IL State Senators call gun owners "sex offenders" and "gang bangers!"


PDA






Don Gwinn
June 1, 2005, 08:44 AM
This has got me boiling. :fire:

Roskam fired upon by gun opponents

Thursday, May 26, 2005

By The Leader-Springfield Bureau

On Wednesday, a debate on legislation closing the gun show loophole and erasing gun purchaser records after 90 days focused on bill's sponsor, State Senator Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton).

State Senator Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton) was asked by gun control advocate Senator Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) why someone with such a bright political future would sponsor a "gang-banger initiative."

SPRINGFIELD -- State Senator Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton) was fired upon by gun control advocates Wednesday on the Illinois Senate floor for sponsoring a compromise bill closing the state’s so-called “gun show loophole” and at the same time erasing gun purchaser lists after ninety days.

SB 57 is now on its way to an expected veto by Governor Rod Blagojevich.

“We are in an arena of compromise,” Roskam said in response to criticism by colleagues during floor debate. “SB 57 will require background checks when buying a firearm at a gun show and it will eliminate the state from keeping lists on law-abiding citizens.”

Law enforcement groups lobbied to protect the gun purchaser data bases, saying they are an effective law enforcement tool. The final version of SB 57 prevents deleting the names of gun buyers currently suspected of criminal activity.

Gun control advocates complained in the Senate debate Wednesday that a vote against the bill could be interpreted as a vote against closing the gun show loophole, a vote they did not want to be confused.

Sex offenders’ names are kept on record, Senator Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) said, why shouldn't gun purchasers’ names be archived, as well?

“I reject that comparison,” Roskam responded. “Gun purchasers with FOID cards are law-abiding citizens. Sex offenders are criminals.”

Senator Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) asked Roskam why someone with such a bright political future was sponsoring a “gang-banger initiative” protecting "straw men" who purchase guns for illegal use.

Senator Susan Garrett (D-Chicago) criticized SB 59 as “cleverly put together two pieces of legislation” representing two diametrically opposed views on Second Amendment rights.

Shortly before the Senate voted 34 to 25 to agree with House changes and send the bill to the governor, Roskam told his colleagues the right to bear arms was protected in the Constitution and that he flatly “rejected” Harmon’s "characterization" of him as protecting gang-bangers.

The criticism was not just on the Senate floor.

Earlier in the day, Roskam was criticized for sponsoring the proposed legislation in a published Chicago Tribune editorial. The piece condemned the two term state senator who announced last week he is a running for retiring Congressman Henry Hyde’s seat in 2006.

“Roskam is the early favorite to get his party's nomination for the Hyde seat,” the paper wrote. “Should he get it, the gun bill will surely provide a rich mine of material for Democrats to paint Roskam as a tool of the NRA in its fight to weaken gun laws.”

Republican Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Burr Ridge) rose in support of Roskam’s attempt to “balance all the interests,” saying it “was not an easy thing to do.”

Dillard pointed to the co-sponsorship of SB 57 of moderate-leaning Senator Christine Radogno (R-LaGrange) who, Dillard said, supported the legislation, saying Radogno is “no Annie Oakley.”

When asked if he was pleased about the passage of the compromised bill, Todd VanderMyde, lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said, “It’ll be something we can work with,” suggesting he was anticipating a future three-fifths required vote to override the governor’s anticipated veto.

Nine Democrats supported SB 57 - Clayborne, DeMuzio, Forby, Haine, Halvorson, Jacobs, Shadid, John Sullivan and Wilhelmi.

One Republican senator voted against SB 57 - Adeline Geo-Karis.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

______

What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.


Notice also that fool Dillard, who thinks you can pay someone a compliment by saying "Well, she's no Annie Oakley, you know!"
No sir, she certainly isn't, more's the pity. Annie Oakley is a legend, and I'd vote for her to replace your friend Radogno any day.

Kwame Raoul's contact information (http://www.ilga.gov/Senate/Senator.asp?GA=94&MemberID=1105)


Kirk Dillard's contact information (http://www.ilga.gov/Senate/Senator.asp?GA=94&MemberID=985)


Don Harmon's contact information (http://www.ilga.gov/Senate/Senator.asp?GA=94&MemberID=1058)

If you enjoyed reading about "IL State Senators call gun owners "sex offenders" and "gang bangers!"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 08:51 AM
Well, she's sure not the defender of our rights either...

Wait, she might take that as a compliment too.


