Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Credit Union (noun) – an essential financial cooperative
Next Post: Quinn sends “bus loads” of workers to Wisconsin
Posted in:
* From the Illinois State Rifle Association…
Whether you would like to believe it or not, the next several days will be very perilous ones for our Constitution and our very way of life. Never in recent history have we been faced with the choice of either re-electing or firing a president who holds such contempt for what this nation is all about. Sure, during our lifetimes we have seen liberal presidents elected and re-elected. However, those men had a vision for American greatness – just a different path to that greatness. The current president has a vision of American mediocrity, and his efforts the past four years have put us on the path to that end. Sadly, Obama’s vision of a second-class America is shared by half the population. The only way for us to preserve at least some remnants of the nation we came to love is to ensure that the nation’s patriots come out to vote. At the same time, we will be forced to rely on the hallmark laziness of the left – and hope Obama’s socialist constituency chooses the easy chair over the voting booth on November 6th.
Barack Obama and his cabinet are a pack of very dangerous animals and, no matter what the outcome is November 6th, you can rest assured that Obama and his pals will attempt to exact swift and severe retaliation against those who have opposed them. Of course, gun owners are at the top of the list of people that Obama hates most. Thus, it would come as no surprise to see Eric Holder employ the “sporting arms” test to ban every handgun and rifle you own. It would also come as no surprise if Holder took such action the first thing next Wednesday morning.
Even if the electorate fires Barack Obama on Tuesday, his administration can do a lot of damage to the American way of life in the final months of his regime. That is why it is so important for gun owners, and other patriots to vote real Americans into office at every level of government – not only to prevent Obama’s pals from destroying the country, but to undo the damage he has done already.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Credit Union (noun) – an essential financial cooperative
Next Post: Quinn sends “bus loads” of workers to Wisconsin
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m a Central Illinois born and raised gun owner and hunter, and the level of disgust I have with the ISRA over this ignorant diatribe is somewhere in between Fred Phelps and David Duke.
God help us if their base is really as ignorant as they apparently think it is.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:47 am
The NRA and its state affiliates are direct mail fundraising scams. That is all they are; any connection to actual legislation regarding gun ownership is incidental at best. They exist to farm small donors who react to nonsense like this.
The only surprise is that the press release didn’t call the President a Kenyan Maxist.
Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 7:19 am
And what has Romney done to promote gun rights? Zip.
Comment by Wing Ding Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 7:33 am
Gun sellers and manufacturers think Obama is the best president ever. Gun sales are way up, there are more gun sellers than ever before, and there hasn’t been a peep about federal gun control in four years.
Google the “Associated Press, Gun Sales Under Obama” and you’ll see what a friend the ISRA has in the “socialist” Obama and his “pack of very dangerous animals.”
This ISRA appeal for the votes of the paranoid, demented and frightened could have come from the John Birch Society. In fact, they’re probably the same crew.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 7:50 am
Life member of the NRA and proud of it. When they play the same games as Mister Mike and the Chicago machine they are pandering to us poor dumb country folk. I will vote my NRA and pray to one day see Illinois have the freedom that the other 49 states have.
Comment by nieva Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 8:33 am
This same/similar claim was made in 2008. Nothing happened. Obama didn’t take away anyone’s guns. But ISRA trots it out again, like many of the right’s 2008 scare tactics that didn’t pan out.
This is about as low information as it gets.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 8:52 am
Everytime I listen to my lifetime platinum NRA membership father talk about politics, I have to listen to this nonsensicle drivel. For some, this seems to be THE paramount issue facing America. I have no idea why, but then again what do I know? I moved to the evil liberal big city after all.
train111
Comment by train111 Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:06 am
Folks do know that Obama has actually expanded the places you can carry a firearm. Also, didn’t Governor Romney sign an assault rifle ban? More talk from the industry, but it is working gun sales were way up when they scared people after Obama won in 2008.
Comment by UISer Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:11 am
So, they think Obama supporters are lazy animals. Not too subtle with the racism on this one.
After the election they can go back to reading stories in the Gun News about God-fearing Christian white people defending themselves against people of color.
Comment by Will Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:18 am
Those who call for the election of “real Americans” are among the most dangerous in the country.
