Roskam mixes and mingles with the NRA
You need to look at the cached version as the current version is cleansed of numerous references to Roskam.
ATTEND FREE NRA-ILA "MIX N’ MINGLE" IN ADDISON, IL ON JULY 15! Help Pro-Gun Congressional Candidate Peter Roskam!Blogging here doesn't make me any kind of guru for sure but you gotta wonder who advises Roskam on stuff like this...
Mix N’ Mingle with Illinois State Senator Peter Roskam (R),NRA-ILA Staff, & Fellow NRA MembersEarn Free NRA Items
Please join NRA-PVF-endorsed congressional candidate Illinois State Senator Peter Roskam (R) and his campaign team, NRA-ILA Headquarters staff, and your fellow NRA members, for a few hours of socializing and protecting freedom.
...and they ought to know what goes on the internet stays on the internet....
... forever.
31 comments:
Interesting.
I thought he was proud of his record on guns.
Think Roskam wanted his name off, or the NRA just did not want to be associated with a loser?
I hear the NRA goes to great lengths to keep its reputation as a political force, and that reputation would be damaged if it strongly backed Roskam.
Why wouldn't Roskam want to be associated with far-right conservatives?
He gave an interview over at the arch-conservative Illinois Review... maybe he was a-scared that rampant guns don't play well in the suburbs he wants to represent.
He's had Washington funders and "won" awards from movement conservatives, notably the indicted Tom DeLay and Abramoff buddy Grover "drown the government" Norquist.
Why should the NRA be persona non grata for a far right conservative?
The story isn't that he's associated with the NRA -- I'd expect that, probably not the best idea while seeking a suburban district, but even Howard Dean earned A's from the NRA as governor.
The story is that someone thought Roskam Mixing n' Mingling with the NRA was such a bad thing that they'd try having it scrubbed.
It had to due with concerns about campaign finance laws and expressed advocacy issues NOT anything about Roskam's name appearing on it by the camapign.
Federal campaing laws are a lot different then state laws.
Todd
God Bless America, where a candidate has the right to do something that clearly stupid or politically suicidal. Of course, the candidate may have to pay the price come Election Day.
randall, seems you don't like the 1st amendment as well as the second.
seems funny that a bunch of people getting together to work for candidtaes makes a whole bunch of lefties nervous.
todd
Todd,
Actually it is the right wing extremists who want to abolish any and all controls on guns that make us nervous.
If the NRA would ever back reasonable restrictions there wouldn't be much of a problem.
Thanks to the NRA, the State keeps my dog license, but would not keep records of my gun purchases. If you are a proud gun owner, those records should be a comfort. They help you know that guns only go to those who should have them,
With laws like that, it is no wonder that most of C6 agrees that the NRA has gone off the deep end. It now is little more than a means for terrorists to obtain weapons and conceal their purchases. Nice work, NRA.
Don't worry, Todd. C6 will know about the NRA's ties to Roskam. Don't try and hide it. The word will get out.
Of course, as noted above, if Roskam loses, there will go any power of the NRA. Don't back no losers, Todd. This is probably a good one to stay away from.
Skeeter
Your Dog License is not a constitutional right! How about some restrictions on the 1st amendment or the 4th? This stand you are taking cost Al Gore the election in Democratic West Virgina and his own homestate. The reason you don't keep lists is the if something should happen and a left wing dictator or court were to find the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly says they will go to the lists and confiscate all of the peoples guns. You Lefties don't mind that the courts just make up rights and remove them at will because they promote your agenda. Giving the Geneva conventions protections to non uniformed combatants, taking states rights, killing babies, killing the old and infirmed, taking land so the government can take in more tax revenue! The list goes on! None of the above could have made it through the legislature but the courts have taken the job into their hands. You can let the Government know how many and what kinds of guns you have and it is your right but it is the right of every American (without a felony)to be able to protect their family and self and it is none of the governments business how many times I use my rights under the 2nd Amendment.
The NRA is taking credit for Gore's "loss"? What color is the sky in your world?
Speech is a First Amendment right, but courts have placed limits.
Why should guns be different?
Why does the NRA keep siding with the terrorists who want to keep secret their purchase of guns?
Incidently, stop rambling on about how the left wants to take away your rights. When the B-Team is leveling fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one second airing of a nipple on television, you all have absolutely "right" to talk about "rights."
Skeeter
Yes the 2nd Amendment was the factor in Gores loss it is not the NRA taking credit it is the exit polls West Virgina was a "Blue state".Why has the Democratic party dropped the stupid gun control push they used during the 90's? Because the voters made them pay.
