GarandFan Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,3863385.story Ill. gubernatorial candidates on guns By The Associated Press12:24 p.m. CST, December 12, 2009 The Associated Press recently asked candidates for Illinois governor questions about gun-control legislation. Here are highlights of their answers: QUESTION: "Would you sign or veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons in Illinois?" REPUBLICANS -- Adam Andrzejewski: "Would veto a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' in most circumstances. It comes down (to) law abiding citizens having the right to defend their life, liberty and property." -- Bill Brady: "I am opposed to any further restrictions to the ownership of firearms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and would veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic weapons." -- Kirk Dillard: "Without having more sufficient detail, including the definition of an "assault-style weapon," and for what circumstances the use of these weapons would be approved, this question is difficult to answer." -- Andy McKenna: "I believe in the Second Amendment and law abiding citizen's right to own firearms to protect their families and for sporting purposes. -- Dan Proft: "I would veto such legislation. ... I believe arbitrary gun bans are unconstitutional and would oppose such bans." -- Jim Ryan: "I would sign it provided it was narrowly drawn and did not violate our 2nd Amendment rights." -- Bob Schillerstrom: "I would sign constitutionally sound legislation banning assault weapons in Illinois." DEMOCRATS -- Dan Hynes: "I would sign legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons in Illinois. -- Pat Quinn: "I would sign legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons." -- William "Dock" Walls: "I would sign such legislation." GREEN -- Rich Whitney: "If it truly and accurately defines assault weapons in a manner that does not impair the rights of lawful gun owners to possess firearms for defensive purposes, and respects the rights of legitimate gun collectors, then yes, I would sign it." --- 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." DEMOCRATS -- Dan Hynes: Hynes didn't take a position on concealed carry in general but did say he opposes a new law letting people bring concealed guns into someone else's home if they have permission. -- Pat Quinn: "I would veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns." -- William "Dock" Walls: "I would veto conceal and carry legislation." GREEN -- Rich Whitney: "I would sign legislation allowing concealed-carry or open carry -- although ... I would prefer that any such legislation allow individual counties to opt out if they so chose."
c-rock Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change?
GarandFan Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:42 PM Author Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:42 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?
c-rock Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?' Ya man, your right,. He didnt come right out for it. Just playing the middle ground. The first answer, with his vote on the mag ban, tell alot. Just sayin.
Ol'Coach Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:02 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:02 PM -- 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." I don't like that word when used by politicians! "Could" doesn't mean will!!
anonymous too Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:03 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:03 PM Some wishy-washy answers up there.
moparcardave Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:05 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:05 PM -- Pat Quinn: "I would sign legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons." Some politicians just don't realize how foolish they sound. Styled? So you tell me if something is styled different then it shold be banned? These firearms are NOT assualt weapons and in most cases would barely qualify as a deer rifle. There are times I hang my head in shame to say I am from Illinois.
Buzzard Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM Posted December 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM I'm curious why there's no interest in Brady? I'm curious how he feels on the Thompson Prison issue, which will most likely be settled long before the election.
I Hate Gunlaws Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:04 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:04 AM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?Strange as it sounds, I'd have to agree with c-rock on this one. A purposfully ambiguous answer to "sign or veto legislation banning... assault-style weapons" is what I see. Pandering for votes (by not taking a side)...I get that. But a seeming willingness to consider a ban depending on definitions and uses? Not gettin' my vote. I'm not a single issue voter, but this issue ranks VERY high on my list. I want to hear a "yea" or "nea", coupled with reasons why. Not more crap. Sorry, I'm not willing to vote for someone who is in favor of LTC...if in the end, I may have to hand over a few semi-automatic rifles.
ilphil Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:26 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:26 AM While I don't agree with them one bit and would not vote for any of them, you have to give the Democrat candidates credit for givng straighforward answers. They leave no doubt what their position is.On the other hand I can't get a warm fuzzy feeling from some of the Republicans' answers... pols hiding behind "could" and "in most circumstances" and "narrowly drawn" and "definitions". That kind of equivocation makes me nervous because the statement really doesn't mean a damn thing when you get done with all the disclaimers.
cowboyflyfisher Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:54 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 01:54 AM I can't stand Jim Ryan. He would sign an assault-style weapon ban if it didn't violate our 2nd Amendment rights. What the heck amendment did he read! Obviously not the one that ends in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If he wins the primary we will have another democrat governor.
papa Posted December 13, 2009 at 02:01 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 02:01 AM Seems a few of these guys need someone to kick them back into the water before they hurt themselves.
ishmo Posted December 13, 2009 at 02:49 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 02:49 AM Some wishy-washy answers up there.Agreed, with the exception of Profit and Andrzejewski the answers are all just chum in the water that will split the primary vote and leave us with another Democrat running the state when it's all over.
Ocellairs Posted December 13, 2009 at 03:48 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 03:48 AM ....me thinks the paper would do better to ask questions on who would raise or lower taxes. How about job creation.
PPK Posted December 13, 2009 at 03:53 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 03:53 AM ....me thinks the paper would do better to ask questions on who would raise or lower taxes. How about job creation.Wouldn't matter. No politician will admit wanting to raise taxes and I'm guessing they're all for creating jobs. Whatever they said on those two issues would be meaningless.
TTIN Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:34 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:34 AM I dunno...maybe Dillard is a thinking man....just sayin'.
TTIN Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:35 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:35 AM I dunno...maybe Dillard is a thinking man....just sayin'.
