Not so fast Gov Quinn

Not so fast Gov Quinn

This is a discussion on Not so fast Gov Quinn within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Quinn?s gun maneuver sets stage for near-certain political defeat next week - Chicago Sun-Times Governor Irrelevant strikes again....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Not so fast Gov Quinn

  1. #1
    Member Array FLMOPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central IL
    Posts
    235
    "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

    "My dog is smarter than your honor student."


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,452
    I thought this Bill had enough votes to be veto proof? And Quinn said he would pass it if it made it to his desk.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    “When you look at the totality of everything else, I don’t see how you flip 20 votes in the House,” Vandermyde said. “Once again, the governor is proving his incompetence and irrelevancy. He didn’t participate in the process in any meaningful way in any single point in time, and now he stands back and does what he does: He throws rocks after the fact.”
    Seems pretty accurate to me..
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,349
    Afterwards, when asked about the likelihood that his amendatory veto will be overridden, the governor said, “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety and I don’t believe that the National Rifle Association is an authority on public safety.”
    - Who is the authority of public safety in Illinois? The legislators in Chicago?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,586
    “These changes are what people want. They don’t want some select group making the decisions for them,” Pfleger said,
    ...except in CA where the progressives think a select group should override a popular vote on the definition of marriage.

    respecting the rights of local communities to decide what gun laws work for them,” Bloomberg said
    So, local communities have the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, but apparently don't have the right to decide what laws protect protect babies in the womb?

    Yes, these are politically and morally heated debates. I just want to illustrate the hipocrisy of the anti-gun argument in IL.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,383
    When that "select group" is the Supreme Court that's what you're gonna get.
    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” - Naguib Mahfouz

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    “The Legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois”
    Of course it was "hurried". The courts gave the legislature a time frame to get a bill passed and everyone sat on their thumbs until the last minute. That wasn't the NRA's fault.

    “These changes are what people want. They don’t want some select group making the decisions for them”
    A select group? Like their elected representatives?

    What a clown...
    DJC7 and Anubis like this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,697
    I would not call > six months of "back and forth debates " as hurried or pushed through legislation- but I'm not a politician so YMMV

  9. #9
    Pro
    Pro is offline
    Member Array Pro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    ...except in CA where the progressives think a select group should override a popular vote on the definition of marriage.

    Be careful on that one. Times are a changin' on that topic and I will bet you that the majority of the population will be in favor sooner rather than later. Personally, I'm a libertarian and don't feel it's the governments business who someone marries. I say, live and let live. Let liberty prevail. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours. I happen to be a man married to a beautiful woman. And whose business is it, really!? Certainly NOT the .gov !!
    Last edited by Pro; July 3rd, 2013 at 02:52 PM. Reason: typo
    Minimum government, maximum freedom.

    NRA - Member
    GOAL - Member

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro View Post
    Be careful on that one.
    Be careful of what? The People held a petition to get a vote on the ballot. The People voted, and even in the most liberal state in the union, the voice of the People was loud and clear. Then the elected officials basically sued the People and appealed to a liberal judicial panel.
    Proof positive that progressives only want "democracy" when it falls on their side. If you don't agree with them, watch out. Their view has nothing to do with equality, liberty, or God given rights. It is a social construction to gain power.

    ps. That definition transcends political party.

  11. #11
    Pro
    Pro is offline
    Member Array Pro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    Be careful of what? The People held a petition to get a vote on the ballot. The People voted, and even in the most liberal state in the union, the voice of the People was loud and clear. Then the elected officials basically sued the People and appealed to a liberal judicial panel.
    Proof positive that progressives only want "democracy" when it falls on their side. If you don't agree with them, watch out. Their view has nothing to do with equality, liberty, or God given rights. It is a social construction to gain power.

    ps. That definition transcends political party.
    I'm saying that sooner, rather than later the PEOPLE will vote that way. I don't know about the liberals, but from my libertarian perspective I don't see any valid reason why the .gov should dictate who someone decides to marry. It's a personal/religious issue between two adults. Why are you okay with .gov telling people who they can marry? I don't get that view, I'm going to be honest. I mean, I sure as heck don't want .gov telling me what guns I can own, what I can do with my property, or where I can go...why would I EVER want them to tell me who I can marry!?!?!
    Minimum government, maximum freedom.

    NRA - Member
    GOAL - Member

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Array southernwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    594
    ^^^^ +1
    Every day without a negligent discharge is a good day.

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro View Post
    I'm saying that sooner, rather than later the PEOPLE will vote that way. I don't know about the liberals, but from my libertarian perspective I don't see any valid reason why the .gov should dictate
    Then you agree that when the People petition for a vote, and that vote dos not infringe upon rights of others, then the government representatives should not interfere. I don't know how well you follow CA politics, but the executive branch interfered with the will of the people, regardless of their state constitution. As a libertarian, you ought to be furious that government representatives usurped the will of the people. Progressives, whether CA or IL need to choose a form of government and stick with it. None of this "living document" bs that leaves the rules up to their own interpretation depending on how the political current flows that day.

    I'm trying my best to keep this related to analogies of why a liberal governor (Quinn) continues to manipulate state laws. If we wish to open a lecture on why progressives are trying to redefine the family, I'm open to a new thread. Otherwise, I hold to my premise that progressives will choose democracy, representative republic, or monarchy, whichever suits their politics that day.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,383
    Slavery, segregation and the execution of "witches" was also the "rule of the people" at one time. Luckily we have the rule of law, not just mob rule. No matter how many people think that, say, slavery is a good idea the law still won't allow it. A majority desire can not overrule a minority right.

    Remember, there are places where the majority are in favor of banning most if not all guns, but I don't see the folks here clamoring for the "will of the People" in those cases.
    Automatic and TonyDTrigger like this.
    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” - Naguib Mahfouz

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro View Post
    I'm saying that sooner, rather than later the PEOPLE will vote that way. I don't know about the liberals, but from my libertarian perspective I don't see any valid reason why the .gov should dictate who someone decides to marry. It's a personal/religious issue between two adults. Why are you okay with .gov telling people who they can marry? I don't get that view, I'm going to be honest. I mean, I sure as heck don't want .gov telling me what guns I can own, what I can do with my property, or where I can go...why would I EVER want them to tell me who I can marry!?!?!
    To the degree that it's a personal/religious issue between adults, there's no law currently enforced against homosexual marriage. The debate is about the LEGAL aspects of marriage, and in that point, the government does indeed say which marriages are legally recognized and which aren't. Saying the government can't decide who gets legally married is like saying they can't decide what vehicles to license - of course they can, both marriage and vehicle licensing are constructs OF government.

    Anyway, back on topic: Quinn is indeed an idiot.
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •