I would recommend "Talking Points" only, or bullet points, so "canned" letters are not used. I like the idea.
This is a discussion on Let's draft a well-tailored letter to our Senators and Representatives within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Obviously this will be only one of many things needed to counter the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban, but I figure it can't hurt to ...
Obviously this will be only one of many things needed to counter the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban, but I figure it can't hurt to craft together a nice letter to our representatives in Washington. I'm going to start by suggesting that we include this report by the DoJ on the ineffectiveness of the last ban.
There's a later update here also:
Later this evening or tomorrow I'll try to draft up the letter itself, but feel free to take a crack at it before that if you'd like.
I would recommend "Talking Points" only, or bullet points, so "canned" letters are not used. I like the idea.
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
Just a tip I once got from a Congressman's Chief of Staff--- don't send e-mail, no one pays attention. Don't send stuff
through regular mail, it takes a long time to get there because of screening post the anthrax scares.
Use FAX. It gets there quickly and gets attention. YMMV, but I think the man knew what he was talking about.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Here's some food for thought.
First, consider the ideas being circulated:
• banning so-called assault weapons
• banning high-capacity magazines
• unauthorized use of firearms
• keeping firearms out of the hands of mental deficients without compromising the rights and privacy of citizens (this is a very tough nut to crack)
Then - define the boundaries of the problem:
• don't discriminate against some firearms and not others. a practiced cowboy-action shooter can shoot a revolver or lever-action rifle as quickly as a semi-automatic
• respect the intentions of the Second Amendment; we set ourselves apart from tyrannical governments by preserving the right for civilians to keep and bear arms, but the problem is firearms in the hands of those bent on evil
• the idea of "gun free zones" was flawed from the outset, and has resulted in the worst imaginable unintended consequences - "criminal empowerment zones." How many attempted massacres have there been at shooting ranges and police stations compared to schools and shopping malls since "gun free zones" were established? Take away the false security of gun free zones.
• keep your minds open to the types of security measures the Israelis have established for their schools, which involve trained, armed civilians
These are just 'starter' ideas. I suggest not establishing "hard lines" at this point, but instead acknowledging that problems exist and being open to conversations about fixing what's broken.
Now - keep in mind that overall, schools are pretty safe places. The likelihood of being murdered in a school in the US is far less than being struck by lightning. Compared to deaths resulting from tobacco use and automobiles, firearm murders are way, way down on the list. But when a high-profile tragedy strikes, emotions rule the day... we just need to keep that in mind.
NRA Endowment Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
There's no logic to destroying the rights of millions b/c of an event that happens once/yr on average.
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
This is based on a combination of drafts from another thread. I just finished emailing and faxing it.
Senator "," I want to write to you in the hopes that you will oppose any future assault weapons ban, such as that being discussed by Senator Feinstein. Although I am not aware of any specific proposals yet, it is likely that any new assault weapons ban (AWB) will be similar to the last, implemented under President Clinton.
Assuming the goal is to actually reduce the number of homicides and mass murders in this country, a new AWB will be nothing more than a wasted opportunity. The last ban had restrictions on the capacity of new magazines, restricting them to no more than ten rounds, and any new proposal will likely contain this as well. The tragic shooting at Columbine Highschool took place while the previous AWB was in effect. The shooters, instead of modifying their magazines to carry additional rounds (something remarkably easy to do, especially considering the shooters were able to illegally shorten their shotgun below the legal length), decided to bring with them thirteen, ten-round magazines. Clearly, magazine restrictions did not stop crime, nor will they in the future.
The second, main prong of the previous AWB was a restriction on various cosmetic features of rifles, for instance, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. I understand that many deem these to be military accoutrements with little to no civilian purpose, but that does not make these features inherently dangerous, nor does it make a rifle sporting such features any more lethal. In fact, the Department of Justice concluded, in two studies (one included with this letter) of the previous assault weapons ban that these provisions “target…a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapon legal.” What’s more, the Justice Department concluded that, viewed as a whole, a reinstatement of the AWB would have such a miniscule effect on crime as to be “too small for measurement.”
I implore you to please show vigorous opposition to any new AWB. It is a wasted opportunity to take real action in reducing gun violence. Strengthen the background check system by requiring stronger reporting from universities (which may have caught the V-Tech killer, as he was diagnosed by his school with mental illness and charged by the school with harassment and stalking) and mental health institutions; require background checks on private gun sales, or allow private individuals to perform checks on the buyer without having to transfer the firearm through a licensed dealer; most importantly, strengthen the mental health system to provide better care upfront to those members of society who fall through the cracks of our understaffed and overworked mental health system. I would even support mandatory safety education and licensing, say every four years, to be allowed to purchase firearms. We cannot make people store their weapons safely, but we can give them the knowledge required.
