Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House pension roundup
Next Post: Today’s tweet
Posted in:
* Yeah, this will turn out well, I’m sure…
URGENT ALERT – YOUR ACTION REQUIRED
GUN GRABBING REPRESENTATIVE TO HOLD TOWN HALL MEETING – YOU NEED TO ATTEND
WHAT: Town Hall Meeting Held by Rep. Deb Conroy
WHEN: Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM
WHERE: Glenside Library, 25 East Fullerton, Glendale Heights, IL
Rep. Deb Conroy is living up to her promise to be Mike Madigan’s loyal stooge in the 46th District. Although she’s only been in office a few months, Conroy has racked up a record of disgusting indifference to the 2nd Amendment. Conroy has voted to leave you defenseless against violent criminals. She has voted to register and tax your guns. And she’s voted to ban and confiscate 85% of the firearms held by law-abiding citizens.
IT’S TIME DEB CONROY HEARD FROM GUN OWNERS
It’s very important that as many gun owners as possible show up for Conroy’s town hall meeting. When you get there, be sure to make your voice heard. Let Conroy know that you will not take the blame for crimes committed by raving lunatics, gang bangers, or hardened criminals. Let Conroy know that you vigorously oppose licensing, registration and insurance schemes. Let Conroy know that you demand to be allowed to carry a defensive firearm for the protection of your self and your family. Remind her that her constituence is not limited to Mike Madigan.
Be sure to wear IGOLD hats or shirts to the town hall. If you see members of the media there, approach them and tell them your story. Tell them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you are sick and tired of people like Conroy and Madigan and their schemes to take your guns away from you.
CONROY’S #1 JOB IS TO BRING CHICAGO-STYLE GUN CONTROL TO THE ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS
The only thing that can stop people like Conroy is the resolve of gun owners who refuse to let Conroy and her pals destroy the 2nd Amendment. So, plan to be there at the Glenside Library on March 26th. Plan to be there no later than 5:15. The gun grabbers will try to close the doors early to keep gun guys out of the meeting.
PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Pass this alert on to your gun owning family and friends.
2. Post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you may belong.
3. Be sure to be there on March 26th!!
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 10:48 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House pension roundup
Next Post: Today’s tweet
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
WOW is all I can say, the wacko’s are comming.
Comment by INDEPENDENT Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:03 am
What is wrong with pro 2nd Amendment supporters attending a town hall meeting held by an elected official who is a gun control proponent to voice their opinions? When gun control proponents attend meetings or demonstrate to have their views heard, they are usually portrayed as concerned citizens exercising their freedom of speech to participate in the law making process.
Comment by RetiredArmyMP Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:08 am
Independent
====WOW is all I can say, the wacko’s are comming.====
On both sides.
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:08 am
Yesterday we got into it on the blog about which side is engaging in more extreme and distorted rhetoric. Score one for the nutjobs on this one.
“she’s voted to ban and confiscate 85% of the firearms held by law-abiding citizens” - I must have missed a weapons confiscation bill.
“has voted to leave you defenseless against violent criminals” - Darn, missed that one too.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:11 am
I’m just glad to see these folks working up the nerve to travel outside their neighborhoods to the hard streets of Glendale Heights.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:13 am
RetiredArmyMP, if you can’t see what’s wrong with that action alert, then you’re blind. If you’re just spinning, you should stop. You’re not that good at it.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:14 am
RetiredArmyMP -
The problem is not they “voice their opinions” but, as Rich has posted here before, the concealed carry advocates who show up to these things try to hijack the meeting, talk / shout down gun control advocates, or both.
https://capitolfax.com/2011/07/11/comed-trumps-guns-at-town-hall-meeting
Comment by Anyone Remember? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:15 am
“GUN GRABBING REPRESENTATIVE”- “disgusting indifference”- law-abiding citizens” - “raving lunatics”- “hardened criminals”- vigorously oppose” - “law-abiding firearm owner” - ‘CHICAGO-STYLE GUN CONTROL”
How many adjectives can be squeezed into one press release?
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:17 am
This sums up one of the main reasons I no longer actively support ISRA… the hyperbole does our cause no favors at all. I’m no fan of Rep. Conry’s voting history on firearm related issues, but this frothing at the mouth comes off as nuts.
Gang, this isn’t the face of the typical IL gun owner.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:19 am
It’s just a harmless call for a group of citizens to show up to a town hall meeting. I’m sure all the participants in this action will be from Conroy’s district, will behave respectfully, will wait their turn to speak and won’t use over-the-top hyperbolic attacks…I’m sure of it.
