Critique my Senate speech.

[Birddog1911]

Tomorrow I will be attending the CO. Senate hearing, with the hope that I'll actually be able to have my voice heard. I've written down what I'd like to say, but I figured I'd run it by the hive and see if it could be improved upon. Below is the text. Unfortunately, anyone who is able to speak will be limited to 3 minutes. Should anyone else get the chance to speak, and would like to use it, feel free!

ETA: It seems to have taken out my spacing; I'll try to fix here.

I have come here today, specifically, to voice my vehement opposition to Sen. Morse’s proposed law, the Assault Weapon Responsibility Act. Never in my time have I seen a more misguided and unconstitutional law proposed in the great state of Colorado.

First, this proposed law is intentionally misguided in labeling semi-automatic sporting arms as assault weapons. By definition, an assault weapon is a select fire weapon that can be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic; meaning that with one pull of the trigger, more than one round would be fired mechanically.

Further, Sen. Morse and Rep. Fields are broadly expanding the definition by including any and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and even a pump action shotgun! This would mean that the very rifle that I bought for my nephew, a little .22 caliber long rifle, would be labeled an assault rifle. Anyone who owns a shotgun for hunting ducks and geese would now be in possession of an assault weapon.

The most egregious part of this law would turn any law abiding citizen, who through no malice whatsoever, transferred one of these rifles or shotguns, and that weapon was used in the commission of a crime. At no time in history, in the United States, has someone been held accountable for the crimes of another, when they had nothing to do with the crime.

What is next; if someone sells a car to another person, and that person kills someone by drinking and driving, will the seller of the car be held responsible? What about someone who sells a pool; those kill far more people every year than gun violence. The public would be better served were Senators and Representatives held responsible for the lies that they tell and the laws that they try to pass! Who do you think you are, Sen. Morse, when you said that YOU are the one who grants the citizens their rights? You sir, do NOT grant rights; God grants rights, and they are protected in the United States Constitution!

I call on the Colorado Senate to reject ALL of these ridiculous gun control laws, and for once to actually focus on punishing the criminals, and not the citizens!

[OtterbatHellcat]

What is next; if someone sells a car to another person, and that person kills someone by drinking and driving, will the seller of the car be held responsible? What about someone who sells a pool; those kill far more people every year than gun violence. The public would be better served were Senators and Representatives held responsible for the lies that they tell and the laws that they try to pass! Who do you think you are, Sen. Morse, when you said that YOU are the one who grants the citizens their rights? You sir, do NOT grant rights; God grants rights, and they are protected in the United States Constitution!
I call on the Colorado Senate to reject ALL of these ridiculous gun control laws, and for once to actually focus on punishing the criminals, and not the citizens!

I think you were good up til here, gets a little personal or emotional I guess. I like it for the most part, and thank you for attending and trying to get your (our) voices heard.

Cool Man.

[sroz]

In your 4th para, I think you are saying this would turn any law-abiding citizen.....into a criminal. Just don't think you completed the thought.

If Morse actually said the things you attribute to him (I honestly don't know), I say you are right to call him out on it. Inferring that all Senators & Representatives are liars, may not be received well. Just my honest input. Thank you!

[Birddog1911]

Yea, it seems I skipped a thought in the fourth paragraph. It should be something like this:

The most egregious part of this law would turn any law abiding citizen into a criminal, if someone that they sold one of these weapons to used it in the commission of a crime, even without their knowing the intent. At no time in history, in the United States, has someone been held accountable for the crimes of another, when they had nothing to do with the crime.

[OtterbatHellcat]

You're doing good man, and it's even more cool that you have the cojones to be open with folks here, and willing to accept others opinions about how to present yourself.

Again, cool man, and more power to ya!

[vossman]

We need someone to say this but unfortunately it won't be received well. I wouldn't be surprised if they "asked" you to leave once you were done. I think it was well written though. Good work.

[Birddog1911]

Well let's make sure that it is well received. I could remove the portion directly aimed at Morse.

[OtterbatHellcat]

Thank you for your efforts, Brother. If you get your time, I know you will do well.

[vossman]

I think it needs to be said.

[Birddog1911]

Refined the second and third paragraph.