I also ask that you reconsider the efficacy of “gun free zones.” One must consider how many children would have been saved had the teachers or administrators of Sandy Hook been allowed to be armed. What purpose is served by laws that create “soft target” zones in which we concentrate our most vulnerable and innocent? So many of the recent public mass shootings have occurred in places were either legally or nominally banned. Criminals do not respect gun-free zones, only law abiding citizens, by definition, do.
I know that reasonable measures can be reached; reasonable in that the second amendment and the individual right to own and carry a gun is protected (something extremely important to me and many other New Mexicans), and yet reasonable in that steps to reduce unnecessary and preventable gun violence are taken. I hope that you will carefully consider an appropriate response to these continuing tragedies. I would love to hear back from you about this issue, whether through a public statement on gun control or a private message to me. Thank you for your service.
Emotions are high because of everything...but in the position our government officials hold they should be able to keep their emotions out of decisions that will affect our country!
If you all get something written up post it!!! Me and everyone I know will send it!
I think it's great that this will not be taken up until January, that will help. I'm going to keep on this, though.
Hi-cap mags - 3 secs to change mags
Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, other essentially cosmetic attributes - nothing lethal about these features
Pistol grip - so what
Semi-auto - so what, lever action and revolver can be fast as well
Guns in general - better they use guns rather than other methods of destruction
Define the actual problem - shootings with EBR's make up less than 1% of gun deaths (most of which are suicides) so eliminating EBR's (which isn't possible anyway) would not change the number of gun deaths to any measurable extent and would only result in substituting other means of violence.
Arm teachers - Israel
Mental health - Hey, let's address the underlying problem
Harden schools - delay attack until police arrive, armed staff responds, give unarmed teachers time to secure classrooms
End GFZ - in place since 1990 and have only served to attract nutcase predators
Previous AWB - just as many school shootings, 15 in 10 yrs when AWB in force
Only attempted mass killings that were stopped were by armed citizens, not police - otherwise shooter committed suicide.
Shooters stop when confronted - only effective way to confront is to fire back.
Restrict the media from sensationalizing these events - they want reasonable restrictions on 2nd Amend rights, why not 1st Amend as well - wait, already there as you don't have the right to yell "fire" if there isn't one or to libel/slander another person.
Why does the media insist on ignoring events where armed citizens successfully fight back against criminals?
Why has the current administration stopped funding for school security? (I need to find a cite for that)
Have at it. Mine were send last weekend not that it will do any good with entrenched libs like levin or stabenow. Career politicians are just like criminals: they want what they want and getting it is the only thing that matters. Facts don't matter here. Well crafted sound arguments don't matter. Playing within the confines of the Constitution and established case law doesn't either. None have for a while in case you haven't noticed. If it helps you feel like you stood up for what's right when you were tested, I salute you. Just try not to get too discouraged when your best efforts fail to yield the desired result.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations” – James Madison 1788
I would not, however, from my perspective, send your letter - it gives up far too much. Given the content of your letter, and there are some good points in it, I would rather give up the right to buy ARs and AKs than to be saddled with all the new restrictions you ask for to purchase any gun. From my perspective, you are giving up a lot to save a little.
I have an AR, I like it a lot, but if i had to pick between a deal where I could give up the right to buy ARs and AKs, and be saddled with all the new regs you propose OR keep the status quo on regs but loose the right to buy ARs and AKs and even a mag restriction, I would go with the latter. Neither if these approaches are, however, constitutional.
Again, I applaud you for getting involved, I just disagree with your solution.
"I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.
They are all drafting/have drafted canned letters to send to constituents. I sent an email to my senator and rep and this is what I received the very next morning. I love living in Idaho by the way. My email was short and to the point. He did address my concerns but I knew what his answer would be anyway. They still need to hear from us.
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the recent tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As a father and grandfather, words cannot adequately describe the profound sadness that I feel for all those affected by this senseless act of a troubled young man. On Friday, December 14, 2012, we all witnessed the unfolding scene whereby the police responded to a shooting at a Connecticut school where at least 26 lives were taken, and all far too soon. Our children are our most vulnerable members of society and it is our duty to keep them out of harm’s way.
This devastating act was a terrible tragedy that stuns the nation. As an ongoing investigation, the exact situation and motive of the shooter remain uncertain, but the devastation it has had on the community, and to citizens all across the country, does not. My sincerest and heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all the innocent victims and their families.
In the days and weeks going forward, a number of ideas will be brought forward relating to guns and mental health. As Congress acts, it must be in full recognition that the choices we make must reflect the realities that we cannot completely legislate away risk and violence out of society. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks, and weakening Second Amendment rights is not an appropriate response to this tragic act of a lone gunman.
Let me reassure you that I do not support gun control. We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. Our country should have a thoughtful and reasoned debate on how to address mental health issues and crime control, while still preserving our constitutional rights. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying law-abiding citizens this right.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo's Homepage.
United States Senator
Woman With A Gun
Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession. - George Washington