The Illinois State Rifle Association has endorsed a ban on "Assault Weapons" t


PDA






Jeff White
March 12, 2014, 08:46 PM
I just got online and had an alert from the ISRA. They are endorsing Kirk Dillard for governor in the republican primary next Tuesday. Dillard supports an assault weapons ban. :fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire:
In an answer to an Associated Press Survey Dillard said:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140225/NEWS02/140229851/gop-governor-candidates-differ-on-gun-laws
"As a dad with young children, I'm concerned about high-capacity weapons and public safety," Dillard wrote.

This is what the ISRA said:



An Urgent Message from the ISRA PVF



[quote]Dear ISRA Members:

The ISRA Political Victory Fund (ISRA-PVF) is proud to endorse Senator Kirk Dillard in the Republican primary for Governor. Along with Senator Dillard, Senator Brady and Treasurer Rutherford have been staunch, long standing proponents of the Second Amendment and the efforts of the Illinois State Rifle Association. It is clear, however, that Senator Dillard alone presents the best opportunity to defeat Governor Quinn in November. We urge you to vote for Senator Dillard in the Republican primary on March 18.

This is like the NRA endorsing Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for president and vice president.

To pick the only antigun republican to endorse. What the heck is Pearson smoking?

To say a man who is; "concerned about high capacity weapons and public safety" is a "stanch, long standing proponent of the Second Amendment" is like like saying that a pedophile is a staunch, long standing supporter of children.

What is Pearson smoking? The medical marijuana test doesn't start till next year. :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "The Illinois State Rifle Association has endorsed a ban on "Assault Weapons" t" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MErl
March 12, 2014, 08:58 PM
(legal subforum?)

Are there other reasons someone might support him? Something like he has a chance if he gets the nomination and nobody pro-gun on the other side has any chance either?

Or is ISRA just a wholly owned front for the republican party? There are some elections where a single item activism group has to say "There is no good candidate." This is still primaries though right? There has to be someone in a primary race, you even spoke of one of the democrats being more pro gun than that.

Is there any other group that could represent gun owners in IL? Don't think I would remain a member of an organization like the one you have portrayed. (they did not do you very well on conceal carry follow through as I recall)

Red Wind
March 12, 2014, 09:28 PM
Only in Illinois. Ryan,Blago,Quinn, now??????? This man is no friend of ours. It's for the children. :rolleyes:

"As a dad with young children, I'm concerned about high-capacity weapons and public safety," Dillard wrote

Neo-Luddite
March 12, 2014, 10:09 PM
It would appear that ISRA is parroting the NRA endorsed guy--as the literature stuffed in my mailbox today contends--that Dillard is NRA approved.

IMHO Dillard stands little practical chance, or even less than the other boys in the running, of defeating Quinn. I voted for Brady last time, when my Union backed Quinn. Brady made a good showing, and Quinn has proved an all-around buffoon on RKBA and still owes many state employees back pay---in my case enough cash to buy a super clean M1941 Johnson for the collection. So to circle back to the topic at hand, I don't know what to make of this endorsement. It could be one of the machinations of the unique brand of politics played in Illinois or some kind of 'give a dog a bone'.

Onmilo
March 12, 2014, 10:56 PM
ISRA can pee off.
I'm voting for Bill Brady.
Schrock stays in the House too.

lilguy
March 12, 2014, 10:58 PM
Just like my union, I say Fum. I vote for Brady in primary and the Quinn's opponent in the fall.

slumlord44
March 13, 2014, 12:07 AM
I am an ISRA member and got their email today recommending him. Don't particularly like him either but the problem is he may be the only Republican with a shot at winning. My choice would have to be anyone other than seeing the current governor reelected. That is one of many reasons we have our current president. Not voting for him because of principal and there by reelecting the current governor would be a mistake.

slumlord44
March 13, 2014, 12:09 AM
If Brady can't beat Quinn and Dillard could have, you lose.

Jeff White
March 13, 2014, 01:10 AM
Have you looked at the polling? No one is close to Rauner. So if the ISRA is simply interested in winning thinking they will have clout in the governor's officer they are probably backing the wrong man.

