Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Despite his “apology,” should the Illinois State Rifle Association’s Richard Pearson resign for his comments about the Newtown parents? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

surveys & polls

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:11 pm

Comments

I don’t think he should resign. I think his comments are very representative of the views of his “27,000″ members.

With so few members, I still can’t believe they have so much influence.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:14 pm
No. He is right. Insensitive but right. Look at all the garbage the anti-gun people call pro-gun people.

Comment by RSW Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Only members of a non-public agency/advocacy group should comment on whether its head should remain.

Comment by Darienite Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Freedom of Speech?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:18 pm
===Freedom of Speech?===

Nobody’s asking that he be imprisoned. Learn something, man.

With all freedom comes responsibilities.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:20 pm
I voted “no,” but it’s not my call. It’s a free country.

He answers to his membership. And I assume they respond to the regular ISRA missives. That’s why they are written the way that they are.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:20 pm
He’s certainly not doing the organization any favors. I don’t know if that means I want him to resign or not.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:23 pm
I sure would hate for the public’s disgust with the ISRA’s public bashing the Newtown parents to compromise Pearson’s effectiveness in Springfield…

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:24 pm
Yes, but not just for this. The organization under his leadership consistently makes outrageous statements that scare the heck out of moderates.

He’s doing a terrible job for his cause.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:28 pm
Yes he should. No he won’t. You have to be lacking a certain “shame” gene to send out that kind of idiocy.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:30 pm
No, he should resign due to, what I find to be, more offensive press releases issued in the past.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:31 pm
I voted yes, a cause is no excuse to be insensitive toward others and I am tired of statements first then back tract and apologize. It appears we have turned into a nation of malcontents who talk but have forgotten how to listen.

Comment by Ggal Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:31 pm
Voted “No”…

If the group feels the need to make an example of him, dock his pay, “suspend” him from being around the activities of the Capitol, anything for the Organization itself get ahead of this, but …

Resign?

That is an orgainzational call based on what they are gonig to feel is intent/actual and how as an organization they feel about the apology.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:32 pm
That association and its cause would engender much needed legislative and public goodwill if that guy is ousted. Not that I care for either, but it would be a good move for ISRA to be rid of him. That being said, it aint gonna happen.

Comment by phocion Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Rich

Question do you know if he penned the original piece? Usually he signs off on his e-mails. Whoever wrote the original piece should be fired and anyone who was the editor of that piece should be fired. If Pearson is either than ya he should resign.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:36 pm
I’m an NRA member and as pro-gun as they come.

But that statement was idiotic. Same with most of their email blasts.

There’s a smart, thoughtful and data-driven approach that can be taken in support of gun rights. This is far from it.

Comment by Anon Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:37 pm
No, there’s no need to replace the paranoid front of his organization.
He’s digging his own grave, why stop now?.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:41 pm
he should go. didn’t have to go there, but he did, and now the org looks the worse for it. if he can’t see that that was a lose-lose move, get someone with more tact.

Comment by Happy Returns Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:43 pm
No. In poor taste or politically incorrect? Absolutely. Wrong? Not really. While incensitive, what he said is absolutely true. And the more people complain about it, the more money and members will flow to the group.

Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:48 pm
No more credibility.

Comment by NW Illinois Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:49 pm
I voted yes but maybe shouldn’t have, after reading some of the comments here (good points).

My car is registered. I have all of the requirements the goverment imposes on people who want to drive cars. I don’t hate the government or the car registration proponents because of it. The government is not coming to take my car away from me.

These people forget that many NRA members, possibly even a strong majority, support expanding background checks. Who are these people raging at? They don’t speak for me, that’s for sure.

In fairness, I joined the ISRA after the Chicago handgun ban was overturned. I was briefly a member. I won’t be joining it again unless it disavows and stops promoting extremist attitudes.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 2:57 pm
I’m an ISRA member, and I’d like to see him resign. Too much rhetoric and not enough substance in the debate. I’d also like to see Wayne LaPierre sent packing.

Comment by elginkevin Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:01 pm
Speaking of whack job comments here is a little missive from last month.