Comment by Deep South Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:42 am
every time the ISRA appears before you, legislators, remember this piece. if you support their extreme anti safety agenda, take their money, or give them money, this is the kind of garbage you also support. there is not one bit of truth in this piece. and it is racist. remember. cause I sure will not forget.
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:45 am
It seems that you have misplaced your Haldol father…
Let me see if I can call the pharmacy. In the mean time jump in the shower and make sure you wash your hair…
Comment by Madison Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:01 am
what is Todd Vandermyde’s affiliation with the ISRA? he has been variously listed as an officer of the group, a lobbyist for the group re a just done Google check and information from late in 2011. does he renounce this diatribe?
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:15 am
Amen Amalia….this one of over the top
Comment by former state employee Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:10 am
Does an independent read this and think the ISRA is filled with rational individuals?
Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:14 am
If you actually look at their records and even their current campaign positions, there is very little daylight on guns between Obama and Romney.
Of course, we all know this is about race. You didn’t see screeds like this against Kerry. The NRA is at the front of the paranoid white-guy vanguard.
Comment by frank Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:15 am
The President and his cabinet are “a pack of very dangerous animals”? You don’t have to search too hard to see the train of thought underlying that comment. Geez- is this 2012 or 1862?
Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:26 am
Wow - they say that about a President who has taken no actions to promote gun controls? Amazing. Well, considering the source not amazing. The real story is that gun-control supporters have been deeply disappointed with President Obama’s lack of leadership on their issues. Yet the NRA continues to lie through its teeth.
Comment by NW Illinois Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:49 am
Obama has done nothing to restrict gun rights.
Romney proposes nothing to expand them.
Are these people crazy? Or are they just power and money grubbers?
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:59 am
This language is unreasonably inflammatory and racist…..I am so tired of this level of vitriol never seen before towards any other president.
Comment by illinifan Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:01 pm
I’ve never been a registered lobbyist for the ISRA. I work for the NRA. Since I can remember, I have always lobbied under NRA.
At one point in time I was on the Board of Directors, and a Vice-President. But that has been I’m thinking almost 10 years now. I left when they were downsizing part of the Board and with my family, time was being consumed by to many groups and something had to give.
About the same time I left the Board of ABATE.
A lot of times in the press people get me confused between the two organizations.
Comment by Todd Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:02 pm
Keeping in mind the audience to whom the message was directed, it probably did the job it was intended to do.
There is more than one song on the Jukebox and though this one is a bit over the top for many of us, it nevertheless has an audience…and one that votes as well.
Just an observation and not an endorsement.
Comment by Sunshine Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:12 pm
Todd, have you googled yourself? cause weird things turned up.
and there is information out there that you are with the ISRA in leadership. despite your post, it is still unclear.
but, more importantly, will you renounce the ISRA diatribe here and now?
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:13 pm
Why should Todd have to renounce a diatribe he has nothing to do with?
Comment by Jaded Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:22 pm
===but, more importantly, will you renounce the ISRA diatribe here and now?===
Can you explain why it is “more important” that Todd renounce this? He just told you that he does not work for the ISRA. Seems odd for you to demand that he renounce something that he is not affilated with (maybe tangentially at best).
No disrespect meant, but perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard for a moment and take a few deep breaths.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:28 pm
I’m a white rural gun owner - the perfect target for the ISRA diatribes - and this is the kind of crack-pot nonsense that keeps me from supporting either the NRA or ISRA. Prove you can stay on your meds, then we’ll talk.
Comment by DQ Fan Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:28 pm
Should I be comforted that the followers of this paranoid rant are well armed?
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:37 pm
I’m a real socialist and I agree with the gun owners here in this comment section–these people are crazy.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:41 pm
=Ken=
You’re right maybe a bit overstated; however, these ISRA people prey on these people by peddling paranoia
Comment by Madison Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:48 pm
Colossus, you didn’t catch the president coming out in favor of a reinstituted “assault weapons” (i.e. semiautomatic weapon) ban last month? It was covered everywhere.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:50 pm
==Todd, have you googled yourself? cause weird things turned up.
and there is information out there that you are with the ISRA in leadership. despite your post, it is still unclear.==
I am aware that there are things out there on the web that are not accurate about my position with the Association. But hey, I’m a french model, cause thats what the internet said about me and if you read it ont he internet it has to be true.
