Team America's 10th District Blog: Congressman Mark Kirk Works to Renew Assault Weapons Ban; Dan Seals Hen-Pecks From the Sidelines (UPDATED- Kirk Mea Culpa on Obama/Osama)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Congressman Mark Kirk Works to Renew Assault Weapons Ban; Dan Seals Hen-Pecks From the Sidelines (UPDATED- Kirk Mea Culpa on Obama/Osama)

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.

115 comments:

Anonymous said...: 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!!; June 18, 2008 7:35 AM
45superman said...: 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; June 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: 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; June 18, 2008 3:42 PM
45superman said...: 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; June 18, 2008 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Seals has big problems in Winnetka - many of his supporters are now with Kirk.

...and they knew Seals best.; June 18, 2008 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 7:41 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 7:47 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 8:07 PM
45superman said...: 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?; June 18, 2008 8:33 PM
JKooL said...: 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."; June 18, 2008 9:13 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:15 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:28 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:33 PM
Carl in Chicago said...: 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,; June 18, 2008 9:34 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:36 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:43 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:48 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:50 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 9:55 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:01 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:03 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:06 PM
JKooL said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:06 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:22 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 18, 2008 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...: 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!; June 19, 2008 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon 7:44, you are comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Nobody needs an assault weapon at home. Get over it.; June 19, 2008 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: 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; June 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 3:41 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 4:10 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 19, 2008 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: 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; June 19, 2008 7:00 PM
Less said...: "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?; June 19, 2008 11:43 PM
Team America said...: "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.; June 20, 2008 9:33 AM
45superman said...: 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?; June 20, 2008 9:40 AM
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. 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.; June 20, 2008 9:55 AM
Less said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:04 PM
Stephen said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:25 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:27 PM
brolin_1911a1 said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:29 PM
Oldsmoblogger said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:30 PM
Less said...: 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...; June 20, 2008 12:30 PM
brolin_1911a1 said...: 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.); June 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Oldsmoblogger said...: "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.; June 20, 2008 12:49 PM
45superman said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: "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.; June 20, 2008 12:55 PM
Paul W. Davis said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: 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; June 20, 2008 1:18 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 1:27 PM
Ian said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 1:29 PM
brolin_1911a1 said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 1:30 PM
Team America said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 1:43 PM
Stephen said...: "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.; June 20, 2008 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 1:52 PM
Oldsmoblogger said...: "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.; June 20, 2008 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: 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?; June 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: "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?; June 20, 2008 2:01 PM
GunRights4US said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 2:02 PM
brolin_1911a1 said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 2:23 PM
Defender said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 2:33 PM
dan in michigan said...: 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.; June 20, 2008 3:01 PM
Less said...: 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...; June 20, 2008 3:03 PM
Unincorporated Middle said...: Keep at it gun-guys. Your rants make the case for Kirk as much as the loony spewing from Dkos and the rest of the progressive left.

The extremes at both end of the political spectrum play an important role in national discourse - but I, and most of my neighbors, are voting for the guy in the middle.; June 20, 2008 3:16 PM
Less said...: Unincorporated Middle: You're certainly entititled to your opinion. I won't tell you who to vote for. I'm just amazed that Kirk has the audacity to call himself a Republican.

Anyway, I for one find it interesting that Kirk is out there pushing my tax $$ on a program aimed at Latino parents. Doesn't it strike you odd that "Team America" decries America turning into a welfare state, yet there the smiling Mark Kirk, pushing $$ to a dubious welfare program...; June 20, 2008 3:24 PM
GunRights4US said...: People in the middle make me want to puke!

Have some guts. Choose a side.; June 20, 2008 3:26 PM
Unincorporated Middle said...: Less,

Doesn't bother me so much what party Kirk affiliates with. He gets it right on most things I care about. He works hard and listens to the folks that elect him - we know his allegiance is to us and that counts more to me than party or ideology.

Gunrights - puke away. There is no courage without doubt and those of us in the middle are willing to choose despite our doubt. The doctrine at the extremes allows for no dissension, no doubt and little courage.; June 20, 2008 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: It won't happen in my lifetime but the answer could be to do away with the Republican or Democrat parties and form three parties -- liberal, conservative and moderate.

Gee, I wonder which most of the country would join?

Baxter's Mom; June 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Unincorporated Middle @ 3:16 pm: You have not framed a response with any logical substance. If you would like to argue specific facts and apply logical analysis to those facts, feel free to do so.

Instead, you have chosen to argue by implication. You imply that various categories of people are bad without providing any rational evidence to support your implication. This is a tactic that is generally used by those who do not have a winning argument. In order to cover for a lack of a sound argument, the losing side uses slurs, name-calling, and diversionary tactics to avoid the real argument. These types of tactics are all close kin to ad hominem attacks, which everyone who's anyone knows are used by those who have no logical argument upon which to stand.

Unincorporated Middle @ 3:53 pm: "There is no courage without doubt...." This is not a logically sound statement. A quick look in the dictionary would reveal that you are using an invented definition for the word courage.

As an example, if I know that the only way to save a child is to jump in front of a speeding train that is traveling 70 mph, and I know without a doubt that I will be killed by the speeding train, is that not courageous? By your contrived definition of courage, I must have a doubt about whether I will die in order for an act to be courageous. As a result, by your own contrived definition of courage, saving the child is not courageous because I have no doubt in my mind that I will die.

As I said above, please feel free to inject reasonable facts and logical argument into your writings.; June 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Less said...: "The doctrine at the extremes allows for no dissension, no doubt and little courage."

