Poor Dan Seals. It seems that every time the guy turns around, Mark Kirk is in the news, grabbing headlines for some worthy accomplishment or goal that Kirk has achieved or is fighting for. Damn the man!, thinks Seals. This is supposed to be a Democratic year! Doesn't Kirk know that Barack Obama is on the ballot, and I look like Barack??? Why can't I get any press?
Well, before I go all Father Pfleger on Dan Seals, I should get back on track and say, nicely done! to Mark Kirk for making a push to renew the ban on assault weapons. Even the local promoter of Democratic candidates, the Lake County News-Sun, thinks this is a great idea. It makes sense, though--even as Democratic as I think that paper is, Waukegan is riddled with gang problems, and they are bold and getting bolder. As referenced in the News-Sun editorial, only a few weeks ago, a standoff between gang members and the police ended with no injuries, but a police officer was actually basically held hostage with a gun to his head for a short time. The gun used was a small caliber, but the News-Sun editorial stated that the gang member had at least one assault weapon on him, and doesn't take a psych degree to figure out that gangbangers that have semi-autos with high-capacity clips are going to feel a lot bolder about going up against the cops and rival gang members.
Dan Seals, having nothing to say on his own, can only sit on the sidelines and hen-peck Mark Kirk as the Congressman does his work for benefit of the people of the 10th District. Recently, Seals claimed in response to Kirk's renewed assault weapons ban push, that Kirk was a 'recent convert' or words to that effect, on his anti-assault weapons position. Seals, of course, having done nothing to benefit the people of the 10th District for the last three years he's been campaigning for Kirk's job, really had nothing else to say.
Too bad it misrepresents Kirk's record on gun-control.
A simple search of the Internet reveals plenty of articles and references to Kirk's long-standing support of reasonable gun control, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. See here and here and here.
In fact, in 2006, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsed Kirk for his efforts on gun control:
Kirk has a record of standing up to the special interest money of the gun lobby, including a vote against the gun industry’s number one legislative priority. In 2005, by voting against a bill to give a legal shield to negligent gun dealers, Congressman Kirk clearly sided with the public’s interest and against those who profit by putting guns into the hands of criminals. Kirk also recently voted in favor of child-safety locks for handguns, and to permit the District of Columbia to maintain its gun laws. “Congress needs more people like Mark Kirk who will support common sense gun laws,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “I want to thank him for being on the right side of these issues, and putting families ahead of the gun lobby.”
Kirk also has made mortal enemies of the gun advocates. Dan Seals apparently either doesn't know how to do minimal research, or just doesn't care about misrepresenting Kirk's record.
You can criticize Kirk for his positions all you want, Mr. Seals, but don't lie to the voters just because you can't seem to accomplish anything on your own.
FILE THIS UNDER "WHOOPS"-- Looks like Mark Kirk had a bit of a flub when he was interviewed on the "Don Wade & Roma in the Morning" show Wednesday, and said that he supports a policy "where if we see Obama there's a shoot-on-sight order." Based on the context of the interview, he clearly meant "Osama," not "Obama."
Kirk issued the following apology, which you can view on his website:
On Wednesday, I misspoke when talking with a local Chicago radio program regarding the current presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama as well as the status of our anti-terrorism efforts against Osama Bin Laden. During the course of this conversation, I mistakenly referred to "Osama" as "Obama." After being alerted to my mistake, I apologized to Senator Obama for my misstatement and will take extra care to make sure I do not make such a mistake again.
114 comments:
Thanks TA for a well stated, factual representation of our Congressman's position on the Assualt Weapons Ban. It was pretty upsetting to hear the Seals version on WBBM News Radio the other day. It took a phone call to the very Democrat biased reporter and the station to quickly reverse the "news" story. Congressman Kirk has always been on the side of banning these weapons, so again, as you've stated, not smart for Seals and his followers to lie aboutMr. Kirk's record. Seals and his mentor, that catwoman, have a penchant for distortion and their version of truth.
I was up late last night and trolled over to that other Blog. The poster was taking issue with catwoman on her idiotic ranting against Mr. Kirk. At 7 a.m. this morning she had already deleted the post! She just can't stand the truth. She's quite an attorney!!
As the author of the blog that you used as an example of "mortal enemies" of Mark Kirk, I would like to set the record straight.
While I do indeed intend to fight with all my energy against his tyrannical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament, "mortal enemies" generally try to kill each other. I have never given any serious consideration to such an endeavor.
Kurt "45superman" Hofmann
I have pointedly mentioned that I was being deleted on the other blog to Democrats I know, including two elected ones, here and on other sites written by Democrats. Suddenly, like magic, the deletions in the past month or so have ceased.
Should I be getting nervous about this?
But seriously, Kirk has had a strong position here for the longest time and Seals is showing that either does not know Kirk's record or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
Considering his past conduct in misrepresenting his employment, professorship, buying votes for gas and accepting envelopes of donations in class, the latter is more true than the former.
Louis G. Atsaves
I have to agree, obviously, that Kirk has consistently and historically been a good little gun ban extremist. If Seals wants to "top" him on that, he'll have to set fire to the Bill of Rights, or something.
Kurt "45superman" Hofmann
Seals has big problems in Winnetka - many of his supporters are now with Kirk.
...and they knew Seals best.
Super-
I think anon 7:35 was talking about a left-wing-nutter blog that has blamed Kirk for everything from bad drivers to tainted tomatoes. see ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com
The left-wing logic you'll find there is as mind-boggling as the right-wing republican cut-off-your-nose stance that would rather elect Dan Seals.
The fact that both the far left and the far right want to attack him makes me want to vote for Kirk even more.
Yes, Anon, 5:44, I was referring to that sicko who does indeed blame our Congressman when the sun doesn't shine. She has no credibility because she has no sense. One can disagree with votes he has made. But one can't or shouldn't make up a pile of garbage just because she's so far to the left that the only thing next to her is the wall. She actually hurts her cause, whatever that cause might be.
Mark Kirk is a very savvy Member of Congress who has worked tirelessly for this district, the State, our nation and the world. When National Journal ranks him squarely in the center of the House it's a FACT, not fiction. The freaks and geeks who seem to find their way to her blog are simply partisan people who can't deal with reality. Like her and her faithful mom, they have their story to tell. We have the truth and the majority of the people in the 10th who can distinguish the real McCoy from a very tarnished copy.
