Deleted
Printable View
Deleted
I like it a lot. Some of us here already do this, but not in any organized fashion. Let do it!
I am interested to see what other members here do/think/say in their correspondence to their representatives.
My rule of thumb, when I write, email, or call representatives concerning proposed legislation. Keep it short and to the point.
The chances that the representative is going to read what you wrote is VERY slim. One of their minions is who is going to read it. I have asked the minion (on a number of different occasions) when I call to voice my opinion concerning a bill being debated, if all the minion does is mark down, if the caller (writer) is for or against the bill. The answer every time is......yes. Unless there is something outstanding in the correspondence, warranting bringing it to the representatives attention, THAT IS ALL they do. An X, for or against.
An example of my letters.....
Dear representative.
I am writing in regards to bill #XXXX, the assault rifle ban.
I am opposed to this bill.
Reason;
It infringes on the 2nd amendment, as well as, you can not legislate insanity.
Thank you
Your Constituent.
Writing much more than that will make....you....feel good, but for the most part, will be ignored. Threats or long dissertations, are mostly ignored. The minions are not likely to read through many paragraphs or pages of correspondence. Or going to take much time trying to figure out if you are for or against the bill. Even my "reason" included above, is probably just a...make "me" feel good...inclusion.
As some here can attest to. "IF" you receive a reply to your letter, the "canned response" will sometimes actually relate to what you were writing about. MANY times it will not even be close to the same subject matter.
While not EVERY representative does it this way, some may listen to their constituents.
Even going so far as to actually read some of the correspondence sent to them.
Ya....right.
I like the concept of organizing somewhat as the individual voice may be lost in the din and our collective voices may clarify the message through consistency. Maybe a common or recurring element in our correspondence that reinforces the scale of the message.
I worked a couple of times for a congressman and a house legislator. They don't read the mail or emails, what they do is gauge the numbers of yea's and nays. I sat and skimmed for pro or con and placed them accordingly. If you want to be effective write clearly your position forward the email or letter to dozens of friends and have them write their names. [Beer]
...Which is exactly why we need to share our letters here, so we can multiply the amount of noise we can make!Quote:
Originally Posted by flan7211
Sent this today, probably way too long.
Good morning Mr Bennett,
Current events in Colorado has caused quite the uproar in the political scene.
While the event of late is most assuredly a tragedy what is almost as tragic is the pathetic knee jerk reaction of our elected officials, media and public figures.
Do the above realize the ignorance and immaturity of placing blame of of a deranged individual on an inanimate object(s)? The voting public certainly do.
The firearms and or magazines DID NOT commit this heinous act, rather a very sick individual did.
As an enthusiast of the shooting sports I take an extremely dim view of any individual or organization who endorses or attempts to further infringe on the Rights of lawful firearms owners.
When a tragic incident such as Aurora, Virginia Tech or Columbine occurs the first reaction is to blame an object, impose new laws and regulations in an attempt to change human behaviors.
FAIL!
All what is accomplished when such regulations are imposed is further infringing upon individuals that did not commit a crime.
These people vote Mr Bennett.
And they remember.
Now I see that an attempt to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is being attached to a "Cybersecurity Bill".
I do not support politics as this, sneaking additional riders is reprehensible and underhanded.
I strongly urge you NOT to support such a bill. If we are to have a discussion regarding firearms and the issues that surround potential further restrictions then have the courage to stand before your constituents and have the discussion.
Along the same note, the United States is currently in discussion with the United Nations regarding international trade in small arms. This treaty has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the rights of lawful firearms owners within the United States.
Let me remind you Mr Bennett, the United States is a sovereign nation.
A sovereign nation with a Constitution.
A Constitution that you, as an elected official swore an oath to uphold.
Any endorsement of the above named treaty is a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States.
