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]
There is an excellent thread on M4carbine, with instructions and resources on turning this thing around. See http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=119194
This thread provides more information for in-state legislators, but the M4C thread is very useful for the US Congress.
To save time, here is the excellent post by the OP in the above thread:
Hi there M4C,
I see a ton of threads on here about what’s coming: AWBs, executive orders, bans on private sales, etc. However, I have yet to see a developed thread focused solely on how to win this fight. No one’s producing a cohesive strategy that we can utilize to fight whatever’s coming, which I think is a void that needs to be filled considering all the voices, knowledge, and people that are here on M4C. If we work together to fight this thing, despite a philosophically-weak Republican house, I think this is winnable.
To pursue that end, I’ve started this thread for all of us to discuss what we can do to fight this thing. There needs to be some serious organization here, there needs to be a concerted effort that all of us join behind, and we need to stop pussyfooting around with worrying about what’s coming. Regardless of what it is, we all (or at least most of us) oppose any further gun control, so let’s strike while the iron is hot, take the initiative, and shut this thing down before it can even begin.
(NOTE: I don’t claim to know nearly as much as you guys about firearms, but I do know about politics, and I do know this is winnable. I hold (a small) public office in my home state, and I worked 2 years for a pro-gun, Democratic Senator here. I’ve been engaged in multiple campaigns and will be running for State Representative within the next 2 years. I’m not an expert, but I think I have some helpful insight to provide the community.)
Listed below are the steps and strategies I see working to win this upcoming battle. I’ll keep the thread updated with other pieces of advice that you guys provide, turning this thread into a sort of crowd-sourcing project to fight any future gun control. Please, come in with a positive attitude and be prepared to FIGHT whatever’s coming. It’s going to require a lot of effort, it’s going to require a little bit of time, but if we all come together and work (and work HARD), we can come out on top.
--------------------------------------------
Step 1: Develop a winning attitude. Before we can even begin this fight, we need to stop being a bunch of defeatists. We need to convince ourselves that an AWB can be shot down, that the 2nd amendment doesn’t have to die, and that regulation/confiscation/bans are not necessarily inevitable if we do our part. That sense of inevitability is not only bad for our spirits, but it’s also discouraging for ourselves and everyone around us. It makes us admit defeat before the fight has even started, makes us less likely to try to do something, and shortens the lengths we’re willing to go to fight this thing. Overall, a defeatist attitude makes everyone less likely to fight and fight hard. After all, if the battle is already over, why should we and those around us even bother trying in the first place?
So please, be positive about this thing, even if it’s just a front that you have to begrudgingly force yourself to accept. That positive attitude will help push all of us forward, and most of all, inspire those around us to follow our example. If people know the fight is winnable, they will actually fight.
Step 2: WRITE, EMAIL, AND CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN! Despite being #2, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ANY OF US CAN DO. Like I said, I worked 2 years for a Senator in my state, and this is what they most heavily rely on to make their decisions. They don’t strictly rely on media polls, because not all of those people vote. They don’t strictly rely on protests, because protests don’t necessarily represent their constituency. The #1 most influential factor in a congressmen’s decision-making process is the simple “Yes/No” tally total that they track internally based upon the letters, emails, and calls they receive. The people taking the time and effort to write/email/call are most likely going to vote, and these people are also a part of the congressman’s constituency, making their opinions far more important than whatever is happening in the media. At the end of the day, if we can show that there are far more active gun-rights supporters than anti-gun advocates, we can force the Republican House to hold.
Since I collected these letters, emails, and calls for a total of 2 years, here are the strategies I’ve found most effective for making your voice heard:
- Know who your congressmen are! You have 2 Senators and 1 Representative to contact. Both of your Senators and your Representative can be found using the tools located in the top right of http://house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/. The NRA also has a great set-up for finding your legislators here.
- Write, email, and call: do all 3! Every single one of these actions will help encourage your congressmen to vote your way. The way these things are tracked is via a computer system that each and every letter/email/call is recorded into. Space your communications out, because if you do them all in one day, all 3 may be counted as only 1 correspondence. Cumulatively, this should only take you 15 minutes, and like I said, it’s the most important thing you can do. Please write, email, and call your congressmen and tell them to vote NO on any gun control! By the way, if you don’t know how to contact your congressmen, Google their name; all their information (including a form that allows you to email them right on their website) should be on their website. (NOTE: letter and email examples provided below to save you time)
- Before saying anything else, tell your congressmen exactly how you want them to vote. In literally any correspondence with your congressmen, “Vote NO on gun control” should be the first thing you say. If you write a letter, include a subject line below the congressmen’s address stating “RE: Vote NO on any gun control.” If you email them, write in the subject line of the email “Vote NO on any gun control.” If you call, the first thing you should say is “Hi there. I’m calling to tell Senator/Representative __________ to vote NO on any gun control.” Why? Because you’ll be speaking with the congressmen’s staff, not the congressmen themselves, and these staffers get hundreds of letters/emails/calls per day. Receiving these letters/calls tends to be very tedious, and if your message is long and hard to follow, the staffers may not accurately record your opinion. Make your opinion clear. Make your opinion short. Say right up front how you want your congressmen to vote, and it will make it easier for the staffers to get that message across.