Kurt "45superman"-- no offense, but even as a Republican, I don't see any argument for private citizens owning assault weapons. And don't give me the rag about the constitutional right to bear arms. We have decided as a country that there are permissible restrictions even on the most important of rights, given under the First Amendment, i.e., Freedom of Speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't dispense or possess child pornography, and there are all sorts of reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on advertising and other forms of speech. "reasonable" gun control is what Mark Kirk stands for, and it makes sense.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater (that isn't on fire) is inherently harmful.
Likewise, child porn directly exploits a child.
My ownership of so-called "assault weapons" harms exactly no one.
For the "'Fire!' in a movie theater" thing to be
analogous to banning firearms some people judge (idiotically) to be "too dangerous, you'd have to be advocating the mandating of all moviegoers wearing gags.
Infringing on that which shall not be infringed, simply because some people abuse that right is indeed tyranny.
It will be fought, and we shall overcome.
45superman- in part, I might agree with you that "your" ownership of assault weapons harms no one, assuming, of course, that you don't go Columbine or go out shooting cops. I myself own a Baretta92 with several high capacity clips. I also support concealed carry - for me - not sure about the rest of the yahoos out there (but that's another debate).
But do I really NEED my Baretta to carry 15 bullets instead of 10? I think I'd be OK without the extra firepower.
Do we NEED guns that can shoot right through a policeman's vest?
Do we NEED .50 caliber rifles that can take down a plane?
Rambo might say yes, but Mark Kirk says no, and I happen to agree with him. Nice picture, BTW. Kinda sez it all.
Need? Who said anything about a requirement to prove need for something, in order to prevent the government from banning it? That's not how a government of the people, by the people, for the people works.
Penetrating policeman's vests? You mean like any centerfire rifle (and quite a few muzzleloaders)? That's right--Grandpa's old .30-30 deer rifle will blast through police body armor as if it were silk--Ted Kennedy tried to ban them for that reason. Maybe you're a big fan of Ted's.
In the over 2 decades that .50 caliber rifles have been available on the civilian market in the U.S., how many aircraft have they shot down in the U.S.? How many people have they killed here? As it turns out, those numbers are the same (ZERO).
Rambo is a fictional character (a rather silly one), played by one of Kirk's fellow advocates of forcible citizen disarmament, Sylvester Stallone. I would thank you for not trying to link my positions to those of that statist punk.
It's an old picture, from my paratrooper days. I'm older, fatter, and confined to a wheelchair now--and also a good deal wiser, I hope. When you say it "'sez' it all," what are you saying it "sez," I wonder?
You claim to own a Beretta but can't even spell it right?
How can anyone claim to be a Republican, who by definition and principle should support individual Constitutional rights, be supportive of any type of gun ban?
You claim that you want concealed carry for yourself but don't trust other people. You're right, we CAN'T trust other people, we can only judge people by their actions.
When you go out in your vehicle on the highway, do you TRUST everyone the street? Anyone at anytime can decide to use their vehicle as a weapon, and those people will be charged accordingly. The same applies to weapons of any kind, be it a BERETTA (I doubt you even own one), a shotgun, a rifle, or a so-called "Assault weapon."
Mark Kirk's support of assault weapons bans and magazine bans will cause him to lose in his election against Seals.
I am a life long Republican but I will not let scum like Mark Kirk (a democrat in disguise) water down my party. We need to get people like Kirk OUT of office so that we can send a message to Republicans. We will NOT tolerate candidates that don't support individual rights.
My, my. It's interesting how the zealots come out of the woodwork on certain issues. Yes, I own a Berreta, even if I can't spell it right. But the legislation Mark Kirk supports isn't going to take away my gun. It would simply not allow me to buy a new clip that held a lot of bullets. I notice none of you pro-gun guys say anything about the need for keeping these kinds of weapons out of the hands of criminals or psychopaths. And yes, I know the argument that the only thing gun control laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. To that I would say, I agree that handguns should not be banned for lawful citizens. But assault rifles and high capacity clips have no place in our society.
Oh, and in response to 45superman and what your pic "sez": I was referring to your profile, which says:
By the way, that's an old picture--I'm about 12 years older, I shudder to guess how many pounds heavier, and confined to a wheelchair (and out of the Army). I just wanted to post a picture of myself with a machine gun.
Exactly WHY would you want to post picture of yourself with a machine gun? Is that because guns are 'tough' or 'macho'? Are they 'cool', especially a super-lethal weapon like a fully-automatic gun?
To me, that kinda reveals a lot about your mindset. And it scares me.
That's what it 'sez' to me.
I certainly don't oppose Kirk in general, but I must wonder why he's coming down so decidedly wrong on the issue of a serious, constitutionally-protected right of the people?
Seems that the go-to question is why people "need" semi-automatic firearms. Far be it from an obligation to explain the need exercising a constitutionally-protected right, I suppose I could oblige those of you who ask such a question - those of you who never learned about history, about the people's relationship to government, and about the need for a balance of power that is necessary to secure the peace of a free nation, of free states, and of free communities.
In sum, owning such weapons is about the fulfilment of the militia clauses. The militia is necessary to the security of our nation; the militia is simply comprised of the people of the nation...just average people. The right of the people to keep and bear such arms was protected by the constitution, in part to fulfill the militia clauses. It's not that difficult, people.
This is a letter I wrote to Mr. Kirk, after he introduced his bill. It has relevance to those of you here, who are also in support of this arguably ill-conceived piece of legislation:
Congressman Mark S. Kirk
1030 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 350
Northbrook, IL 60062
Congressman Kirk:
It has come to my attention that on 12 June 2008 you introduced H.R.6257, a bill to reauthorize the Federal “assault weapons” ban.
I have a few questions regarding your bill, and kindly but urgently request your feedback.
1) Will you please explain why you introduced your bill given that Rep. McCarthy from NY currently sponsors H.B.1022, legislation very similar to yours?
2) Will you please explain why you introduced your bill given that studies conducted by the US Department of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Academies of Sciences all concluded that the former “assault weapons” ban (1994-2004) did not meaningfully affect the nature or prevalence of violent crime?