SPECIAL ALERT - FRIDAY QUICK QUIP
The True Believers

This is the second of three installments discussing who the gun controllers are, and how gun owners should deal with them. Last week, we discussed “low information types” - those individuals who can’t be bothered developing their own opinions so they adopt whatever position is spoon-fed to them by the media. This week, we’ll discuss the second category of gun controllers - the “true believers.”

The “true believer” category consists of individuals who have an unwavering belief that the Second Amendment must be obliterated and that civilians must be disarmed. What makes true believers troublesome is that they are committed to that end, and are near-obsessive about attaining it. On the plus side, the true believers usually don’t have the stomach for a fight with us. So, rather than confront us directly, they rely on the subjects of next week’s installment - political hacks - to do their dirty work for them.

For the sake of this discussion, the category of “true believers” may be further broken down into three subcategories: pacifists; victims of violence; and political haters. Each of these subcategories attracts a particular type of person and each plays a distinct role in the gun controllers’ campaign to take your guns away.

Because of religious or philosophical convictions, pacifists do not believe that individuals should commit acts of violence against others - including self defense. Pacifists believe that it’s better to suffer violence than to inflict it. Of course, pacifists are naturally anti-gun because they view firearms as tools of violence.

Standing alone, pacifists don’t pose a major threat to the right to keep and bear arms as their message of “turning the other cheek” is too bland for the general public to consume. However, pacifists play a significant role behind the scenes where they provide support to the activities of more aggressive components of the gun control movement.

Arguing gun rights with a pacifist is a waste of time. Even if they do engage you, they will not waver from their rejection of all forms of violence. Pacifists cannot be won over.

The second subcategory of gun control’s true believers can be described generally as victims of violence. This subcategory encompasses a wide range of persons to include families of murder victims as well as first hand survivors of violence. Whereas the vast majority of victims of violence do their best to recover and get on with their lives, there is a minority who allow their grief to turn into seething bitterness. Rather than make a positive contribution to prevent future violence, they embark on divisive, hate-filled campaigns against lawful firearm owners.

These victims of violence are ideal advocates for the abolishment of private firearm ownership. On the surface, they are vulnerable and weepy-eyed. But, below the surface, they are boiling over with hatred for people who own guns. That deep hatred fuels their drive to do whatever it takes to punish lawful gun owners.

These victims of violence are all about payback, and the payback they seek won’t be meted out to the criminals by whom they were victimized. No, the objects of their ire are the tens of millions of hunters, sportsmen and target shooters who responsibly exercise their right to keep and bear arms. These victims of violence claim that their campaign for domestic disarmament has the best interests of the public at heart. Chances are, these people couldn’t care less if others suffer the same fate as theirs. In fact, additional acts of violence only serve to justify their calls for the abolishment of private firearm ownership.

These people love the limelight. That is why they reside in the top positions in the Illinois gun control movement. That is why they take every opportunity to get in front of the cameras, tell their stories, and then mercilessly bash law-abiding firearm owners.

The most effective way to deal with these people is to meet them head-on. When they have a public meeting, the audience needs to be flooded with firearm owners. When they have a media event, the media needs to see more gun guys than anti-gunners. We need to confront them at every turn and vigorously defend the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Like pacifists, debating these people is pointless. They have dedicated their lives to destroying the 2nd Amendment. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be educated.

The third subcategory of true believers consists of the political haters - so called “progressives” who are obsessed with eliminating from society all traces of social conservatism. The political haters view firearm ownership as being the most cohesive component of the socially conservative bloc. Thus, they feel that by attacking the right to keep and bear arms, they will weaken the conservative movement. These people target low-information types with their anti-gun message.

The political haters are dispersed throughout society. They are your children’s teachers, the clergy; entertainers and, of course, politicians. Again, these are not people who may be reasoned with. They are driven to crush their political opponents.

The best way to deal with the political haters is to deny them a platform to spew their hatred of the Constitution. Their lies and distortions about firearm ownership must be cut off before they may influence low-information types.

In a nutshell, the true believers hate firearms and the people who own them. They provide plenty of fodder for next week’s Quick Quip subjects - political hacks - to do the dirty work of banning firearms. These people can be trusted to do only one thing. That is, they will work tirelessly to take your guns away from you. Do not waste your time trying to reason with them. Save your energy for efforts to suppress them.

