Draft Letter to Many Editors

[Langenator]

Letter to Many Editors

This is a draft of a letter I'm going to send to the editor of every paper I can find in the state of WA. Senator Murray is up for re-election this year, and I'm attempting to make sure every hunter in the state knows she wants their deer rifle.

Comments welcome.

-------------
Senator Patty Murray doesn’t want law abiding American citizens to have modern rifles. At least, she doesn’t want you to be able to use them. That’s the only possible interpretation that can be drawn from her votes in the Senate earlier this month. Apparently, the Second Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed†holds no meaning for Washington’s senior senator.
During the debate on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the first week of March, several amendments were offered to the bill. One of these was propsed by Senator Feinstein of California, whose attitude toward guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is summed up by her statement, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in.†This amendment would have extended the Clinton semi-automatic weapon ban. Apparently, Senator Murray feels that firearms that fire on bullet every time the trigger is pulled are too dangerous for the average citizen to own, because she voted in favor of the amendment.
Another amendment, proposed by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, would have banned what Senator Kennedy called “armor piercing†ammunition. Senator Kennedy’s definition of “armor piercing†means anything that will penetrate standard police body armor. The problem with this definition is that police body armor is designed to stop only pistol bullets. Due to bullet shape and higher velocity, most rifle bullets, including virtually all of the most popular calibers used for hunting, will penetrate police body armor with little trouble. Even the lowly .223, popular for hunting coyotes, woodchucks, and other small game, and so lacking in lethality on larger game that most states forbid its use for deer hunting, punches holes in police body armor. Other popular hunting rounds, such as the .30-30, .30-06, and .308, similarly penetrate body armor. Yet even though rifle rounds can penetrate body armor, they are rarely used in crime, for the simple reason that rifles are large, bulky, and hard to hide. And yet Senator Murray supported this amendment, which would have made your hunting rifle as useless as a car with no gasoline.
I have written to Senator Murray, and received replies stating that she supports “protecting the rights of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners.†But her actions say differently. And actions speak louder than words.

 

[Langenator]

BTT-C'mon folks...someone here has to have some comment-style, substance-what I'm saying and how I'm saying it.

Murray's likely GOP opponent, George Nethercutt, gets an A- from the GOA, compared to Murray's F. And being seen as anti-gun doesn't play well in WA outside of the Seattle area.

Once I finish it, I'll post it in .doc form, so anyone else who's Senator voted for these amendments and is up for re-relection can send it to their local papers as well.

 

[dischord]

It's way too long for most papers to print. Cut it by at least 50%.

You also jump around a lot and bring in too much background and too many parenthetical points. Fixing that also will help with the length.

Figure out what your core point is, and explain it in three or four sentences. That's your letter -- everything else is extraneous.

Remember, before the real editor sees your letters, its first gatekeeper judge probably will be some 22-year-old entry-level editorial assistant who still hasn't been disabused of her college fantasies of becoming a poet and is holding the job only to pay the bills. She'll simply throw out a long and complex letter, rather than take the time to read it, so that she can get back to her musing about the alliteration for line four of her angst-filled sonnet about her mean ole boyfriend and the bimbo he picked up at the bar Tuesday night. You think I’m kidding?

 

[StLGlocker]

What dischord said. It's gotta be shorter. I'd focus more on the Kennedy amendment, since it looks like your target audience is the rifle hunting crowd.

I've spoken to several once-a-year deer hunter guys here at work about it, and none of them, not one, including the guys with NRA hats and bumper stickers, were even aware that gun legislation debate was happening at the Senate. :banghead:

 

[Henry Bowman]

Ditto all of the above. I know that doesn't add anything, but wanted you to know that we read your offering and care.

I am a former Seattle area resident. The "Mom in Tennis Shoes" is patently unqualified to be making laws that affect the entire nation (and beyond) and are an embarrassment to the great State of Washington. Moreover, she is a leftist blissninny. hopefully, the change in the western Washington economy (streets no longer flowing with gold coins) will shock voters to their senses that we need adults in the US Senate.

 

[Sam Adams]

Here's my suggested revision:
----------------------------
Senator Patty Murray doesn’t want law abiding American citizens to have modern rifles. At least, she doesn’t want you to be able to use them. That’s the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from her vote in the Senate earlier this month in favor of a measure that would have outlawed nearly all center-fire rifle ammunition.