I have to say, if the same kind of derogatory terminology were used in any other debate, people would (pardon the phrase) be up in arms about it, calling "racist" and soforth. Why does what I choose to own make me so different that you think it's ok to call me names?

armoredman
June 1, 2005, 10:36 AM
I am a correctional sergeant on a sex offender yard - I take HIGH offense at that comment! The very old saying was, "Them's fightin' words!" and is so true!

dolanp
June 1, 2005, 11:49 AM
Illinois is climbing up there with CA and NY, soon it will be the ultimate anti-2A state.

Reno
June 1, 2005, 12:33 PM
“SB 57 will require background checks when buying a firearm at a gun show and it will eliminate the state from keeping lists on law-abiding citizens.”

:scrutiny:

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 12:47 PM
“SB 57 will require background checks when buying a firearm at a gun show and it will eliminate the state from keeping lists on law-abiding citizens.” Hmmmm...that strikes me as an example of compromise, something the gun-grabbers and their ilk are always saying that us "gun nuts" need to do. For the sake of <insert current cause here>.

I guess its not so great to the antis when comes right down to it. Of course, we already knew that, did'nt we...

dasmi
June 1, 2005, 12:48 PM
I am a correctional sergeant on a sex offender yard
How do you resist the urge to pop them off one by one? Sex offenders are the lowest form of life known to human kind.

ravinraven
June 1, 2005, 12:56 PM
"Sex offenders are the lowest form of life known to human kind."

There is one lower life form. Anyone who brings false sex charges against a person is the absolute lowest...well...except for their lawyers. These types of animals should face the death sentence. Actually, if I had my way, I'd do a non-THR approved activity on them.

rr

thereisnospoon
June 1, 2005, 12:56 PM
Is this person saying there is a current Database listing purchases of firearms???? I thought that only happened in the mind of us Tinfoil Hatters.... :scrutiny:

I realize this represents a State list, BUT, once your on that list.... :scrutiny: There I go again.... :eek:

I have a Brother-in-law who lives in Decatour...I went to visit after he had lived there > 2 years and he still could not find a public place for us to enjoy the shooting sports. Also, I would not be able to buy anything gun related because I didn't have a stupid FOID card(whatever that is).

:banghead: :barf: :fire: :cuss:

Jeff
June 1, 2005, 12:59 PM
Said Roskam in response to Raoul's asinine comment:

“I reject that comparison,” Roskam responded. “Gun purchasers with FOID cards are law-abiding citizens. Sex offenders are criminals.”

How incredibly sad that this needed to be said to a State Senator. :rolleyes:

Control Group
June 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
Brief OT comment (with apologies): that depends entirely on what sort of "sex offender" we're talking about. Remember, urinating in public is a "sex offense." Not to mention the not necessarily uncommon case of a guy I knew in college who had sex with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend when he was nineteeen. He cheated on her shortly thereafter, and she accused him of date rape as vengeance. His word against hers, he was convicted of the charge as well as one count of statutory rape (the two-year differential). He got 20 years.

I won't make any claims that he's a paragon of virtue, or even very bright, but he's certainly not the lowest form of life known to man.

Actual child molesters are, in fact, the lowest form of life known to man. But there are kind of a lot of "sex offenses" out there, and many of them are just cases of bad judgement, not evil.

I'd guess that the majority (probably the vast majority) of people in a sex offender yard are real low lifes, but don't paint with too broad a brush.

Sorry for the OT. Game on.

Don Gwinn
June 1, 2005, 01:25 PM
Thereisnospoon, that would be Decatur. And yes, the Illinois State Police keep the records of each sale of a firearm in Illinois in a large, very illegal database. Last year there was a brief flurry of outrage when Governor Blagojevich announced that he knew the database violated federal law, but he was going to keep it anyway. However, that died down quickly.

Roskam was trying to introduce a genuine compromise. The way he sees it, you and I know that the background check is already required for any purchase through any FFL, and you and I know that's not going away any time soon, at least in Illinois. But the antis claim to be very worked up over it for whatever reason.

We, on the other hand, don't like having records kept on law-abiding people as if they were all criminals just waiting to bloom, so why not trade?

Blago thinks he can do an amendatory veto and sign the portion that introduces background checks while vetoing the portion that does away with the illegal records database. The question is whether we can override that veto with a 3/5 vote. That's certainly entirely possible this year.

