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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,729
Location
Alma Illinois
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/arti...51/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



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:
 
(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)
 
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
 
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'.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...a_RKhzTC91RHj5Lamf-8It8LOpEsGJ7k9jbimobTIKw==
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
... 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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
The second amendment might be about hunting. That is hunting politicians who want to take away rights. Rap music has ruined way more kids then so called assault rifles. Just looking at the back stabbing and cut throat style in use with the 22 ammo situation I believe most gun owners in unison with the antis will slowly chip away at gun rights as long as they think their gun is exempt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top