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:09 pm
Yes. And i am a Member. I do not believe he properly advances the goals of the Organization due to this as well as other over the top commentary, that turns more people away than it brings to the ISRA. Two of the main duties of his position is to work to increase mebership as well as increase legislative support. He is not effective at either.

Comment by SO IL M Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:13 pm
No because I don’t think it would improve the civility or tenor of debate for this issue. It’d just give the fringe elements the chance to play victim and they wouldn’t bother to learn anything from it.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:18 pm
I would think that gun control proponents would vote no. Keeping someone around who would put out such an offensive statement in an official press release only helps their cause in the long run.

Comment by Bluefish Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:19 pm
Statements like that from gun advocacy groups only go to reinforce, once again, that we live in a “gun culture” society. How is it that the pro-gun forces have so little empathy for the families of slain children that they put their love of guns and bullets above their compassion for their fellow man?

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, will change the gun culture in which we live. In fact, the myriad examples of this gun culture run amok (Sandy Hook, Aurora AMC theatre, Gabby Giffords) only serve to tighten this gun culture’s misguided belief that this debate is about them, as individuals, and not about the victims of senseless violence.

Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:20 pm
Voted “No”.
To paraphrase Dean Wormer, ‘insensitive, ignorant and stupid is no way for the head of any organization to go through life,’ but is is up to the membership and those opinions the membership cares about to determine if he should stay or go. I fall into neither camp.

Comment by Tommydanger Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:23 pm
Yes. He is wrong. Insensitive and wrong. Look at all the garbage the pro-gun people call anti-gun people.

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:24 pm
=== Look at all the garbage the pro-gun people call anti-gun people. ===

There is a lot of garbage the anti-gun people call the pro-gun people.

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:27 pm
=== I don’t think he should resign. I think his comments are very representative of the views of his “27,000″ members. With so few members, I still can’t believe they have so much influence. ===

27,000 members is not “so few” — that is actually a large number for a statewide advocacy group. Not to mention the thousands of citizens that support ISRA’s positions, read their emails, etc. but don’t actually write an annual check to the group.

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Unfortunately this has become the standard “apology” in our society no matter who is apologizing.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:36 pm
No. I may not like his statement, but I think his performance should be judged by the membership. If the majority think he’s doing a good job of representing the group’s views to policymakers and the public, so be it.

Comment by Going nuclear Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:39 pm
I voted YES. He is one of the reasons why I don’t join….

Comment by PM31 Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:41 pm
I voted no. A forced resignation would create another news cycle on his statement and would provide more fodder for the ISRA base.

Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:43 pm
You would think at some point a state association learns the verbiage lessons on how to speak in public. It’s one thing to play the ‘my way or highway’ game. It is quite another to build a consensus when topics are hot. That balance between being a PC shill vs. helping your cause gain some respect from groups who may not like you takes real skill and time. It also gets quickly wrecked/stereotyped with poorly chosen words. Don’t these guys have an in house political guru who reviews their material?

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:47 pm
voted no, insensitive statement concured, but Rich burns shoe leather,gas etc. and I’m not sure but I kinda doubt he’s one of the top paid lobsters on the rail. My guess is he has zero time he’s not at someones call. To be held accountable by losing a “job” is for others to judge, is he guilty of maybe being “blunt” on his issue, seems clear from past and present statements affirmitive! I’m sure we’ve all struggled with an idea a concept a vision and a purpose, and I guess many of us have stuck our collective feet in our mouths or our a#*@s and if some of you deny it thats ok. I really give Rich and Todd a lot of credit, its a very “hot topic” now and also credit to anyone passionate about the foundation of this great nation, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution… what makes us great is we “all” have made mistakes, hopefully apoligies are accepted, Rich maybe reigns it in a little(hopefully), and the end result is we still love our country for the ability to regress and progress at the same time !!! and yes I’m a proud Life Member of ISRA and a Benefactor Member of the NRA … tic tock June 9 is just around the corner…..

Comment by railrat Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Gotta love how the 2a Whack Jobs “defending” Pearson resort to comments made by gun safety advocates as if there is something comparable
Fire,Aim,Ready!

