close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

HUGE SCREW-UP by Illinois State Rifle Association

Discussion in 'Illinois Glockers' Club' started by volsbear, Jan 22, 2010.

  1. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    If you haven't read or heard of it, the ISRA (and NRA) both endorsed Kirk Dilliard as governor. Dilliard is NOT a friend of the 2nd amendment though he claims to be. My understanding is that the ISRA went with a "safer" candiate (meaning, one that is more likely to win) than long time friend and CCW proponent, Bill Brady.

    IMO, this is a genuine betrayal to Bill Brady who has proposed legislation that would allow CCW year after year after year.

    Please take a moment to write the ISRA and your displeasure to be heard in the loudest possible way.
     
  2. ChaneyD

    ChaneyD

    630
    0
    Mar 20, 2003
    MI
    Glad to see Chicago politics still at work. Don't know why the NRA would back ANY politician from this state for ANY office.

    :rofl:
     


  3. MakeMineA10mm

    MakeMineA10mm * * * * Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    1,955
    4
    Feb 13, 1999
    Central Illinois
    Bill Brady has always been my one and only choice. In addition to his staunch pro-gun positions, he's a former Coroner, a down-stater, and pro-balanced-budget.

    I can't find anything about the guy NOT to like.

    I'm sure the ISRA had their reasons for picking Dillard, but I think it's a bad idea to endorse candidates in primaries period. I think it would be much better to point out who is risky/we should NOT vote for, and let us choose among the rest. That way, there's lower risk of alienating someone in high office some day...
     
  4. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    Ryan and Mckenna ARE AGAINST right to carry. Brady is way behind (along with Andzrejewski). Dillard will sign a right to carry bill, and is in the top three (with Ryan and Mckenna).

    Personally, I like Andzrejewski. However, I am not sure he can pull out a win considering how far back he is at this point. It may (and probably will) come down to the fact that I DO NOT want Ryan or Mckenna, and Dillard is the only viable choice.
     
  5. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    Dilliard will NOT sign that bill even if it passes. And even more importantly, he will NOT use executive influence to get the bill called for a vote.

    Dilliard's "law enforcemenet advisors" is the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police - CALEA strokes who heavily oppose concealed carry.
     
  6. Davegrave

    Davegrave Dapper Dan

    4,170
    1
    Sep 1, 2005
    NW IN
    Bill Brady...what an unfortunate last name for anyone trying to run on a pro 2A platform.
    :rofl:
     
  7. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    Information from -

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,3863385.story

    QUESTION: "Would you sign or veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns?"

    REPUBLICANS
    -- Adam Andrzejewski: "I would sign it. ... Law abiding citizens have this right."

    -- Bill Brady: "Constitutional rights should be afforded to eligible, law-abiding Illinois citizens,
    and therefore concealed carry should be legalized.

    -- Kirk Dillard: "With proper training and thorough background checks, and dependent upon
    the exact language drafted in the legislation, I could support allowing concealed-carry for handguns
    as almost every other state in the nation has done."

    -- Andy McKenna: "I am opposed to concealed-carry legislation."

    -- Dan Proft: "I would sign right to carry legislation."

    -- Jim Ryan: "I would veto. I believe reasonable people can differ on this issue but on balance,
    drawing from my experience as a law enforcement official, I believe we are better off without concealed-carry."

    -- Bob Schillerstrom: "I would veto legislation allowing concealed carry for handguns.
    I am a supporter of the Second Amendment; however, I do not believe that concealed carry is a solution
    for reducing crime in the State of Illinois."

    Schillerstrom is out - good. Proft, Brady and Andzrejewski are running pretty far back. Ryan and Mckenna are DEAD SET AGAINST right to carry. Dillard is in the running and is not against right to carry. It looks like the realistic choice is between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Did Dillard say he would sign an assault weapon ban or veto right to carry legislation - NO. There is a reason the ISRA endorsed Dillard, you just may need to read between the lines at this point for the answer.
     
  8. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    Dilliard says yes, but puts contingencies and conditions. He's not on the level and up until a few years ago was adamantly opposed. He's got an agenda, and that agenda is to kiss ass within the chiefs of police throughout the state. He won't sign it unless it gives supreme power to the cops to decide who gets a permit and who doesn't.
     
  9. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    With the primary about a month away, in a field of six, Brady is not in the top three. Just because Dillard "says" there are stipulations to him signing a RTC bill, or not signing an "assault" weapon bill, does not mean he is anti gun. Just my speculation, but perhaps he would not sign a "may" issue bill, preferring a "shall" issue bill.

