Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/30/2005 3:07:39 PM EDT

www.jimedgar.com/

Too bad, I saw him as our best chance.

Who's plan B?
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:20:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:13:18 PM EDT
I'd go with Oberweis or Ray Lahood, the rep. from Peoria.

I wish that Dan Rutherford would enter the race, but he wants to run for SOS.

Rutherford is very pro-gun, and wants very much to get CCW into the state.

I just hope when that happens, we get shall issue CCW, instead of may issue, because some sheriffs might be asses and not let us-I know IA has a may issue, and some sheriffs don't even bother.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 7:23:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 8:08:57 PM EDT

www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-gop19.html

Oberweis sounds like a good person, but a really crappy politician.
After this little stunt, I don't think he will get the state party behind him.
He will have zero chance without them.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 8:35:12 PM EDT
Oberweis is not a terribly "political" politician - he sees things in terms of right and wrong, and won't compromise his views for the sake of anything, including the party. He says what he thinks is right and wrong, and he'll look you in the eye as he says it.

Personally I find that refreshing in a politician - especially because I know he won't sell out his hard line stance on 2nd amendment issues for the sake of "peace in the party" or for the sake of building "non-partisan" bridges, etc.

Oberweis may not be a good party man, but he's a no-compromise 2nd amendment man.

I've always cared more about the issues and the individual than party affiliation anyway.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 3:44:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LdyGunner:
Oberweis is not a terribly "political" politician - he sees things in terms of right and wrong, and won't compromise his views for the sake of anything, including the party. He says what he thinks is right and wrong, and he'll look you in the eye as he says it.

Personally I find that refreshing in a politician - especially because I know he won't sell out his hard line stance on 2nd amendment issues for the sake of "peace in the party" or for the sake of building "non-partisan" bridges, etc.




+1.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 5:49:12 AM EDT
Just remember boys, this is Illinois where political corruption is not just a way of life, it's the state motto!
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 7:42:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 1:34:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By streetdog156:
Just remember boys, this is Illinois where political corruption is not just a way of life, it's the state motto!hr


The state of Chicago. :D

I just find it funny that you guys think the Republicans are pro-grun.

Me personally, I am libertarian mostly....I wouldn't vote for any major party canidate.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 2:46:01 PM EDT

I just find it funny that you guys think the Republicans are pro-grun.

Glad we can amuse you.

If we all thought like you John Kerry would be making 2-3 Supreme Court appointees.

It is a gamble with a GOP'r making the picks, with a Dem there is no doubt what we would get, another Ginsberg.

Same thing applies to local politics. Better to have a Republican that doesn't further anti gun legislation than a Dem who would sign any noxious anti gun bill that hits their desk.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 3:44:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 45Ron:

I just find it funny that you guys think the Republicans are pro-grun.

Glad we can amuse you.

If we all thought like you John Kerry would be making 2-3 Supreme Court appointees.

It is a gamble with a GOP'r making the picks, with a Dem there is no doubt what we would get, another Ginsberg.

Same thing applies to local politics. Better to have a Republican that doesn't further anti gun legislation than a Dem who would sign any noxious anti gun bill that hits their desk.



If everyone thought like me, we could make a change. If everyone continues to think like you, we will continue to be stuck with the lesser of evils.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 4:27:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 5:35:48 PM EDT
I'm not talking down to anyone, it's just the way I talk.

Republicans are not and have never been pro-gun. Regan started the import ban in 1986 and his administration started the Brady campaign. Bush #2 has already stated that he would have signed the AWB had it reached his desk.

Republicans have no concept at all of civil liberties (reference the patriot act, war on drugs, etc.). They will never stick up for our freedom.

I believe that most of here believe in liberty. I believe that the majority of this board would, too, be libertarians if they were more informed. If we want to keep our gun rights, we're going to have to get away from corrupt groups like the NRA that endorse canidates for contributions and stand up for our liberty.

A vote is only a waste if you do not vote your feelings. If you vote for a Republican because you think that a libertarian has no chance of winning, you're only shooting yourself in the foot in the end.