It is not rambling it is truth that your agenda has to rely on the courts because the voters would never allow it to pass! From bussing to abortion to prayer in schools your agenda has been put into place by left wing judges. For all your B team blustering W has added seats in every election since he has been president.
It was the American people who demanded that something be done when during the Superbowl the arts community wanted to push the envolope. It seems to me that the NFL itself set the new standards and asked the families for forgivness not George Bush. As in all of the instances in this post to know they are true follow what happened after the fact.
Skeeter --
I'm not worried. We had a good event. The brady bunch sent out a press release saying they would protest the event. They did -- all 2 of them.
NRA has suuported measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But just as some don't like the feds snooping in your phone records, or credit card records, or data mining, some of us say it's none of the governments business that I bought a gun once I have passed the background check.
seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp. It's a privacy issue. Just like the court made up the right to privacy in Roe, which you all seem to hold so dear, but you will pick and choose which rights you deem worthy of what level of protection.
As for Gore, he lost his home state. One of the reasons was guns. His own state didn't trust him on the issue.
In 1994, Clinton gave credit to the NRA for flipping 30 seats. Including the former chairman of the house jud committee Jack Brooks of Texas who flipped on us. Geln Poshard even gave us credit forit and said he told the president it would cost them dearly.
If guns were not such an important issue, why has the DCCC run away from the issue in most areas? Whay did Kerry find it necessary to try and get a positive photo op goose hunting? Why did the AFL try and start a sportsmen's group?
it's simple. Becuse when you talk about banningguns, like the gov has, you lose a chunk of the Dem. base. In 2002 30% of union dem households went for bush over the issue of guns. We see it all the time that we can cut into the dem base in a lot of areas.
and the fact is that our guys & gals vote the issue first. you guys roll it in with a whole host of other things and it comes in around 6th.
With 1.2 million gun owners in Illinois, it can't be dissmissed.
todd
Anon --
Left wing judges?
You just keeping getting dumber.
The vast majority of federal judges were nominated by Republicans.
No wonder you vote Republican -- you are completely out of touch with reality.
Todd,
Interesting that you would mention privacy. Tell, us Todd, is that really the basis for your opposition? Let met get this right. Per your prior post, the Illinois NRA backs Roe v. Wade. Is that your position?
Nobody showed up to protest because when it comes down to it, in C6 you are irrelevant.
Of course, that will happen when your organization keeps backing terrorists.
Overall, you do a fine job about lying about your opponents. We both know that nobody wants to take real hunting weapons away from people, but if somebody opposed any sort of gun restriction, those are the lies that you spread.
Kerry and people like him talked about hunting because Kerry and people like him think that hunters should be allowed to have hunting weapons. You and I both know that, but you lie about it.
Nobody lies better than the NRA, as you can see from the Anon poster above. Nice work. When it comes to lying about your opponent, you are the best.
What lies do you intend to tell about Major Duckworth? You going to start telling people that she is some sort of Commie, or that she is in bed with the terrorist? What kind of stories are you going to make up about her?
If anyone is trying to find the NRA, it is best to just look on the low road.
Skeeter
Where in the Constitution does it say "a Right to hunt?" You don't even know what you are arguing about. Do you mean help the terrorists like our Senator Durbin does with his seditious speeches from the floor of the Senate? Or the NY Times giving our secrets away on the front page of the paper? Did you know our Senator Durbin was being investigated by the justicw department at least he was as of last summer for leaking top secret information abhout one of our spy satellites?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/23/131312.shtml
Where is the ACLU when it comes to the 2A? They are to busy chasing the Boy Scouts out of the schools because they won't let a Homosexual take young boys camping!
BTW the cases above were all decided by left wing judges over the years. One of the major reasons the GOP has been so sucessful in the last 12 years is the American people saw the courts doing things they would never approve of, so you can call people names but you like all Democrats never answer the questions or prove your point you make accusations and call names when some one give proof. I can provide hundreds of quotes on the right of people to carry arms not for hunting but to keep the government in check from almost all of the founders in their writings give me one from the founders that says the Government has the right to confiscate any type of weapon. Remember from one of the founders. I look forward to coming here tomorrow and seeing what you come up with!
Skeeter--
The NRA takes no position on Roe. All I said was that people on your side of the fence try privacy from Roe at every turn. Pelosi et al whinned about phone records. But you are a hypocrite when it comes to people with guns.
If they thought we are so irrelevent, then why did they issue a national press release about the protest? Try again.
Hmmm, seems I have more credibility with the issue, especially at the capitol in committee, then just about anybody else.
Osertamn certainly ddin't like the fact I cought is ammo ban. And you seem to forget that in legislation words mean things. Becuase that is what the corts will look to. And thr governor's ban on so called .50 sniper rifles would have banned deer hunting in Illinois.