What is so extreme about refusing to relinquish rights that are Constitutionaly recognized? You could aruge that Martin Luther King Jr. was an extremist since he refused to be treated as a second class citizen...

What I find so sad is that we are at the point now where Republicans would sell out to the "middle" in hopes of buying more votes... That's not exactly sticking to ones core principles, extreme or not, and being courageous.; June 20, 2008 4:50 PM
45superman said...: That's not exactly sticking to ones core principles . . .

I think that what's confusing you, Less, is that you're under the impression that these people have core principles. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that they're unwilling to put up for negotiation.; June 20, 2008 4:54 PM
Unincorporated Middle said...: Anon 4:08

Of course there is doubt in your analogy. You may not doubt you will die but can you be sure you will save the child? Do you not doubt what death will bring? Greater minds than my poor brain have said that the human condition is one of doubt and that courage lies in acting despite it. There may be Absolutes - but they are of the Divine.

Speaking of divine – CUBS WIN!! I am off to enjoy the rest of this beautiful afternoon and will happily raise a glass and toast our Country and our ability to disagree.; June 20, 2008 4:58 PM
mercurysys said...: Team America (and anyone else for this the ban) - can you tell me what makes these weapons more dangerous than a Remington 7400/750? Same cycling mechanism and available in the same calibers (and higher powered calibers) as the ones in the proposed ban. Sorry but having 2, 3, 4 or more of the characteristics listed do not make the gun more dangerous. Having a pistol grip and collapsible stock or a pistol grip and barrel shroud does not make the gun more dangerouse than if it only has one of the items.

You want to know what makes the gun dangerous? The person that is using it. Just like any tool. A knife, car, golf club, baseball bat, etc. fall into the same category.

Also, I would like to note that Remington released the R series of hunting rifles which are based on the AR. Looks like that adds another nail to the "no sporting purpose" claims. It would most likely fall under the banned weapons.

The claim that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is bogus. You can if there is one. You can if it part of the show/act. Case in point there is a song called Fire that is on the Hackers 2 soundtrack by Fire. In the song he goes "1,2,3,FIRE!" numerous times. If he was on tour, he would not be prevented from doing this song.; June 20, 2008 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Unincorporated Middle @ 4:58 pm: "Of course there is doubt in your analogy. You may not doubt you will die but can you be sure you will save the child? Do you not doubt what death will bring?"

I had "no doubt" that you would fall into the logical trap I so carefully laid for you. I am actually filled with glee :-)

The only doubt is in your analysis. If the saver has no doubts in his mind, that is all that matters. No one is in a position to judge whether or not the saver has any doubts except for the saver. It is presumptuous and illogical for an observer to assume that the saver has or might have any doubts. The fact that the saver *might* have doubts in his mind is not logical proof that the saver *does* have doubts in his mind.

Maybe you have unintentionally revealed your own bias - that you act on and frame beliefs around what *might* be and around that which is an unproven belief rather than that which is a proven fact. This reminds me of the same mode of thought used by those who persecuted Galileo. His persecutors had unproven and illogical beliefs and presumptions about reality, while Galileo had logical proofs about reality. When confronted with Galileo's proofs, the only choice they felt was proper was to persecute him and deny him his rights, while ignoring logical, scientific methods. This type of "thinking" keeps plaguing mankind and is responsible for endless suffering and injustice in the world, and I can see that it is still alive and kicking.; June 20, 2008 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow! What a debate! But some perspective needs to be maintained here.

What I don't understand is that our constitutional right to own property is also regulated. Government is allowed to regulate it through zoning, health and safety issues and other matters. I have the right to own the property I own but I also cannot put up the Sears Tower on that site nor can I erect a cell phone tower or store nuclear waste on my property.

I have the right to own personal property like an automobile. The government is allowed to regulate that as well.

You also have the constitutional right to own guns. I don't own a gun but agree that I have the right to own one should I desire to do so. The government also has the right to regulate your gun ownership in the same manner as they regulate property. A total ban on all firearms in certain municipalities except for hunting rifles and the like is one thing (that I also disagree with) but allowing what Kirk is trying to end is not unreasonable.

Some posters have correctly posted that not all speech is free and permissible. There are limits to even our first amendment rights, with the classic example being shouting fire in a crowded theater.

You want unreasonable? Go to the "other" blog in the 10th and start reading. That is the Dan Seals position. For those of you who claim there is "no difference" between Kirk and Seals, you need to go there and start reading and educate yourselves.

Then come back here.

Louis G. Atsaves; June 20, 2008 5:48 PM
CitizenNothing said...: 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.

I think you misunderstand. The "obsession" is not guns. It is liberty. If the politicians of your ilk keep coming after our liberties, we will eventually employ our guns.; June 20, 2008 6:05 PM
CitizenNothing said...: I have the right to own personal property like an automobile. The government is allowed to regulate that as well.

You also have the constitutional right to own guns. I don't own a gun but agree that I have the right to own one should I desire to do so. The government also has the right to regulate your gun ownership in the same manner as they regulate property.

Anon at 5:48 - Automobiles and other property do not have an entire amendment to the Constitution recognizing them as a fundamental human right of the people and instructing the government we created to protect our rights that it shall not be infringed. That is the difference. Arms are a fundamental human right and as free men we will continue to require that that right not be infringed.