That is why I posted what I did.
==but, more importantly, will you renounce the ISRA diatribe here and now?===
I think that some of the ISRA press bites are not helpfull. I think that over the top rheteric doesn’t do the issue any good. Do I think his advisors are “dangerous animals” No.
Do I think they would gut the 2A if given the chance? In a heartbeat.
Comment by Todd Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:01 pm
You can almost draw a direct relationship between the number of guns they own and the number of medications they need. The goofiest have guns squirreled everywhere, as if it really matters today…
Comment by Madison Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:03 pm
@Slick Willy, I think that Todd has given his answer.
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:11 pm
===Patriot: I’d like to know what prompts you to say that “If Obama has his way he will significantly restrict gun right” (sic). Why do you believe this? What has the President said or done that supports such a statement? If it’s solid enough to convince you, then surely your well supported argument will change a few minds here. ===
Obama’s record as a state senator where he voted atleast 3 times to have a man face arrest, court, fines and the wrath of the legal system for defending his family with a handgun despite the towns handgun ban is more than enough.
Look at the Munoz semi-auto ban he supported expanding the number of gun banned and having to turn in said guns or move them out of state, but hey that was when he was here so I digress.
Sotomyor and Kegan are simple enough. Look at their dissent in McDonald. Ginsberg has been open about undoing Heller and by the McDonald dissent, those two will go right along, meaning it is no longer an individual right and Chicago and any state can go do what ever they want.
in the last debate the President talked about wanting a reintroduced semi-auto ban. while he was less than articulant about it, it was introduced this past congress, he seems to be clear that if given the opportunity to sign a ban on modern guns he will.
I don’t beleive for a minute that fast and furious was a botched sting operation. I think it was intended for a media stunt to show the reason for a stronger gun control agenda, designed to try and whip up public support for a new semi-auto ban.
The President using the ATF issued a new rule to require the reporting of people buying certain firearms. Illlinois was on the list but then scaled back and taken off the list for the reporting requirement, Why? we arn’t in the so called pipeline to Mexico.
Put any bill restricting the right to own or posses a gun and he will sign it. He already has his Dept of Justice contesting Illinois gun laws in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. they filed an amici brief in the local state district court for a law they don’t like.
Comment by Todd Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:12 pm
-Ken-
Not as over the top as ISRA preying on those whom can least afford it. Read the papers at all?
Comment by Madison Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:14 pm
- Madison - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:03 pm:
Really? Your post is a prime example of the reason I rarely bother coming here any more. Over the top much?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:20 pm
If Obama has his way he will significantly restrict gun right. The democrats want an English type gun ban. The problem is the folks in Chicago can’t enforce gun laws now, how do you think they will do when you take the guns from the police.
I don’t worry too much about the President taking our guns because this would cause a new civil war. I don’t think even Obama is that stupid.
The real sadness is the snark and rhetoric as if the law abiding gun owners are the problem and that is all tied to the Republicans. I will leave all of the peace loving liberals with this thought. Most of the gun deaths in this state will occur in Democrat districts and most of the victims will support Obama. You all can hang on to your failed policies, on your way to the funerals of the kids who keep dying in their wake.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:35 pm
>>>>>>Patriot: I’d like to know what prompts you to say that “If Obama has his way he will significantly restrict gun right” (sic). Why do you believe this? What has the President said or done that supports such a statement? If it’s solid enough to convince you, then surely your well supported argument will change a few minds here.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/debate-answer-on-assault-weapons-ban-could-cause-problems-for-obama/
The so-called “assault weapons” are popular target and hunting rifles. One of them, the AR-15, is possibly the most popular civilian rifle sold in the last 10 years.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:35 pm
Todd -
Votes as state senator: these were over 8 years ago, at the state level. I think the fact that there has been not a whiff of any motion on gun control laws since he has been at the federal level would indicate that this is not an important issue for him. I can’t claim to have a lot of knowledge about these votes, but it sounds to me like he was in favor of local control of their gun laws, which (within reason) makes a lot of sense. Metropolis and Chicago have very different experiences with guns and should have regulations that reflect those differences. There is no one size fits all for this issue and clutching your pearls every time someone points out that machinery designed to injure people are used for that purpose doesn’t help solve the problem, it tries to force a single model (the rural hunter/sportsman) onto every possible situation.
Presidents are judged by how their SCOTUS appointees vote? Better tell Clinton and Bush, I bet they’d be surprised.
Assault weapons ban: So you’re voting for the guy that actually signed a ban into law? I’m not saying Obama might not be open to the idea, but to use this as an argument against him is like using a gun that fires backwards.
I actually agree with you about the possibility of F&F being an attempt to show the problems with existing gun control laws. You and I differ on the conclusions to be drawn from that situation. My understanding is that the ATF’s hands have been tied by folks like ISRA whipping their folks up against allowing the agency the tools necessary to effectively do their job (such as preventing them from creating electronic databases and automating communication with gun dealers).
Based on the evidence you provided, I see an elected official that is not pro-gun. Not being pro-gun does not make you anti-gun, it doesn’t automatically mean he’s coming for your guns, or that he’s going to make any major moves against gun owners or gun rights. It’s just that he’s not on the forefront of “gun rights”. I think ISRA and anyone advocating a vote against Obama based on guns is looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Comment by Colossus Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:40 pm
Patriot: I’d like to know what prompts you to say that “If Obama has his way he will significantly restrict gun right” (sic). Why do you believe this? What has the President said or done that supports such a statement? If it’s solid enough to convince you, then surely your well supported argument will change a few minds here.
Comment by Colossus Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:42 pm
>>>>>>What has the President said or done that supports such a statement?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:42 pm
JJJS: The entries I found in On the Issues paint the president as someone who has been less than pro-gun and made an unfortunate (from the perspective of the pro-gun side) statement in 2008. I do not see someone who is looking to “significantly restrict gun rights”. If this is significant, then I’m curious what an insignificant limitation would be so that we can know where we both stand on the terms. Is any restriction from the status quo a “significant” restriction?
Comment by Colossus Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:00 pm
>>>>>>I do not see someone who is looking to “significantly restrict gun rights”.
In the recent debates he expressed a desire to renew the infringing semi-auto ban that expired in 2004. This ban would make illegal many of the handguns, rifles, and accessories owned by a significant percentage of the gun-owning populace on the basis of being scary-looking and misunderstood by people that do not own firearms.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/debate-answer-on-assault-weapons-ban-could-cause-problems-for-obama/
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:06 pm
C:
>>>>>it sounds to me like he was in favor of local control of their gun laws, which (within reason) makes a lot of sense.
Not when you are talking about infringing on a fundamental civil right, otherwise we would still have local control over housing laws, religious practices, etc.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:10 pm
This is why I will never give the NRA or ISRA a dime. I’ll keep my guns and the Change, thank you very much.
Comment by Bill F. Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:10 pm
===@Slick Willy, I think that Todd has given his answer.===
Because he is gracious enough to do so. I note that you have not. Just sayin’
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:48 pm
As a rural gun owner, I have an uneasiness toward the neighbor’s who believe what groups like the ISRA are saying much more than I fear the politician who has views different than mine on gun ownership. I personally know the type of people that are buying into the ISRA propaganda. They mean well, but are often easily persuaded by tactics meant to scare them and question their patriotism.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:54 pm
He has not advanced legislation because of his legislative incompetence, not because he does not want the ban. Since losing the House, he has zero chance of getting a gun ban passed, but he will continue the war on guns in 2 respects. He will continue to explore UN treaties that explore gun restrictions. He will also not nominate a Supreme Court justice that is not anti gun. The second is the most relevant and most likely the subject of real impact for the forseeable future.
Make no mistake, if you go back futher into his legislative races, he is a pure anti gun Chicago politician. I just wish the people in Chicago and inner cities would realize the anti gun policies of the President and other politicians is to keep them under their thumb, not to protect them.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 3:11 pm
@Slick Willy, the google hits for Todd were for 2011 so my query is not out of bounds. and note that he agrees with much of that statement made by the ISRA. besides, the take a few breaths thing is really so old.