But it is not a right to hunt. It is a right to own a firearm, for self defense and any other legal activity you partake in.
you remeber like the guy who defended his family in his own home when people like you and the Governor wanted to have him charged and arrested and convicted and then destroy his firearm.
But let us not forget the gov's $500 foid card and his statement that he wanted to make people think twice about owning a gun. I have a list of other quotes.
Ad if we were so irrelevent, then why did the Governor go to Sparta?
We'' let Mrs. Duckworth explain her own position on the cook county ban and other issues. I'll jest sit back and watch the fun. Mrs. Duckworth has already started making statements about banning guns. I'm sure she'll continue to drink Rahms koolaid.
I have to go work on building my 3 year old his new rifle. The 6 year old got his done earlier this week. then it's off to a meeting with other union guys who are supporting Peter in the 6th. Nothing better than a well rounded coalition in an election.
tata for now
Todd
Todd,
Let's be clear here.
You used "privacy" to discuss the issue.
Is that your defense or not?
I also note you did not address the other issue, i.e. that we both know that Senator Kerry did not want to take hunting guns from hunters, but your organization made claims that he did.
Why do you feel that you have to lie about his record?
Interesting you would mention your children. Along with the lessons on building guns, have you taught them lessons about telling the truth?
Anon,
Are you claiming that all child abusers are homosexuals?
Second, you did not address the First Amendment issue. Are there limits on speech? You might want to look into the way the First Amendment is interpreted before rambling on about the Second.
Further, despite your comment, the vast majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republicans. Those are RIGHT WING judges doing those things you find so disgusting (i.e upholding the Constitution of the United States of America).
I keep thinking you have made the dumbest comment possible, and then you add a new comment.
Todd,
You said that Gov. Blagojevich said people should think twice about owning a gun.
Do you agree with his statement, or do you believe that guns should be purchased on whim and without thought?
Restrictions on first amendment speech:
1) 'Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre' as it could cause harm. The law tells me a cannot discharge my firearm in a crowded public place. Excellent. We see a similar restrction on both the first and second amendments.
2) 'Cannot use unfounded free speech to harm another' (libel and slander). The law tells me I cannot use my firearm to harm another person in an unfounded manner (self-defense).
Please come up with some more restrctions on Amendment 1 and we'll show the comparable restriction on Amendment 2. The law does allow me to enjoy any free speech. Also, if I am correct, I can purchase pornography, hate speech etc without having to be 'approved' by the government or 'register' my purchase with the government even if the purchase has the potential to harm others.
Just my thoughts. I know some will disagree but we can have a dialogue about it under our first amendment rights.
Skeeter --
I believe in the privacy of what I do is my business. Once the government says I'm clean and pass the background check. It's done.
To that end, it's none of your business, or anyone else's what I have bought.
Kerry has been on the wrong side of gun control since I can remember. And if he could ban my semi-auto rifle for hunting he would.
His photo op was to try and win back those voters he lost becuase of his votes to sue the industry out of business. His votes to ban guns.
I nor the NRA have to "lie" about his record it speaks for itself. Just like Blago's record opn guns and his lies speak for themselves.
And as for my kids, yes they learn right form wrong. And they learn not to lie and well as beleive the fairy tails you spin about your side and their attempts to ban firearms.
In the mean time, they practise their shooting skills and Jake is already getting excited about deer hunting this year.
to anon:
I think people should think about buying a gun. But when it is in the contxt of trying to discourage people from buying guns, that is something else. And that is what the Governor was tryign to do.
So I dissagree with the statement in the context he made it. I don't think putting taxes on rights and making so the average person can't go out and buy a gun is wrong.
Nice try Todd.
Do you believe that there is a Constitutional right to privacy or not?
Are you using "privacy" to defend your position?
Enlighten us, Todd. Tell us if the basis for keeping records of gun purchases secret is to protect the right of privacy. Does the 2nd Amendment contain a penumbra without which the Second Amendment has no value?
Finally, it is interesting that you want to keep your gun purchases secret. Know who else does? Terrorists. You and the terrorists see eye to eye on that one. When it comes to defending the rights to terrorists, noboby beats the NRA. They spent you any money? They really should. You are their best friends in America.
With regard to your response to anon:
Are you now saying that YOU TOOK HIS QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT? Shocking that the NRA's flack would do that. I thought you guys were straight shooters who would never lie.
In any case, please provide the full comments so that we can judge the comemnts "in proper context."