The issue here is the ISRA backing an assault weapons ban. I'm sure they will probably try to sell it to us as a win like the conceal and carry a firearm in your car bill was.

Theohazard
March 13, 2014, 01:12 AM
Anyone who supports an "assault weapons" ban either wants to ban all firearms or they simply have no idea what an "assault weapon" actually is. I'm amazed that any gun group would support a candidate that supports a ban like that.

Plan2Live
March 13, 2014, 06:16 AM
"As a dad with young children, I'm concerned about high-capacity weapons and public safety," Dillard wrote. In my opinion, the only capacity we need to be concerned with is the capacity of the bad guy to do harm. Focus on the fool, not the tool.

BigBore44
March 13, 2014, 07:08 AM
Possibilities that he's playing both sides and is actually a Pro 2A candidate? I'm a realist. Not an optimist. But if the left can lie to get elected, why can't the right? Morally or ethically correct? No. But the end result is his election.

If I'm wrong about him and he is really for banning assult weapons, he is not in any form or fashion Pro 2A

larryh1108
March 13, 2014, 07:17 AM
It sounds like he is playing both sides. Is he a better choice than Quinn, Madigan or any other Dem on the ticket? Like Big Bore said, what's a little white lie in a political speech? Unless you know someone who is a better choice AND can win, do what you gotta do.

Vern Humphrey
March 13, 2014, 08:15 AM
If this is true, I have to say the people of Illinois have no one to blame but themselves.

Armymutt
March 13, 2014, 08:50 AM
Did he truly say he supports a ban? From that quote alone, you can't tell. I could say I'm concerned because not enough people have these weapons and appear to rely to heavily on other people to ensure their safety.

bullseyebob47
March 13, 2014, 08:51 AM
i don't support or want any kind of gun control but i can tell you almost all gun owners in south louisiana i talk to would want an assault weapons ban but realize their hunting shotgun and rifle would be next. "you don't need a 100 round clip to kill a deer".

they think the 2nd amendment is about hunting. this idea has been burned in people's brain generations ago. how did this happen? there are five guys i know very well that have ak47s cause i talked them into it. thats the only reason they have it.

PJSprog
March 13, 2014, 01:57 PM
The idea of backing a Republican who is soft on the Constitution just because he might have a chance to beat the Democrat ...? Democrat Light is still Democrat. A liberal is a liberal regardless of party affiliation.

Vern said, "the people of Illinois have no one to blame but themselves." Very true. As long as we keep electing and re-electing these morons, there's no reason for the parties to believe they're doing anything wrong. They just want to win so they can be in power. As voters, we seem to be collectively OK with that. Sad.

Palehorseman
March 13, 2014, 02:20 PM
If this is true, I have to say the people of Illinois have no one to blame but themselves.
No, blame not the people of Illinois, but Chicago, whose voters overrule everything down state.

Jeff White
March 13, 2014, 02:45 PM
I don't know why the voters are to be blamed for the fact that the NRA affiliated gun rights organization for the state decided to endorse the ONE candidate that came out in favor of an AWB.

The problem is with the ISRA, not the voters or the people of Illinois.

I send these people money to lobby for me in the legislature. They obviously have been co-opted by the political system they are working in. The only other recommendation they made on this primary was about the issue of term limits:

From 27 Feb 14:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=86exi4bab&v=001y4Ou-PBFbAYCRb4_L7QHSXGCGInbcuM6xiMsB6hhFdmmpGwm47T4cpbl_L6qd7Hwv729v-D1Cg7r8vHUeqP3EI2SeYXYY8nZYfspLz8JFaDxRSFmJtGr3ArNCDSjJGYcxgQbTeI0o9ipxivJuHS7hUmHEN46pSoZdvTdxvzin7AJ8znTKjoBqkUs-rj_d1lq0aR3qSSEelRIwbjdKwjzJClkSEHNyUQvY95_94-mIyNa_RKhzTC91RHj5Lamf-8It8LOpEsGJ7k9jbimobTIKw%3D%3D
ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 27

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

Recently, the topic of term limits reared its head primarily because of gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner's touting that he will deliver term limits if elected. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of candidate Rauner. Term limits require a Constitutional Amendment, something a Governor cannot deliver.