Comment by L.S. Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:20 am
It’s not the call to arms, per se, it’s the “LETs EVERYBODY
SET OUR HAIR ON FiRE AND SHOW ‘EM , heading toward Frankenstiens castle that screams a near lunacy that should turn any gun advocate toward the mirror for some deep thought.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:22 am
STL,
An excellent observation on your part. But for those concerned about being attacked in the streets by an unholy alliance of street gang thugs and gun-grabbers, how much you want to bet they’ll be packing concealed weapons in violation of the current law?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:25 am
Chicago Cynic, the “confiscation bill” being referred to is HB 1156, FA#10, the “large-capacity” magazine ban. That bill would have made illegal lots of common handguns that take magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and there was no provision grandfathering in currently owned firearms. That legislation would give owners of these guns 180 days to get rid of those guns, after which time they would be committing a crime by possessing them.
Comment by charles in charge Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:25 am
Ken, very true. I am a member of the NRA, but not the ISRA. I back concealed carry and think most of what chicago reps put on the table is simply silly if not unconstitutional.
That said. I feel no need to show up at some anti-gun meeting. I do call my reps and let them know what I think. but I have not time for the other stuff.
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:28 am
There are people who need guns to get by; however, none happen to live in Glendale Heights LOL
Comment by Madison Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:32 am
“It’s just a harmless call for a group of citizens to show up to a town hall meeting. I’m sure all the participants in this action will be from Conroy’s district, will behave respectfully, will wait their turn to speak and won’t use over-the-top hyperbolic attacks…I’m sure of it.”
That…and the Easter Bunny will be delivering candy to all the good little boys and girls next weekend…
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:34 am
Well, the Heights is not exactly crime central by Chicago standards, but it is up there in the ranks on the DuPage scale.
Comment by titan Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:40 am
There are some pretty nasty crimes in Glendale Heights, and gunfire heard at night more weeks than not.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:41 am
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:11 am:
I believe the 85% comment refers to her votes on banning commonly used semiautos, and the defenseless comment to her votes on various CCW amendments.
She certainly is no friend of the law abiding firearm owner.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:43 am
>>>>> I’m no fan of Rep. Conry’s voting history on firearm related issues, but this frothing at the mouth comes off as nuts.
Have you been following her votes before this alert came out?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:44 am
“Be there no later than 5:15 PM” who ever wrote this obviously doesn’t know the area around the library.
Comment by Ggal Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:45 am
If you get a chance, you should pick up “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,” by Richard Feldman, former Regional Political Director of the NRA.
Basically, he writes that the constant apocalyptic rhetoric from the NRA is not designed to persuade anyone, but to scare members into parting with more of their dollars and to protect its right flank from other gun groups that openly preach sedition.
http://richardfeldman.org/index.html
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:46 am
Ken_in_Aurora:
“Gang, this isn’t the face of the typical IL gun owner.”
True. Which is why if they were savvy, they’d actually put some moderate “plants” in the audience as well. If you’re from Aurora you obviously don’t live in the district, but if I were advising ISRA, i’d have guys like you coming into the meeting as well—without the gold shirts & hats.
Then when it came to public comments, have non-IGOLD sporting people stand up and basically say, “just because they’re crazy doesn’t mean they’re wrong” and then present a more measured tone to the same argument.
Employ both the alarmist hard sell as well as the soft sell.
Comment by John Galt Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:46 am
“Have you been following her votes before this alert came out?”
She’s not my rep, but I’ve followed her as much as I follow any other rep on the issue. I spend the majority of my time working on my own elected rep and senator.
I don’t dispute we (pro-2A) need people at her town hall, but the ISRA message as written is w-a-y over the top.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:49 am
WordSlinger
If you are going to recommend that would you read “Gun Guys” written by a self proclaimed liberal? trying to explain gun guys and the more liberal side that looks down its nose at Gun guys?
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Guys-A-Road-Trip/dp/0307595412
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:50 am
As an ISRA member, I have repeatedly contacted ISRA about their lack of thoughtful, on-point messaging.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 11:51 am
Conroy also voted to diminish pension benefits, so at least she’s consistent when it comes to the constitution.
Comment by reformer Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Really, I’ve read a lot of stuff by Baum in The New Yorker and WSJ, but haven’t picked that up yet. But I will.