In the alternative [and assuming that the gov's comments were complete -- there was no other "context" that day]: Let me get this right. You posted the gov's comments to say that although you agree with that comment [people SHOULD think twice before buying a gun], you just don't like the gov? Was that really your point?
With arguments like that, no wonder Roskam is running away from you. Moreover, I hear that unlike you, Roskam does not believe in a Consitutional right to privacy under Roe. He wants Roe overturned. Now that I told you that, are you going to pull your support for him, since he is undermining the very foundation of your constitutional theory?
Todd,
Answering further,
Is the NRA going to join me to get rid of those damn dog licensing laws? And how about the car license? Once I buy a dog or a car, why should the government had to track it?
Got any other arguments?
Skeeter --
Yes I believe in a Consitutional right to privacy. It is found in the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
I think it directly implies a right to privacy from the Government snooping.
I also believe in the right to privacy that is enumerated inthe Illinois Consitution; "The people shall have the right to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and other possessions against
unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or
interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or
other means..."
The Second Amendment like all rights enumerated is not without limitations. like shooting a gun in the air on news years -- never advised or smart.
Skeeter, now I know you are off your prozac when you rant about the terrorists.
Our country has been founded on a belief that the rights of people come first and are not to be trampeled on. Better a 100 gulity men go free, then 1 innocent man be jailed. You know that concept that transends your political bluster.
Save me the terrorist shtick and accusations unless you can show me you carried a loaded weapon on foreign soil. Jumped out of an airplane in the middle of the night with 60 pounds of parachute and 70 punds of equipment.
Otherwise your comments should be directed at the ACLU not me. And if you can't produce a DD214, your comments are just another screed by a left winger who has basked in advantages of our country having never paid any dues for them. Just like the Governor.
For the Governor's comments, his comments we in context of trying to KEEP people from buying guns.
“The fact that it would hurt law abiding citizens who own guns, in that it increases their registration fee which presently is $5 every five years, that original bill would raise it to $100 every year.” – Judiciary Committee hearing April 2nd, 1993
“Blagojevich said the price was set high to make people think twice about
buying a gun.” -- Chicago Sun Times February 15th, 1993
Blagojevich defended the increase, saying $ 100 per year is "not a
significant burden. People interested in buying guns for the right reasons would
certainly (pay) that." -- Chicago Sun Times February 15th, 1993
Oh I think people should think about buying a gun, say 9mm vs. .45 or Kimber vs. Springfield Armory (I'm a springfield fan).
You know stock size, length of pull, wieght if it fits well under the jacket or with the right holster. My wife does better with a revolver than an automatic. So he has a snup nose 357.
If you were to do cowboy action shooting, should one go with a model 97 as a pump gun, or a coach gun beingit's a double barrel?
Winchester vs Henry? Model 70 vs 700? 300 win mag, vs 300WSM or 300 Ultra.
I think a lot of thought should gointo most gun purchases. just not the thought that the government has made it so difficult that I choose not exercise my right to buy one.
The only place I saw Peter running was stepping lively through a crowd to shake as many hands as possible. Had a nice talk with him over the weekend.
I nver siad I believed in the right enumeratied under Roe. I just pointed out that you and your ilk through it up as often as possible, but when that same right is applied to other issues, you call those poeple terrorist sympathizers. When is fact your support of the ACLU has done more to support those bent on another 911 than the rest of us.
I'm still looking for a good hunting dog, that one will have to wait, but please point out the Amendment that deals with them, I'm having a hard time finding it.
Todd
Todd,
First, I am not clear on what appears to be your basic rational. "Certain people claim a right to privacy under Roe and its progeny, and since they do, I will claim those same rights despite the fact that I disagree with Roe and its progeny."
Is that really your argument?
You are the flack for the NRA. Please tell me that you have given your arguments some thought. So far, you really haven't shown it.
Roe v. Wade is correctly decided in your mind.
Correct or not?
Enumerated constitutional rights include penumbras without which those enumerated rights are meaningless.
Correct or not?
With regard to terrorist: I stand on those statements. The only people to benefit from destroying records are criminals and terrorists. Those are the only people who benefit from destroying those records.
In the alternative, are you now ready to destroy all records of car ownership. I have a license to drive a car. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to include a right to travel. Why should the government keep records of my car but not gun records?
The NRA has become a great lobbying force for criminals and terrorists, who benefit most from NRA positions.
It is a shame. Gun owners need a good group to promote gun safety and to protect Second Amendment rights. Too bad they are stuck with the NRA who only cares about defending criminals.
Todd made up the lamest excuse ever: "It had to due with concerns about campaign finance laws and expressed advocacy issues NOT anything about Roskam's name appearing on it by the camapign.
Federal campaing laws are a lot different then state laws."