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:51 pm
No,he is a good leader,just a littie over zealous.I go with RSW.

Comment by reflector Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:54 pm
No. This is much ado about nothing and I’m not a member and think this gun fight is really everything that’s wrong in american politics. You talk to gun owners/lovers they say we want guys to have guns and bad guys not to have guns and no one to get killed. You talk to anti gun folks they say the same thing. Then we get the special interest groups and media and we get the unnecessary theatrics.

Comment by shore Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:56 pm
I voted no. We don’t even know who penned the release. I think gun owners in general, are just as good of people as those who abhor the thought of owning a gun. I think your rank and file NRA & ISRA members are just as saddened by the tragic loss of innocent children as anyone else. I thought the release was poorly written and didn’t portray accurately what the author intended to convey, at least that’s what I suspect. It’s not that uncommon for something like that to common.

Comment by Dude Abides Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 3:58 pm
No. While totally inappropriate, his comments reflected the view of the organization’s membership. They perfectly demonstrated why this group should be viewed by elected officials as representing only a fringe element.

Comment by Draznnl Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:00 pm
I voted yes, but now am second-guessing. What an insensitive thing (or bunch of things) to say, and if I’m that organization, I would want to grow it, not shrink it, right? Then again, I come from gun culture on all sides of my family, am a multi-gun owner, FOID card holder, enthusiastic target shooter, and I wouldn’t join that group if you paid me. So, who cares? Keep him, fire him, make him shut up.

Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:13 pm
“We regret that some have construed our remarks as being insensitive…”

He’s not sorry for what was said….rather he regrets that some are insenstive.

He won’t resign…but he’s not doing his cause any good.

Comment by Deep South Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:14 pm
I voted no simply because almost every time the pro-gun groups replace a crazy leader, they find someone even more crazy to fill the role. On the national level, I thought President David Keene was nuts. But then they choose the “Northern Aggression” guy as his successor.

Comment by Nick Kruse Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:16 pm
===The Newton parents who are anti-gun zealots have inserted themselves in a public debate with a holier than thou attitude.===

Come on Downstate, raise yourself up and try some articulation. You are talking about parents of murdered children. Your rhetoric is over-the-top.

Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:16 pm
he’s a drag to that side of the issue.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:30 pm
==I’m personally sick of seeing them be trotted out as props==

They are not puppets “trotted” out as props. They seriously wanted to become the public face behind the effort to reduce gun violence, as did Gabby Giffords.

How about we stop bashing the victims and family members forced to relive their horrible deaths every single minute of their lives?

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:43 pm
Downstate Illinois, you are a knuckle dragger of epic proportion. Shame on you. That’s all I can really say.

Comment by Nosmo King Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:43 pm
I am not an ISRA member… But I am a gun owner. He offended victims families…intentionally or unintentionally… I don’t care who you are…That’s wrong… Period. Resign and provide a genuine apology… To the victims families and to your own organization.

Comment by Albert.... Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:58 pm
Voted no..up to his organization to decide how embarassing his comment is/was to their organization. I am prgun but find his comments insensitive and out of line. If I had a vote to cast within the organization it would be for him to go.

Comment by LisleMike Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 4:59 pm
Why? Who cares? That’s what NRA and their affiliates do. They’re gun lobbyists masquerading as right wing paranoiacs. This is no worse than any other demagoguery they do on current events.

I prefer honest revolting insanity to diplomatic lies. He should stay.

Comment by Will Caskey Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 5:55 pm
He is entitled to a fair and honest political disagreement with victims families, but he expressed it in the least effective way possible.

I’d fire him for the apology. He shouldn’t have apologized if he wasn’t feeling it. And what he came up with made the ISRA look bad and inflamed the ire of everyone else.

Enough apologies.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/03/coping-apology-fatigue/50206/

Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 5:58 pm
I said no too. Wordslinger got it right and others have said it better than I can. If ISRA really has 27,000 dues paying members, then Pearson is doing something right.