3) Will you please explain how your legislation will not negatively affect the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms, and to use them for all lawful purposes (e.g. sport and target shooting, hunting, self defense, and fulfilment of the militia clauses)?
4) Will you explain the extremely odd timing of your introduction, given that the US Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on the second amendment, and is by all estimates going to affirm that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment is a meaningful, if not fundamental, right of individual Americans?
5) Are you at all concerned that such a ruling from the US Supreme Court would cause the introduction of your legislation to appear cavalier, if not nescient?
I would like to inform you that 82 of 102 Illinois counties (>80%) have passed resolutions regarding the second amendment, all of them generally stating that they oppose further gun control efforts on behalf of the government.
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,
This particular gun law won't take "your gun" away, but it will take many other law abiding citizens guns away. Can't you see that?
Did you know it is against the law for anyone to use a gun in an unlawful manner? Can you explain how banning certain magazines will have any effect on crime whatsoever? Did you know that most anyone committing gun crime is doing so with an illegal gun already? Did you know it is illegal for felons to possess weapons, or to obtain a FOID card? We have so many other laws that do not stop crime, yet you think that banning high capacity magazines (which in some cases is 12 rounds) will have an effect on crime.
By your logic, we should also ban all sports cars and large engine motorcycles because people have no need for a fast car on a 55 mph highway.
You really don't have much to stand on here, so you make a sweeping claim that certain guns "don't belong in our society." Pray tell, what else doesn't belong in our society, and how many other Constitutional rights will you step over to exact your type of society?
I never in my wildest dreams believed I'd be having this type of argument with a so-called Republican.
Please report back when you can explain to me how an assault weapons ban or a high capacity magazine ban would have any effect whatsoever on crime.
Kirk is also on the wrong side of the issue in regards to the first amendment and Free Speech. He showed his true colors when he came out against the online game, "Second Life", claiming that it was harmful to children.
So now we have Kirk on the wrong side of free speech, and on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment. Why are we as Republicans allowing this type of politician to claim home to our Party, a political party that champions individual and civil rights, limited government, family values, and freedom?
This is why I cannot support Kirk. Fortunately, I do not live in his district or I would actively campaign against him. I used to believe that any Republican is better than a Democrat, but I'm not so sure in this case. By electing Seals, you would send a message to the Illinois Republican party that we will not stand for RINO candidates claiming to be Conservative politicians.
jkool and others- we can debate the finer points of gun control and other issues as much as you like, and we welcome your viewpoints. But don't kid yourself that you are going to spite anyone except yourself (and other Republicans) by trying to 'send a message' by directing thwarting Mark Kirk or other moderates, or even simply not supporting Kirk and allowing a dyed-in-the-wool liberal (and empty suit) like Dan Seals to win.
As I have often tried to explain in this space, Mark Kirk is the most conservative kind of representative that has any hope of getting elected in a Kerry district like the 10th. We're lucky he's held on this long, and it's mostly because he's smart and works his ass off. But if you think the solution is to show Republicans that you won't support anyone who doesn't share your values 100%, well then, my friend, you are going to have an awfully small political party, and you certainly won't win an election in the 10th District.
Exactly WHY would you want to post picture of yourself with a machine gun? Is that because guns are 'tough' or 'macho'? Are they 'cool', especially a super-lethal weapon like a fully-automatic gun?
Nah--I just like it because it scares statist pantywaists. Do me a favor and bleat for me, will you? That amuses me to no end.
Team America - If your argument is that Kirk, as a moderate Republican, is better than Seals, who to me appears would be a failure of Durbinistic proportions, then we can find some common ground there. If you believe your best choice for keeping the district Republican is Mark Kirk, then I understand that.
I don't like John McCain, but I am supporting him because he is better than Obama. However, I completely disagree with McCain over immigration, his support for "reasonable" gun control, his objections to ANWR, his pandering to Conservatives when he feels necessary, but I will actively call him out on these issues.
I can understand why you would support Kirk, but perhaps you could continue supporting him while sending a message that you will not stand for his moderate politics. If he has really "hung on this long", then tell him he doesn't need to keep pandering to the left with ridiculous plans like banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Call him to the carpet and let's bring some accountability in here.
When it comes down to it, we are all Republicans and we all need to come together. This, I am firmly behind you 100%. But, I strongly believe that the longer we allow moderates to rule our party, the worse off our party will be as we progress toward the future and the division between the Republicans and the Democrats closes.
We need to offer America a strong and consistent message of freedom, individual rights, American values and tradition, and limited government with fiscal responsibility. These messages are being lost as long as the party fronts people like Kirk and McCain.
When it comes down to it, the Assault Weapons Ban is nowhere to be found on the GOP platform. WHY is Kirk promoting this? You claim he is the most Conservative representative to be elected, but what exactly is he "Conservative" about?
He's on the wrong side of the 1st and 2nd amendments. Granted, I don't know much else about the guy, but if he is the best candidate our party can find, then you will also find yourself in an increasingly smaller political party as true Conservatives begin removing themselves from the party.
So let's recap here because I feel like some of you might see me as a flip flopper.
I do not support Kirk, and I am indifferent to him winning.
If Seals wins, it's just another kick in the crotch to Republicans to get their act together.
If Kirk wins, it's another kick in the crotch to true Conservative values.
It's a lose lose situation for the future of our party and Conservative values.
So now that you've given up the debate on gun control, can you just admit that you support Kirk because he's better than Seals, and drop your phony argument in support of the assault weapons ban?
You don't want us to not vote for a candidate because we don't agree 100% of the time. Well, I would also say that you don't have to support a candidate you are voting for 100% of the time either.
jkool- thanks for your thoughful comment. All I can say is there is no easy solution, as the trend in America is clearly that most people are moving toward the center, and that's where the battleground is. I think as Republicans, we need to rally around the themes we can hopefully all agree on, such as smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, more accountability in gov't, etc. After we win back all the ground we've lost, we can worry about who is more Republican than the other guy. For now, I just want to win some elections, stop Obama/Seals, and then I will worry about who is "Republican enough" for me.
BTW, if it makes any difference, even our local right-wingers up here in Lake County mostly support Kirk- they figure if they get him back in office, there's always hope he can be convinced to come around to their way of thinking. Seals never will.
Stopping Obama is always the #1 priority.
I just looked at Seals campaign website, the guy looks like he's not qualified to run the county animal control.