Term limits is a populous idea based on the "throw the bums out" idea prevalent in many coffee shop political discussions throughout the county. Of course, when we think about it we are really wanting to throw their bums out; not ours. Term limits seem to provide a simple solution to a complex problem. There is more to the story.


State Representatives, State Senators, and Constitutional Officers provide the corporate management for the State on behalf of the citizens. Those people who stay in office develop and learn the "corporate history" of legislation and its true intent. This knowledge is invaluable in operating state government. Without that knowledge, the government becomes vulnerable to several things that are not in the public interest.

The first of these are the bureaucrats who run the day to day government activities and must be kept in check. The people who staff the various departments of government have their own opinions and agendas. Legislators and Constitutional Officers who have been around a long time recognize that fact and keep those departments under control so they do not become uncontrollable organizations designed to serve their own interests rather than the public interest. With term limits, our elected officials never gain the experience required to recognize what goes on, let alone stop it from happening.

Then, of course, there are the lobbyists. I am proud to say that I am a lobbyist and that I lobby for our gun rights. My concerns, along with the other four gun rights lobbyists' concerns, are our firearms freedoms, the right to protect ourselves and our families, and the proper management of wildlife.Our interests require very little money compared to others. Not everyone in Springfield is concerned with your rights. Some are more concerned about money.

With term limits, we turn over control of the government to bureaucrats and lobbyists. Not that those people are not a valuable part of government, but we don't want them running it. With term limits, elected officials are looked at more as "the extra Christmas help" rather than stewards of the public interest.

There are a couple of other observations that I would like to share withyou. One of these is that legislators are representatives of their district. If we don't like their ideas, we think we can get rid of the ideas if that legislator was to be removed. That is not true. I do not understand the logic that thinks a new person from that same district will have different ideas. Remember-legislators are representatives of the people who elect them.

There is also the idea of legislative responsibility. If I am a legislator who will be gone in two or three terms, I may not have an understanding or care about what I pass. I may not understand the unintended consequences of legislation because not only am I inexperienced, but so is everyone else. Because the people who follow me are also inexperienced and they may not know how to repair the damage, but in fact, may make it worse. Term limits also cause a vacuum in political leadership which also compounds the problem and allows those with radical agendas to institute their usually destructive ideas into law. California, a term limit state, is a prime example of what can happen.

I also think that term limits are a red herring issue. You never hear left wingers and liberals criticize conservative groups for pushing term limits. Why not? There are two reasons: 1) I believe that term limits play right into their hands and 2) if conservative groups are using time and energy trying to get term limits, they are not working on things like fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, individual liberties, and gun rights.

We actually do have term limits-they are called elections. The statistics for the Illinois General Assembly show that the average tenure for Representatives and Senators is about 6.2 and 6.8 years respectively. Just about what we want.

The solution for conservative groups is to stop bickering over petty differences, chopping each other into mincemeat in public, develop discipline, and pick candidates who can win. They also need to stop picking the candidate whom they agree with on every issue and think they can win. That person only exists in mythology.

Illinois State Police are set to announce Friday that they will begin issuing permits ahead of the stated deadline.

Thank you for being a member.

Richard Pearson
ISRA Executive Director

The ISRA is going through an identity crisis. Is it a gun rights organization or a conservative organization. Why does the ISRA care about term limits? Shouldn't they be concerned with the gun issue and nothing else? Isn't that why the NRA endorses democrats?

I honestly believe that two paid lobbyists Richard Pearson and Todd Vandermyde both are too close to the people they lobby. Anti-gunners should fear them and what they can do to them in the polls. It's obvious they don't. When there are four republicans trying to win the nomination and the only one who comes out in favor of more gun control can count on the ISRA to endorse him, they obviously aren't afraid of them. It's more like they have them in their vest pocket.