- Make your comments party-neutral! Where I live, all of my congressmen are pro-gun. However, of the 3, 2 are Democrats. Going on a rant about liberals will make it likely that your message gets ignored, so don’t do it. There are a surprising amount of pro-gun Democrats in this Congress, so please, keep your communications party-neutral. Stick to the message: vote no on gun control, guns don’t cause crime, etc.
- INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. Some staffers refuse to record your opinions without a name/address, because without your name/address, they can’t tell if you’re a part of their congressman’s constituency or even from the United States. If your letters/emails don’t include a name/address, chances are they’ll be thrown away or deleted before being recorded. Do yourself and all of us a favor: tell your congressmen who you are and where you live!
- If possible, please write your own letters. Every congressional office handles its reporting duties differently, but many of them don't honor "form" letters (copied letters that people sign and send in) in the same way they do letters individually written by concerned citizens. The letters provided below may be copied and signed if you'd like, but please, if possible, write your own letters. They carry more weight.
- Don't send letters to congressmen or officials that don't represent you! Some people literally write letters to all 535 congressmen, but the problem is, if you're not a part of a congressman's constituency, his or her office staffs will then forward the correspondence to whoever does represent you. This means that office staffs become annoyed by gun-rights supporters, and even worse, the people who do represent you will receive 500+ copies of the same exact letter. Please, only write to your Senators and your Representative, and if you must, the President/Vice, the Senate Majority/Minority leaders, and the Speaker of the House. Not stepping on people's toes (read: congressional staffers) is crucial here.
Step 3: Get other people to contact their congressmen as well. Our voices alone may not be enough. Have your family members, friends, and favorite-gun-shop employees contact their congressmen as well. The more voices we have behind us, the more likely we are to shut this thing down in its tracks. Some tips to encourage people to do this:
- Have pre-printed letters on-hand. If someone is moderately pro-gun or apathetic, they probably aren’t going to take the time to write a letter themselves. However, if you have some pre-printed letters on-hand that only require someone to sign their name/address, you’ll greatly increase their likelihood of joining the cause. On these pre-printed letters, do NOT include the address you are sending the letter to, despite that being a standard practice for letter writing. Doing so would mean you’d need at least 3 unique letters for each person to sign (one addressed to Senator #1, one addressed to Senator #2, and one addressed to their Representative). Rather, draft a single letter whose recipient is left unaddressed, of which you can have your friends and family sign 3 copies. (NOTE: copy of pre-printable letter provided below)
- Offer to send their letters for them. Just as people may be less likely to write their own letters, they probably won’t send the letters you give them, even if they went through the trouble of filling the letters out. Offer to send the letter for them. Make it as easy for other people as possible. Make it so that all they have to do is sign their name and address 3 times, and that’s it. You’ll do the rest.
- Ask your local gun shops if you can leave pre-printed letters at their checkout counter. This is a great way to gather up even more support for our cause. Offer to leave stacks of letters at the gun shop that their customers may sign/address, and don’t forget to remind the gun shop employees that you need customers to sign/address 3 copies. Then, offer to collect the letters at some regular interval (for example, every Friday night) so that you can send them out.
- Encourage people to write their own letters. I know I just said to carry pre-printed letters on-hand, which you still should do (sending in a pre-printed letter is better than no letter, after all), but if you can get someone to write their own letters, it's always the preferred route for the reasons listed in Step 2.
Step 4: Join the NRA. UPDATE: After David Keene's appearance on Meet the Press (linked below), and with favorable endorsements from Larry Vickers and other reputable sources, I am confident that the NRA is on our side this time. Additionally, I've read about how the NRA's pressure in 1994 did help influence votes, and that's direct from the congressmen that were in office at the time. Simply put, becoming an NRA member is incredibly important and necessary at this time. They do not favor an AWB and deserve our support. They have a huge influence on how votes are cast in Congress, and with a more robust funding stream, they can do more. (I just hope that Wayne LaPierre is locked in a closet and never allowed to speak at an interview again. http://www.m4carbine.net/images/smilies/frown.gif)
Step 5: Sign the White House Petition. You can find it here, created by ASH556 here on M4carbine.net. It's the only petition I know of that's grounded in solid, philosophical arguments and doesn't cheapen itself by blaming the problem on drugs or video games. Granted, the Obama administration will ignore it, but it's still an important action nonetheless. After all, similar petitions for an AWB have reached 400,000 signatures and have received significant media attention because of it. Having a comparable number of signatures would help balance the appearance of the debate so it doesn't seem so one-sided against us.