1. How any Republican can support Obama over McCain is totally beyond me. We need to remember the judges McCain would support, the tax hikes he would thwart, and the terrorists he would continue to kill.
mac is way better than Romney's warn kevin madden plastic flip flops.
2.The problem I have with Mark's politics is that he does not advocate them strongly enough which is why he has been backed into a lonely Tuesday group corner being crushed by the RSC on one side and the dccc on the other. Moderates are getting slaughtered right now-christie todd whitman's daughter just got whipped-because they offer nothing but micro-initiatives here and there.
For the conservatives who are pissed at Mark, as one who attends cpac, all I have to say is that there are heckuva lot of Republicans in congress, Don Young and Roy Blunt come to mind who win conservative legislative lovefests but that regularly engage in liberal uses of pork and k street excess, which I consider worse given their credentials and that mark is considered a moderate.
To be honest, I don't really care about the usual distinctions between "right wing" and "left wing" (ask an ornithologist or aeronautical engineer about which wing is "better," and I imagine he'll tell you that you aren't flying if you don't have both of them), or "liberal" and "conservative"--much less Democrat and Republican. For me, it all comes down to statist (which can be socialist on the "left," or fascist on the "right), or protecting liberty one individual at a time.
Kirk is very clearly a dyed in the wool statist. So is Seals, obviously.
Stevo, on the other hand, looks like the real deal when it comes to Constitutional government.
With the other two, it's pick your big government poison. I hope you like it.
May your chains rest lightly.
To people like Mark Kirk invading Iraq and sending American kids to die for Halliburton's stock price is OK but said Americans can't have a gun at home to protect their families.
Makes perfect sense!
Anon 7:44, you are comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Nobody needs an assault weapon at home. Get over it.
Anon 8:56, I own 2 homeland defense rifles(assault weapons), have never been in trouble with the law, have a valid foid card, live in a town with no gun crime. Tell me again why i shouldn't be "allowed" to have these guns?
I will NOT vote for a RINO, and that is what Mark Kirk is. I'm a tried and true Republican and i also vote in every election, but i will vote for Dan Seals before i vote for Mark Kirk. I have to agree with 45 and Jkool on this one, it would send a message to Kirk if he lost that were not going to tolarate Republican like him.
Well, Anon, you have more than displayed a moronic view of why you will/would vote for Dan Seals. The beauty of America is that we can do what we want to do on election day. Be careful what you wish for in voting for someone who will never, ever agree with your position. Go ahead and load more left-leaning Democrats in the US House and see how it 'helps' your agenda. What part of stupid don't you understand. You won't be teaching Mark Kirk one thing. You WILL insure that stricter gun laws, more of them will spring forth with guys like Seals in office. Mark Kirk WILL win in November because you are in the minority, especially in this district. Do your homework. This is a Democratic leaning district. Nobody is taking away your FOID card or your gun. The issue is ASSAULT WEAPONS. Too bad you don't really know your Congressman or appreciate all that he does to make this a better place.
Hey Anon 1:21:
WAKE UP!
Stop being the jester in the Republican party. You need to understand that your brand of so-called "conservatism" is being rejected by voters.
WAKE UP!
To undermine Mark Kirk and allow a super liberal like Seals to get elected in his place is harmful, destructive behavior on your part.
WAKE UP!
I do not own a gun but I believe in gun ownership. Assault rifles? Semi-automatics? Bazookas? No, I draw the line with these as do the majority in America.
WAKE UP!
WIth Dan Seals you will lose your guns. All of them.
WAKE UP!
Louis G. Atsaves
If you are a "Republican" and would rather vote for Seals over Kirk you are nuts.
What possible message does this send?
What does this do other than to harm America even further?
Our county is moving to the center and we better get on board or we will go the way of the Whigs. For those of you who do not know they were once a powerful poilitical party in this country.
You will have more luck reasoning with a Republican than you EVER will with a liberal Democrat like Dan Seals, Obama, Jan Schakowski or any of the other liberal wing-nuts out there.
Like Mr. Atsaves said, WAKE UP and GET SERIOUS here. This isn't a high school popularity contest this is about the future of our country and we need to take a deep breath and realize that THE NUMBER ONE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY.
Who will do a better job at that? Kirk or Seals? McCain or Obama. This is the real question of the election of 2008.
THE NUMBER ONE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY.
Wrong. The number one role of the federal government is to stay the hell out of the way of the people.
That government is best which governs least.
--Thomas Paine
Kirk and Seals are two sides of the same big government, Constitution-smashing coin.
As for "the majority of the country" being in favor of banning so-called "assault weapons," the fact that the AR-15 platform is now the best selling centerfire rifle in the U.S. kinda shoots down that assertion, it would seem.
You are nuts my friend (45 Superman) and you obviously need to bone up on your contitutional law and federalist papers. I stand by the fact that the number one job of the Federal Government is to defend the nation from our outside (and inside) enemies. Everything, and I mean everything is secondary to that. You can debate your guns till the cows come home but it don't mean squat if the country is overran and we are just a third rate patch of scrabble. I'm pro-second amendment too but some of the arguments being made on here are just plain asinine.
I stand by the fact that the number one job of the Federal Government is to defend the nation from our outside (and inside) enemies.
And who are we the people to turn to for protection from the federal government? That was a rhetorical question--we have the duty and responsibility, as a free people, to provide that protection ourselves.
When the feds try to take away our means to do so, they become the enemy from which America must be defended.
Looks as if I'll need more ammo.
Wow, my head is spinning from all this debate but I couldn't agree more with Anon 2:17, Anon 3:27 and Anon 3:41.
The Republican Party is a sorry lot these days. Why can't ALL Republicans, be they conservative or moderate, learn to get along. We all hold the same basic beliefs and when we differ we should just accept the difference and not bad mouth those who think differently and then go and vote for a democrat. We hold nothing in common with those folks who seem to get more liberal, socialist and marxist each day.
Do I agree with Congressman Kirk on all his position? NO, but I know I agree more with him then I do with any democrat who has run against him. Can't some of you understand that the 10th District is becoming increasingly democrat and liberal? So you want to vote for a Dan Seals? Well if you obstinate Republicans who have only your few issues that you disagree with our Congressman about want to be little children and play in another sandbox don't complain to the rest of us when you vote in someone who lies, fabricates, exaggerates, is best friends with convicted felons, who hasn't held a job in three years, who doesn't live in the district and is nothing but a empty suit.