I think the Feldman book speaks directly to the reasoning behind the fevered rhetoric employed in this instance by the ISRA.
Feldman is not an “anti-gunner,” or whatever the popular phrase is these days. Check out his website and his book and you’ll see that.
And seriously, dude, don’t worry about what other people think of you. Life’s too short.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:07 pm
As long as we’ve started a book club…Craig Whitney’s
“Living with Guns-a liberal case for the second amendment”
Comment by Charlatan Heston Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Actually, now that I think about it… I *am* in her district, kinda. We own property in her district that we just inherited even if I’m not registered to vote there. I may have to show up after all.
;)
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:08 pm
word,
the book isnt really about what other people think about gun guys. Its really about him trying to explain gun guys to non-gunners. Trying to understand gun guys and those that literally hate guns. Its a good read.
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:10 pm
-Ken in Aurora,
If that’s what the vote refers to, then thank you for proving my point. This missive says she’s voted to confiscate. There has been no vote to confiscate. So the ISRA is outright lying to scare people into believing that someone is coming to take your guns.
Had their been an actual confiscation bill in IL or anywhere in the country, somehow I think we’d have heard about it non-stop on Fox and even other national media. There hasn’t been because NOBODY IS THREATENING TO TAKE AWAY 300,000,000 American guns. Sheesh.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:16 pm
I’m kinda disappointed in the ISRA….no mention of “Chavez-supporting Obamists.”
Comment by Deep South Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:19 pm
What worries me is over-the-top messages, like this, targeting select elected officials might trigger some crazy idiot into a reaction that could be harmful to the official or anyone else attending the event.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:24 pm
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
IIRC at least one of the proposed amendments required the affected semiautos to be surrendered or otherwise disposed of. I’d need to look at the amendment history to be sure, and I can’t do that from my cube here in the coal mine. But rest assured, there are more than a few of our elected officials in the state and nationally that would prefer semiautos be removed from our society. Luckily political reality makes that a tough sell… for now.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:24 pm
Ken,
Lots of people would prefer lots of things. That doesn’t make it legislation. What next? 2nd amendment thought police?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:28 pm
CC, so we’re supposed to just ignore legislators that hold positions contrary to our own? No, we voice our opinions. The trick is to do it in a helpful, respectful and rational way.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:31 pm
Ken, you are absolutely welcome to express your opinions. But please refrain from scare tactics built upon false premises designed to completely mislead people. Nobody is talking about or planning to confiscate 300,000,000 guns in America. It’s a fantasy.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Chicago Cynic
= There has been no vote to confiscate. So the ISRA is outright lying to scare people into believing that someone is coming to take your guns=
House Amendment 002, (introduced by Rep. Acevedo)and House Amendment 003 (introduced by Rep. Sims) to House Bill 1156 specifically prohibit the “Possession, delivery, sale, receipt, transfer,and purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons and assault weapon attachments” (attachements are not included in HA 003) These amendments also specifically state “Beginning 300 days after the effective date of this
Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly possess a semi-automatic assault weapon orsemi-automatic assault weapon attachment.” Rep Conroy voted in favor of both these amendments, which have been adopted into the bill. So, while “confiscation” is not specifically stated in the amendments, wouldn’t that be the end result since people who currently own one or more of those firearms would then be prohibited from owning them?
Comment by RetiredArmyMP Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:42 pm
===the “confiscation bill” being referred to is HB 1156, FA#10, the “large-capacity” magazine ban.===
And it failed.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 12:47 pm
If a vitriolic notice like this was presented by an “activist” group protesting US military occupations or energy industry over reach, I’d half-expect it to be an attempt to entrap similar to what happened in Cleveland, the GOP convention in Minneapolis, the “Say No to NATO” event in Chicago (anniversary coming), and multiple other locations post 9/11.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:01 pm
Rich - HFA 010 failed, but it referred only to magazines. HFA002 & HFA003 which ban semiautomatic “assault weapons” (By the way, the Dept. of Homleand Security refers to fully automatic versions of these firearms as Personal Defense Weapons) were adopted into HB 1156, which is currently held on the calendar for its 2nd reading. It’s immaterial that the magazine ban amendment failed because they would be of no use if the firearms are made unlawful. It’s all in the semantics.
Comment by RetiredArmyMP Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:01 pm
happy Friday! this notice feels a bit like we are in the middle of “Best in Show” or “A Mighty Wind” or “Waiting for Guffman.” except that I find both sides of this issue so objectionable right now (remember nazi pix and a chihuahua?) that I cannot find much love for any of the characters as I do for the characters in those parody movies. Hey, Wordslinger, let’s make a movie!