A couple years back when a notoriously anti-gun state senator was caught faking security guard credentials so he could carry a gun Vandermyde was all over the internet urging people not to be hard on him because he was really a good guy. He may have even registered and posted here.

Neo-Luddite
March 13, 2014, 04:01 PM
Really, the ISRA *could* be on the brink of expanding into a much larger organization~but that will come down to leadership and good choices. I'd like to think this is a hiccup.
On the other hand, I think they do well to oppose term limits as it would ultimately limit their lobbying efforts and the value of relationships built over time. Or maybe we're all rubes being huckstered.

il.bill
March 13, 2014, 04:22 PM
... both are too close to the people they lobby. Anti-gunners should fear them and what they can do to them in the polls. It's obvious they don't. When there are four republicans trying to win the nomination and the only one who comes out in favor of more gun control can count on the ISRA to endorse him, they obviously aren't afraid of them. It's more like they have them in their vest pocket. ...


This seems to be a clear summary of the ISRA's current leadership.

Jeff White
March 13, 2014, 04:50 PM
On the other hand, I think they do well to oppose term limits as it would ultimately limit their lobbying efforts and the value of relationships built over time.

That shouldn't be an issue that's on their radar at all. Do you get email from the NRA about other issues? I don't!

I think there is a pattern of inconsistency here that suggests they have been in Chicago/Springfield too long and are more concerned with being part of the "in crowd" then they are with advancing our agenda in the capitol.

An anti-gun legislator is an anti-gun legislator no matter how nice and personable he may be. That makes him the enemy. His public hypocrisy is something to be exploited to advance our cause. It's not something that you urge your supporters to give him a pass on like Vandermyde did.

I wouldn't doubt that the other side looks at Pearson and Vandermyde as incompetent boobs who they buy off with invitations to the right parties and golf outings.

We had them by the throat with the 7th Circuit ruling on concealed carry and they accepted a bill that has so many vague paragraphs and prohibited places to carry that it's basically permission to load the pistol you have in the console of your car.

My gut tells me they accepted that to give their "friends" on the other side of the issue a way out, "because they are really nice people once you get to know them".

Trent
March 13, 2014, 04:57 PM
Jeff, I ran in to one of the directors of the ISRA yesterday in person. Even have his card in my wallet right now.

We got to talking about concealed carry (I saw his bumper stickers and started a conversation, showed him my concealed carry ID, etc).

What I heard from shocked me.

"You know the ISRA was 90% responsible for winning that lawsuit and getting concealed carry, right?"

(I thought that was the second amendment foundation?)

And... the one that REALLY shocked me:

"Well, I know everyone got mad about the restrictions in place, but we HAD to agree to all of the restrictions to get the vote through. We gave them everything they wanted because we knew we could whittle away at them over time."

....

...

..

.

I ended the conversation at that point. Had other things to do.

larryh1108
March 13, 2014, 05:14 PM
yep, politicians are worth the paper you wipe with.
Yes, they are politicians too.
The ISRA is another political group with an agenda.
This one is supposed to be for our gun rights.
Too bad they didn't oppose the restrictions and the courts would have forced Constitutional carry. I would have paid to have a front row seat for that.

Trent
March 13, 2014, 05:36 PM
http://www.sj-r.com/article/20140225/News/140229532#ixzz2vrDENfJ8


The four differed over assault-style guns — high-capacity weapons that have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings. They currently aren't illegal statewide, and a proposed statewide ban backed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn was pulled from consideration last year in Springfield. About 20 communities voted last year to ban them as part of the concealed carry legislation process last spring.

Dillard, of Hinsdale, and Rauner, of Winnetka, both left open the possibility they would support a ban. Rutherford, of Chenoa, and Brady, of Bloomington, oppose such a ban.

In a slight turn from Republican platforms in support of expanded gun rights, Dillard indicated it's possible he could support the ban depending on how the law was drafted.

"As a dad with young children, I'm concerned about high-capacity weapons and public safety," Dillard wrote.


EDIT: Just second-sourcing Jeff's original post here.