Baxter's Mom
"All I can say is there is no easy solution,as the trend in America is clearly that most people are moving toward the center, and
that's where the battleground is."
That is nuts.
It's a bad tactic to become like one's opponent. You don't seek to take away votes by becoming a Democrat-lite, like Kirk.
The fact that it is working speaks to me that the 10th has abandoned Republican values and really has turned into a bunch of Democrats.
If the 10th district is a bunch of anti-civil rights statists, then sorry, they can sink into that mire.
How long can Mark Kirk pretend to be a Republican before the people find out he's just another Democrat and vote him out?
"less"- you can give up and have it your way in your own little universe if you like. But, the Republicans in the 10th have figured out that the only way to keep a Republican as our congressman is to appeal to more independent-minded voters to win the district.
You're right, there are apparently more Dems than Republicans in the 10th. Those of us who live here know that, and we don't have the luxury of simply saying, hell, just write those fools off, because we have to live here.
So, if you want to give up, fine. Go back to your tiny tent of like-minded dogmatic Republicans and let us go try to keep this seat red.
We now return to our regularly scheduled Blog.
By the way, I'm curious--how do you intend to vote in the Presidential election. Obama, just like you and Kirk, claims to "support the Second Amendment," but also wants to ban so-called "assault weapons." McCain, on the other hand, says that he is opposed to such bans.
Do issues and positions mean anything at all to you, or is it all about the "R" or "D" next to the name?
45superman- thanks for pretty much proving my point. The difference between you and I is that I am not a ONE ISSUE VOTER. Clearly, on the whole, McCain's policies are vastly superior to Obama, who seems intent on turning this country in a giant, Euro-centric peacenik welfare state.
Do I agree with McCain on every point? No. But there is no way I'd ever consider voting for Obama and I'm doing everything I can for McCain. You might be interested to know that McCain and Kirk are very close, and Kirk was one of the earliest of those whose endorsed McCain's presidential race.
Do I agree with Kirk on every point? Again, no. But I know I agree with Seals on so little (notwithstanding I also think he's an empty suit carpetbagging liberal put up by Jan Schakowski) that I'm doing everything I can to support Kirk.
If nothing else, it comes down to this: Kirk is the only one can keep this seat a Republican seat. If that's not important to you (which it's clearly not since you don't live in the 10th District), than you can live or die on your one issue, but don't be surprised when the Dems take ALL of your guns, and tax you into welfare, since you seem bent on removing all Republicans that support reasonable gun control at the expense of every other concern.
'nuf 'sed.
Are you implying that Republicans aren't "Independent-minded?" Seems that 45Superman and I are the ones in the minority here. Doesn't that make us "independent-minded?" Oh, wait, you meant "Independent-minded" as a euphemism for "Liberal Democrat"... Much clearer now.
Red? Blue? What is the difference anymore if you're 80% the same as the other guy? Does it really matter what one calls oneself if they're out to take away your liberty?
My representatives haven't "given up" and they haven't gotten to be more like Democrats - Granted, politics in the 16th District are much simpler.
I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States on more than one occasion, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This latest attempt to regulate lawfully owned firearms is unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, and regardless of whatever "republican-in-name-only" Mark Kirk thinks is good policy.
Why do I need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? 1) Why not, and 2) because I would rather have 2 magazines with 30 rounds total, than 3 magazines with 30 rounds total. Why is that so hard to understand?
10 rounds, or 1 round, or 10,000 rounds. Someone that is hellbent on murder/robber/breaking the law isn't going to worry about capacity limits, nor is he going to worry about federal gun laws, or any laws for that matter.
Guys- while I really do respect your opinion and your zealousness in protecting our constitutional rights, there is a reality here in IL-10 that I think you guys are just not understanding.
Even IF I agreed that to be a Republican, you need to be a far-right 2A defender with no if's, and's or but's, your solution seems to be to send a "message" to so-called RINOs (such a convenient label) to people like Mark Kirk by voting them out of office.
What will happen?
Dan Seals, a tin-plated Hyde Park liberal will take over the 10th, and it will be highly unlikely with the way the district is drawn, that the GOP would ever get it back. Is THAT what you really want?
If your answer is that such a result will clear the way for a 'true conservative' to win in the future, you can stop sniffing the vapors. Ain't NEVER gonna happen in this district.
I have dealt with people like yourselves on the local level for years. They all seem to be under the belief that 'if only we can explain to people our position, they cannot possibly disagree with us and will flock to our banner.'
Here's a newsflash: the people HAVE heard your message, and the vast majority of them AIN'T BUYING IT. Stop kidding yourselves.
To sum up: the notion that anyone more conservative than Mark Kirk is going to win an election in the 10th is pure fantasy. Those of us Republicans who LIVE HERE have a choice to make: re-elect Kirk, or suffer for the forseeable future, because there are no other practical options.
And please don't make me laugh about 'Stevo' or whatever his name is. If you know anything about the 10th District, you know that the campaign spending on both sides is likely to top $3 to $4 MILLION for EACH CANDIDATE. Stevo has no chance, and if you want to vote for him for the courage of your convictions, that's your choice. But it's a wasted vote.
We have a choice. Kirk or Seals. I simply can't see how you can call yourself a Republican and make any other choice but Kirk. I suppose if you are a "one issue" Republican, and that's your issue, you may make a different choice, or if you don't live in IL-10, you care only about gun rights on a national level, so Kirk's loss might not matter to you (so you think). But I think that's a pretty myopic viewpoint.
So, late in the year and later in the term, RINO Kirk introduces his own copy of Mayor Daley's dream gun ban. Does he think his neighbor Obama's going to win and he needs to start kissing up early? Or is he just so afraid of the armed populace that the authors of the Bill of rights strove to protect?
I learned long ago that the voters should distrust any politician who won't trust them with the arms of free men. It's too bad the voters in the 10th District haven't learned that. Or maybe just the ones in the cemeteries still need to learn to quit voting for him.
Frankly, it's merely a question of whether Mark Kirk or Dan Seals is a bigger traitor to the Constitution.