Sadly, the infringments are many. We are working hard to reverse that within the system because the alternative, and the entire singular purpose of free men keeping and bearing arms, is horrifying. Keep that alternative in mind when people like TeamAmerica Mark Kirk advocate more infringments. They are making it harder to resolve this peacefully.; June 20, 2008 6:14 PM
brolin_1911a1 said...: [i]"The government also has the right to regulate your gun ownership in the same manner as they regulate property. A total ban on all firearms in certain municipalities except for hunting rifles and the like is one thing (that I also disagree with) but allowing what Kirk is trying to end is not unreasonable."[/]

That is completely contrary to the rights that I currently have, enshrined in and acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. "...the right of The People to keep and bear arms [i[shall not be infringed."[/i] That's an absolute. There is no "but" or "except for" in that guaranteed.

Those in the middle, besides looking like road kill with a yellow stripe, are like someone mediating a mugging. I have $100. It is mine. My parents worked hard for it and gave it to me to keep safe and invest. Some mugger comes along and demands my wallet and money. The middle of the roader comes along and says I'm being unreasonable and should give up a "reasonable" amount, say $50. Reasonable or not, I'm being robbed.

If resisting robbery of my money or my rights is unreasonable, then so be it, I'm unreasonable. But the other parties like Kirk are still thieves and scoundrels.; June 20, 2008 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ 5:48 PM: "What I don't understand is that our constitutional right to own property is also regulated."

The Second Amendment ends with a very profound clause, "...shall not be infringed." That is why the issue of arms is different from the issue of property. The government does NOT have the same right to regulate arms as property. (Of course, for the sake of staying on topic, I am totally ignoring the issue of what regulations on property are just and/or constitutional. That is a very different story.)

"Some posters have correctly posted that not all speech is free and permissible. There are limits to even our first amendment rights, with the classic example being shouting fire in a crowded theater."

There are already equivalent restrictions on arms. It is against the law to use arms to murder, injure, terrorize, coerce, intimidate, and threaten others. The restrictions on arms for which you are advocating are not parallel with the restrictions on speech to which you are referring. This is a very common logical error that pops up when comparing the freedom of speech with the right to keep and bear arms. A restriction on speech that would be equivalent to the proposed ban on arms would be something like the following:

"It is illegal to own a book that contains the word assault rifle,"
"It is illegal to say the words assault rifle,"
"It is illegal to publish an anonymous writing whether in paper or electronic form,"
etc.

These are obviously unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions of free speech on their face. Likewise, laws that restrict arms in a parallel fashion are also unreasonable and unconstitutional on their face. On top of that, the right to keep and bear arms has an additional protection above and beyond the right of free speech that says, "...shall not be infringed," and this brings us back to where we began this comment.; June 20, 2008 6:48 PM
45superman said...: I happened to notice that Kirk is also a co-sponsor of fellow statist, big government, authoritarian "Republican" Peter King's (R-NY) H.R. 2074, the bill that would give the attorney general the power to block firearms sales to anyone on the grotesquely bloated "terrorist watched list."

In other words, an unelected official would have the power to unilaterally deny a person his Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute, human right to keep and bear arms, without said person having been convicted, without him having been indicted, without him having even been arrested for any offense.

Yeah--that's the kind of power I want President Obama's attorney general to have.; June 20, 2008 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I have no idea why I’m jumping in here with plain facts when this has turned into a gun control debate.

Mark Kirk has been for gun control since he first campaigned for Congress in 2000. He has usually been consistent on most issues both where I applaud him and where I am one of the first to criticize.

Perhaps one day we can have the perfect Congressman, but for now I will settle for competence with disagreement on key issues to the total incompetence we would get from Dan Seals.; June 21, 2008 4:00 AM
Jay.Mac said...: Team America, you just don't get it. Kirk might ban so-called assault weapons now (functionally identical to any semi-auto hunting rifle BTW, just looks scarier to people like you who don't know any better) but it won't affect crime in any way.

That's the whole point- criminals don't obey the current laws to stop them using guns now so why should they obey this next one? The simple answer is that they won't.

So, what happens next? Well, Kirk or someone like him will announce that more needs to be done to stop the crime. So they'll suggest banning something else- maybe semi-auto handguns like your Beretta. You know, the kind of gun that gang members favour.

I mean, why do you need an easily concealable gun that holds as many as ten bullets at one time? Nope, the gun grabbers will go after that next. And no doubt you or someone like you will say that, hey, it's not that unreasonable. After all, the Democrat who wants to get into power doesn't just want to ban semi-auto handguns, they want to ban all handguns.

Next thing you know, another politician claims that criminals are still committing crimes using handguns so the law-abiding need to have their revolvers taken away too. Who needs one to go hunting, right?

The simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Either you believe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land or else you think that you can ignore it piecemeal to do whatever you want. Kirk evidently wants to ignore it in order to maintain his position of power and to hell with everyone else's inalienable rights. That says all you need to know about his character.

If he's so concerned about crime why doesn't he confront it, rather than criminalise law abiding citizens for owning a certain type of property? Guns are nothing more than tools- and the problem isn't the type of tool the criminal uses, it's the criminal.

In the UK guns used to be widely carried for self-defence. In the past few decades though, the government has banned all handguns and all semi-auto rifles. Law abiding citizens are almost universally disarmed and banned from even using those few weapons they do have to defend themselves with. Gun crime is worse than ever.

Don't you people get it? Chicago and Washington DC have some of the toughest gun laws in the States- laws which have served only to disarm the victim pool criminals armed with illegal weapons prey upon.

Criminals are willing to use shocking violence to get what they want- do you really think that someone who is willing to kill, cripple or rape is going to obey another firearms law? If so, you're living in a fantasy world- and your actions are only making it easier for Kirk or whoever follows after him to ban another type of firearm- and to make it even harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent predators.

Do you need a blog to exercise your First Amendment rights? Surely a pen and paper or even an electronic typewriter should suffice. Right? So what if some Republican in your district wants to regulate speech on-line- are you going to vote for him because his opponent wants to ban internet speech and on the radio. I mean, your rights are less important than some politician keeping his job for another few years?

Take a moment and actually think about what you're advocating- loyalty to the Republican Party and whoever happens to be standing for office over the Constitution of the United States. Instead of going along with Kirk you and every Republican in that district should be on the phone to him until he realises that what he's doing is un-Constitutional and the voters won't stand for it. You don't have to vote for his opponent, you know- but pressure him enough to realise that he has to make a public announcement rescinding the idea and apologise to the electorate or else. If enough spoke out he would have no choice but to realise that he represents those people- he is not their lord and master. He could even announce that he's realised that depriving people of their Constitutional rights isn't going to help, that guns aren't the problem just tools used by criminals- who are the real problem needing to be tackled.

Maybe a law demanding a minimum sentence for violent criminals would have more impact on criminals than taking law-abiding citizens guns away from them under penalty of imprisonment or death?; June 21, 2008 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kirk seems to like to have it both ways. First he lies about the number of cops killed by so called assualt weapons.

And now he tries to act all big and bad and wants to take a stand against the gun lobby, when Kirk has been courting them all along.

He has sought out the help of one of their lobbyists and sang a different kinda song in his first elelction.

Kirk should be very carfeful with stunts like this. It may get him a press conferance he doesn't want.

Dozer; June 21, 2008 6:33 AM
Zachary said...: I promise that if a new "assault weapons ban" is passed, I will still have my "assault weapons" and I will still purchase them on the black market. Such a bill will do NOTHING, as scientifically demonstrated many times, to reduce crime. Secondly, such a law infringes on a man's natural rights. If you come for them, I will use them.Period.; June 21, 2008 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Is your right to gun ownership infringed if you need to register the guns you own? Is your right to gun ownership infringed if government regulates ammunition on issues of manufacturing and storage? Is your right to gun ownership infringed if the government bans convicted convicted felons from owning guns? Illegal aliens? Non-citizens of the USA?

You will have to clarify your arguments. You are arguing in absolutes (with one poster claiming he will continue to purchase assault weapons on the black market, which I guess is admitting to law breaking if the black market is illegal and assault weapons are not) and ignoring reasonable regulation powers of government which have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years.

I represent police officers in Workers' Compensation cases for injuries they sustain on the job protecting us. To a man, they all state many instances where the criminal has superior fire power over the police officer.

This begs the question. We want law abiding citizens to own guns and not criminals. If we enact a total ban on guns (which Kirk has never supported) then the criminals have guns and the rest of us (again I do not own a gun but do not oppose gun ownership as a general right) do not. The criminals buy exotic weaponry on the black market and use them against police officers and law abiding citizens.

What do we tell these police officers? Or do we issue them machine guns to level the playing field?

If we allow police machine guns then aren't we in effect arming government against the people?

Again, you folks will need to clarify your arguments.

Dan Seals basically wants to take all of your gun rights away. Kirk does not but sees certain limits to some types of gun ownership (defining certain weapons) in a reasonable (in my eyes anyway) regulatory fashion.

It's a no brainer in my eyes as to this issue whether you are in favor of absolutes or reasonable regulation. Kirk's positions on this issue are far more superior than those of Dan Seals.

Louis G. Atsaves; June 21, 2008 9:15 AM
Roberta X said...: This is an excellent example of why IL -- the only remaining state with no provision for the lawful carry of loaded handguns -- is lost territory.

I suppose I am a single-issue voter, for a simple reason: if a politican doesn't trust the electorate (this leaves out felons) with guns, any kind of gun, then that politician is not to be trusted. If he also advocates national ID cards (which the congressbeing in question does), it certainly looks like the logical end-point of his work is the nation as one big prison -- him as a senior guard and us as the inmates, disarmed, numbered and closely watched. "For our own good," you betcha.

IL politics are infamously high-handed and in the long view, there is no difference between this "Republican" and his "Democrat" opponent; both are a boot on your neck. Leave him in office or elect his comrade-in-disarming? It makes no never mind. R or D? This isn't a soccer match. When your rights are infringed upon, it doesn't make any difference which party leads the way.

Indiana, right next to IL and with similar demographics, offers very few restrictions on the purchase and carry of guns and guess what? The crime rate is lower. TA, we don't leave our handguns stashed in the closet, either; Hoosiers rank high on the percentage of adults with carry permits.

You want the feds to take my SKS? Molon Labe, pal.

Self-defense was once understood as the duty of responsible adults. It's a sad day when even the right wing brags of their relative helplessness and strives to impose it on others. These measures will not disarm criminals, they won't reduce the "arsenal" of bad guys (mostly small-caliber and poorly maintained), all they do -- all they ever do! -- is reduce the ability of law-abiding folk to defend themselves.

Any Congressman who goes out of his way to do that is not your friend; it doesn't make any difference what his Party is, he's on the side of the bad guys.

There is a Federal law against depriving people of their Constitutional rights; darn pity it's not more widely enforced. An awful lot of the Legislative branch would be looking for honest work.; June 21, 2008 9:18 AM
Roberta X said...: PS: Louis, the police have machine guns. What do you think those M4 "patrol rifles" are? Perfectly legal; the '86 ban on civilian purchase of full-auto weapons doesn't include public-safety agencies.; June 21, 2008 9:24 AM
CitizenNothing said...: To a man, they all state many instances where the criminal has superior fire power over the police officer.