This borders on treason Mr Bennett. I believe the overwhelming majority of your constituents and citizens of the United States would view upon your endorsement of the above treaty and any other attempt to further restrict, ban or otherwise infringe upon the rights of lawful firearm owners and enthusiasts with great disfavor.
We vote.
We remember.
Great Letter. I need to be more proactive.
Guys it seriously takes minutes to contact your reps. Don't just preach doom and gloom. Make your voice heard. Here are some letters I've stolen from smarter men on another site. Select and edit as needed (passed with permission as posted on the other site).
Quote:
As you know, the President and Democratic leaders are proposing another Weapons Ban, in a knee jerk response to the horrible act where a gun was used. I am reaching out to my Representatives to ensure that the process is not a knee jerk response to the act but more towards listening, analyzing, and producing a reasonable solution. The solution should not be draconian gun laws, as we have seen that those laws will not stop violent criminals from acquiring weapons. We have also seen where responsible gun owners have effectively engaged criminals from inflicting massive casualties. In Chicago, where the President calls his home, they have draconian gun laws and they’ve had lot of shooting, yet they still claim that there laws are working; same goes for DC, New York, and California. Even the police commissioner of Detroit has told its citizens not to venture into the downtown area without being armed. These should be examples to demonstrate that they don’t and that the criminal element will always find a way around the system, meanwhile innocent civilians pay the price. Shall we continue to live in fear, shall we continue to let the criminal elements continue to harm innocent civilians, I sure hope not. As a veteran, concealed carry permit holder, and avid shooter, I implore you ensure that are voices are heard. My response to the argument, is that we are a society have failed to recognize or have forgotten that there will always be evildoers , regardless of what laws are in place. We need to ensure that there’s always someone in the room that can effectively change the outcome, should such a need arise. We have failed in allowing a culture where bad deeds go unpunished, because we afraid to hurt someone’s feeling and we are now failing for allowing the mob rule instead of the laws. Thank you for you time.
Quote:
I am writing to you as a voter, concerned citizen, and a law enforcement officer. I am exceptionally opposed to stricter gun control. They are ineffective at reducing violence and place undue burdens on law abiding citizens and law enforcement. I will not vote for any representative that votes for stricter gun control. I will campaign for any candidate that is running against a representative that voted for stricter gun control. Gun control, like any other form of prohibition is a failing proposition to crime control. Thank you,
Quote:
This is **** from ****, CO. I spent five years in the United State Marine Corps. I have several hundred hours of firearms training. I shoot in firearm competitions and have a Colorado concealed weapons permit. I am very interested in the present discussion of new Federal firearms legislation - specifically as related to "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines. In short, I write to encourage your opposition to new Federal firearms regulation and to suggest other, more efficacious, solutions. Please consider the following:
1. A ban on "assault weapons" is simply ineffective as demonstrated by several DOJ studies. Such a ban has no statistically significant effect on violent crime.
2. Firearms ownership is a fundamental right, as recently reiterated by the SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
3. Gun control, generally, is also ineffective. In fact, strict gun control laws correlate closely with high rates of violent crime. Conversely, states with high rates of gun ownership and less gun control typically enjoy low rates of violent crime.
4. The Federal government should offer matching funds to school districts for the purposes of establishing hardened points of ingress and staffing schools with qualified armed security officers.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and best wishes for a very merry Christmas.
Quote:
I am one of your constituents and I vote in every election. To this point I have not donated money or helped the campaign of any candidate for office. If you vote for or support any measure or proposal which restricts my gun rights, I will do everything in my power to remove you from office at the next election. Not only will I donate money and host fund raisers for your future opponents, I will even drive people to the polls to vote against you.
Simply put, I will NEVER vote for any person who supports restrictions on my gun rights.
Quote:
The tragic events at Sandy Hook elementary have reopened the never ending discussion on gun ownership and gun control measures in our country. As the New Year approaches several members of both the House and Senate have stated that they will introduce new laws to ban or restrict types of firearms and firearm accessories. President Obama has even asked Vice President Biden to look into a holistic approach to reducing such tragedies in America. I would ask that as you return to Washington that you would keep a few things in mind as you evaluate the proposals that are brought forth for discussion.
