Gun Hub Forums banner

Alan Keyes is alive and loose in Illinois!

4955 Views 12 Replies 9 Participants Last post by  Snake45
Man, O man! Gotta love Alan Keyes, former Presidential Candidate, when it comes to straight talk, the media and the Second Amendment. Here's a video clip of an extraordinary confrontation he recently had with a FoxNews (!) political reporter who even at the end of the seven-plus minute interview, doesn't understand what a hack he is, only that he has been torn a new fundamental orifice in front of a large number of viewers.

I had read yesterday in my ever-lovin's NY Daily News (yeah!, I know…) that Keyes has stepped on his member by suggesting that everyone should have a machinegun, and I found this Brady Bunch release from last week on-line:
The following is being issued by the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

Alan Keyes, the Maryland resident running for the Illinois Senate, said
yesterday that machine guns should be legal.
Not semiautomatic assault weapons, mind you -- the guns that were outlawed
10 years ago. Mr. Keyes is for legal machine guns, which came under
extraordinary federal regulation in the 1930s after the guns were misused by
another guy named Al -- Al Capone.
The manufacture of new machine guns was banned under the McClure-Volkmer
Act of 1986.
Keyes' comments, published today in the Chicago Sun-Times, were made at a
press conference in which he was criticizing "ideological extremism" of his
"Alan Keyes sees a country where every American should be armed to the
hilt with the most deadly firepower imaginable," said Jim Brady, an Illinois
native who served as President Ronald Reagan's press secretary. "I cannot
fathom how he could come up with such a notion. It's insane."
There are only five days left when Congress is in session before the
expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban -- a law that President Bush pledged
he'd renew as a candidate for President in 2000. If the ban expires, Alan
Keyes will be able to fire semiautomatic assault weapons to his heart's
content -- but there's no current legislation that will give him his machine
The Sun-Times article is online at
Of course, Jim Brady said no such thing as apparently the best he can come up with for the past 24 years is a wobbly grin and an occasional howl thanks to that psycho Hinckley, and the Brady release is wrong (nothing new there, eh!?!) on other things, but Number One is that Keyes said no such thing, and even the Chicago Sun-Times got that part right!
Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the right to own and carry machine guns.

"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."

But the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate argued the founding fathers intended the Second Amendment to allow people to carry the types of weapons "customarily carried in those days by ordinary infantry soldiers."

"And, yes, does that mean that in this day and age people would have the right to have access to the kind of the weapons our ordinary infantry people have access to? With proper training and so forth to make sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactly what was meant."
So watch (broadband suggested) Keyes address the typical media misrepresentation in the most forthright manner imaginable!

Gotta love his style and his position on the Second Amendment!
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

Anyone who has lived in Chicago during the past 30 or so years remembers what a smarmy little bastid Walther Jacobson (the hack doing the interwiew) is. I haven't lived there in quite some time, and he has aged accordingly, but he's still the little high school reporter trying to prove he belongs in the bigs.

Kudos to Keyes for putting him in his place. (Almost as good as Zell Miller giving it to Chris Matthews on MSNBC last night.)

Keyes is absolutely brilliant, but lately I've been both impressed and a bit put off by his seemingly limitless ability to answer almost any question on any subject whatsoever with an anti-abortion rant.

Not that I'm pro-abortion--or anti, either, for that matter. But guns and abortion are the two hottest, most divisive topics in the US. Ask any talk show host from a 5000 watt radio station right up to Rush Limbaugh all they have to do to get the phones ringing on a slow day.

I think someday, the pro-gun and pro-abortion people are going to have to come to some kind of uneasy truce: "You stay out of our gun cabinets, and we'll stay out of your wombs. Pro-CHOICE for everyone." And then we can begin to move forward and solve some REAL problems in this country.

Mods, please feel free to delete this if it's too political, inflammatory, or controversial--I'll understand and not take offense.

WWTSD? (What Would Tony Soprano Do?)
Thank Gawd someone else understands what "Pro-Choice" really is!

Back in my "dating days" that was always the most effective counter-punch to a "why do you have a gun?" roundhouse right… "If you're really 'Pro-Choice,' how 'bout letting me choose whether I want to take responsibility for my own security?!"

One actually blurted in response, "But guns cause deaths!" That was the fattest pitch anyone ever served up to me in my entire life! Had "Grade A meatball" written all over it!
DeanSpeir said:
One actually blurted in response, "But guns cause deaths!" That was the fattest pitch anyone ever served up to me in my entire life! Had "Grade A meatball" written all over it!
Yah, I love the way the pro-abortion crowd fends that one off. "But a fetus is not a person."