    Unfortunately, I am not, at this point, privy to information that the ISRA and GAT Guns have for endorsing Dillard. The ISRA and GAT are very pro gun, pro 2A and there is a reason for their endorsement. Personally, I think that Andrzejewski is a great candidate with an excellent platform, but with out the name recognition of Ryan/Dillard or deep pockets of Mckenna, his odds of success are slim and none.

    Setting ideals aside, we are realistically looking at a choice between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Ryan and Mckenna are against RTC and for an "assault" weapon ban. A vote solely on gun issues, going to any other candidate will split the vote and ensure Ryan the primary. Dillard may not look the best to you at this point, but he is actually electable, and would be a hell of a lot better than Ryan (or Mckenna) vs Quinn or Hynes.
     
  10. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    I actually like Andrezejewski and what he has to say. He's still way too young politically to have a realistic shot. I really thought he should've run for Leiutenant Governor first and then for Governor later. Ryan will be hard to beat and will be a stab to the heart of every concealed carry advocate.

    And the primary is like 1 week from now.
     
  11. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    Yeah, I caught that after I posted. Here is an editorial on Dillard which touches on the RKBA issue.

    http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featur...-is-it-enough-for-illinois-republicans,118932

    Like Reagan, Kirk Dillard Has Only 99.44% Party Purity: Is it Enough for Illinois Republicans?
    THOMAS F. ROESER 21 JANUARY 2010 10 COMMENTS
    As an old retired officer of a major grocery products company (Quaker Oats), I remember an everlastingly popular slogan from one of our competitors: “Ivory Soap—99 and 44/100ths percent pure. It floats!”

    The story behind the slogan is this. In 1878, the company was producing just another kind of hand soap which it called…unoriginally… “White Soap.” Kind of catchy, huh? Well, it wasn’t. There were many kinds of white soap.



    One day a factory hand left his big soap kettle bubbling while he attended to a very personal need. Then he got involved in a conversation with some buddies. When he came back, he saw that he had been gone for far too long. The soap bars had changed drastically in constituents and in fact were bobbing up and down on top of the steaming liquid. The slag had melted away which had held the bars settle on the bottom of the kettle. He was about to empty the kettle and toss the mess down the drain when he got another idea.

    He salvaged the bars of soap and took them past his immediate foreman supervisor to the office of the plant manager. The plant manager was intrigued. They got hold of John Proctor, the owner. The boiling process had removed almost all of the very normal impurities that affected and afflicted every other bar of soap. Proctor decided intrinsic integrity, which soap manufacturers today continue to call purity, warranted a new name and a slogan. Voila! a major chapter in entrepreneurial history was opened. To signify purity, a new name was given: Ivory. And a new slogan “Ivory Soap—99 and 44/100ths percent pure: It floats!” (The factory worker was immediately promoted upstairs and died 39 years later a rich man—rewarded for his brilliant insight).

    What sold John Proctor and what sells Ivory today is its sublime test. Just short of perfection.

    “Yeah but Dillard Did This and That!”

    Every so often I bump into somebody who says: “You’re for Kirk Dillard but he’s not perfect on…” and he goes on to elucidate one position out of the 24,000 a state legislator must vote on every legislative session…and one of 1,245,000 statements made in the extent of a long political career where fallibility can be perceived.
    Dillard not perfect? No he isn’t. Neither is the Dillard critic. But then I was taught by my old theology professor, Father Ernie—with whom I spent 4 years in his rigorously meticulous classes (from age 17 to 21)—a valuable insight.

    “Gentlemen,” he said once, “you are very attentive but you are not perfect. That’s because of the nature of the human condition—which is what, Mr. Roeser?”

    In my 1st year I was stumped—which proved Ernie’s point. After the 2nd year, I could rattle this off:

    “I am not perfect because perfection means nothing is lacking which according to its nature it should possess. That is the definition of infinite perfection which in itself has all possible excellence and excludes all deficiencies. Only God is absolutely perfect. The nature of virtuous humanity is that it has a finite nature and possesses all the advantages corresponding to its nature.”

    And he would say: “Right you are, Mr. Roeser—but even with those qualifications, sir, you are not perfect!”
    None of us had the guts to say “by that yardstick, neither are you, Father Ernie!” because in those tender years, by God, we thought he was.

    So Dillard’s being not perfect suits me just fine. The important thing is that…for me and the things I believe…he is almost phenomenally right-on. First things first: I’m a social conservative. Which means legislatively I’m pro-life…and frankly a lot of sleazy things I’m against.

    The Key Voters’ Guide.

    So comparing what I am with the excellently annotated Illinois Family Institute Voters Guild 2010 which was handed to me after church at Saint John Cantius last Sunday by a volunteer…here’s his record.