Michael Badnarik said it best. "The lesser of two evils, is still evil."
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:52:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2005 6:53:51 PM EDT by LdyGunner]

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Republicans are not and have never been pro-gun.

Republicans have no concept at all of civil liberties (reference the patriot act, war on drugs, etc.). They will never stick up for our freedom.



Broad generalizations such as "Conservative", "Liberal", "Democrat", "Republican" never do any good in the quest for productive political discussion. All Republicans are not pro-gun, all Democrats are not Anti-Gun; and the same goes for the moniker's "conservative" or "liberal". No ALL
of any political group believes 100% in the same thing.

The issue at hand is what viable candidates that are pro-gun have a chance. Give me a viable Libertarian candidate who is pro-gun and can win the popular vote and I'll vote for him or her; give me a viable gay, minority Democratic candidate who happens to be pro-gun and I'd vote for them too. Note - the two important concepts in either of these sentences are "viable" and "pro-gun"; anything else, including a vote for a non-viable candidate is a vote for the lesser, or in some cases greater, of two evils.

In other words, I could care less about the party, as long as there is a viable pro-gun candidate.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 8:11:15 PM EDT
You will never see me use the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservative" to refer to American politics. Where would I stand if I did? The libertarian party is proof that those terms aren't accurate and that American politics should be referred to in more than one plane.

I do tell people that I'm a constitutional conservative, though. I think that's a pretty fair way to refer to me.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 9:42:21 PM EDT
I recollect a political interview with Oberweis on WLS AM talk radio several years back when he was attempting to run for office. Well, he's rather pro gun as he talks the talk, but like most polticians, he has problems with citizens owning certain semi automatic weapons commonly referred to as "assault weapons." That's right! Oberweis doesn't trust you with bayonet lugs and flashiders on your rifles. Oberweis pro gun? Don't bet your AR-15 on it!

Oberweis is common, boring and quite the New Republican moderate. This clown would sign a statewide AW ban as fast as you can say Sarah Brady. Most Illinois citizens and gun owners support a ban on the sale/possession of semi automatic "black" rifles, and Oberweis is right behind the sheeple on this important issue.

Not a good choice for us, at any rate.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:43:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LdyGunner:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Republicans are not and have never been pro-gun.

Republicans have no concept at all of civil liberties (reference the patriot act, war on drugs, etc.). They will never stick up for our freedom.



Broad generalizations such as "Conservative", "Liberal", "Democrat", "Republican" never do any good in the quest for productive political discussion. All Republicans are not pro-gun, all Democrats are not Anti-Gun; and the same goes for the moniker's "conservative" or "liberal". No ALL
of any political group believes 100% in the same thing.

The issue at hand is what viable candidates that are pro-gun have a chance. Give me a viable Libertarian candidate who is pro-gun and can win the popular vote and I'll vote for him or her; give me a viable gay, minority Democratic candidate who happens to be pro-gun and I'd vote for them too. Note - the two important concepts in either of these sentences are "viable" and "pro-gun"; anything else, including a vote for a non-viable candidate is a vote for the lesser, or in some cases greater, of two evils.

In other words, I could care less about the party, as long as there is a viable pro-gun candidate.



+1 Where would we be without all the downstate dems. this year?
Never the less, we have to put out a VIABLE candidate to run against Blago.
Tim84K10, you bring up a good point, but what are we to do? Split up our votes among multiple candidates and give the Governers mansion back to Blago.
We stand together or hang seperatly.

Link Posted: 10/2/2005 11:57:37 PM EDT
You vote your feelings, as does everyone else, and we elect the best canidate, instead of y'all hoping tha the republicrats will care about your liberty.

The only party for "LIBERTY" has their name based on the word.....libertarian.

Y'all can continue to waste your vote if you want.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 7:04:40 PM EDT
According to that link, O'Malley's in the race.


Pretty sure he's strongly pro second amendment, no?


Larry
Top Top