The first idea, and the one that is most important to remember, is that the ability to commit violence on any society is limited only by imagination and will of the person who wishes to do harm. Firearms, while convenient, are hardly the only tool used to commit crimes like those at Sandy Hook. The most deadly event to take place at a school in the US is known as the Bath School disaster in 1927. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) 38 children were tragically killed by homemade bombs. No firearms were used in this instance. This also happened seven years prior to the National Firearms Act so Automatic weapons were readily available at your local hardware store. In China, more recently, 22 school children were injured in an attack that once again had no firearms involved. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BI0E920121219) My point is not to compare tragedy but only to highlight the fact that removing guns hardly removes violence. When Cain killed Abel, did God look for something to blame? No, he looked at Cain and asked, “Where is Abel your brother?” Unfortunately, violence is with us to stay. Benjamin Franklin said,” They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” Banning guns in our country will hardly bring safety.
The second key idea is that laws only restrain the lawful. The killer at Sandy Hood was only 20 years old. He was under the legal age to own the pistol he carried. He killed his mother to get those firearms. Those firearms were never legal in the first place for him. Why would we expect that someone who is willing to kill their own mother would stop at the thought of breaking one or two more laws? With the exception of the shooting in Aurora Colorado, the people committing these crimes end up killing themselves. What is law to a suicidal man? Evil men committed to evil deeds are only stopped by the actions of the righteous. (http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/main...ticle=10644119)
The third concept is a question. Will more gun control laws actually change anything in America for the better? There are currently 300 million guns in America. 300 MILLION. (http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) That is almost 1 gun per citizen of our great nation. The phrase, “The cat is already out of the bag” comes to mind. Even if we were to totally disregard the Bill of Rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller (see also the recent 7th Circuit Court Ruling http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS...7934651#.UNJ9sndqx8G) and totally banned the sale of guns in the US today, how long would it take for those currently in existence to cease to matter? As technology, such as printable guns (http://www.wired.com/design/2012/12/...ves-gun-parts/) continues to develop, what is to say that those “banned” items won’t be illegally created by those with the will and the means to do so? Moonshining has been illegal in the US since the Whiskey Rebellion but yet it is still popular enough that there is a show about it on Discovery Channel. Regulations have hardly stopped the flow of illegal arms and drugs into and out of our country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) I don’t believe increase regulations will have any effect on the law a biding citizen except to hurt jobs in an already poor economy.
I have offered several negative points toward increased gun control but I feel that I must offer some avenues to solve the problem of increased violence in our society.
It is not a coincidence that most of the shooters in these terrible crimes have had a history of mental illness. It is already illegal in our country for someone with such a history to own or purchase a gun. What is needed is NOT new legislation but to establish why people who should not be able to buy firearms under the current system have been able to. Doesn’t it make more sense to ensure that the current laws which are not under dispute are working as intended? If the current system isn’t talking to each other, why would we assume that new additional laws would fix this? It makes more sense to streamline the flow of information and to evaluate the system of care with those with mental health issues than to add more regulation to the 98% of the population who isn’t a violent criminal?
The other glaring coincidence in most of these shootings is that they happen in places that are supposedly weapon free; movie theater, mall, and several schools. These “weapon free zones” are designed to bring a sense of safety to those who exist there. But, this is only an illusion of safety. The reality is that it is an invitation to those who would do harm. It advertises an environment of victims without the ability to defend themselves.
In the end, we must reconcile the fact that our laws are designed to give a free society where people are expected to be self-reliant but are unwilling to accept the risk and danger involved in living in such a society. I will then, end, with re-quoting Benjamin Franklin, “They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Great guys!
Now make this "stick" like white on rice.......................unless of course it is brown rice....... [Coffee]