[NY Patriot]

Submitted for your consideration...

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429

Is the matter involved important enough to warrant a long-term float on the top of these forums?

Is it comprehensive enough to earn a place of prominence on these forums?

Do we need a resource such as this floated atop these forums until Sept. 13, 2004?

Your honest opinions are appreciated.

[ARperson]

Yes, and no.

Yes, because we need to keep it in the forefront of the next year's issues and constantly keep on our elected officials to vote the correct way.

But, no, because I don't think it matters so much to be so eloquent as it is to make sure the elected officials understand how you want them to vote. Five simple letters requesting a vote against the renewal are probably more powerful than one eloquent, wordy one which probably won't be read all the way through anyway, especially not by the voting individual.

Things to keep in mind: long addresses (letters, not residence location) are general ignored for the shorter ones by anybody; quantity is slightly more important and than quality (though it goes without saying that a well-written letter is essential if only to avoid making us look like bumbling idiots); and probably most important: I think the votes are already set. In other words, of all the elected reps out there, probably no more than a handful are still not sure of which way they'd vote should the renewal come to the floor.

Did I mention quantity?

Just make sure your elected reps know how you feel about it, and don't forget to remind them a LOT!

[Art Eatman]

Political letters should have only one subject. They should be concise; limited to one page. And they should be polite.

As far as the AW ban, I'd point out the federal agency testimony (FBI & BATF) that they're among the least used in crime. The law speaks to cosmetics, in that the banned features have nothing to do with the effectiveness or deadliness of a firearm.

Art

[4v50 Gary]

The issue speaks for itself. Member interest in a topic either "floats" it and keep it "afloat" or allows it to "sink" out of sight. Of course, unless a topic is locked, it can be "surfaced" with a new posting.

I join in calling that this onerous "comestic" ban is nothing but a disservice to the taxpaying firearms enthusiast. Even though it doesn't affect me (in Calif. we have our own onerous ban), I join in the call for letters to the congress critters for no-action.

[Preacherman]

That thread WAS floated for several weeks. It was "de-floated" (or should I say "sunk"? :D ) after the rate of viewing dropped off significantly. I suspect the subject would be better served by posting a new response to the thread (thereby bringing it back to the top of the list of active topics) once a month or so, thereby giving a chance to read it to those who don't know about it.

[Molon Labe]

As far as the AW ban, I'd point out the federal agency testimony (FBI & BATF) that they're among the least used in crime.
I don’t like this argument. What if assault weapons were not the least used in crimes? Would you then support a ban on AW’s?