Wasn't "not a person" the line that slaveholders and Hitler (among others) used, too? Can we get a law passed that proclaims that anyone in the the act of committing a violent felony is "not a person"?

WWTSD? (What Would Tony Soprano Do?)
I've been told by those in a position to know that the old English Common Law definition of a "person" was any "human, born alive or in the process of being born alive."

Reagan's pride over getting a CA law passed making it a crime to injure a woman to the point of killing the fetus then made a lot more sense. Old rule: fetus not being born, abusive piece of human trash walks after beating his wife/girlfriend to the point of trauma-induced miscarriage/abortion.

There are a lot of "old rules" from law and medicine that just don't work any more. No heartbeat = dead, for example. Roe v. Wade was and is and continues to be based on an early 1970s timetable of "viability" to assign some independent viability value to an absurd idea of states having basically no business to protect the unborn until the unborn have some ghost of a chance of surviving premature birth.

When the mother's health is in danger, it's like the danger to society posed by a first-degree murderer. We have a long attention span, and "imminent" danger is not measured in seconds. For a mother-to-be, only she should make the choice to save her own life, or to give hers up so the baby can live. The imminent danger is not measured in seconds there, either.

That's why partial-birth abortion is so despicable to me, with the sole exception of saving the mother's life. The baby at that point would be in the process of being "born alive", if the doctor were not actively engaged in collapsing the kid's skull. Death of one innocent to save another innocent is to me the only acceptable scenario for such action, and it *is* sometimes truly "clinically indicated."

In the hands of the Good Ones, however, any weapon (not just gun!) saves life by causing injury or death, but with a critical distinction--the one who might die DID SOMETHING WRONG.

On behalf of any fetus killed for the mere convenience of a healthy mother (including mental health), I can only say "excuse me for living."

Some choices seem a bit more defensible in my eyes.
See less See more
It always amazes me the people who can find an individual right to abortion in the 4th Amendemnt can't find an individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment... ;)
Pro-lifers hate guns because guns are too honest. Scalpels are so much subtler.
Alan Keyes just impressed the heck out of me wiht that clip... thanks Dean.
Keyes was brilliant, indeed. He NAILED that guy. The guy said "Automated Weapons". Automated? Does he mean like a Phalanx?

I find it laughable that the "reporter" was fighting so hard to make "automatic" the same thing as "Machinegun". Asinine.
I really don't know what the politics are like in that region of the country.

Do any of you guys think he's got a chance?
Look at the quality of the Congressional folks that Illinois sends to The Hill over the past decade… one went to jail for having it off with an aide who was too young even for R. Kelly's taste, and another recently resigned in disgrace over some monitary scandal as I recollect. (She shoulda been in jail as well, I think.)

Keyes has very little shot, but the man is a delight to watch in action… no quarter for the chump reporter who, if he'd've just said "Oops, I mis-spoke," he could have gotten on with the freakin' interview!

But noooooooooooooooooo!, he was working so hard at trying to save some face that he just screwed the pooch even worse…
  1. "Isn't that a red herring?"[/*:2rlvqs5n]
  2. "I'll be glad to sit down and talk about your problems with the Media some other time…"[/*:2rlvqs5n]
What a marooooooon!

When Keyes kep asking who the guy was working for, he just as well could've asked him "Who's your Daddy?!" [smack!]

But Keyes is gonna make this guy sweat blood to get to the Senate… there'll be very little guts left in him after Keyes finishes with him. He knows he has no shot, so there's no holds barred!
See less See more
Read and watch anti-gun media.

I find it laughable that the "reporter" was fighting so hard to make "automatic" the same thing as "Machinegun". Asinine.
It is asinine.

But, this is what the general public reads.

It is important for us to pay attention to the anti-gun media, so that we know what they are saying, and are ready to correct their false statements. And to do that in a calm, reasoned, manner.
Soda Pop said:
I really don't know what the politics are like in that region of the country.

Do any of you guys think he's got a chance?
Someone of morals and common sense getting elected to the US Senate from Chicagoland? Don't hold your breath. I think Mr. Keyes would prolly have a better chance getting elected Grand Dragon of the Klan. (I hear they have a new affirmative action program going now.)

Few years ago I saw Keyes debate Paul Sarbanes in the senate race in the Democratic People's Republic of Maryland. Whatever the question, Keyes had a well-thought-out, reasonable, logical, responsible answer. His answers seemed to run about five minutes and yet he could cram them into the allotted two-minute space. Sarbanes had the same answer to every question: "That's a very complex issue, which we've been studying for some time, and hope to be making progress on in the very near future." Stretched out to fill two minutes. If you think John Kerry is charisma-challenged, he's positively Mr. Fun compared to Sarbanes.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.