I wrote what I felt is true, but I dont want to come off as being to over the top or make gun owners look bad. What do you think? This letter will be used for a few new proposed gun laws introduced in PA, so the subject will change but the body will stay the same for the most part. Disregard the "To Whom It May Concern", that is just a place holder until I address it to the separate representatives that this letter will be sent to.
Is my letter to my representatives effective or counter productive?
- Thread starter JLStorm
- Start date
- Status
I honestly wonder about how effective our letters are other than to show them the sheer number of firearms owners there are, which might make them respect our causes more. I highly doubt any politician will actually read any, let alone all, of your letter. They will likely have some aide or secretary filter through it and count you as a pro-gun vote. Maybe if enough of us chime in, they'll realize how many votes they'd be losing if they continue to ignore all of us.
I've written and continue to write my politicians regularly and frequently, and from the anti-gunners I get back chain letters that are verbatim copies of one another from one letter to the next. That tells me that they don't actually read our letters. My pro-gun representative actually writes (or has someone write) responses that are tailored to my letter. I realize he represents fewer constituents than a senator, but still I appreciate at least being able to tell that someone read my letter.
In short.... don't fret too much about the specific wording. Just keep following that letter up with more letters, and get your friends to do the same thing. I'm convinced that quantity, not quality, is all that matters to politicians b/c quantity of votes is what gets them and keeps them their jobs.
I've written and continue to write my politicians regularly and frequently, and from the anti-gunners I get back chain letters that are verbatim copies of one another from one letter to the next. That tells me that they don't actually read our letters. My pro-gun representative actually writes (or has someone write) responses that are tailored to my letter. I realize he represents fewer constituents than a senator, but still I appreciate at least being able to tell that someone read my letter.
In short.... don't fret too much about the specific wording. Just keep following that letter up with more letters, and get your friends to do the same thing. I'm convinced that quantity, not quality, is all that matters to politicians b/c quantity of votes is what gets them and keeps them their jobs.
bogie
Member
The longer a letter is, the more likely it will be tossed in the crackpot bin.
Handwrite a note, not more than a coupla short paragraphs, and mail that. Edit it down.
Handwrite a note, not more than a coupla short paragraphs, and mail that. Edit it down.
Damien45
Member
I agree with Bogie. I do think the start of the 3rd paragraph is important as it is the point of your letter. Just reword it to a to-the-point closing paragraph. Additionally, offer suggestions. Most letters of complaint never offer suggestions to a problem, just points out the problem. Just some food for thought.
Oh, and while you are at it, mind rewording the whole thing for the current large scale bills? I'd send some in to my reps.
Oh, and while you are at it, mind rewording the whole thing for the current large scale bills? I'd send some in to my reps.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
JLStorm:
Some people are afraid of guns and gun owners because they find them threatening.
So I don't think it's an especially good idea to say things like "gun owners ... are willing to die supporting their cause and fighting to retain their rights," especially when you are trying to convince anyone that gun owners are a law-abiding group of people who can be trusted to behave rationally. I'd leave it to The Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Bloomberg, and the other anti-gun people to paint gun owners as extremists.
In fact I would drop that entire paragraph. But, then, I'm not a real gun owner. I'm only someone who owns guns. Alas, I am not willing to die for the cause and I don't believe in threatening people as a way to encourage them to support my interests. I am a real stick in the mud.
Some people are afraid of guns and gun owners because they find them threatening.
So I don't think it's an especially good idea to say things like "gun owners ... are willing to die supporting their cause and fighting to retain their rights," especially when you are trying to convince anyone that gun owners are a law-abiding group of people who can be trusted to behave rationally. I'd leave it to The Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Bloomberg, and the other anti-gun people to paint gun owners as extremists.
In fact I would drop that entire paragraph. But, then, I'm not a real gun owner. I'm only someone who owns guns. Alas, I am not willing to die for the cause and I don't believe in threatening people as a way to encourage them to support my interests. I am a real stick in the mud.
ProjectMayhem
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 17
I would postulate that some gun owners believe they are both abiding by the law and acting rationally in their assertion that they might be willing to die for a cause they believe in, should circumstances necessitate it. I agree that it may come across as politically uncorrect - it will make many people squirm a little and look uncomfortable. It might not be the best thing to say in a letter to an elected official, but if that's the reality of the situation, it should be known. It doesn't become threatening until another entity provokes that reaction - perhaps elected leaders should know the potential consequences of their decisions.
Damien45
Member
I think, in this case, an elected politician would fear loosing votes more then someone willing to die to protect his rights. I would try that angle of approach before taking the extreme line.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
ProjectMayhem:
I understand your position. I also know that a great many other gun owners feel the same way. You good folks believe, most sincerely, that if you kill people who don't support your beliefs it's their fault and they deserved killing.
I don't believe that. I don't like bullies, won't support them, and repudiate them at every opportunity. I just did.
But, as I said, I'm not one of those real gun owners. I'm only an ordinary person who owns guns. Nobody needs to be afraid of me. I'm harmless.