TTIN Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:37 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:37 AM I dunno...maybe Dillard is a thinking man....just sayin'.
pyre400 Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:42 AM Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:42 AM ....me thinks the paper would do better to ask questions on who would raise or lower taxes. How about job creation.Wouldn't matter. No politician will admit wanting to raise taxes and I'm guessing they're all for creating jobs. Whatever they said on those two issues would be meaningless. Dillard was asked this question. I believe his response was something to the effect of: "To say you don't support a tax increase in this state is just pandering". ..and then on to something like: "You have to keep all options opened."
Ashdump Posted December 13, 2009 at 04:45 PM Posted December 13, 2009 at 04:45 PM Wow, so if the likely outcome of the primary is ryan and quinn, what choice do we have??? I really hate this state more every day. How pathetic is it that your only hope of being truly able to excercise your rights hinges on a SCOTUS decision?... and even after that we'll have no carry.
spec4 Posted December 13, 2009 at 04:56 PM Posted December 13, 2009 at 04:56 PM If it is Ryan and Quinn, I'll stay home as there is little if any difference in the two. Yesterday I was positive on Dillard, now, I'm concerned. Why doesn't he have the courage to come out and fully support 2A? Would he lose many GOP or independent voters by doing so? Mancow on WLS is very pro CCW and harps on it daily. I'm going to ask him to get Dillard on his show and run him through the wringer on this issue.
Ashdump Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:00 PM Posted December 13, 2009 at 05:00 PM If it is Ryan and Quinn, I'll stay home as there is little if any difference in the two. Yesterday I was positive on Dillard, now, I'm concerned. Why doesn't he have the courage to come out and fully support 2A? Would he lose many GOP or independent voters by doing so? Mancow on WLS is very pro CCW and harps on it daily. I'm going to ask him to get Dillard on his show and run him through the wringer on this issue. I will vote because there are other important races going on, but if they are the choices for governer, I'll just skip over that box alltogether.
GarandFan Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:09 PM Author Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:09 PM Well, one message is clear. Ryan must be opposed in the primary, at all costs. So ... if polling suggests that Ryan might take the primary, it would behoove votes for whomever is in second place .... whomever that may be.
Ashdump Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:12 PM Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:12 PM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,3863385.story Ill. gubernatorial candidates on guns -- 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." Just who in the heck is "we"? Does he have a mouse in his pocket or something?
GarandFan Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:29 PM Author Posted December 13, 2009 at 06:29 PM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,3863385.story Ill. gubernatorial candidates on guns -- 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." Just who in the heck is "we"? Does he have a mouse in his pocket or something? Of course he means "we" as in all Illinoisans.
Ol'Coach Posted December 13, 2009 at 07:07 PM Posted December 13, 2009 at 07:07 PM "Speak for yourself, John." (Read, Jim.)
SmershAgent Posted December 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM Posted December 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?' Ya man, your right,. He didnt come right out for it. Just playing the middle ground. The first answer, with his vote on the mag ban, tell alot. Just sayin. I agree. I still hold that vote against him, and vague, noncommital responses about signing AWB legislation do little to assuage my concerns.
pyre400 Posted December 14, 2009 at 03:25 PM Posted December 14, 2009 at 03:25 PM it would behoove votes for whomever is in second place .... whomever that may be. I'm sorry, but I think this is a flawed approach. You're putting the power of the vote into the hands of someone who publishes a poll (ala Obama election). This is not how its supposed to work, and why we're in this mess today. How about we put the right guy on the ticket? Mobilize, and make your concerns known. Dont sit on your backs and watch the media and flawed polls decide who you can choose from. We, the voters, decide who is on the ballot. Its up to us, the IL voters!! Not some idiot with with hair commercials. If you know sheeple in your family, or neighborhood, try to wake them up. Arm your self with facts, and distribute the message. Let people know they are being puppets to the system, and liberate their minds. I refuse to sit and watch this cycle continue any longer. People, please, realize this: Your future as a citizen of this state depends on your action. Even when combining all the media, corporate cronys, candidates, and their associates - there are a heck of a lot more of us than them. We simply need to band together.
Federal Farmer Posted December 14, 2009 at 03:51 PM Posted December 14, 2009 at 03:51 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?' Ya man, your right,. He didnt come right out for it. Just playing the middle ground. The first answer, with his vote on the mag ban, tell alot. Just sayin. I agree. I still hold that vote against him, and vague, noncommital responses about signing AWB legislation do little to assuage my concerns. Yes, but other responses might lose him the needed votes north of I80. I think he is doing what he needs to do to even stand a chance. From what we hear off the record, he'll be pretty good for our issue. However, if he takes the kind of hard-line stance some want, we might as well not field a candidate and just let Cook County appoint a governor.
Lou Posted December 14, 2009 at 04:00 PM Posted December 14, 2009 at 04:00 PM Sounds like Dillard isnt much of a difference. Wheres the Change? Pretty much anything works to confirm your notions, huh Rock?' Ya man, your right,. He didnt come right out for it. Just playing the middle ground. The first answer, with his vote on the mag ban, tell alot. Just sayin. I agree. I still hold that vote against him, and vague, noncommital responses about signing AWB legislation do little to assuage my concerns. Yes, but other responses might lose him the needed votes north of I80. I think he is doing what he needs to do to even stand a chance. From what we hear off the record, he'll be pretty good for our issue. However, if he takes the kind of hard-line stance some want, we might as well not field a candidate and just let Cook County appoint a governor. +1 for the voice of reason.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.