First, , Sen. Morse and Rep. Fields are broadly expanding the definition of what they would call an assault weapon, by including any and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Even a single shot rifle or shotgun, as defined in this law, is an assault weapon.

[battle_sight_zero]

Well let's make sure that it is well received. I could remove the portion directly aimed at Morse.


Why? He is a bastard with no respect the laws of our country. Let's say that the left is successful here and nationwide is removing our gun rights, Mr.Morse would be one of the players who would relish the power that he has. He would be the type to oversee reeducation and indoctrination camps. The man has ambitions for ruling over people.To say I am the one to grant rights shows what type POS we are dealing with. He does not grant shit, his kind will be the ones who bring down this great country. It's sad this man is in his position, regardless of what happens he and is like are exposed for what they are. Morse is term limited for 2014. Watch where he goes next. Either way i sense a very evil man in Morse.

http://thefinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obama+burger+king1261981602.jpg#obama%20bowing%20t o%20burger%20king%20450x454

[mrstellar]

Very nice. I appreciate your efforts!

[Birddog1911]

Hey, if I thought it would help, I'd tell Morse to FOAD right on the senate floor. But we need to persuade the Senate as a whole, not turn them away.

[battle_sight_zero]

Hey, if I thought it would help, I'd tell Morse to FOAD right on the senate floor. But we need to persuade the Senate as a whole, not turn them away.

Agreed but we are dealing with some evil people with darker motives. As they stated they are just getting started.

[Birddog1911]

I've made some more revisions:

I have come here today, specifically, to voice my vehement opposition to Sen. Morse’s proposed bill, the Assault Weapon Responsibility Act. Never in my time have I seen a more misguided and unconstitutional law proposed in the great state of Colorado.
Firstly, Sen. Morse and Rep. Fields are broadly expanding the definition of what they would call an assault weapon, by including any and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Even a single shot rifle or shotgun, as defined in this law, is an assault weapon.
The most egregious part of this law would turn any law abiding citizen into a criminal, if someone that they sold one of these weapons to used it in the commission of a crime, even without their knowing the intent. At no time in the history of the United States, has a law been proposed to hold the innocent accountable for the crimes of another, when they had nothing to do with the crime.
What is next; if someone sells a car to another person and that person kills someone by drinking and driving, will the seller of the car be held responsible? What about someone who sells a pool; those kill far more people every year than gun violence.
I call on the Colorado Senate to reject ALL of these unjust and unconstitutional gun control laws, and for once to actually focus on punishing the criminals, and not the well-intentioned citizens!

[StagLefty]

I applaud your efforts and wish you best for all of us tomorrow.

[def90]

Pools do not kill more people than guns.. just sayin'.. Stick to facts and stay away from direct attacks. This is a debate, personal attacks in your testimony will be taken as being adversarial and will diminish the relevancy of anything else you have said.

Last stats I could find were roughly 3500 people die per year from drowning.. The older you get the more likely your drowning was in a natural body of water. More than half (roughly 57%) of drownings if people over the age of 15 were in natural water which leaves about 1600 people drowning in pools. 12k-13k people die from guns each year.

[Birddog1911]

Def, we are both partially right; accidental deaths by pools are higher than firearms. I'll look for another analogy.

[def90]

Def, we are both partially right; accidental deaths by pools are higher than firearms. I'll look for another analogy.

Yes.. but none of these laws are being brought forth in regards to accidental deaths. I like the drunk driving analogy, most people are ok with going out and having a bottle of wine with dinner and then driving home. The analogy is that more people die each year in alcohol related accidents than by guns. Getting in a car after drinking is akin to randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. You might hit someone and kill them, you might not. However.. with drunk driving you can sue the bar that served the driver so even this isn't the best analogy in the world either.

[battle_sight_zero]

Pools do not kill more people than guns.. just sayin'.. Stick to facts and stay away from direct attacks. This is a debate, personal attacks in your testimony will be taken as being adversarial and will diminish the relevancy of anything else you have said.