Having had ample prior demonstration of where "compromise" with statists gets us, we sons and daughters of Liberty will never again give up even the smallest scrap of our God-given rights. As to whether "Seals will make things worse," I say to you what Andrew Jackson said of John Marshall:
"He has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."
My name is Kenneth David Hall. I will never disarm. Molon labe.
Team America, your last paragraph, "...since you seem bent on removing all Republicans that support reasonable gun control at the expense of every other concern." reminds me of an old quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw:
"A certain gentleman inquired of a lady whether she would be willing to sleep with him for 50,000 pounds. After some hesitation, the lady replied that she supposed she would, in consideration of the magnitude of the offer. Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for twopence.
"Certainly not," she responded with indignation. "Just what kind of lady do you think I am?"
"Madam, I believe we have already established that," he remarked calmly. "Now we are just haggling over the price."
You seem hell bent on negotiating away something which is already Constitutionally guaranteed... For what? For your single mindedness to keep the seat "Red" or for YOUR single "pet" issue: "Euro-centric peacnik welfare state"?
Everybody has issues that they hold dear. I think it just so happens that 45Superman and myself are concerned about the fact that we shouldn't be losing liberties for the perception of security.
This isn't just about guns - no, it's about your ability to exercise your right of choice and control over your property.
Forcing people to turn "assault weapons" in in is state control/big government/big brother - precisely what the Republican Party used to be against.
Earlier you said that the battle was being fought in the middle. I think you're wrong: The middle tends to move towards ever more conciliation with the powers that be. It is always the discontented fringe that drives real policy: Women's sufferage, the Civil Rights movement, etc.
BTW, to clarify, someone brought up the topic of Bazookas:
Bazookas, mortars, etc. are considered "Ordnance" or "destructive devices". These generally don't fall under the same connotation as "small arms", which is what most take the 2nd Amendment to represent.
This is besides the point...
The analogy of banning guns to crying "Fire!" in a theater holds true only if one advocates cutting the audience's vocal chords to prevent misuse. As for any court decisions, if U.S. v Miller (1939) settled anything it was that "militia-style" arms were most protected if citizens were/are expected to appear with arms of their own. Throughout history, the more onerous and strict the weapons law, the more onerous and abusive the government. Why do politicians from Illinois show such distrust of their constituents compared to the officials of 48 other states? (Or 56 other states if you're a follower of Obama.)
"Guys- while I really do respect your opinion and your zealousness in protecting our constitutional rights, there is a reality here in IL-10 that I think you guys are just not understanding."
I doubt the realities of IL-10 require the introduction of a tyrannous, barbarous, morally perverse, and unconstitutional pile of steaming dung like the bill in question, Team America.
No--Mr. Kirk did it because he believes in citizen disarmament, and you defend him either because you believe in citizen disarmament, or because you believe the Faction trumps the Constitution.
Very well. Go in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may history forget that you were our brother.
The difference between you and I is that I am not a ONE ISSUE VOTER.
Actually, that would be "the difference between you and me"--since "you and me" is the object of the preposition "between," you would need to use the objective case of the pronoun, rather than the nominative case.
Grammar aside, though, and this may surprise you, but I am not a ONE ISSUE VOTER," either. I am, however, a voter with certain principles on which I am unwilling to sell out, merely for the sake of political expediency. In other words, I'm a patriotic, American man.
I shall remain one, even if they become as illegal down here as they apparently are in the 10th District.
"This is a Democratic leaning district. Nobody is taking away your FOID card or your gun. The issue is ASSAULT WEAPONS."
What did i just say anon 2:12, I own 2 assault weapons. So this ban will affect ME!
I have to agree with Less, imo there is no difference between Kirk and Seals besides the fact that one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. I really don't care for Democrats that wear a Republican name tag. Last time i checked "gun control" was a loosing issue with politicians.
I won't touch on what 45Superman has already taken you to task on TeamAmerica. Instead, I would rather point out that, like most lawyers, you are very ignorant of most everything outside of law school and the courtroom. You know what you were indoctrinated with, and not much more.
Have you ever considered the logistics of employing a .50 caliber weapons system? It is considerable, even for sniper utilization. As for a .50 taking down an aircraft, well, the "golden BB" does exist, but it is very rare. One must strike a flight critical system on the aircraft to even have a chance at bringing down an airplane. Now, just how many people, even of those who own .50s know just where on a particular air vehicle to aim to bring it down with one shot, three, or even five shots? That is why we employed the quad .50 as a AAA defensive weapons system. Our "single" AAA weapons systems are all 20mm or larger in caliber. Otherwise, you will not bring down an airplane, even an unarmed civilian type, except as a fluke.
Moreover, have you even priced .50 cal. rounds lately? They are not cheap. In short, unless you are close to being (or are) "state-sponsored" you cannot afford the rounds to waste attempting to bring down even a Cessna 172.
Personally, I would prefer a GAU-8 with electro-optical, IR and Laser range-finder on a tracked chassis for attempting to bring down aircraft with arms fire. Otherwise, give me a passively guided missile.
Obviously TA, you were NEVER military, and NEVER combat-oriented.
Anyone who owns a gun, and claims to be in favor of "reasonable" gun-contol laws is TOO STUPID to own a gun.
Mr. "TEAM AMERICA" thinks that the so-called assault weapon ban "won't take away his gun", we'll technically maybe not.
But once TA allows that "some" bad-looking guns can be banned, then he's allowed that any or all guns can be banned.
Sorry TA. You're not really in favor of an individual right to arms. Don't pretend that you're our friend. You'll line up to be one of the elitist "only ones" (ht to David C at the War on Guns) after you help your masters disarm the citizenry.
Scott W
Phx AZ
Scott W-
====But once TA allows that "some" bad-looking guns can be banned, then he's allowed that any or all guns can be banned.====
Fully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades. How come you're not out there campaigning nationwide to allow civilian possession of such weapons?
Or maybe you are.
Team America said...
45superman- thanks for pretty much proving my point. The difference between you and I is that I am not a ONE ISSUE VOTER.