Hey Louis - either those cops are lying to you (crime perpetrated with rifles-that-look-like-assualt-rifles are rare at 1-2% and with actual assualt rifles (full-auto) are nonexistant). Unless you're talking about mental fire-power. On that I agree with you.; June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
Less said...: Off topic: Hi Roberta! Now, with that out of the way...

Louis said:
right to own property is also regulated.

Not quite; if you own the allodial title to the property, you can do pretty much what you want.

Good luck getting an allodial title, however. (doesn't mean that they don't exist, though...)

Most people hold property under "fee simple" titles which do have restrictions on them, but they are free to enter or decline that contract before they purchase that property.

The government also has the right to regulate your gun ownership ... but allowing what Kirk is trying to end is not unreasonable.

Actually, no, the second amendment of the constitution says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see any point where reasonable controls are described here. I mean, the fact that they're decided if the DC ban is constitutional or not should be clue.

I'll also add that to you, it may seem reasonable, but to the millions that would be criminals overnight, after the bill was signed, it is unreasonable!

Louis later asked why we don't allow felons or ilegals, etc, access to guns, etc... Um, because they're either not citizens and are here illegally? As for felons: they've implicitly agreed to a contract with the "state" as part of their conviction, sentencing, or probation; see also Collateral Consequences. (In some places you can expunge a felony conviction...)

There are exceptions for law-abiding Non-US citizens for competition, transport, hunting, etc. Witness the Olympic free pistol, rapid-fire, shotgun, and rifle events...

Is your right to gun ownership infringed if you need to register the guns you own?

What would registration actually accomplish? If your right to keep a firearm is recognized, then what, if any punishment would be constitutional for failing to register? I digress, however, as this is one debated topic...

Is your right to gun ownership infringed if government regulates ammunition on issues of manufacturing and storage?

So, let me get this straight: You're a Republican that wants to make a branch of gov't bigger so that it can regulate stuff that is essentially perishable? Wow... I think 45Superman was right about not having any principles... By the way, this would deter the criminal how, exactly? I mean, they're already getting the guns on the black market, right?; June 21, 2008 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ June 21, 2008 9:15 AM: "Is your right to gun ownership infringed if you need to register the guns you own? Is your right to gun ownership infringed if government regulates ammunition on issues of manufacturing and storage? Is your right to gun ownership infringed if the government bans convicted convicted felons from owning guns? Illegal aliens? Non-citizens of the USA?"

Let me rewrite the above paragraph so you can better understand your own non-arguments.

Is your right to free speech infringed if you need to register the books you own? Is your right to free speech infringed if government regulates books on issues of manufacturing and storage? Is your right to free speech infringed if the government bans convicted convicted (sic) felons from owning books? Illegal aliens? Non-citizens of the USA?"

The answer is an obvious YES.

The act of registration of these types of fundamental rights is an infringement on the right itself because it makes even minimal use of the right subject to control, registration, and manipulation by the government.

"...We want law abiding citizens to own guns and not criminals...."

Then why do you feel the persistent need to take guns from law-abiding citizens? Your argument is verifiably false on its face. The proposed legislation specifically bans law-abiding citizens from gun ownership. It's funny how your idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals always revolves around taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It does not matter how hard you try and spin the facts - we see through you and your type, and we will not stop resisting your evil. EVER!

"If we enact a total ban on guns (which Kirk has never supported)"

Uh, you are seeking to ban a total class of guns. This is tantamount to a total ban. If you are confused about banning or regulating classes of fundamental rights, please review the history of Jim Crow laws that centered around banning and regulating the rights of certain classes (races) of people.

"What do we tell these police officers? Or do we issue them machine guns to level the playing field?"

Uh, the police already have machine guns...and high-powered sniper rifles...and hand grenades...and high explosives...and armored vehicles. Did you get the memo?

Why do you see that the only way to protect against criminals is via the state? I am sure that you are aware that the police are only able to show up AFTER the commission of most crimes. Logically, this means that protection against the future commission of crime really rests solely in the hands of each individual person.

"If we allow police machine guns then aren't we in effect arming government against the people?"

Well, it seems like you unintentionally stated what is really going on. I suspect you will not fully understand the true meaning of your own profound statement until it is too late.

"Again, you folks will need to clarify your arguments."

If you want to assert that our arguments are not clear, you will need to directly address those arguments that are allegedly not clear. It is poor rhetorical style to make such claims without directly addressing the allegedly bad arguments. I'll be waiting.

"Kirk [wants] certain limits to some types of gun ownership...in a reasonable...regulatory fashion."

"It's a no brainer in my eyes as to this issue whether you are in favor of absolutes or reasonable regulation."

Your argument makes no sense. If you look at the Constitution, you will see that the right to keep and bear arms is couched in terms of an absolute via the phrase "...shall not be infringed." It is not reasonable to try and spin a Constitutional absolute into a non-absolute and then claim that it is "reasonable" to regulate the absolute. There is no way to spin your way out of this. Logic prevents it. This lack of logical debate is why, ultimately, gun prohibitionists must always turn to emotional pleas and visions of blood and guts and the end of the world in order to try and advance their agenda.; June 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: All I can say so-called gun lovers, is that I have been representing policemen in work related injuries for nearly 30 years now. None of them have ever lied to me, several have had their careers ended by idiots with guns. Those are facts. Sorry they disturb you,

And I'm also a Greek-American whose family comes from Sparta, Greece. I know what molon lave means and I know what a "well regulated militia" means. The 300 cartoonish movie was cute, go read "Gates of Fire" to get the real deal and not the 90 minute cartoon.

I keep asking about regulations and you keep firing back in absolutist terms. Go back and read the constitution you quote. Spartans had a rigid military defense and sense of the world, and "well regulated" applied to them. Anyone not meeting up to their standards were tossed out.

Since you all have this "insider" information about police firepower, educate us as to what insider information you have and what firepower they exactly have. They put themselves into the line of fire. Not you. Not me. They would know best.

And please answer my questions, don't parse them to death. If you can't answer them without engaging in polemics, just say so. Define "well regulated militia."

And for those of you who think there is no difference between Seals and Kirk, then there is simply no hope for you. Just dig your bunkers and hunker down, the Seals position is far worse than what you imagine Kirk's position is on these matters.

Louis G. Atsaves; June 22, 2008 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ June 22, 2008 12:20 AM: "I keep asking about regulations and you keep firing back in absolutist terms. Go back and read the constitution you quote."

Is there something specific in the Constitution that you want me to read that will shed light on the issue at hand? Are you trying to imply that I am wrong because I missed some critical point(s) in the Constitution? If so, will you please show me with specificity what parts of the Constitution will clarify things? Will you show me with specificity how I am wrong?

I am sure you would not do this, but some people who have a weak position try to argue via implication. That is, they imply that the other person is wrong without actually articulating how the person is wrong. It is a psychological technique that plays on a limitation in some people's brains that causes them to give priority to doubt over articulated facts when evaluating the truth of a matter. For the record, that does not work on me. (Not that I am implying that you would stoop to such a level. I'm just sayin'....)

"Since you all have this "insider" information about police firepower, educate us as to what insider information you have and what firepower they exactly have."

By your use of quotes around the word "insider," are you implying that I am not an insider? Upon what factual basis do you accuse me of not being an insider or that I do not possess specialized knowledge? Do you deny that the police have the previously enumerated weapons?

"They put themselves into the line of fire. Not you...."

Am I not in the line of fire? Why do you make accusations about me and present them as facts? Upon what factual basis do you make these accusations against me?

"...They [the police] would know best."

Do the police know better than me? Upon what factual basis do you assume to know my level of knowledge and how it compares to the knowledge of the police? Why do you accuse me of knowing less than the police?

I am sure you would not do this, but some people who have a weak position use a diversionary technique whereby they hurl false or unverified accusations at the opponent in order to put the opponent on the defensive and make him look weak. This is a psychological technique that plays on a limitation in some people's brains that causes them to presume that a person who is on the defensive is wrong. For the record, I will not be lured into such a trap, and that technique does not work on me. (Not that I am accusing you of stooping to such a level. I'm just sayin'....)

"And please answer my questions, don't parse them to death."

Did I fail to answer your questions? In your posting at June 21, 2008 9:15 AM, I counted 8 question marks. In my posting at June 21, 2008 4:22 PM, I carefully quoted all of those sentences with question marks and answered every question you raised. Why would you accuse me of failing to answer your questions when I did? In addition, I asked 3 questions of you (the second of which was rhetorical), but you have not answered any of them in your latest posting. Additionally, you have not addressed any of the arguments that I raised in my posting. Why would you fail to answer my questions or address my arguments? Did you fail to see my prior posting? (Hint: This is a question.)

"If you can't answer them without engaging in polemics, just say so."

How are you using the word "polemics?" It generally means the use of a controversial argument. What arguments have been controversial and how? Is directly answering your questions and directly refuting your arguments a bad thing in your mind?

"Define "well regulated militia.""

Did you know that it has already been defined by others? Are you aware of the legal process known as statutory interpretation? A critical step in statutory interpretation is to look up every word in question in a dictionary and ascribe to each word its common meaning in use at the time of the drafting of the instrument in question. You might want to consult some academic writings that address this issue of the meaning of "well regulated" in reference to the militia in the 1700s. This is already answered and clearly understood. However, I am afraid that you will probably not like the answer. "Well regulated" as used by the Constitution does not mean regulated in the modern sense (i.e.; to control or direct according to rule, principal, or law) to which many would like to subscribe.

"And for those of you who think there is no difference between Seals and Kirk...."

There is a difference. We understand that. It is in technique. However, the end result is the same. Kirk erodes gun rights slowly over time, hoping no one will notice. Seals overreaches and sets off alarm bells with gun owners. Some people think that it is time to set off alarm bells before the end result is reached.; June 22, 2008 2:45 AM
Stephen said...: "All I can say so-called gun lovers, is that I have been representing policemen in work related injuries for nearly 30 years now. None of them have ever lied to me, several have had their careers ended by idiots with guns. Those are facts. Sorry they disturb you,"

I assume you are an attorney then? And you think they have never lied to you? Ha. Please.

"And I'm also a Greek-American whose family comes from Sparta, Greece."

I am a first generation American whose family comes from Greece. Whatever that has to do with it.

To reference the movie 300 though, "Give them nothing, but take from them everything."; June 22, 2008 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon 2:45 and Stephan,

Neither one of you have answered the questions I have posed. And that remains a problem with the debate

I bring up "regulate" and "regulations" and you both dance away from them. A well regulated militia is different from what you both are trying to talk about.

Read Gates of Fire and stay away from the cartoon movie. The cartoon movie was fun, but Gates of Fire will give you a whole new perspective as to what "molon lave" really means.

Louis G. Atsaves; June 22, 2008 1:11 PM
Roberta X said...: Dear Louis: since when were "a well-regulated Militia" and "the People" synonyms?

