SB 357: Talking Points for Letter Writers


June 17, 2005, 11:42 PM
For those of you writing Governor Schwarzenegger re: opposition to SB 357, I thought the attached might be helpful.

As a govt slug myself, I know that often the best way to convince someone in power to support or oppose something is generally not to state the true right or wrong of it, or how it affects you, but how it affects the person in power and their own agenda.

The two attached letters are written (respectively) by Governor Huckabee of Arkansas and Duncan Hunter, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. These letters were in the Gun Owners of California Summer newsletter.

Notice that neither letter mentions the Second Amendment. They both mention Homeland Security and commerce, both high on Schwarzenegger's agenda. Homeland Security because hey, it's the buzzword under the present Administration (you wouldn't believe some of the stuff I've seen get money because the person mentioned Homeland Security in their proposal). Commerce, because Schwarzenegger wants to be viewed as a friend to business and doesn't want to lose potential revenue for CA due to companies fleeing or choosing not to do business with the state.

Anyway, in the letter I'm drafting to the Governor, I plan on incorporating some of the points from these two letters, essentially reinforcing the message he's getting from people he's probably more inclined to listen to than he is me. I just thought I'd make the text available here in case anyone else wants to use some of the same talking points.

I also urge, beg, and plead those of you not in CA to write the Governor. As both these letters point out, SB 357 will affect more than just CA.

Apologies for including the text as jpg attachments. I tried to find a link to them on the Gun Owners of CA website, but didn't see one.

If you enjoyed reading about "SB 357: Talking Points for Letter Writers" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 18, 2005, 09:23 AM
Thank you for doing your part. :)

I disagree, though, on the suggestion that one use red herrings to convince someone that anti-gun legislation is wrong. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are immutable. Once you start down that road using "Homeland Security," "commerce," "hunting" and "for the children," you have accepted that the second Amendment is debatable. Once it becomes less than carved in stone, it is meaningless.

I carry a gun because, by golly, it's Guaranteed in my and your Bill of Rights.

June 18, 2005, 02:43 PM
While I agree that "sticking to our guns" so to speak is the ethically pure thing to do, we're gasping for air in CA. In the last Gubnatorial election, I voted for Tom McClintock. If he were elected Governor, I wouldn't even need to be worrying about writing him a letter about this bill, because being a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, there is no doubt he would veto it.

But he's not the guy in office. I'm afraid in California's current state of political affairs, if we don't start working on dog eating dog and fighting fire with fire, we are truly sunk. :(

June 19, 2005, 07:01 PM

June 20, 2005, 12:46 PM

If you enjoyed reading about "SB 357: Talking Points for Letter Writers" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!