    He is (a) pro-life…(b) against civil unions which extends marriage benefits for same-sex partners…(c) against medical marijuana which authorizes people to grow and possess 6 marijuana plants and 2 ounces of marijuana—which is important because what we don’t need in this country now is to send a message to youth that we’re lowering the bars on acceptance of a drug that enables them to run the risk of addiction and which when used in excess direly affects memory, judgment and cognitive ability (besides which the “medical” part is a dodge because pharmacology has many substitutes to relieve pain other than smoking grass).

    Continuing: (D) he’s against the archaic notion of an Equal Rights Amendment which would move toward elimination of major gender distinctions and gender-distinctive organizations i.e. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and would propel women to register for Selective Service…(e) is for the Marriage Amendment that would institute a ballot referendum before Illinois voters to enable them to decide whether the state Constitution should be amended top define marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Still continuing: and (f) is opposed to “sex education” in schools which requires them to teach so-called “age appropriate” information including (according to SEICUS which stands for “Sexual Education and Information Council of the United States”)– a group that opposes abstinence training as detrimental to youth), including training in condom usage and presentation of homosexuality as a positive alternate life-style.

    In addition to which he’s on record as opposing a hike in the state income tax from 3% to 4.5% and is against authorizing Illinois drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.

    Finally…something which wasn’t listed on the flyer…is this. At a time when neighborhoods are threatened with the specter of lawlessness, the goofy idea that if you take away guns from average people, crooks will somehow obey and there will once again be peace in the valley. Not so. Far more important, as Prof. John Lott has written—without refutation—is that there should be encouragement for law abiding citizenry to own weapons and subscribe to the canons of safety…for their own protection and that of their families.

    Conceal Carry.

    Kirk Dillard early on was the author of the Conceal Carry bill. It didn’t pass because its commonsense flew in the face of conventional and misguided liberal “wisdom.” But he authored it and still stands by it.

    Does this mean he’s perfect? Of course not. Every official …even the best of them…differ from what you and I might call de rigeur. I remember 69-year-old Ronald Reagan, then the ex-governor of California, standing before the bar of criticism of right-to-lifers because as governor he mistakenly…and I say it was a huge mistake…signed into law the most liberal abortion bill in the country—rivaling the bill signed by Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Reagan said it was a mistake. Big mistake.

    His critics said there was another guy running for president who had a more perfect record…not just on pro-life but on lots of things—not having ever voted for a tax hike (when Reagan had to grudgingly sign a big tax hike to balance the state budget). They were right: Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois was far more perfect on conservative issues than Reagan. In fact of him it could be said that he was 99 and 55/100ths % pure whereas Reagan was in the 44/100ths % category.

    The Rap Against Reagan.

    Phil Crane whom I knew well then, supported consistently for congressional reelection all through his nine terms in the House, campaigned against Reagan in the New Hampshire primary saying…truthfully…that Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in California history…that he created an entirely new agency in a state that was then in technical deficit, to fight smog…that he had vowed to sign the Brady gun control bill…that as a former union leader he strenuously opposed the Taft-Hartley Act, a landmark in labor-management relations…that he supported a California constitutional amendment that allowed professedly gay teachers in public schools to teach (so long as they were not advocates of their lifestyles).

    On all these things, Crane was right. But somehow the people saw in Reagan not just a conservative but a personality with a kind of twinkling civility that could convince people to his side.

    Crane got 1.8% of the vote in New Hampshire. A decent man and a patriot he went back to the House and continued to serve honorably and well.

    Reagan went on to what historians epitomize as glory.

    Yeah, But the Obama Ad…

    The biggest rap used by some conservatives against Kirk Dillard is that he did a TV tape that was used in an Obama commercial in 2008. Sure. But when they say he voted for Obama, that’s the dividing point. Wrong. He voted for and campaigned for McCain. Do I think the Obama statement was a mistake? Of course, just like I think…

    And this is far-far worse…Reagan’s support of a draconian abortion bill was…just as I think Reagan was wrong to set up another governmental agency to fight smog when the federal was all that was needed…that he did a dumb thing by appointing Sandra Day O’Connor who was never pro-life…or that he did another dumb thing about appointing Anthony Kennedy to the Court…or that he took back his early tax cuts in his first term by yielding to a slight tax increase. Or that he yielded to the temptation that he could bargain with the enemy ala Iran Contra—motivated by the concern he felt for the imprisoned CIA operative Buckley which impelled him to make a series of bad decisions which he owned up to.
    I could go on and on. The big things he did, though, cancelled them out (all except, in my mind, his irrevocable abortion bill signing). He won the Cold War. He instilled the confidence that spurred the economy to prosperity. With his twinkling civility he sold the concept of traditional conservatism to the American people. He pushed SDI which caused Gorbachev’s knees to buckle.