One way to parse the 2A is, "The Federal goverment will have men under arms; therefore, the citizenry should be armed as well." Or, "We gotta gun. You better get a gun, too."

"Regulate" in 18th-Cent. usuage typically meant "standardized" or "well-coordinated." To "regulate" a clock was (and still is) to set it so it keeps accurate time. To "regulate" a milita would be to ensure the membership were well-drilled and proficient. "Militia" (defined in many places, including many State constitutions) typically includes all adults (now) and included all adult males in the 1700s and for many years after. So if we have it your way and read the 2A as only enabling the "well-regulated militia" to "keep and bear arms," where's my selective-fire AR-15? And where's my free training?

As for police being outgunned by bad guys, who is it that -- pretty much by definition -- always shows up second or third to gunfights? Who usually has the drop on who? --The good guys don't start fights, they end 'em. As far as I'm concerned, any firearm in the hand of a criminal is too much firepower (and your LEO cients will agree); but with 9 guns for every 10 adults in the US and a zillion shade-tree machinists to make more, there is no rule, law or regulation that can disarm criminals. They're already disinclined to color inside the lines. All such laws do is disarm the law-abiding and tilt the scales even more in favor of malefactors.; June 22, 2008 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm writing this from Iraq, where I'm tired and my body is extremely sore so if I lose focus or start babbling I apologize now. It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach to be sitting over here fighting for rights for people who don't give a shit about us (all they want is our money) while back home they are trying to take what few rights we have left away. I sat here forever reading all the comments on here and everyone has their own opinion and that is great, happy for all of you. I refuse to give up any of my rights so some asshat feels safer because the reality is you are not and will never be. I don't care if it's a gun, bomb, knife, vehicle, if someone wants to hurt you they will. Tools to build things that destroy have been around and will always be around. Taking away the chance to defend yourself from whatever attack may come your way is stupid. I will defend my family, my neighbors and myself with all that I have to ensure they have the chance to live another day in this jacked up place. If you think you are going to be safe everywhere you go you are a sheep and you live with blinders on. You can keep living that way but don't you dare take away my right to protect myself. I don't own an 'assault rifle' but when I get home I will get one because I know how to shoot it, I know when to shoot and I like to shoot it recreationally. I will have 30 round magazines so when I'm at the range I reload less and swap out mags less and if 4 or 5 gangbangers come to my house I will have more than enough to defend myself. I will have good optics so I hit my target as I plan to and I will teach my wife how to shoot it so if there ever comes a day when I'm deployed and someone breaks into the house she can take care of herself. Stop giving up our rights because too many people fought and died for them and you're just letting them taken them away from us. Why don't you come to Iraq for a year and see how you feel about it then. I know I went off there and sorry again for that but it's hard to get a good night sleep when you've got people back home trying to screw you.; June 22, 2008 2:27 PM
45superman said...: Anonymous (June 22, 2008 2:27 PM). Thank you for your efforts to defend the freedoms of American citizens. You never know where you'll find enemies of those freedoms, and you seem to be fighting them on two fronts.; June 22, 2008 2:31 PM
Stephen said...: Anonymous (June 22, 2008 2:27 PM).

Thank you for everything you do for us here. Please know that we are not all willing to give up our rights without a fight. I will give every last drop of myself to secure our rights from fascists and traitors be they Republican or Democrat or other.; June 22, 2008 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for your service and for your thoughts on a very important topic. Just a couple of quotes on the subject of the 2nd Amendment and the law in particular.

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." — Thomas Jefferson; June 22, 2008 4:34 PM
Oldsmoblogger said...: This post has been removed by the author.; June 22, 2008 4:45 PM
Oldsmoblogger said...: "And I'm also a Greek-American whose family comes from Sparta, Greece."

Is that supposed to mean something? Any number of helots could claim the same.

No one I know of is saying there's no difference between Kirk and Seals. What we are saying is that neither is acceptable. The distinction may escape you, but it is a distinction nonetheless.

You cannot sustain the argument that Kirk needs to press his tyrannous bill in order to defeat Dan Seals and preserve the seat for the Faction. It simply doesn't hold water. The most likely alternative is that he is doing it because he wants to. You're helping him because you want to. QED.; June 22, 2008 4:47 PM
Thirdpower said...: Here's a question for TA. Is this firearm:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/DSCF0036.jpg

Covered under Kirk's bill? Why or why not?; June 22, 2008 9:25 PM
Less said...: Thirdpower, here's a better argument:

Obama and the "Fire in Theater: Needs of the Community vs Rights of the Individual"

All guns are dangerous, thus the majority should be able to restrict the rights of others.

Again, what is the difference between Team America's/Kirk's arguemnt vs. the mainline Democrat/Obama argument.

Nothing.; June 22, 2008 11:38 PM
mercurysys said...: TA, Anon Louis and the others that are defending "restrictions" and bans, none of you have answered my questions that were posted 6/20 @ 5:02 PM.

Louis, you stated in one of your postings "Assault rifles? Semi-automatics? Bazookas? No, I draw the line with these as do the majority in America." and then you post that banning hunting weapons "is another thing" So which is it, would also take hunting rifles. The Remington 7400/745/etc. is a semi-auto and is not an "assault rifle", would you ban them also?

In another post you state "Or do we issue them machine guns to level the playing field?", how is it leveling the playing field if they have machine guns and the criminals have "assault weapons" (which are not machine guns/full autos)?; June 23, 2008 1:01 PM
FishyJay said...: Pardon -- I am late to this discussion.

Team America posted: "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."