I only speak for myself when I say if a politician can't understand freedom and liberty, to include the right to own firearms then they obviously are going to have a difficult time understanding the rest of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When politicians are elected with such dim views on freedom and liberty, their judgment cannot be trusted on ANY ISSUE. Elect idiots and we get things like wars for oil (unconstitutional - war never authorized by congress), Abu Ghraib (unconstitutional, violation of humanity and basic human rights), extreme rendition, suspension of habeus corpus, mistreatment of citizens after Katrina (unconstitutional gun confiscations, forcing citizens from homes). I could go on and on but you get the point. Gun owners expect our leaders to understand, respect, and protect our rights (ALL of them, not just the 2A) regardless of their opinions.
Team America, your gun's name, assuming you really do own one, is spelled Beretta. The devices which hold the cartridges (not bullets) are called "magazines," not clips. And after reading those examples of ignorance I found truly enlightening to read that you suppport concealed carry for thee but not for me. That, if anything, is the epitome of the arrogance displayed by the antigun elitists.
I, also, support concealed carry but for anyone and everyone who feels the need; not just for anyone who can convince YOU of their need. And the same can be said for firearms ownership. Just as YOU may not see any need for someone to own a mislabeled "assault weapon," so I may not see any need for anyone to own a Corvette or Dodge Viper.
But fortunately, there is no requirement at this time to demonstrate "need" for either the high performance gun or the high performance car. One needs only the desire and the money to purchase what one wants. That's called freedom and freedom appears to be something that Rep. Kirk finds offensive.
As for who "needs" a magazine (not clip) capacity of more than "X" number of rounds, the answer is best illustrated by that old rule of combat, i.e, "there is no such thing as too much ammo."
I have a personal friend who, a few years ago, was vacationing in Florida and legally carrying a small .380acp pistol with a 6rd. magazine (not clip) under a Florida non-resident permit. One evening he found himself confronted at a gas station by a group of Hispanics verbally expressing their intention to take his wallet along with his wife and daughter. They declined his counter offer to share his bullets with them first and they left him alone. Afterwards he gave serious consideration to the wisdom of trying to protect his wife and daughter with fewer rounds of ammo than there were members of that street fraternal organization.
Today he has determined for himself that he needs at least the fourteen round magazine that his new .45acp carry gun holds. You and Rep. Kirk don't see the need? Maybe not. But my friend sees the need and he's the one with his life ultimately on the line. Who are you at your safe distance to judge?
Of course, for the people in the 10th District, such thoughts should be far from their minds. After all, Mayor Daley, Gov. Blagojevic, and Rep. Kirk have all demonstrated their conviction that Illinois residents can't be trusted with guns anyway, that there's something wrong with Illinoisans compared to the residents of other states. But the residents of other states just may resent Rep. Kirk and his puppeteer trying to inflict that distrust on the rest of the country.
For everyone that wants to make an issue of my lack of gun knowledge, I think I'll wear that as a badge of honor. My Beretta92 sits in my closet, where I can get at it if I need it to protect my home. 10 bullets in a magazine (or clip or whatever) ought to be plenty to stop anyone (or group of anyones) coming in the door. And I have extras. It's there for home defense. It's not my obsession, unlike with many of you folks. Kirk's legislation would not affect such gun ownership, not even to the extent that I have some 15 round magazines.
I would be totally against legislation that bans all handguns, such as in Wilmette and Chicago. I guess I just draw my personal line differently than some of you folks. But, like I said above, fully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades and I don't hear hooting about how that's unconstitutional.
I just don't buy the slippery slope argument that restrictions of the type proposed are somehow going to take all guns away. Didn't happen last time; in fact, the only way they could pass it was to put in a sunset provision. I think our overall right to bear arms is strongly enough established in the 200+ year history of this country that it can withstand Kirk's legislation.
"But, like I said above, fully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades and I don't hear hooting about how that's unconstitutional."
It is, and I hoot every chance I get about it.
If the standard GI can have it, so can we.
TA said:
"Fully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades. How come you're not out there campaigning nationwide to allow civilian possession of such weapons? "
No they're not banned. In fact lots of average citizens own full auto machine guns. Can you please provide an example of one of these legally owned full auto guns being used in the commission of a crime?
You can't.
Because they don't get used in crimes.
Annnnd yes if I want one I should be able to get one without paying for a license from the fed.
BTW-The number or traitors participating in the debate is horrifying.
"Fully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades."
Actually, they're not. Any full-auto weapon made before some date in 1986 is legal to own, provided the owner pays a $200 tax to AFT and submits to a truly intrusive background check.
"How come you're not out there campaigning nationwide to allow civilian possession of such weapons?"
Actually, I am. "Any terrible implement of the soldier," just as the Founders intended (by my definition, this includes any contemporary equivalent of horse artillery, as well as privateer warships).
Don't like it? There's an enumerated procedure in the Constitution for amending it (hint: an act of Congress doesn't cut the mustard). Let us know how it works out for you.
To everyone on here who thinks that assault weapons don't need to be owned by citizens...I have a question for you.
If the founders and framers of this nation and the constitution felt that ONLY the people could truly protect and defend freedom and liberty and therefore should be as equally armed as any military member, how is it that you can now say only the military, a branch of the federal government, should be the most heavily armed and civilians should only have basic handguns and hunting rifles?
How does that fly with what the founders of this nation wanted?
"I just don't buy the slippery slope argument that restrictions of the type proposed are somehow going to take all guns away. Didn't happen last time"
You know what else didn't happen last time? The ban did NOTHING to affect crime rates. So if the net result was a goose egg what's the point in doing it again?
The Founders - who were far wiser than anyone on today's political landscape - made it clear that the rights enumerated in the Bill Of Rights, were not confered by that auspicious document. Rather they were God-given an thus superior to any man made codification.
The 2A isn't about "need" for some weapons, but not for others. It's not about sporting weapons, or even about self-defence.
The 2nd Amendment was meant to given the population a last-ditch means of throwing off an oppressive government - like the one we see towering over us today! With that primary purpose in mind, then the weapons most protected by the 2A ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS!
Considering that precious little crime is accomplished with assault weapons, AND far more people in the 20th century have been murdered by governments rather than crooks, then I think I'll keep my M1A - thank you very much.
Team America says: "I would be totally against legislation that bans all handguns, such as in Wilmette and Chicago."
Ah yes, the famous Morton Grove decision, i.e., so long as some guns, even if only BB guns, are legal the Constitutional protection is satisfied. I just love the way it's considered "reasonable" for someone else to determine what guns are protected and which can be banned under our Constitution, the Constitution that Rep. Kirk is sworn to uphold.