Trent
March 13, 2014, 05:38 PM
Worth noting from the same article, there is actually a viable pro-gun democrat running as well.


Tio Hardiman, Quinn's lone challenger in the Democratic primary election, wrote that he supports the concealed carry law as passed by state lawmakers. But the anti-violence activist from Hillside doesn't support a ban on assault weapons or the mandatory minimum legislation backed by Emanuel.
"There is no data to back up the fact that the legal gun owners in Illinois are part of the gun violence problem in Illinois," Hardiman said. "I support the Second Amendment all the way."

larryh1108
March 13, 2014, 05:42 PM
Hardiman sounds like someone to stand behind. Dem or Rep, makes no difference. It's their stand on gun rights and pro-2A roots. Also, he's from my home town so he can't be all that bad.

Trent
March 13, 2014, 06:06 PM
Hardiman sounds like someone to stand behind. Dem or Rep, makes no difference. It's their stand on gun rights and pro-2A roots. Also, he's from my home town so he can't be all that bad.

Personally my belief structure falls well outside Democrat / Republican or Liberal/Conservative. Depends on the issue.

I'll vote for the one who'll protect or push my particular issue the hardest.

larryh1108
March 13, 2014, 06:14 PM
I am the same way. For that reason, I don't declare a party and cannot vote in the primarys. I think that needs to be fixed because a large part of the population is the same way. We need a better way to allow candidates so we can remove the party affiliations and allow a process that doesn't have specific agendas.

Jeff White
March 13, 2014, 06:45 PM
So the question is; What do you do when your state association has become a defacto part of the corrupt system and is more interested in maintaining their personal position in the state capitol hen they are in advancing your agenda?

If I weren't so set on leaving Illinois before it collapses I would consider forming an organization that would really represent the gun owners.

Trent
March 13, 2014, 07:02 PM
A lot of people are asking that question.

Looks like this move is going to cost the ISRA a LOT of members.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=46756

barnbwt
March 13, 2014, 07:32 PM
"So the question is; What do you do when your state association has become a defacto part of the corrupt system and is more interested in maintaining their personal position in the state capitol hen they are in advancing your agenda?"

Replace them. My biggest peeve is the special interest group that gets too big for its britches, goes off message, and starts to think it's a political party. It's doomed all sorts of promising organizations to pitiable mediocrity (NAACP, Heritage Fdn, practically every presidential campaign, most senate/house campaigns, ACORN, Tea Party, and that's just the last five years, or so). Political parties are different from interest groups in that they are the compromise, and are thus inherently self-conflicted and incapable of convincing/effective advocacy.

The NRA has actually been pretty good about this, especially compared to other gun groups, about staying on message and not getting distracted by irrelevant social/fiscal/political matters (most of the time). Case in point was them shutting up after Newtown for the most part, but maintaining a slow build of support throughout the immediate aftermath and ensuing gun grab attempt; an organization of glory-hogging hams (like MAIG :D) would have exhausted its resources long before the legislative putsch (like MAIG :D :D :D). I won't say the NRA is a non-partisan organization, but I will say that that is as much their fault as the parties', which is about all we can hope for.

TCB

Red Wind
March 13, 2014, 07:59 PM
Hardiman sounds like someone to stand behind. Dem or Rep, makes no difference. It's their stand on gun rights and pro-2A roots. Also, he's from my home town so he can't be all that bad.

Hmmm.have to think about that last part. Just kidding,Larry! :D I wish your native State of Illinois all the best. And your newly adopted State of Connecticut also. :)

larryh1108
March 13, 2014, 08:19 PM
Thanks Red Wing.
I spent 56 years in IL.
It can be a really great state if it could get real government there and work for the people. Downstaters are warm and friendly and even the northern part is full of decent people who just want to live and let live.

Now, it's had corrupt government since the Capone era. I can't believe that it's still corrupt well into the 21st century. Blago's arrogance is a perfect example. Obama cut his teeth there too and we all know his type of politics. Chicago is a great city with a bunch of crooked pocket liners running it.... not for the people but for their own well being.

