Critique my Senate speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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?

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?

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


Somebody else going needs to give this speech:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmotao

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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