johnyfive
03-01-2013, 18:41
Hello everyone, just this week I heard about this forum from the Bower family at Bowers Tactical and joined as soon as I could.... And I could use some help already.
Monday, March 4th the senate committees are giving as many folks as possible three minutes to speak regarding the proposed firearms legislation (7 bills divided into 2 committees). I could use some help brainstorming on which point to make my case that best explains why any of these bills are not appropriate, or more concretely, why 3 Democrats ought to vote no. One theme I've been working with so far is the general misuse of the limited legislative resources. E.g. the time in which the house/senate are in session being used for debating a magazine capacity limit which is expected to result in 1 criminal in jail for 1 year every 5 years (according to the house appropriations report). Resource consumption would be high compared to the payoff. I would, perhaps, indicate a more effective law could be passed instead. (Thoughts on offering up ANY alternative law?) Another theme I've been working with is the statistical breakdown of murder and violent crime in US history in and out of high and low firearms liberty areas of the US and using pre and post firearms bans in England and Australia as a backdrop. I ought to be able to easily prove that it's mathematically impossible to save "just one life" by restricting firearms features or availability, but I won't win any hearts sounding like a phone book.
My concerns are not repeating anyone else who may show up to testify and helping convince 3 of 20 senate Dems to vote these bills down (I can hardly expect to convince 2 of 4 in these committees). If they debate for 8 hours (which is a little optimistic considering the length of debates for the 4 House bills, around 6 hours each I believe) that means 160 people could testify, 150 on the top end for a realistic estimate, per committee. So I'll need to make a fine point if I want to avoid repeating someone else. Even if 50 folks decide a House, Senate, and Governor majority aren't enough and want to testify to the anti liberty side, I'll still need to make a point finer than 1% of the pro rights community could expect to make. Something like crime statistics might be a little obtuse, alone and on their face. Hopefully someone here knows which 3 senate Democrats to focus on and how to best appeal to those specific people.
~johnyfive
P.S. If you can, please come testify and at least listen. Any senator with the sense God gave a doorknob could guess that voters filling the seats will, by and large, not be in favor. It's a work day and these bills already have advantages in all 3 key legislative areas; anti rights folks don't NEED to attend.
Monday, March 4th the senate committees are giving as many folks as possible three minutes to speak regarding the proposed firearms legislation (7 bills divided into 2 committees). I could use some help brainstorming on which point to make my case that best explains why any of these bills are not appropriate, or more concretely, why 3 Democrats ought to vote no. One theme I've been working with so far is the general misuse of the limited legislative resources. E.g. the time in which the house/senate are in session being used for debating a magazine capacity limit which is expected to result in 1 criminal in jail for 1 year every 5 years (according to the house appropriations report). Resource consumption would be high compared to the payoff. I would, perhaps, indicate a more effective law could be passed instead. (Thoughts on offering up ANY alternative law?) Another theme I've been working with is the statistical breakdown of murder and violent crime in US history in and out of high and low firearms liberty areas of the US and using pre and post firearms bans in England and Australia as a backdrop. I ought to be able to easily prove that it's mathematically impossible to save "just one life" by restricting firearms features or availability, but I won't win any hearts sounding like a phone book.
My concerns are not repeating anyone else who may show up to testify and helping convince 3 of 20 senate Dems to vote these bills down (I can hardly expect to convince 2 of 4 in these committees). If they debate for 8 hours (which is a little optimistic considering the length of debates for the 4 House bills, around 6 hours each I believe) that means 160 people could testify, 150 on the top end for a realistic estimate, per committee. So I'll need to make a fine point if I want to avoid repeating someone else. Even if 50 folks decide a House, Senate, and Governor majority aren't enough and want to testify to the anti liberty side, I'll still need to make a point finer than 1% of the pro rights community could expect to make. Something like crime statistics might be a little obtuse, alone and on their face. Hopefully someone here knows which 3 senate Democrats to focus on and how to best appeal to those specific people.
~johnyfive
P.S. If you can, please come testify and at least listen. Any senator with the sense God gave a doorknob could guess that voters filling the seats will, by and large, not be in favor. It's a work day and these bills already have advantages in all 3 key legislative areas; anti rights folks don't NEED to attend.