For those reasons and it's stupid guns laws I chose to leave. Seeing you guys get the right to carry is something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. I am so happy for the citizens of IL. Now, if you can find a way to secede Chicago from the rest of that great state you'd have a winner there. Getting Rahm in there, with Obamas help, sealed it's fate for another generation. Too bad, it's really a decent city.

Neo-Luddite
March 14, 2014, 09:09 AM
Just sent a note to ISRA regarding the Dillard enodorsement~hope I didn't come off too lathered up. The more I reflect on this the more angry I become.

Kingcreek
March 14, 2014, 11:03 AM
Amen, brother White.
I have contacted the ISRA with my gripes but their responses indicate they think they're doing a great job. I disagree.
I've heard DIllard's radio ads over and over claiming he is strong 2A supporter and the "original" sponsor of concealed carry legislation.
And for anybody interested, Tio Hardiman is a community organizer and a democrat, and that is enough to keep me from voting for him

Glocktogo
March 14, 2014, 11:20 AM
So the question is; What do you do when your state association has become a defacto part of the corrupt system and is more interested in maintaining their personal position in the state capitol hen they are in advancing your agenda?

If I weren't so set on leaving Illinois before it collapses I would consider forming an organization that would really represent the gun owners.

I agree with barnbwt, replace them. Some "pro-gun" organizations are really just fudds pretending to toe the line. A good example of a tru pro-gun organization would be VCDL: http://vcdl.org/

As an outside observer, I feel for you guys in IL. You have an uphill battle what with the corruption and overwhelming opposition out of Chicago. It makes it all but impossible for you to get anywhere, when there is no concensus within the gun rights movement on what to do and who to support. If your state NRA affiliate is endorsing a candidate who voted for magazine restrictions and will possibly support an AWB, you're doubly screwed. :(

Jeff White
March 14, 2014, 11:28 AM
With this endorsement the ISRA just told every politician in Illinois that they won't stand in the way of an AWB or a magazine ban. :cuss:

The more I think about this and the implications of it, the angrier I get. :fire::fire:

jrdolall
March 14, 2014, 11:41 AM
Sounds to me like people need to throw their money into some other organization. "Compromise" is a tried and true method of getting legislation passed but we have reached a critical point with 2A compromise.

Trent
March 14, 2014, 02:09 PM
If your state NRA affiliate is endorsing a candidate who voted for magazine restrictions and will possibly support an AWB, you're doubly screwed. :(

I'd be really curious to hear if the NRA's has an opinion on this.

GEM
March 14, 2014, 02:21 PM
An AWB is the true test of understanding the 2nd Amend.

Self-defense of the home or by carry can probably be accomplished most of the time with the 10 round gun. I don't really feel helpless with my 9 shot 1911 and a couple of extra mags. However, I strongly opposed such bans as the data do not support their utility for anything and they are a needless limitation of rights.

However, the AWB strikes at the defense against tyranny argument for the 2nd Amend. Arguing for such indicates you do not think this is a viable option or a reason for firearms.

Co-opting a group into your other crap is always a risk. Gun organizations need to stay out of other issues.

PJSprog
March 14, 2014, 02:36 PM
No, blame not the people of Illinois, but Chicago, whose voters overrule everything down state.
Illinois estimated population for 2013 = 12.9 million
Chicago estimated population for 2013 = 2.7 million
Cook County estimated population for 2013 = 5.2 million
(source: census.gov)

Sorry, but your theory doesn't hold water.

I've lived the entirety of my 47 years in Southern Illinois. Yeah, it's frustrating and seems like Chicagoland runs the whole state. But, the fact is, they only do so because we continue to let them. The majority of our state's people do not live in that city or county. If we continue to elect idiots from that area, how is that the fault of anyone but the voters as a whole? We are the ones responsible to cast those votes, and we should be equally responsible for educating ourselves before walking into the polling places. If we're being mislead by the ISRA - and it appears we are - then we are also responsible for correcting that situation as well. It's easy to blame the Chicago voters or the ISRA, or whomever else, but in the end that's not their hand in our polling booth (or checkbook). It's ours.

stonecutter2
March 14, 2014, 04:38 PM
Illinois estimated population for 2013 = 12.9 million
Chicago estimated population for 2013 = 2.7 million
Cook County estimated population for 2013 = 5.2 million
(source: census.gov)

Sorry, but your theory doesn't hold water.