    A Twinkling Civility.

    All of which proves Fr. Ernie’s contention: we are human. We are not perfect. The only Perfect Being is God. All of us are well down the line. But the major thing is not just one’s actions, it’s what one believes. Increasingly, modern liberalism—an respectable belief when I traveled with candidates including some Democratic ones—increasingly modern liberalism has been taken with the creed of secularism.

    …That the view of man being affected by divine providence is.;.well…embarrassingly corny…that the trouble with a seriously professed Christianity is that it postulates that God created the world and thus implies that all man’s development depends ultimately on Him (they’re right!)…that production of goods and services and the utilization of the state as ultimate Protector constitutes the real bases of society. And this leads to the ultimate liberal heresy: The material is the only reality—and the material is in man’s power to control. Man does not need to depend on any Deity beyond man’s own genius to transform this world into a paradise on earth.

    So I say: enough with the nit-picking. This guy said such-and-so at a church picnic 12 years ago…this guy has freckles. It’s time to understand that what is needed to run state government is experience, sagacity, good will…all these things plus what Reagan had to got him through many a tight spot—and which Kirk Dillard has:

    God willing he will be elected and continue as the man he is…not perfect but endowed with a tough inner core…flavored with a twinkling civility.

    **
    Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer.
     
  12. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    That was a long time ago.

    If you check your recent edition of Illinois Outdoor News, you'll find him quoted as stating that he would FAVOR an assault weapons ban and would only "consider" signing a CCW bill.

    He's no different than any other machine political from Chicagoland.
     
  13. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    Personal preferences aside, it comes down to a vote between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Ryan and Mckenna are AGAINST RTC and FOR AN "ASSAULT" WEAPON BAN. Dillard is endorsed by they ISRA and GAT Guns. The name of the game is to get the "best" candidate you can on the ballot.

    Like I said, I like Andzrejewski, but don't see him being able to pull off the primary at this point. Do I vote for the ideal RTC candidate, split the vote, and hand the primary to Ryan or Mckenna? All that serves to do is leave us with a choice of worse vs worst.
     
  14. smullen

    smullen

    378
    0
    Jun 13, 2005
    St. Louis, MO

    Was thinking the same thing...
     
  15. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    New poll showing Dillard ahead of Ryan.

    http://thecapitolfax...-take-the-lead/

    The Republican race is even more up for grabs with five candidates polling within eight points of each other. Kirk Dillard is at 19%, followed by Andy McKenna with 17%, Bill Brady with 16%, Jim Ryan at 13%, and Adam Andrzejewski at 11%. Of the remaining candidates only Dan Proft with 7% is not in double digits.

    At this point it seems the momentum is with Dillard, McKenna, and Brady with Ryan suffering from whatever the reverse of momentum is but on the Republican side it is definitely anyone’s game.

    A week out from the primary there are still ten plausible match ups for the general election with five Republicans and two Democrats in serious contention- it’s not too often you see this kind of pile up so late in the game.

    The full results, including crosstabs, are here.

    Important note: This is not the poll that Fox Chicago had last night. I’m choosing not to post that poll until I can find out more about it.


    In Illinois, Dillard is a win. Ryan, Mckenna, Quinn or Hynes is a major set back. Now is not the time to split the vote and put in Ryan or Mckenna.
     
  16. volsbear

    volsbear IWannaBeSedated Lifetime Member

    11,457
    43
    Nov 8, 2007
    Illinois
    That's pretty tight. I wonder if Brady can manage a 3 point swing by Tuesday.
     
  17. SIUC4

    SIUC4 Glockness

    792
    0
    Apr 16, 2009
    Houston
    You have to account for the plus and minus 3% for error in most polling systems, 3% is very fathomable to overcome, the only problem that I forsee is that there are going to be many many more voters who do not care/want CCW than those that do....
     
  18. 05FLHT

    05FLHT

    195
    0
    Nov 6, 2009
    NW Illinois
    That is what I believe Dillard is playing to and why the ISRA endorsed him.
    Ryan/Mckenna and Quinn/Hynes are all opposed to citizens carrying firearms and for blanket "assault" weapon bans. Their views and positions are set in stone. With Dillard, you need to read between the lines of his answers.

    Some people may not like this, but IL is not Mass. Illinois is VERY liberal/democratic, with a minor conservative/republican base and historically few independent voters. You cannot just expect that southern Illinois values will carry the same weight in Cook and the collar counties.
     
  19. Can someone please tell me why anyone that cares about gun ownership still lives in that state? Or any state for that matter north of the Mason/Dixon line?