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 3:52 pm
C. I wil respond later to much to type from my phone
Comment by Todd Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:14 pm
amalia, just because you found something on the google doesn’t make it accurate. C’mon, you know better than that. Todd is the NRA, not ISRA. Go look up lobbyist registrations. http://www.ilsos.gov/lobbyistsearch/lobbyistsearch
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:18 pm
==I will leave all of the peace loving liberals with this thought. Most of the gun deaths in this state will occur in Democrat districts and most of the victims will support Obama. You all can hang on to your failed policies, on your way to the funerals of the kids who keep dying in their wake. ==
I can’t believe Rich allowed crap like that statement above to stay on this blog. That is offensive and a disgusting comment.
==I don’t beleive for a minute that fast and furious was a botched sting operation. I think it was intended for a media stunt to show the reason for a stronger gun control agenda, designed to try and whip up public support for a new semi-auto ban. ==
Hey Todd, put your tinfoil hat back on. All you people care about is the right to own a bazooka. Any gun control at all and you go ape and spout off that the 2nd Amendment is in danger. Get a grip and get a life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is trying to take away your precious guns.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:39 pm
Sorry, that was me above.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:40 pm
Fortunately, the American people of both political parties are better than the comments in “Today’s most over the top political screed.”
Comment by Ruby Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 6:09 pm
C –Yea they were votes as a state senator, and his mentality carried over to being a US Senator. The Willmette bill was not about local control. It was about the right to self defense in one’s own home – you know the new hallmark of the anti-gun legal scholars who say that is as far as Heller and McDonald’s Second Amendment protections go. But our esteemed law professor turned President didn’t even want to go that far in 2004.
But as you advocate for different standards for the right to own a firearm, I wonder how you would feel if we did the same for the First amendment’s freedom of Speech. You know since the values of Effingham are different. Or how about allowing local control over abortions. If they don’t like it in Mt. Vernon let them outlaw it.
Constitutional rights don’t work that way – they don’t change based on the zip code you live in or drive through.
AS a US Senator, Obama voted against the protection in lawful commerce act to stop lawsuits against the industry like the one Chicago tried. As a state senator, Obama supported enacting a statute to allow the lawsuits to continue and set up a private right of action against dealers, distributors and manufacturers as well as private citizens. SO the leopard didn’t change his spots.
Obama voted for hostile amendments to the Act to try and gut it or water it down. One such amendment would have classified all center fire rifle ammunition as armor piercing and outlawed its manufacture and sale. Cops body armor is designed to stop handgun bullets, not typical hunting ammo. But they wanted to redefine what “armor piercing ammo” was. There were several other amendments if you want me to run through all of them, but Obama carried on his anti-gun record with him as a US Senator. He was one of 31 senators to vote for the amendment. That puts him in a pretty select group of gun controllers.
Yes Presidents are remembered for their SCOTUS appointments. Bush has had some disappointments. Eisenhower was asked if he had any disappointments in his term and he replied yes, they are all on the Supreme Court.
So with both Heller and McDonald being 5-4 decisions, it is important as the next term may see up to 3 appointments that could alter the make up of the court.
Romney didn’t sign the ban into law. Nice hype and rhetoric but not true. The existing semi-auto ban Mass had had no sunset provision like the Federal law did. And some were trying to make the definitions worse and scoop up more guns. Since the gun guys didn’t control a solid majority of the legislature, they ended up in a compromise bill that took out the bad definitions
From the State Assn in MASS they are called GOAL – Gun Owners Action League;
“During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.”
And . . .
“Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.”
So you see, he didn’t sign a ban, he reformed a bad one.
AS far as F&F goes, I don’t know that ISRA spends much time on ATF issues on the Hill. NRA does keep an eye on things. You may think that a database of make model and serial number is fine – we don’t it’s called registration and is how Chicago ended up with a handgun ban. As a matter of fact, this year Canada scrapped their national registration system of rifles and shotguns and destroyed the data.
ATF has plenty of tools to do their job, but the latest revelations talk about media events with Eric Holder on weapons crossing to the South. Ray Charles could see that this was a political ploy to support their anti-gun agenda which has been stalled since Clinton lost them the House and Gore lost to Bush. It was the death of a border patrol agent that mucked it all up for them.
Obama has been good for sales. Nothing like having people think that you might ban something to get them to run out and buy some. Obama and his co-horts may be responsible for putting more AR-15s in private hands than anyone else. Kinda ironic. But because the industry has done well these past 4 years, doesn’t mean that he agrees with their prosperity. And his votes in the US Senate show he hasn’t changed his views. He just had to campaign in those place where people cling to their guns and religion without openly offending them.