I've lived the entirety of my 47 years in Southern Illinois. Yeah, it's frustrating and seems like Chicagoland runs the whole state. But, the fact is, they only do so because we continue to let them. The majority of our state's people do not live in that city or county. If we continue to elect idiots from that area, how is that the fault of anyone but the voters as a whole? We are the ones responsible to cast those votes, and we should be equally responsible for educating ourselves before walking into the polling places. If we're being mislead by the ISRA - and it appears we are - then we are also responsible for correcting that situation as well. It's easy to blame the Chicago voters or the ISRA, or whomever else, but in the end that's not their hand in our polling booth (or checkbook). It's ours.
You're only considering the City of Chicago proper. The Chicago metropolitan area including Cook, Dupage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will easily represent almost 2/3 of the state's population, and all of those areas have gradually become Democratic leaning.

That doesn't consider how many people are voting in those areas, though. Just how many live there.

Look at Quinn's 2010 gubernatorial results. He carried Chicago and a couple counties in the SW. That's it. Yet he still won by like 30,000 votes...pretty close, but not enough for Brady.

JTHunter
March 15, 2014, 09:21 PM
Dillard isn't the only "republican" to dislike. :scrutiny:
In the senate race, one candidate's wife can't even vote for him as she is a registered voter in Florida!! :eek:
The local paper ran an oped piece from the Trib yesterday about how Oberweis' wife was registered in Florida where they own a "McMansion". The Trib piece was also commenting on how Oberweis was basking in the Florida sunshine when the rest of us were freezing our butts off. At the same time, Truax was visiting vets in a hospital.
Don't take ANY candidate at "face value" or based on their statements. Look into their records. :fire:
Otherwise we could end up with ones like "Brucie". :barf:

Trent
March 18, 2014, 12:10 AM
From ISRA tonight


A Message for Members from ISRA PVF
Dear ISRA members,

I wanted to send you one more email before the Tuesday primary election noting an important fact. Besides the fact that Kirk Dillard has a track record that has always supported gun owners, one of the important considerations in Illinois State Rifle Association Political Victory Fund's (ISRA-PVF) endorsement of Dillard over Brady is that Senator Brady was the only Republican State Senator to vote against the funding for the implementation of concealed carry. As you know, Kirk Dillard was the original sponsor of concealed carry in the '90s when "it wasn't cool."

Kirk Dillard also is against the assault weapons ban, has voted that way, and has even put that in writing.

As I said in my earlier email, gun owners have a friend in all three candidates-Kirk Dillard, Bill Brady, and Dan Rutherford. However, Kirk Dillard has the broad crossover appeal to beat Pat Quinn. We need a pro-gun Governor badly. Please vote for Kirk Dillard for Governor on Tuesday, March 18th, 2014. Remember to tell your family, friends, neighbors, and everyone you know to do the same.

Thank you!

Richard A. Pearson
Chairman
ISRA-PVF

The ISRA-PVF is a political action committee affiliated with the Illinois State Rifle Association. A copy of our report is on file with the Illinois State Board of Elections.


what....????

Jeff White
March 18, 2014, 12:51 AM
Nothing like a last minute lie to try to save face.

powder
March 25, 2014, 09:42 AM
Looks like Hardiman is the only one who simply AGREES with us, without needing an outside mouthpiece to tell him HIS politics?

What you have to do is once again simply accept that there is no honor in politics, and that Dillard or any other person stating to be an (R), may not be so. And vice versa...

Screw the flowery press release: if you want a guarantee, hammer on Dillard until he states he is against: against AWB, magazine restrictions, micro-stamping, import/export limitations on long guns, anti UN agenda 21, and anti-TPP. That about covers a HUGE blanket of gun control measures on the horizon, poised against us all. If he balks, the best informed decision is Hardiman.