Last stats I could find were roughly 3500 people die per year from drowning.. The older you get the more likely your drowning was in a natural body of water. More than half (roughly 57%) of drownings if people over the age of 15 were in natural water which leaves about 1600 people drowning in pools. 12k-13k people die from guns each year.

here are some good facts=

· From2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings(non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-relatedincidents.2
· Aboutone in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 Forevery child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency departmentcare for nonfatal submersion injuries.1
· Morethan 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) requirehospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalizationrate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2 Thesenonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result inlong-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, andpermanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).3,4


and then these facts


Since the massacre at Sandy HookElementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, Democrats have made reinstatement ofthe assault weapons ban a major priority for the 113th Congress despite thefact that relatively few murders are killed with weapons that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers andclubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles, which is what the ban likelywould have the most effect on, reports Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BigGovernment+(Big+Government)) .

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as comparedwith 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, therewere 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with arifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists thanwith rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers couldbe adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders withnon-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does notchange the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives aretaken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein'sdreaded rifle.”


So why are they not talking about banning pistols right now? They killed most of the 12-13k people you mentioned??????? Wake up there is an agenda here to take our equalizers to counter tyranny. Why is the govt trying to take away our weapons while buying billions rounds of ammo? There are darker plans at work and Colorado is the battlefront.

[vossman]

I like what u said in post 10. Quick and to the point.

[gnihcraes]

Let those with Pools (Swimming Pools) and Cars fight their fight, leave it to those with guns to fight at this point in time. I'd go easy on the personal attack myself, we're all angry over this, and that's what they want.

[jslo]

I think the Moris reference to him granting rights needs brought up. Maybe a softer approach would ask him if he said this and does he truly believe it. Just a thought.

[Dlesh123]

Thank you for your efforts.
While I also think morse is the biggest POS ever in the legislature, for this venue, you have to win hearts and minds, the personal attack won't be received well.

in the second paragraph, you say " firstly". This implies a " secondly" which I don't see.

I would just drop that word firstly.

[Birddog1911]

I'll reattack the point with the pools, but the analogy of charging someone for another persons' crime, regarding the drunk driving, is quite relevant.


Let those with Pools (Swimming Pools) and Cars fight their fight, leave it to those with guns to fight at this point in time. I'd go easy on the personal attack myself, we're all angry over this, and that's what they want.

[XC700116]

I think the Moris reference to him granting rights needs brought up. Maybe a softer approach would ask him if he said this and does he truly believe it. Just a thought.

It ABSOLUTELY does need to be brought up. No personal attacks but he said it, and it needs to be put back to the floor of the Senate.

I think this would make a great closing statement.


In numerous publications Senator Morse is quoted as saying "The reality is, these folks don’t have a Second Amendment right to buy these guns. I’m not going there in this bill. I’m granting them the right, if you will, as long as they take 100 percent of the responsibility, both to sell it, to buy it, to possess it, to shoot it, the whole kit and kaboodle".

With all due respect Senator, you do not grant rights, our rights are given to us by our creator and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. And your bill is assigning responsibility to uninvolved persons for the actions of others.

BTW here's the source : http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20130226/NEWS01/130229716/Assault-weapons-bill-targets-liability

[10mm-man]

Well let's make sure that it is well received. I could remove the portion directly aimed at Morse.

Call him out, don't back down. He is just another man!

[10mm-man]

It ABSOLUTELY does need to be brought up. No personal attacks but he said it, and it needs to be put back to the floor of the Senate.

I think this would make a great closing statement.

BTW here's the source : http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20130226/NEWS01/130229716/Assault-weapons-bill-targets-liability


^+1- Closing statement- Read what he said than counter it with what your wrote... He doesn't grant us rights, only GOD and the Constitution protects us from tyrants like him....

[asmo]

For all of you saying "don't get personal" - I must say bullshit. Now is the time to turn it up a notch. To be brutally honest about their tactics and to tell it like it is. Look, they are NOT going to care about the 'facts' - they have gotten their powerpoint slides and talking points from their lobbyists and they are going to believe whats in those over ANYTHING you have to say. It sucks but its the honest to gods truth. Look we need to get sentiment on our side and we need to make them embarrassed that is the ONLY way this is going to work. I posed the following in another thread but I am repeating it here to make sure you all get this:


Call them out, tell them you know that they have already made up their mind and that this is a sham -- then tell them the consequences of their actions (politely and without any direct threat). Politely tell them that you believe they are sell outs and no longer representing the people - and that if they are not representing the people than we don't need them anymore. Tell them the recalls that are starting for the Representatives that voted on the bills are gaining speed, getting people signing up rapidly, and that the campaigns are having no problems getting funding. Politely tell them that they are taking east coast money at the expense of Coloradian's lives and that their east coast donors also support child rapists, drug addict politicians, and adulterers. Tell them that the gun control concept is patently a lie since there are guns protecting them every day -- so obviously, by their own logic and admission, they only want *their* people to have guns, then remind them that *their* people probably really don't like their politics all that much. Tell them that they are ignorant about how a gun works - and that that they are not experts just because their $450/hr lobbyist and lawyers gave them a power point presentation while they were drafting the laws. Tell them that just because Field's son made poor decisions and hung out with gang members, that he paid the consequences for his actions (by being shot by other gang members) -- and that the rest of us should not be punished for his poor choices or Field's poor parenting skills.

Use the time to call them on their lies - directly. NICELY. CALMLY. Be absolutely polite and perfectly factual. Use their own tactics against them.




RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
RULE 10: "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign.
RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.



Rules 3, 4, 9, 11 and 13 are tactical and reaidly applicable to quick win interactions such as testimony. Look through those and develop some wording. I will be happy to help speech write with you.

For those of you worried about being asked to leave -- SO EFFING WHAT.

Quit being nice - I know its our way and that we all think we can win this using reason and logic, its not going to happen. We need reason and logic but we also need public opinion.

[asmo]

Oh and one more thing.. Tell them that you know that they have been flooded with thousands of letters telling them not to support the bills, that you have been to their town halls and listened to the hundreds that told them no vs. the one or two that have been in support, tell them you have been watching their Facebook pages, and their twitter feeds and that by all counts their constituents have overwhelmingly stated they do not want these bills to pass -- and that if they vote yes for any of them they are, in essence, publicly stating that they are serving their own political careers vs. what they have been elected to do.

[asmo]

I think the Moris reference to him granting rights needs brought up. Maybe a softer approach would ask him if he said this and does he truly believe it. Just a thought.

It doesn't matter if he said it or not (he did, its on video). Tell him directly that he is wrong and that he does not grant anyone anything - rather we grant HIM his job.

Look, we need to turn the rhetoric up a notch. I am NOT saying go crazy. Again, be perfectly calm, sickeningly nice in your presentation, and absolutely rock solid in your resolve.

[clublights]

I want to go down and try to speak but I'm a poor public speaker and hate mic's .. That being said ..

I think something that needs to be brought up is how far reaching the label of "Assault Weapon" has been made in this bill shows how it has nothing public safety and is just to attack the law abiding. Also even tho the label of "assault weapon" can be fixed with amendments. the writers of the bill have shown already it's again not about public safety.

Does this make sense?

Can any one whom is a more eloquent speaker clean this up to get the point across better?

[Rucker61]

My first statement would be a question: is there any level of testimony or any evidence that could be presented by anyone here today that would cause you to vote no on any of these bills?

[bogie]

If you are asked you to leave, you were successful. Give em the third degree.


Somebody else going needs to give this speech:


Call them out, tell them you know that they have already made up their mind and that this is a sham -- then tell them the consequences of their actions (politely and without any direct threat). Politely tell them that you believe they are sell outs and no longer representing the people - and that if they are not representing the people than we don't need them anymore. Tell them the recalls that are starting for the Representatives that voted on the bills are gaining speed, getting people signing up rapidly, and that the campaigns are having no problems getting funding. Politely tell them that they are taking east coast money at the expense of Coloradian's lives and that their east coast donors also support child rapists, drug addict politicians, and adulterers. Tell them that the gun control concept is patently a lie since there are guns protecting them every day -- so obviously, by their own logic and admission, they only want *their* people to have guns, then remind them that *their* people probably really don't like their politics all that much. Tell them that they are ignorant about how a gun works - and that that they are not experts just because their $450/hr lobbyist and lawyers gave them a power point presentation while they were drafting the laws. Tell them that just because Field's son made poor decisions and hung out with gang members, that he paid the consequences for his actions (by being shot by other gang members) -- and that the rest of us should not be punished for his poor choices or Field's poor parenting skills.