Step 6: Educate yourself on the arguments. Being educated on the arguments against gun control can only help the cause. It will help you convince people to sign letters, it will help you win support during Facebook debates (maybe not from the person you’re arguing with, but from the people watching the argument), and it will make you a better overall supporter of arms ownership. Rather than list all the arguments here, I’d rather provide links that do this job for me. If you guys have any suggestions, please post them below and I’ll add them!
- Gun Facts (in my opinion, the #1 source on facts supporting arms ownership)
- Stefan Molyneux on Gun Control (great statistics and points to memorize; I advise most to stop watching at roughly 18 minutes, though)
- "Why not renew the "assault weapons" ban? Well, I'll tell you..." (an article written by a liberal against gun control)
- Larry Pratt (of GOA) debates Piers Morgan (Larry (of GOA) takes Piers to task with facts)
- Penn Jillette on The Wendy Williams Show (Penn dispels ignorance with a cool head and great points we should all learn)
- David Keene on Meet the Press (Keene (of the NRA) does a great job of talking about the issues against a biased host)
--------------------------------------------
If we stop acting like a bunch of losers, start writing our congressmen, engage those around us to do the same, and become more-active, more-educated advocates for arms ownership, I really do think we can win. We have a Republican House that we can convince to stand by us. After all, we’re gun owners: we often vote single issue, and we rarely forget who slighted us. The same cannot be said for the other side. Politicians know this, and we just have to work together to remind them.
Always remain vigilant, however. The other side is working just as hard as us, if not harder. We cannot relent on this until whatever scheme Biden/Obama cook up is killed. We cannot stop writing, calling, getting the community involved, and educating ourselves. This needs to be a near-constant effort, and it needs all of us to be on board. We can win this.
Are you ready for the fight of our lives, ladies and gentleman? http://www.m4carbine.net/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Great find Singlestack! Another slice of Raisin Pie in your stocking.
My letter would only make you a potential co-conspirator:) jk
A form letter short and to the point maybe better. OR the form letter mass mailing. After all that's what they send you back. Mass generated form letter.
My letter to Rep. Perlmutter, FWIW.
(Yes, it had to be Perlmutter. I live in his district.)
Quote:
Dear Representative Perlmutter,
In the aftermath of the horrors from Newtown, Connecticut, we have all been searching for ways to prevent such evil acts from occurring again.
And before the bodies were even cold, you had already started to use the deaths of children for cheap political points, by demanding new gun laws.
As you are no doubt aware, Federal law restricts the carry of weapons into schools and Connecticut already has a state “assault weapons” law. And yet, a deranged man was able to commit a slaughter of innocent children.
As you should also be aware, the 1994 Federal “assault weapons” ban was in force in 1999, when two teenagers committed a mass murder at Columbine High School, in our own state.
Since you are not a fool, you can see how well gun control laws have worked to protect schoolchildren, or anyone else. And yet, you chose to use the deaths of children for your own political gain.
I sincerely hope that you will reconsider.
Here is a letter that I have been working on for a week or so.
I have had to edit about 20 times to remove about 95% of what I want to say, in order to keep it short enough to possibly be read.
Would love feedback before I shoot it off to every single state and federal rep.
Quote:
Good Day Mr. XXXX,
First of all, thank you for your service as an elected representative, and taking the time to read and respond to this letter. As an active voter, I feel myself compelled to contact you in response to the many tragedies in recent weeks and months which have taken the lives of innocent victims. These events are tragic, and certainly could have been prevented- or at least mitigated- through the implementation of various forms of firearms legislation.
With that in mind, I would like to voice support of legislation which strengthens enforcement of laws already on the books which are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those whose right to bear arms has been forfeited by due process- violent felons, and those who are mentally or emotionally unstable to the point of public danger. However, I want to stress that this regulation or enforcement must IN NO WAY impact the cost or ability of responsible citizens to own or acquire firearms of any sort, as was the intent of the framers in writing the Second Amendment. I consider this one of the few deal-breaker issues for me, on which I base my votes.
Additionally, with several family members and friends who either teach in elementary schools, or are of elementary school age, I feel the Sandy Hook tragedy could likely have been reduced if those involved were not limited to safety scissors and bare hands to defend themselves. I would strongly support subsidies for voluntary POST training and certification to allow teachers to carry in classrooms.
Thank you again for your time, and response. I very much appreciate your service.
Sincerely,
Thanks for posting this thread. It helped me to get my letters out today.
Just another reminder, as this has been said a few times before in other threads... DO write your lawmakers, DO voice your opinion, but DO NOT make it some long, drawn out, 6,000 word essay. Short, sweet, to the point. "Dear Legislator/Congressman/Congresswoman/idiot (not reccommended), I do not approve of any anti-firearms legislation whatsoever," or something to that effect, "Respectfully, [Your Name, and some sort of contact info if you desire a call/write back]." That's it. Odds are it's some peon that will receive your correspondence/phone call and they will take a quick note, move on to the next. The more of these that get sent in by more people, the more pages will fill up with notes saying "X# of people believe this way."