Of course, the very fact that 27,000 Illinoisans responds to fund raising appeals like this is what I find most objectionable. But they’re selling a lot of guns these days, so I don’t think the people who pay Pearson his salary are complaining much.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 6:59 pm
I voted no for 2 reasons.
1. Because I don’t disagree with what he said, although it could have been said better.
And at the risk of red letter permanent banishment! (I’m still trying to figure out what sock puppetry is)
2. Because I get tired of the same people on here, saying the same things every time any gun rights discussion comes up. I don’t feel guilty for being a gun owner and I don’t care if you don’t like guns or don’t want them, as long as you don’t interfere with my freedoms. If you can show me legislation that would actually prevent a newtown tragedy, I would consider supporting it. I’m not unsympathetic or unreasonable, but we might not agree on what reasonable is.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:24 pm
I voted no, Rich is a solid leader. Mayor Daley has said crazy things in the past about gun control, nobody called for him o lose his job. I am a proud member of the ISRA.

Comment by 41STWardIUOE Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:26 pm
I’m tired of the gun nuts saying that people who disagree with them hate guns and gun owners. They miss the point entirely.

I don’t hate gun owners. I AM a gun owner who likes his guns. I just think the gun nuts are wrong. Their public policy lobbying is bad for our society.

Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:35 pm
I wonder if Mr. Pearson is sophisticated enough to appreciate that his first amendment rights are just as important as the 2nd amendment rights.
mind blowing moment.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:54 pm
Oh, and I want Pearson to resign about as much as the Illinois GOP wants Quinn to resign. He’s the best thing gun control has going for it.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:55 pm
Yes. Society works best with civil discourse. Mr. Pearson doesn’t practice it.

Comment by Smitty Irving Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 7:55 pm
He won’t, but he should. And I believe fully in gun ownership, with reasonable restrictions. But what he said was not reasonable and thoroughly heartless toward those child VICtims, let alone their Parents and loved ones. Rather, it was appalling, even sickening…the guy should be ashamed but you can be sure he’s not. Resign dude–but you probably won’t ‘cuz you’re obviously too cocky about your stubborn, even blind viewpoint…!

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 8:22 pm
Yes, most definitely. Insulting, offensive, sickening, heartless (have I made my feelings known yet?)–to not only the child VICtims, but obviously toward the suffering, grieving Parents as well. Resign dude–but he almost definitely will not because he’s practically blinded by the overly stubborn views he’s so beholden to. And but for reasonable restrictions, I’m a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment and since childhood have been both an avid Outdoorsman and hunter…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 8:32 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=98CWbGG2DJ0

This comedy routine from the UK explains it for you.

Quote: “It is impossible for me to have any objectivity at all.”

Comment by CarrollCounty Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 8:37 pm
===If you can show me legislation that would actually prevent a newtown tragedy, I would consider supporting it.===

The Newtown shooting already happened. The only thing that “would actually prevent a Newtown tragedy” is a time machine. The purpose of basic gun safety reforms (such as background checks) is to prevent future attacks. Just because the Newtown shooter got his gun from his mom and not a gun show, doesn’t mean the next school shooter won’t try to get theirs at a gun show.

Comment by Nick Kruse Thursday, May 9, 13 @ 9:13 pm
Pretty lame Nick. Background checks would not necessarily prevent a future Newtown type of tragedy. I didn’t think I would have to point out the obvious past v future thing.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Friday, May 10, 13 @ 12:04 am
I am pro gun rights, but these clowns called our President “an animal” and now this. I don’t care if he resigns or not, but if our side on this issue doesn’t get some smarter representatives we are going to lose our Second Amendment rights.

Comment by wishbone Friday, May 10, 13 @ 12:36 am
Tequila,

I was just pointing out how silly it is for politicians to focus on trying to change the outcome of a specific past event. You say “Background checks would not necessarily prevent a future Newtown type of tragedy.” That means even you acknowledge that there is a small but possible chance that it would change the outcome. And if you have an idea other than background checks, I’m all ears. I just used that because it has been in the news recently.

Comment by Nick Kruse Friday, May 10, 13 @ 7:24 am
No he should not resign because he has a right to say what he feels we all are sad about Newton but we should not be held accountable for the actions of sick person

Comment by crunch Friday, May 10, 13 @ 8:29 am