Jeff White
March 25, 2014, 12:49 PM
powder,
The election was last Tuesday. Rauner won. Dillard didn't even thank the ISRA in his concession speech.

Looks like the organization shot itself in the foot for nothing. Not even a thank you.

Trent
March 25, 2014, 01:16 PM
Oh yay, we're back in to the "lesser of two evils" voting territory again.

Either anti-gun Rahm's stooge or anti-gun Quinn.

This state sucks.

wildbilll
March 25, 2014, 01:34 PM
It is exactly that. That was then, this is now. Stay home, don't vote, Quinn will be pleased.
Durbin will feel the same way.

powder
March 26, 2014, 02:47 PM
You have Hardiman stating he is 100% 2A: make him be specific, and turn him into your candidate, or one to stay home for. Jesus.

If the NRA can't get behind THE ONLY IL guy who says he is a 2A supporter, becaues he has a (D) near his name, somebody needs to send them a set of cajones in the mail!!

Jeff White
March 26, 2014, 03:00 PM
Hardiman lost the democrat primary to Quinn. He won't be on the ballot.

The NRA has endorsed plenty pro 2A democrats. The problem is not with the NRA, it's with the ISRA.

powder
March 27, 2014, 09:47 AM
Hardiman lost the democrat primary to Quinn. He won't be on the ballot.

The NRA has endorsed plenty pro 2A democrats. The problem is not with the NRA, it's with the ISRA.
Riiiight.....but in THIS case they endorsed the guy who was for AWB and magazine capacity restrictions.

NRA did not endorse Hardiman, correct?

Dframe
March 27, 2014, 12:47 PM
And now the republican party has a nut for a candidate who may very well lose to quinn! What have we gained?

Jeff White
March 27, 2014, 12:58 PM
powder,
I received nothing from the NRA about this primary. I am assuming they didn't endorse anyone. This thread is about the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Neo-Luddite
March 27, 2014, 01:52 PM
NRA sent us something like four copies of a large postcard endorsing Dillard. Maybe we got yours by mistake Jeff....(!) They all went in the trash just the same and I was ticked off regardless. The way things are going I'll be forced into voting for Quinn as the lesser of two evils. Anyway...

ilbob
March 27, 2014, 01:59 PM
You have Hardiman stating he is 100% 2A: make him be specific, and turn him into your candidate, or one to stay home for. Jesus.

If the NRA can't get behind THE ONLY IL guy who says he is a 2A supporter, becaues he has a (D) near his name, somebody needs to send them a set of cajones in the mail!!
You guys are so gullible. This guy is not even allowed to own firearms due to a domestic battery conviction from a few years ago. He was charged with another domestic violence case last summer.

he ran an organization that collects funds from us taxpayers and doles them out to street gang members claiming somehow they "interrupt" violence.

Jeff White
March 27, 2014, 02:46 PM
NRA sent us something like four copies of a large postcard endorsing Dillard. Maybe we got yours by mistake Jeff....(!)

You must have gotten mine...I'm a life member and I usually don't miss any NRA mailings.

ilbob
March 27, 2014, 03:51 PM
You must have gotten mine...I'm a life member and I usually don't miss any NRA mailings.
I don't recall getting one either. maybe they did not send them to life members.

I voted for Rauner. The rest of them are career politicians who all contributed to the mess IL is in. if he is serious about term limits and can figure out how to get them put in place, maybe there is a way out.

Neo-Luddite
March 27, 2014, 04:07 PM
Now I wish I'd saved one to check. My wife and I are both NRA Life Members. Now I'm doubting myself as he wasn't NRA endorsed, but "A" rated. Maybe it was his campaign ad with an "NRA" banner...nevermind...

Jeff White
March 27, 2014, 04:24 PM
It's quite possible you received a counterfeit endorsement card. There were a lot of them mailed out in the State Supreme Court race a few years back.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Illinois State Rifle Association has endorsed a ban on "Assault Weapons" t" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!