I’m casting “Ron Swanson” as Todd……
Comment by Amalia Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Rich, why is it relevant that the amendment failed? I believe the ISRA’s point is that Rep. Conroy voted for it.
I am not defending their overheated rhetoric.
Comment by charles in charge Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:10 pm
Speaking of outlandish rhetoric, why is it that people who favor even a modest amount of gun control are “anti-Second Amendment” and people who favor loose (or no) restrictions on guns “pro-Second Amendment”? Someone who supports even a certain amount of gun control is still a supporter of the Second Amendment. To say otherwise is misleading, outlandish, and distasteful. The United States Constitution and the amendments to it are complex documents people.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Rich
Explain to me your reasoning. Just because it failed doesn’t mean she didn’t vote for it? She clearly voted for a bill requiring confiscation of legally owned weapons. No not all weapons but with the wording of that amendment a pump action shotgun such as a Remington 870 could be banned and the Mossberg 500 would be banned. Language stated “any pump shotgun having a magazine holding in excess of 5 rounds or easily modified to hold in excess of 5 rounds.” Mossberg 500’s hold 6 and 870 can be converted to 7 with a commercially available extension in about 15 minutes. It also banned Beretta’s m9 clones, Springfield xd’s, and even Colt 1911’s pistols since all either come standard with 10+ mags or you can purchase extended magazines.
Seems to me if you wait until they pass the legislation to lobby them not to pass it you are a might late.
I will agree the tone of the message leaves a lot to be desired in the way of clarity however once the hyperbole is stripped out it is factual.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:23 pm
I always love when they refer to themselves as “law abiding citizens.” In the next breath, they usually claim that they will never comply with any gun restriction bill that they don’t like.
They should call themselves “Laws That We Like Abiding Citizens.”
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:42 pm
“Laws That We Like Abiding Citizens.” - Is that a lot like the “Illinois We Don’t Like the Supreme Court’s Ruling Citizens”?
Comment by Anon. Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Someone who takes actions, such as votes on bills or amendments to bills that would ban only half of the firearms that I own, is not a supporter of the Second Amendment.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Not that anyone would illegally carry a concealed firearm to this event but, just in case, perhaps the representative should hire security to wand everyone down before entering. I’m sure no one would object to that safety measure. Afterall, if they aren’t breaking the law, they have nothing to fear. Right?
Comment by TwoFeetThick Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:01 pm
Skeeter,
we already abide by more than 20,000 gun laws on the books nation wide.
Focus on poverty, drugs and gangs, the root of the problem.
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:09 pm
What’s with the implication that attendees will be armed?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Ken
Some one apparently posted that as a comment and those who oppose the action have been running with it.
Two
I agree she should hire security. As long as the taxpayers aren’t paying for it go right ahead. Let it come out of her Election campaign better get very good= very expensive security. They won’t find anything but thats besides the point.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:16 pm
–I agree she should hire security. As long as the taxpayers aren’t paying for it go right ahead. Let it come out of her Election campaign better get very good= very expensive security. They won’t find anything but thats besides the point. –
Why in the world should a state rep. meeting the folks at a library have to hire security? What sort of threat are you implying?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:24 pm
===Someone who takes actions, such as votes on bills or amendments to bills that would ban only half of the firearms that I own, is not a supporter of the Second Amendment.===
So if you don’t own it, you don’t care if it’s banned? The truth comes out.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Wordslinger,
Go back and read Two feet’s comment at 2:01 pm. Where he implies the people attending will be carrying in violation of the law. My comment was that if she believes that way she should hire security as long as she is paying. Note i said they wouldn’t find anything. Nothing violent will happen at this townhall maybe some raised voices but much ado about nothing.
Deep
I think what JJJS was saying was she isn’t pro constitution if she is willing to ban guns.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:52 pm
The rhetoric is a bit over the top, as with any issue that has a lot of emotion attached. It is the same to me as walking around with sandwich board targets, gets attention, a chuckle then forgotten about until the next one.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 3:51 pm
Clearly, ISRA is secretly working with Mike Madigan to ensure suburban Democrats get re-elected.
It is the only logical explanation.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 4:22 pm
“Ron Swanson” as Todd……
I vote for Ron White
Comment by Todd Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 6:05 pm