ISRA alert about Jim Ryan (IL)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nanook

Nanook

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
781
Location
NOT far enough from Chicago
ISRA-PVF URGENT ALERT:

JIM RYAN DECLARES WAR ON LAW-ABIDING ILLINOIS GUN OWNERS


In an Associated Press wire story released yesterday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan pledged to sign a ban on “Assault Weapons” and promised to veto any “Concealed Carry” legislation that reaches his desk.

In making these pronouncements, Jim Ryan was very clear that he would wholeheartedly support legislation that would result in the ban and confiscation of most of the guns in your safe. You would have two choices – either surrender your banned firearms to the police, or the police will be kicking down your door to take them. Ryan could not have made the point any clearer.

Ryan was equally clear about your right to defend yourself. By pledging to veto concealed carry legislation, Ryan is telling you that he would rather see you unarmed, being beaten and humiliated by a gang of hooligans than to see you with a gun in your hand. Ryan also has a message for your wife, your mother, your daughter, your girlfriend. That message is that he would rather see her laying dead in an alley with her pantyhose knotted around her neck than to see her with a gun in her hand. Ryan could not have made the point any clearer.

Just as he did in the 2002 gubernatorial race, Jim Ryan has proven himself to be cut from the same cloth as Chicago Democrats such as Richie Daley, Barack Obama, and Rod Blagojevich.

Any gun owner who would vote for Jim Ryan has to be out of his or her mind.

Please forward this alert to all your gun owning friends.

Please post this alert to any and all blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.

Please make a promise to yourself, right now, this moment, that you will not let yourself be pushed around and lied to by guys like Jim Ryan.
 
This should surprise no one.

Illinois is the most corrupt state in the union, with the most anti-citizen attitudes toward self-defense. Your life is simply worth NOTHING to the political thugs who run, or WANT to run that state.

It should get REALLY interesting when the Guantanamo detainees show up there and the terrorist attacks and detainee escapes begin.
 
Here is the exact quote from him. This doesn't even make sense. No surprise from a politician I guess.

This is like saying "I'll allow a black sky as long as it stays blue".

-- Jim Ryan: "I would sign it [assault-weapons ban] provided it was narrowly drawn and did not violate our 2nd Amendment rights."
Click to expand...

Sounds like he's a couple of bricks short of a full load.
 
I don't see what the fuss is all about. As "The Gov" he'd be assigned bodyguards and have nothing to worry about. :rolleyes: :barf:

-- Jim Ryan: "I would sign it [assault-weapons ban] provided it was narrowly drawn and did not violate our 2nd Amendment rights."
Click to expand...

Translation: You might be able to keep your bird guns and deer rifles, but everything else goes.
 
This is why you need to investigate who you are voting for instead of blindly voting party line.
 
this sounds too familiar, we have many guys like that here in germany. i'm wishing you much luck for voting him away!:fire:
 
Was an alert really needed, his state should suffice as a warning. How this guy can call himself a republican is beyond me.
 
This should surprise no one.

Illinois is the most corrupt state in the union, with the most anti-citizen attitudes toward self-defense. Your life is simply worth NOTHING to the political thugs who run, or WANT to run that state.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it seems that way to those not from Illinois, but the extraordinary corruption is from Chicago. The rest of us "down-state" are pretty good, and our politicians possess only the normal level of corruption.
 
Perhaps it seems that way to those not from Illinois, but the extraordinary corruption is from Chicago. The rest of us "down-state" are pretty good, and our politicians possess only the normal level of corruption.
Click to expand...
So, all of those years I lived in Chicago after being born there, was that like The Matrix and I was actually some place else?

There are not enough people in Chicago to elect Blagojevic. Nor will there be enough people in Chicago to elect the next anti-gun cur.
 
Thanks. I'm voting for another in the primary...and leaving the state as soon as financially possible (I need enough biz outside of Illinois before moving would be wise).
 
Oldskoolfan

It is not my place to tell you or others who you should vote for, or what issues you should or shouldn't support. However I would point out to you and others, that should you vote in the Republican primary in an effort to upset Ryan you are still free to vote for whoever you want in the general election.
 
Old Fuff brings up a good point. However I myself cannot vote for anyone who is not pro-gay rights and pro-choice as well. I will probably be voting Libertarian again.
Click to expand...
I have the same sentiments.

On the other hand, when you vote for somebody who's anti-gun and especially anti-concealed carry (or for somebody whom you KNOW isn't going to get elected), you vote for somebody who thinks that gay bashing is preferable to gays defending themselves against it, and who thinks that a woman should be able to get an abortion after getting pregnant from the rape she could have prevented using a gun.

But again, I understand how you feel. When it looked like he was a strong contender, I ABSOLUTELY ruled out Giuliani, and for reasons in addition to his fanatical anti-gun stance.
 
However I myself cannot vote for anyone who is not pro-gay rights and pro-choice as well. I will probably be voting Libertarian again.
Click to expand...
Maybe your reason for prioritizing the pro-gay rights and pro-choice issues over gun rights is based on a matter of principle, and, if so, I understand. Voters are usually forced to decide what issues are most important to them and then vote for the candidate who agrees with them on those issues, even if it means casting a vote for a guy that disagrees with you on other important topics. Very rarely will you find a candidate who matches your belief system from top to bottom.

However, for practical reasons I don't see why a person would prioritize the pro-choice and pro-gay rights issues in the Illinois gubernatorial race. By and large, state polititians won't have much of an effect on abortion issues because that issue is determined by federal law. Even the staunchest pro-life governor won't be able to take away anyone's right to an abortion. Similarly, with respect to gay-rights, I don't see the next governor's views on that issue really having any practical effect in the next four years. Conversely, gun rights is a very hot topic right now with multiple bills introduced each year in the Illinois General Assembly and the governor could play a significant role in expanding or reducing the gun rights of Illinois citizens.
 
Originally posted by Deanimator:
I have the same sentiments.

On the other hand, when you vote for somebody who's anti-gun and especially anti-concealed carry (or for somebody whom you KNOW isn't going to get elected), you vote for somebody who thinks that gay bashing is preferable to gays defending themselves against it, and who thinks that a woman should be able to get an abortion after getting pregnant from the rape she could have prevented using a gun.

But again, I understand how you feel. When it looked like he was a strong contender, I ABSOLUTELY ruled out Giuliani, and for reasons in addition to his fanatical anti-gun stance.
Click to expand...
That is quite a leap of logic to assume that because they are anti-gun they prefer that gays be bashed rather than defend themselves. Or that they don't want women to be able to defend themselves from an assault with a gun and would rather they have an abortion.

Its like saying well he is pro-gun and anti-gay marriage because he wants people to be able to go out and shoot all the fags. Or he wants people to be able to go and rape women with the guns he wants them to keep and not have any option of getting rid of the unwanted pregnacny by her gun wielding attacker.

If Charleston Heston crawled out of his grave to run for governor as a pro-gun candidate but was anti-gay rights or anti-abortion I would not vote for him. I will vote Libertarian as I strongly agree with them the most.
 
That is quite a leap of logic to assume that because they are anti-gun they prefer that gays be bashed rather than defend themselves.
Click to expand...
It's no leap, merely an average sized stride.

If you abjure all responsibility for defending someone (which they do) and prevent them from defending themselves, you ACTIVELY seek to ensure that they are not defended AT ALL. Their malice is compounded by their LIES that the victims don't need guns because the police will "protect" them.

They're no better than the "doctors" who "studied" uninformed syphilis patients in the Tuskegee Experiments instead of treating them.
 
If Charleston Heston crawled out of his grave to run for governor as a pro-gun candidate but was anti-gay rights or anti-abortion I would not vote for him. I will vote Libertarian as I strongly agree with them the most.
Click to expand...

OldSkoolFan:

I am pro-Constitution and little else. You must realize that being pro individual rights (not "human rights", there is a difference!) trumps all other political concerns. The first right of a free man is to self defense. Without that right, all others are subject to the whim of the majority-mob or the ruling elite. Majority-mob rule respects no rights except the passion of the moment (religion?), be it gay rights (pro or anti), abortion or your right to keep and protect that which you have earned by your own volition, or the right to act (within an objective law) on your own beliefs. Any ruling elite seeks to implement policies that will codify a set of rules strictly for their benefit- i.e. eliminating competition or dissent (Global warming/climate change, God?),(again, your own beliefs)). Altruism will also suck you dry in the name of the "Common Good". See our current deficit and debt at the Federal, i.e. "Common" level of government.

I don't give much of a damn what anyone does in their personal life so long as it doesn't affect the rights, health or overall well being of others. Like most thinking Americans, my message to those in government is: "Leave me ALONE!"

I don't hunt, I feel safe traveling unarmed and my gun hobby mostly revolves around "killing" paper targets (recently into reloading, and a little collecting). For those who hunt, or the law-abiding who feel more secure carrying- go for it, it SHOULD be your right.

As for agreeing with "Libertarians", I would direct you to an essay written by Peter Schwartz, available in "The Voice of Reason" by Ayn Rand for a comprehensive view of the "libertarian ideology". I think you will find libertarians most disappointing. The same volume contains "Religion vs. America" by Leonard Piekoff in case you think I am some sort of right-wing religious nut. It is an excellent collection of essays covering a broad range of topics.

I could go on with a political manifesto that I think many, if not most would agree with here, but I will leave it at that for now.

BTW, any forum members- is it legal for me to do a private transaction- i.e. I find something on Gunbroker.com for sale in Illinois and I skip the FFL and just meet the seller as a fellow resident of IL.? I know the ten year rule, anything else I need to know? Don't want to break the law, Thanks.
 
Oh I have read some of Ayn Rand. However I am not necessarily in agreement with her.

I think perhaps you should go back and read the thread.

Basically if you are not pro-CCW then you want gays to get bashed and women to get raped, that is the logic Deanimator posed. I just don't think he should say that about people like Ronald Reagan who was anti-gun and anti-carry.
 
Basically if you are not pro-CCW then you want gays to get bashed and women to get raped, that is the logic Deanimator posed.
Click to expand...
If you won't let me protect myself and you won't protect me, that means you don't want me protected, AT ALL.
 
Is a firearm the only way one can protect themselves? Since some people are anti-private ownership of nukes, they are obviously pro-genocide and pro-rape as well as pro-murder.
Click to expand...
Typical VPC/Brady argument.

Apparently it's alright for a woman to defend herself, just not in any way likely to be effective. A lot of anti-gunners seem to view a good beating as "foreplay". But I suppose it depends upon whom you want to see protected. Anti-gunners apparently want to protect the rapist.

Strange isn't it, how a number of people here seem to be regurgitating the AHSA talking points verbatim, huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top