TA wrote: "[F]ully automatic machine guns have been banned for decades and I don't hear hooting about how that's unconstitutional."
Then hear me hoot. When the NFA34 was proposed in Congress, the reason that machine guns were taxed rather than banned was because it was common knowledge, reaffirmed by the then-attorney general's opinion, that such a ban would be unConstitutional. The only thing that changed between 1934 and 1986 when the current ban on newly manufactured machine guns was passed, is the lack of Constitutional knowledge among the general public.
It's easier to impose unconstitutional laws on an ignorant populace. Sadly, I've heard recent high school graduates expressing the belief that "the Constitution is a nice-sounding document and all but you can't let it stand in the way of a good idea." But just because a plurality of the population no longer understands how their rights are being taken in no way means that the rights are not being violated.
TA says: "I just don't buy the slippery slope argument that restrictions of the type proposed are somehow going to take all guns away. Didn't happen last time; in fact, the only way they could pass it was to put in a sunset provision..." That is absolutely true, because it was a close split in the Congress then. And according to Bill Clinton, passing that bill then cost 27 Congresscritters their jobs for voting to pass it. But the author, Dianne Feinstein, admitted immediately after its passage that if "I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate to ban all guns, to force everyone to turn them all in, I'd have done it." Team America either has a limited knowledge of history or a selective memory.
As for the slippery slope in which he doesn't believe, I invite the reader to look at the history of such laws in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. You'll see the results of that slippery slope in action. And every one of those countries thought it couldn't happen there.
I look at the freedoms I had growing up in the sixties and how many have been taken "for my own good" and I say "ENOUGH!" Traitors like Rep. Kirk and the rest of his ilk are just that, traitors who should be impeached for treason, not re-elected.
Kirk and others like him fail to understand an important issue. True supporters of our country and constitution have carefully studied the situation, and upon this basis there is only one rational decision: prevent fake "moderates" like Kirk from occupying public office. He is a left-wing extremist in republican clothing. We are going to remove the disease from our own party first. Once we have done this, we can then direct our attention to dealing with our ignorant friends in the democrat party.
We are not falling for the ploy that we need to elect Kirk lest a really bad left-winger from the democrats be elected. Kirk already represents the most reprehensible traits of the enemy, and as such, he will be excised from office and from the party. We are not going to allow a left-wing extremist like Kirk to infect the republican party and turn it into a clone of the democrat party.
It is better to put a vile extremist like Seals into office because it will have three effects. First, it will allow conservatives to deal with a known quantity. The democrats are infected with radical elements of the far left. This is something that is actually relatively easy to deal with as long as you face it honestly. Second, it will prevent the radical left from infecting the republican party using wolves in sheep's clothing. We see through your scheme. It would be foolhardy to allow this group of left-wing extremists to penetrate conservative causes and take control under the false light of "moderation." Good try, but we are not falling for it. Finally, the election of a hard-left democrat will crystalize the conservative base and be a prod that spurs conservatives to action.
Under the circumstances, Conservatives have EVERYTHING to gain by electing a hard left democrat instead of a fake republican like Kirk.
I wonder how far down Maslow's Heierarchy of Needs statists want us to be pushed. No one NEEDS a relationship with a significant other. No one NEEDS a big house; one-room cabins used to do, and there are even people who survive in refrigerator cartons in alleys. No one NEEDS a motor vehicle, including mass transit; everywhere's walking distance if you have the time.
The point is, in America, no one else gets to decide what anyone NEEDS.
Under stress, it's possible to miss with a handgun at a distance of 6 feet. Police do it all the time. Intruder and homeowner have emptied their guns at each other without a hit. Training cures that. You'll also be unaware of how many shots you've fired. You may think you have half a magazine left, but nothing happens because your slide is locked back on empty. Do you want to trust that the minimum is all you NEED?
"Every terrible implement of the soldier" is the American's birthright, whether one percent of such weapons are used in crime or 99 percent. Criminals break laws for fun and profit. Therefore these laws are aimed at everyone who DIDN'T and WOULDN'T do it.
The short answer is, we will not comply. The longer answer is, if it is time to turn them in, it is time to heat them up. Seizing them will become an expensive undertaking, but we have the comfort of knowing that no GOOD law enforcement officers or military members will die in the attempt.
Sorry, but the middle ground has eroded away since the Gun Control Act of 1934. We aren't backing up any farther, and we sure aren't coming over to the side where Rwandans, Somalians, Sudanese, and World War II European Jews and gypsies and homosexuals all found that the unarmed inherit the earth -- as in being covered with it in mass graves. They all thought "It can't happen here." Otherwise, why were they still there?
We do not, as the bumper sticker says, fear the government that fears our guns. But we view it with justified suspicion. The mistakes of history -- as recent as Hurricane Katrina and today in flooded Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where people face five years in prison for trying to get past roadblocks to their now-dry homes -- will not be ALLOWED to repeat. Government and its supporters aren't the only ones in the ALLOWING business.
This is a bit off topic, but I was looking at Kirk's website and as a former Naval Officer I find many things as odd. First of all it is common knowledge the intelligence officers in the Navy ride the short bus to work. Most Naval Officers are engineers operating complex systems. Those to dumb to qualify for those duties are sent to supply or "intelligence" schools. I also take issue with all the "tours" he served. A "tour" in the Navy usually means three years duty. I served 7 years and did one three year tour overseas. Anything less is regarded as a deployment or a detachment. Then there is the question of his being the Navy's "intelligence Officer of the year" Huh? The Navy isn't run like a McDonald's franchise. I have never heard of such a commendation. "Aircrew" is an enlisted man's designation requiring months of hard and dangerous training. Can we see his wings? Sitting in a plane does not make you a crewman. It makes you a passenger. Small stuff, maybe, be curious.
To the argument of "10 rounds should be enough":
Decorated police officer John Krupa once stated, when asked how many times should a civilian defending themselves shoot, stated that it takes "as many rounds as it takes" to end a gunfight.
More is better. There is no "magic" answer. Let us be free in deciding what is useful for us.
Team America, I truly believe that you want to keep America from becoming like France (or worse!), but what denying Americans liberty, the very thing we fought our revolutionary war over, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Do that and you've just replaced Socialist statists with Facist ones...