[mtnhack]

My first statement would be a question: is there any level of testimony or any evidence that could be presented by anyone here today that would cause you to actually listen to YOUR constituents and vote no on any of these POS/BS bills?
FIFY
I would also end with "Ultimately, this discussion is centered around something that should not even be under attack by this legislature who is clearly overstepping it's authority. However, I would like to point out that I was only allotted 3 minutes to speak today and I assume that no one else will be afforded special privelages in this matter. Also, I do not believe that this issue is of any concern to non-residents of Colorado and any time this body wastes listening to special interest groups from outside Colorado is far too much and exposes you all and your unethical agenda. "


Sorry for just now starting to post, but FFS, I am fed up.

[asmo]

Another thing -- its been discussed here before, but since I am putting out things to hammer on.

HB 13-1229, the universal backgound checks bill, currently only allows for transfers between 'IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS, CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS, AND GRANDCHILDREN'

So, if they vote for 13-1229 they are bigots as two loving people in gay/lesbian relationship are barred for the same privlidges that straight married people are.

Look, I don't care if you are for or against gay marriage - this is about something YOU DO CARE ABOUT. Use all the ammo in your weapon. Tell them flatly that if they support the law they are bigots. Say something like:

As to the universal background checks bill, it should be noted that the bill, as it stands now, makes an exception for a transfer of a gun between a man and his wife, but the same transfer between two loving partners in a gay relationship would be a crime - this shows how misguided the proposed law really is. How could you possibly support something as bigoted an deplorable as this?

[Walter.mitty]

Can someone that is going (I have to work) bring up the point that they are trying to define "Assault Weapon" by what it is NOT.
Since muzzle loaders are not on the list of what it is NOT then the original "Assault Weapon" is now covered by this POS bill. Washington would be so proud.

Also this bill trashes Castle Doctrine.
If I defend my home with a pistol or my 30-06 then I am covered for criminal liability resulting from that defense but if I use an "Assault Weapon" then that coverage stops at my exterior wall under this bill.

I hope/think this bill is a sacrificial lamb. The Dems will let the moderates vote against this POS in exchange for votes on the magazine capacity ban and or background checks.
Again just an opinion otherwise how can you account for how poorly written it is?

For those going, GOOD LUCK and remind them that they took an oath of office and that they represent the people of Colorado.

[theGinsue]

Best of luck today Birddog. I REALLY wish I could be there. We're all rooting for you!

Since we all expect Gabby Giffords & her husband to speak last, it would be great if someone spoke before them:

Acknowledging Giffords/Kelly will be speaking on their perception of the evils of firearms (even though, as a citizen of another state, she/they will not be effected by any of this pending legislation)

Point out that the shooter in the Giffords incident acquired his firearms lawfully and underwent a background check which did nothing to prevent that incident (don't use the word "tragedy"). Yet, this pending background check bill will unduly burden law-abiding citizens with no legitimate benefit.

You could also point out that Ms. Giffords had a concealed carry permit because she recognized the fact that law enforcement can't always be present to protect you when someone with evil intent wants to prey upon you (even if you're entitled to greater security by law enforcement than the average citizen is entitled to receive). That, by restricting access to legal firearms by law-abiding citizens, or reclassifying legal firearms, you are removing a citizens ability to protect themselves.

Instead if focusing on the tools used by the culprits, our citizenry would be safer and better served if our legislature would focus on caring for the causes of this dangerous behavior as well as seeking to enforce the laws which already criminalize this sort of behavior.

This should take the wind & impact out of the Giffords/Kelly testimony.

[brobar]

I will unfortunately not be able to attend. I would be greatly appreciative if anyone who gets to speak brings up the US vs Miller case in which the Supreme Court states that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, the militia is expected to bring with them their OWN firearms that are to be in common use at that time. The AR-15 is the most commonly produced and sold rifle today along with the30-round magazine being the most common magazine sold with that rifle. Any bans on AR15s and/or 30-round and less capacity magazines would be contrary to the Supreme Court's decision that people should be armed with what is considered COMMON USE at the time!

good luck guys! I'll be listening to the testimony at work!

[DHCO]

Someone needs to ask how they expect to keep magazines out of the state when they cant keep illegal fireworks out of the state.

[theGinsue]

Someone needs to ask how they expect to keep magazines out of the state when they cant keep illegal immigrants out of the state.
FIFY