supreme law of the land. Where you lack understanding or information is that the Supreme Court has held that local and state governments are not required to enforce federal laws. For example, possession of pot is unlawful in the entirety of the US under federal law, but states like California and Colorado have decriminalized its possession and thereby chosen not to enforce the federal law. They did not "legalize" pot. For pot is still illegal in those states under federal law, which, as you are well aware, "trumps" state law, and a federal agent could arrest anyone found in possession of pot in those states. Its that those states as a separate sovereign have chosen not to do so. So before you call someone an idiot, do a little research.

12) Comment by HRoark - 18/02/2013

This guy's stupidity is only exceeded by the size of his chins. Can't wait until semi automatic weapon stores start springing up at every Louisiana border crossing. Maybe we can out gun Texas!

13) Comment by Warp7 - 18/02/2013

Thompson just showed how much of an idiot he really is. Does he realize that federal law trumps state law and that it is written in the US Constitution. Once again we have someone, and this time an idiot representative crying that our constitutional rights are being taken away. Get real and stop living in a world of hate and anger that the right is so entrenched in right now. It is sad that the Advocate gave space to this idiot!

14) Comment by jedleland - 18/02/2013

Whoa hold on there. this over-edumacated panty waste might be on to something. no sooner does he write "A neurotic person is prone to being negative, defensive, fearful, anxious, and reactionary." than, as if on cue, marchiafava logs on. slow down there mark, dont be making any veiled or idle threats. you remember what happened last time you started making threats, dont you? we do. anyway, youre just too old now.

15) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 18/02/2013

The 2nd amendment is to enable the citizenry to shoot tyrants. Judging by current events, we very well may witness such history in our lifetime.

16) Comment by jedleland - 18/02/2013

now dont go hassling me cause of what he wrote. peter michaelson pfft!

17) Comment by jedleland - 18/02/2013

Darn right! some egghead pencil-neck northern girly-man psychosomanalimist had a go at gun owners online. his online bio states that he hates america, jesus, and meat! here are his pinko two cents (that he got from the welfare): "We all agree about the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Perhaps we also need to look at some psychological issues influencing staunch defenders of gun rights. Many of these individuals are not paragons of mental health because two of their unrecognized emotional issues are triggering a double-barreled blast of self-defeat. Before looking down these barrels, let us acknowledge our human temptation to become enthralled by objects such as guns. We love our playthings such as cars and boats. Collectors of fancy guns, coins, stamps, antiques, model trains, and so on. This interest or fascination can be harmless enough and a source of considerable enjoyment. Yet psychological development is impeded when we use a possession such as a luxury car or expensive painting to provide status or fill an inner emptiness. Our enthusiasm for possessions can rise to the level of a fixation or obsession, at which point our lack of self-development causes us to lose perspective and sell short the richness of our essential self. Because guns are relatively inexpensive, they’re not usually purchased for status. Instead, they provide two psychological defenses—the double barrels of self-defeat—that make their ownership so desirable. One barrel discharges the illusion of safety and the other the illusion of power. Why do so many gun owners grasp at these illusions or inner defenses? Some Americans have a passion for handguns and assault weapons because these firearms compensate for inner fear. We generate this fear from within our psyche, based on unresolved inner conflicts. A lot of fear is produced, for instance, through our unconscious defensiveness vis-à-vis our inner critic. A lot of irrational fear is also left over from childhood. But people tend to believe their fear is reality-based, meaning that, in their minds, menace and genuine dangers do indeed lurk outside their door. They take the uncertainty of life and translate it emotionally into a parade of red flags. Such gun enthusiasts are unconsciously determined to validate their inner fears. Rather than resolve the inner conflict that produces their fears, they make them seem legitimate by emphasizing emotionally the dangers and menace that might exist in their towns, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Of course, some neighborhoods in America are dangerous places. It is possible that some people are safer carrying guns. My point is that unrecognized emotional issues make it more likely that people will be fearful and irrational in ways that are self-defeating. We know that having a gun does not guarantee survival and that expanding gun ownership, to the point where more and more people are packing heat, is socially and morally regressive. We’re often reluctant to let go of inner fears because they’re such a big part of our sense of self. We won’t recognize ourselves without them. We haven’t yet achieved the level of inner freedom that produces fearlessness. The more we try to justify our fears by “seeing” external dangers, the further we slip into the irrationality and self-defeat that make a gun feel like a necessary instrument of safety. Many gun advocates rally around the Second Amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms, thereby affording protection against home intruders, foreign invasion, and usurpation by rulers. Home “intruders” are often family members or relatives shot by mistake in panic. A foreign “invasion” of undocumented immigrants has already occurred, and guns had no place in that occurrence. In the face of government tyranny, guns would likely be self-defeating. Our intelligence and freedom of expression are much stronger weapons. On the domestic front, the heroes of democracy fight with their wits and their tongue (or typing fingers). Weak people, however, do not necessarily feel or practice the power of intelligence. They are too deeply enmeshed in impressions of being menaced and overwhelmed by malice or evil to be fully rational. These excessively passive impressions cause them to interpret their safety through the extremes of brute force. Let’s look down the second barrel of the gun craze, which is the illusion of power that guns conjure up. When we’re inwardly weak, meaning filled with self-doubt and inner conflict, we’re often desperate to produce an appearance or impression of aggression or power. A man who beats his wife or children is desperate to feel power to cover up or deny his profound inner weakness, namely his abandonment of all that is good and worthy in himself. A woman who constantly berates her husband feels some second-rate sense of power, but underneath she may feel trapped in her relationship and blame her husband when she herself is entangled in a helpless sense of not being able to improve her circumstances. A person failing in life due to neurotic resignation or incompetence can feel that his or her angry complaints and claims of injustice are expressions of strength or aggression. The weaker a person, the more likely he or she can believe in guns as true expressions of power and instruments of justice. Many individuals cling to that illusion to protect their self-image and to avoid recognizing the extent of their neurosis. Guns don’t represent true power. If America were taken over by an immoral force—a financial elite, for instance, that bought off and corrupted our politicians—gun enthusiasts would be standing around casually, blithely ignorant of non-violent dangers, fondling their weapons only for the defense of their self-image. This nation’s preoccupation with guns is not so much fear-based as passivity-based. We don’t connect well enough with our better self and the higher values of integrity, courage, wisdom, and compassion. On an inner level, many people allow their inner critic to be the master of their personality and to pass judgment on their worthiness. Inwardly, they’re emotionally weak and defensive, familiar with feeling helpless and overwhelmed, yet desperate to exhibit some pretense of assurance and power. This is neurosis, not mental illness. A neurotic person is prone to being negative, defensive, fearful, anxious, and reactionary. Too many gun advocates are seeing the world through their neurosis. In many families, it’s often the most dysfunctional or neurotic individuals who set the tone for the family and hold sway over it. Only determined intervention by healthier members of the family can save the situation. The American family needs our intervention in many areas of national life, beginning with the enactment and enforcement of wise gun regulation." Peter Michaelson is a psychotherapist and author in Plymouth, MI.