Since when is it illegal for an organization to mention a politician visited with them (or vice versa)?
Heck, on Roskam's own site he has information about the so-called "award" that Abramoff's buddy Grove Norquist gave him. And Norquist's group also mentions Roskam on their site.
Roskam's Campaign Website: http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view.cfm?id=1121102989
And there are many references to Peter Roskam at Norquist's ATR website:
http://tinyurl.com/qgmv6
Todd, learn about the law before you make things up about it. Roskam's name was not scrubbed from the NRA site due to campaign finance laws, period.
Since when is it illegal for an organization to mention a politician visited with them (or vice versa)?
it's called express advocacy under BICRA
“ Express advocacy (candidate advocacy)”
means that the communication includes a
message that unmistakably urges election
or defeat of one or more clearly identified
candidate(s).
There are two ways that a communication
can be considered express advocacy
(candidate advocacy): by use of certain
“explicit words of advocacy of election or
defeat”3 and by the “only reasonable interpretation”
test. 100.22.
there are limits on that and what can be done with it. Hense the change. It would help if you all would read the law before spouting off about it.
todd
Good idea, Todd.
Maybe you should read that "Roe" decision before spouting off on a right to privacy.
What is your view on that right Todd? What is the NRA's view? Is that your defense or not?
You also might want to read Sen. Kerry's record on guns before you spout off on that, but you probably already have. We both know that neither the gov. nor Senator Kerry nor Major Duckworth want to ban all guns, but that sure has never stopped you, has it?
Why let truth get in the way, when you need to raise money from people who believe any lies you tell?
Kerry tried to ban as many guns as possible, and when he failed, last year he tried to ban their ammo.
from the congressional record Kennedy proposed a ammo ban;
``(iv) a projectile ror a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition or the same caliber.''. "
that definition bans almost all centerfire rifle ammo used for hunting today. Kerry was 1 of 31 members of the senate to vote to outlaw everyday hunting ammo.
No matter how you dress it up, or try to parce the leagelease that is just what it was, a ban on hunting ammo.
And your toy poodle Kerry was right there for it voting yes.
We don't have to make this stuff up, your guys serve it up on a silver platter. Just like Osterman did this year.
Now go hide behind that skirt.
Todd,
Do you even read your own posts?
The language cannot apply to all ammo, for reasons inherent in the language. It compares armor piercing to standard. Standard v. non-standard.
Standard: Allowed.
More likely to penetrate armor: Not allowed.
Incidently, do a lot of deer have body armor these days? I hear those hides are tough, but maybe I am out of touch with today's deer.
This is exactly my point about the NRA. You are so geared up to oppose even the most reasonably regulation that you have stopped being relevant.
Of course, your support of terrorists also causes you to be irrelevant, but that is a different matter completely.
I also liked your final line. This comes, of course, from a "man" who tossed out his "privacy" defense but clearly did not have a clue in the world about the implications of that defense. You sure are a man. No hiding for you. Running away? Sure. But not hiding behind girls.
Does the NRA have a lot of female members? Do you talk that way to them? No wonder you don't like Major Duckworth. Women terrify you, don't they?
Skeeter --
you don't understand balistics so maybe just maybe you'll understand this.
I did not give up on the privacy arguement, I was simply pointingout you are a hypocrite on the issue.
Second, I can go buy a 223 that will not punch through a vest, then I can go and buy 223 ammo that will. Vests were not designed to stop rifle ammo. they were designed to stop handgun ammo and shotguns.
Even my vest with a trauma plate will not stop most rifle rounds.
I can load a 22-250 to go 1000 feet per second, or I can load it to go 4000 feet per second.
As I said, it was designed to ban ammo, but when you guys are confronted with a borad based ban, you deny and run and hide. then try and change the subject.
sorry skeeter ain't gonna work. You know less that sqaut about guns. And i still haven't seen a DD214. At least Carl has one.
todd
"Standard" v. "non-standard"
Seems pretty clear to me. I am not shocked that you would try and twist it though, since that is the way of the NRA. If truth mattered, you would be irrelevant.
Interesting that you would call me a hypocrite. I've never mentioned any views on Roe. You don't have a clue what those views are.
The only one who is a hypocrite is you, since you like privacy when it protects guns but don't care so much when it protects cars or women. Of course, from your other comment we know your views about women.
Incidently, you mentioned a DD214.
Does Cheney have one of those?
He's one of your pals, isn't he?
Are you really claiming that you need one in order to speak about political issues in America?
How about your terrorist pals? Do they have those? Those guys love you. They like keeping secret their gun purchases, and they are the only people who really benefit.
Post a Comment