The measure, an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was proposed by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. It would have banned what he called “armor piercing†ammunition, defined as any ammunition that will penetrate standard police body armor. The problem with this definition is that most rifle bullets will easily penetrate police body armor. It would have banned even the lowly .223, most often used for hunting varmints and small game, but which is so lacking in lethality on larger game like deer that most states forbid its use in hunting. Other popular hunting rounds, such as the .30-30, .30-06, and .308, similarly penetrate body armor. Despite this capability, such ammunition is rarely used in crime, because the rifles that fire them are heavy and hard to conceal. Yet Senator Murray voted for this absurd measure, which would have converted most hunting rifles into expensive clubs.

Apparently, the Second Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed†is meaningless for Washington’s senior senator. Voters should send a message by electing her opponent.
-----------------------
Short (241 words) and to the point. I hope that this helps.

 

[Langenator]

Sam-you rule. That's all I have to say. I'll get it into .doc format and post it tonight.

 

[oneslowgun]

I would add:

Senator Patty Murray is voting her OPINION in this matter. At best, a wanton disregard of her oath of office as a senator, and at worst, a gross mis-representation of her constituants.

 

[Langenator]

OK, I made a couple touch ups, just minor style matters. Again, a huge thank you to Sam for the editorial assistance.

Letter has been sent to every newspaper I could find in WA. What I did was go to Yahoo>News and Media>Newspapers>By Region>US States>WA>Cities. Went through every city listed. If the paper had an option to send letters to the editor, I sent it.

Also sent it to the staff of her likely opponent, George Nethercutt, as well as some of the local talk radio hosts in Seattle and Spokane.

If your Senator voted for Kennedy's ridiculous AP ammo ban, and is up for re-election this fall, I encourage you to do the same. You can even use my letter-just change Senator Murray to Senator Nogunsforyou and away you go.

The system won't let me attach a Word .doc, so text is below.

---------
Senator Patty Murray doesn’t want law abiding American citizens to have modern rifles. At least, she doesn’t want you to be able to use them. That’s the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from her vote in the Senate earlier this month in favor of a measure that would have outlawed nearly all center-fire rifle ammunition.

The measure, an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was proposed by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. It would have banned what he called “armor piercing†ammunition, defined as any ammunition that will penetrate standard police body armor. The problem with this definition is that most rifle bullets will easily penetrate police body armor. It would have banned even the lowly .223, most often used for hunting varmints and small game, but which is so lacking in lethality on larger game like deer that most states forbid its use in hunting. Other popular hunting rounds, such as the .30-30, .30-06, and .308, similarly penetrate body armor. Despite this capability, such ammunition is rarely used in crime, because the rifles that fire them are heavy and hard to conceal. Yet Senator Murray voted for this absurd measure, which would have converted most hunting rifles into expensive wall decorations.

Apparently, the Second Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed†is meaningless to Washington’s senior senator. Washington voters should send a message by electing her opponent in November.

 

[general]

Does your PC allow you to FAX? If so I'd fax it to her office and any other fax machine # I could get that mattered...
I've learned that when it (it being a letter/document) becomes a real, hold it in your hand piece of paper - it does travel further towards the intended recipient - and has a longer life (ie; gets filed ect.) than an E.Mail.
The document hierarchy seems to be...

Official Documents on embossed Official Letterhead (whatever Official means to them - ie: Correspondence between offices)

Official Documents on Letterhead (including bills)

Faxes (if they faxed it - it must be important - right? - maybe not so much for elected officials due to volume)

Cards (ie; Thanks, Getwell ect.- try sending your opinions in a Happy Anniversary card...it will get thru - they may not like you for it tho. /good for Feinswine!)

Printed Letters

Handwritten Letters

Notes/Postcards (unless postcard has neat picture-then all bets are off)

E.Mail - because of volume/deleteability (is that a word?)

At least that's how it was in every office I ever worked at.. I used to work in a mailroom for a while that was also a Postal Contract Station, there are postal preferences. (some mail is discriminated against)

And the Number 1 attention getter - Letters with physical threats - let's not get on that list.