But I hope we've now learned the larger lesson--antis who talk about compromise are LYING. They will NOT compromise. The way they see it, gun owners "have no rights which real Americans are bound to respect."

armoredman
June 1, 2005, 01:31 PM
Antis compromise on anything in order to get camels' body into the tent. Compromise to them means they get what they want a little slower. Never compromise with them.
As for sex offenders, there are sex offenders, and sexual predators. There are guys here on burglary charges who exposed themselves drunk at a football game, and got a sex score. Whoopie.
Then there are the true scum, the predators, the one who gang rape women, and set them on fire, the one who hunt little children and leave thier broken bodies covered in dirt and dog dung. The ones who droll at the "Barney" show, and the children thereon. Professionalism sometimes is not just a word, it's an act of will.

foghornl
June 1, 2005, 01:34 PM
I just thought my 2 US Senators (DeWine & Voinovich) were bad....Sounds like you guys 'n' gals in Illinois need a MAJOR "house-cleaning & throw 'em down the Capitol Steps" in your state legislature...

Starting with Blago*** and working down....


*** I have a name for this guy, passed along to me by my brother who used to work in Chikago when Blago was the US Rep...but the name is definetly "Low Road" {I'll pm it to you, if interested}

Oh yeah, your legislature consists of sex offenders...they are collectively trying to [ahem] "be intimate" with you . . .

Fletchette
June 1, 2005, 01:48 PM
Well, now we know exactly what they think of us...

:cuss:

DRZinn
June 1, 2005, 01:54 PM
Anyone who brings false sex charges against a person is the absolute lowest...well...except for their lawyers. These types of animals should face the death sentence.How about put them in a locked room with a sex offender, and give said offender carte blanche...

scout26
June 1, 2005, 09:38 PM
From the ISRA Website:

On May 13, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) issued a press release condemning SB57's provisions for a 90-day record retention period. In the press release, the ICHV echoed Director Trent's assertion that the 90-day waiting period would endanger police officers.

In coming out opposed to SB57, the ICHV has apparently reversed its position of support for a 90-day record retention period. In the July 27, 2004 edition of the "Quad City Times," ICHV Executive Director Thomas Mannard was reported to have said that his group, the ICHV, would be comfortable with a 90-day retention period.

"We knew the record retention period would be a bone of contention," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "Gun owners want instant destruction of records while those in the gun control movement want permanent retention. When we heard that Mr. Mannard would be comfortable with a 90-day retention period, we used that figure as the centerpiece around which SB57 was crafted. Now that SB57 is close to becoming a reality, Mannard and his people have apparently flip-flopped."



From the Anti Dictionary:
Compromise(n) coom-pro-mize: Getting our way by infringing on your rights.

Kim
June 1, 2005, 09:56 PM
A thread like this just always reminds me why I HATE the ACLU and liberals in general. Where Oh Where is the outrage. Where are all the liberals in all those city counsels passing rousing resolutions aganist this clearly government kept list on US citizens who have done no criminal activity except buy a firearm in a legal manner in accoradance with their rights under the 2nd amendment. My Gosh, just think the government MIGHT check out what you are reading at the library and that got their panties in a wad but to keep a list of citizens whom have bought firearms---------silence...........................................Hell they support it with screaming invective!!!!!!!!!!!! :cuss: :fire:

PromptCritical
June 2, 2005, 01:43 AM
I recently talked to an ACLU chairman. He said the 2A is a source of some contention within the ACLU, so they take a neutral stand on it. This is backed up by this BS on their website:

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

My head just about turned inside out trying to unravel the contradictions and blatant hypocracy.

I also politely informed him that I don't support the ACLU because they support and encourage NAMBLA, but do nothing to support the right that protects all the others.

If you would like to ask him yourself, Here's his web page:
http://www.lclark.edu/faculty/skaplan/

ravinraven
June 2, 2005, 03:56 AM
"A thread like this just always reminds me why I HATE the ACLU and liberals in general."

What? You need to be reminded? For shame.

rr

whm1974
June 2, 2005, 07:31 AM
Brief OT comment (with apologies): that depends entirely on what sort of "sex offender" we're talking about. Remember, urinating in public is a "sex offense." Not to mention the not necessarily uncommon case of a guy I knew in college who had sex with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend when he was nineteeen. He cheated on her shortly thereafter, and she accused him of date rape as vengeance. His word against hers, he was convicted of the charge as well as one count of statutory rape (the two-year differential). He got 20 years.

Cases like these are too common. Statutory Rape law were not made up to protect underage females. They were made up to make sure young women were "moral" and virgins when they got married.

-Bill

If you enjoyed reading about "IL State Senators call gun owners "sex offenders" and "gang bangers!"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!