Yet when we look at Rep. Kirk's bill, we see this:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

(from appendix A):

Barret Model 90 Bolt-Action Rifle

Iver Johnson Model 5100A1 Long-Range Rifle

Both of these are 50 caliber rifles. So does Rep. Kirk "say no" to them, or does he exempt them from being banned as his bill (and the original AWB) actually says?; June 23, 2008 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Mercurysys, you pose a good question that needs to be thought out some more.

One thing that comes to mind is the size of the weapon, can it be easily hidden on your person? A hunting rifle such as what you describe sounds very difficult to hide on your person for example.

I'll have to think it over some more.

Louis G. Atsaves; June 24, 2008 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: If Rep Kirk wants to carry the Republican banner in this district, he'd best start acting like a Republican and an American Citizen. Apparently, the multiple oaths Mark kirk has taken to protect and defend our Constitution mean little to him. Either that or he's forgotten what the Constitution says.
It's silly for Rep. Kirk to poke his Republican base in the eye by supporting leftist infringement of our right to keep and bear arms. The Left is not going to support him anyway, so all he accomplishes is alienating his base. If Mark Kirk was nervous after his last slim victory over an unimpressive opponent, he's going to feel even worse should he fail to win in November. But he will have only himself to blame because he is going against his nation and his party by supporting a so-called 'assault weapon' ban.
For this blog to excuse Rep Kirk's off the reservation excursions into infrinement of clearly defined Constitutional amendments is both feckless and spineless. An honest man would recognize that Rep. Kirk is clearly wrong on this issue. If Rep. Kirk was a strong leader, he would recognize that Americans rejected the assault weapons ban previously. And if this blog was not a blind follower, it would recognize and acknowledge that Rep. Kirk is wrong on this issue instead of defending the indefensible.; June 24, 2008 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Rep. Kirk said:
"I was surprised because the Democrats control Congress, and yet 18 months after taking office they have yet to approve this legislation and that's why I introduced my own bill,"

It must be reassuring to liberal Democrats that when Congressional Democrats fail to infringe on our constitutionaly protected rights, Congressman Kirk will step in and seek to trample them. ALL Americans should be justifiably incensed by this flagrant act of legislative hubris. Rep. Mark Kirk has abandoned our Constitution... How long before 10th District Americans abandon his candidacy?; June 25, 2008 3:38 PM
Tango said...: Despite my work for the Illinois Republican Party over the past 20 years, I think that Representative Kirk could get the tax on gasoline repealed permanently and I wouldn't vote for him.

Why? I can't offer quarter to traitors:
2008 (110th Congress) > H.R. 6257
H.R. 6257: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act
Bill Status
Introduced: Jun 12, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

Like the term "Assault Weapon", this law bears an intentionally misleading name.

As a former Republican Precinct Committeman, I find it humorous that we heard so much about "profiling" in Highland Park several years ago, but to intentionally mislabel and prejudge a firearm based strictly on appearances is OK.

Rep. Kirk either doesn't want the truth to be known or is unaware but the whole "Assault Weapons" concept is a sham, as evidenced by the following quote by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in a piece he authored in 1988:

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

In a press conference Rep. Kirk claimed "... body armor offers no significant protection... for a police officer against weapons like these". This is an interesting bit of misinformation, seeing as how 95% of all police body armor is rated only for handguns.

I should know - I wear it regularly.

In case he didn't know, any rifle - whether an intentionally mis-named "Assault Weapon", grandpa's .30-30 lever action deer rifle, even some black powder rifles like those used by the founding fathers - will easily compromise any armor rated only for pistols.

These firearms are no "deadlier" than the average hunting rifle; they just bear a more menacing appearance.

Perhaps he questions their use by law abiding citizens? I would suggest that Representative Kirk interview the Korean shopkeepers who lawfully defended their stores (and successfully kept them from being looted and burned) during the LA riots how useful their so-called "assault weapons" were, and if they "needed" them?

As far as their use in crime? So-called "Assault Weapons" account for less than two percent of all guns involved in violent crimes according to FBI statistics. If only judged from an efficiency standpoint this is a ridiculous pursuit, and must be based either in ignorance or a willing indifference to the effectiveness of the legislation one attempts to enact.

In this pursuit it seems like he's catering more towards the exclusive enclaves of Wilmette and Winnetka rather than the real world of Waukegan and North Chicago by making a big fuss over an issue with little substance on the taxpayer's dime.

I respect his military service, but, as someone who has been on both ends of a gun (in distances measured in feet, not in nautical miles), and who deals with the real world of violence as an everyday part of my job, I had hoped he would stop catering to the liberal occupants of suburban fantasyland.

Instead, by introducing this legislation, he has dishonored his Oaths of Office (for both the Navy and Congress) and instead of "support(ing) and defend(ing) the Constitution of the United States" has sought to further undermine the 2nd Amendment in an attempt to appeal to the tennis and martini crowds from the "upscale" suburbs ("Lexus liberals") that attend his fundraisers.

I never thought I'd say this, but , but if I vote, I think Dan Seals may have my vote in November. As least he has been honest in his dislike for the armed citizen. lawful and otherwise, and I can count on his remaining true to his beliefs, rather than proposing typical liberal & democrat legislation while parading about under the mantle of his "Republican" designation.; June 25, 2008 5:56 PM
StarKing said...: Just out of curiosity: When did my Nylon 66 become a "Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders"?
Does that mean if your Nylon 66 is a "Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders", which all of them are, it will be banned?
I guarantee someone will interpret it that way if this bill shows up as law.; August 18, 2009 1:11 AM