He told Sara Brady that he was trying to work – under the radar.
No doubt about it, Obama is anti-gun. I lobbied him, talked to him and argued before him in committee. His views haven’t changed. I believe there is a very credible case to be made on the hostility he holds and the infringements he would love to enact on the right to own, possess or carry a firearm. He just hasn’t decided to or had the political will to roll that rock up hill.
I also think there is a better and more articulate case to be made for his anti-gun credentials than the one ISRA made or others have made.
== Demoralized – typical rant about what we debate and what we don’t. in all my years, I never argued for the legalization of destructive devices i.e. bazookas and the like (today it would be an AT-4 or RPG bazookas are so WWII). It’s low brow arguments like that, that show the lack of understanding of what we support or oppose and where the lines fall on the 2A.
But I’m not worried, but I did stock up on a new dozen AR-15s just for safe keeping. Got them at a real deal of under $200.
Comment by Todd Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 6:52 pm
well then Todd should complain loudly to the ISRA that their listings are incorrect. aren’t their tech groups that get hired to help people to erase incorrect things, especially considering that the ISRA is so closely related to the NRA?
Comment by amalia Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 6:58 pm
Note to the NRA, ISRA, and gun owners everywhere: the President of the United States has absolutely no role in modifying the Constitution. He is powerless. So tell me again how Obama is a threat to the 2nd Amendment?
Comment by Jay Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 7:41 pm
@Todd:
You are your “sky is falling” 2nd Amendment freaks are pathetic. Nobody has ever tried to take away your guns. Perhaps if you weren’t so hell bent on preventing any type of gun control whatsoever normal people might take you seriously. Until then I’ll assign you to the lunatic fringe where you belong.
Now let’s see if Rich has the guts to actually post this. Why he lets you post is beyond me.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:21 pm
@Todd:
Oh, and by the way, you don’t have a right to conceal carry. Get over it.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:22 pm
Well, there you have it folks.
Responses such as the ones on this thread are good reminders why I support the ISRA and the NRA.
Don’t forget to actually cast your ballots!
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Tuesday, Nov 6, 12 @ 2:31 am
You don’t have to like my comments, but it is true. Most of the area where gun violence is a problem will vote democrat again.
Jay, have you heard of something called the Supreme Court. It is the biggest point of impact for gun rights and will likely be in the next several decades. If one conservative justice dies in the next 4 years, the next president gets to decide the issue.
How can people argue no one has tried to restrict our gun rights. Chicago and the legislature tries to get restrictions on gun rights every year. The Supreme Court is all that is stopping them right now.
Let’s not forget that the 2nd amendment is not to protect us from crime, or for hunting. It is to protect us from the Government. The founding fathers new a well armed citizenship would be less easily oppressed and subject to tyranny. The fact some Cities keep electing ineffective leaders that can’t control crime, should not be cause to restrict the understanding the founding fathers had about well armed citizens.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Nov 6, 12 @ 7:36 am
Demoralized –
First off, trying to bait Rich is not a good idea. He enjoys good debates and back and forth.
Your mono-brow retort is less than. . . well it’s less than an argument.
What sky is falling situation did I portray? I was asked about Obama’s positions, and when Colosus complained that votes and positions I picked were from his tenure in the state senate, I pointed to his record in the US senate, showing that his attitude and position remained anti-gun. VERY anti-gun.
We are already aware of reports that Sen. Fienstein and her staff have been meeting with ATF over a new semi-auto ban. One more restrictive than her last one. Doubtful it will pass, with the US House staying republican.
I’m not bent on preventing ANY form of gun control, what I believe in is that constitutional rights should be protected and all people should be able to enjoy them. If a law or regulation infringes upon that, I don’t like it and work against it. WE happen to be more successful than those who would reduce the RKBA to a mere privilege.
Your partially right on the carry, it’s not a right to carry concealed, it’s a right to carry, either openly or concealed. What the State can’t do is what Illinois has done and that is ban both. I suggest you read State v Reid, Alabama Supreme Court cited in Heller v District of Columbia.
After we win Shepard v. Madigan you can buy the beer.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 6, 12 @ 7:45 am