Don't let me discourage you from threatening to kill people, though. Go ahead and inform your elected representatives of "the potential consequences of their decisions." Tell me how it works out for you?
I understand your position. I also know that a great many other gun owners feel the same way. You good folks believe, most sincerely, that if you kill people who don't support your beliefs it's their fault and they deserved killing.
I don't believe that. I don't like bullies, won't support them, and repudiate them at every opportunity. I just did.
But, as I said, I'm not one of those real gun owners. I'm only an ordinary person who owns guns. Nobody needs to be afraid of me. I'm harmless.
Don't let me discourage you from threatening to kill people, though. Go ahead and inform your elected representatives of "the potential consequences of their decisions." Tell me how it works out for you?
ProjectMayhem
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 17
You're twisting the argument, I'm afraid. It has nothing to do with being a bully, and it has nothing to do with 'killing people who don't support our beliefs'. You know that. Don't misrepresent what I've said.
If, as the OP stated, gun owners (notice the lack of the first person?) are a group of people who believe strongly enough in their right to keep and bear arms that they are willing to die to defend it, perhaps they also feel their elected officials should know this. I don't see anyone, save yourself, advocating utilizing force against those who hold a different political viewpoint. If those people should ever attempt to project that ideology upon said gun owners against their will, however, it is not out of the question (as the numerous threads dealing with this very same subject on this particular message board might illuminate) that those gun owners would defend that right with their lives.
If you believe that holding such convictions makes these people murderers, or bullies, you might want to reevaluate what you're doing on such a pro-2nd Amendment website.
Waitone
Member
Other than the one paragraph others have flagged I have no comment on the content.
I do comment on the form.
--Letters to congress need to be direct, punchy, straight to the point and unambiguous.
--Don't make the staffer have to read and then make an educated guess as to which legislative pile the letter goes. Make use of "RE: Senate Bill S.1234" --State your position and why you hold your position.
--No threats either directly or implied.
--Use proper letter formats, spelling and grammar.
--Be respectful of the office which unfortunately may be held by a complete, blithering idiot. Don't let your contempt for the holder cast a shadow on the office.
--The completed correspondence regarding one piece of legislation should be contained on the front side of one sheet of paper even if transmitted via email. Your one letter every now and then translate into tens of thousands on their end. Be respectful of their time.
I do comment on the form.
--Letters to congress need to be direct, punchy, straight to the point and unambiguous.
--Don't make the staffer have to read and then make an educated guess as to which legislative pile the letter goes. Make use of "RE: Senate Bill S.1234" --State your position and why you hold your position.
--No threats either directly or implied.
--Use proper letter formats, spelling and grammar.
--Be respectful of the office which unfortunately may be held by a complete, blithering idiot. Don't let your contempt for the holder cast a shadow on the office.
--The completed correspondence regarding one piece of legislation should be contained on the front side of one sheet of paper even if transmitted via email. Your one letter every now and then translate into tens of thousands on their end. Be respectful of their time.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
ProjectMayhem:
I get really confused by statements such as "If those people should ever attempt to project that ideology upon said gun owners against their will" and "it is not out of the question ... that those gun owners would defend that right with their lives."
Are you saying that gun owners would kill themselves if laws were passed that prohibit the individual ownership of firearms? Or are you saying that gun owners would kill as many other people as possible before they themselves were killed? Or do you mean something else?
As for your declaration that I might want to reevaluate my presence on this web site .... You joined this forum exactly one week ago, on March 29, 2007.
I think that you're supposed to wait at least a little while longer before you tell other people that their opinions are wrong for this forum. Maybe a month or so after that you might be entitled to tell the moderators that they don't belong, and perhaps a while later you could get away with telling the forum owner to find someplace else. I've been a member of this forum for almost four years. Wait your turn and don't jump the line.
Bullies tend to be so impatient. "Project Mayhem" indeed. There's no virtue in a project to spread chaos and disorder. Or do you have some euphemism for "mayhem" too?
I get really confused by statements such as "If those people should ever attempt to project that ideology upon said gun owners against their will" and "it is not out of the question ... that those gun owners would defend that right with their lives."
Are you saying that gun owners would kill themselves if laws were passed that prohibit the individual ownership of firearms? Or are you saying that gun owners would kill as many other people as possible before they themselves were killed? Or do you mean something else?
As for your declaration that I might want to reevaluate my presence on this web site .... You joined this forum exactly one week ago, on March 29, 2007.
I think that you're supposed to wait at least a little while longer before you tell other people that their opinions are wrong for this forum. Maybe a month or so after that you might be entitled to tell the moderators that they don't belong, and perhaps a while later you could get away with telling the forum owner to find someplace else. I've been a member of this forum for almost four years. Wait your turn and don't jump the line.
Bullies tend to be so impatient. "Project Mayhem" indeed. There's no virtue in a project to spread chaos and disorder. Or do you have some euphemism for "mayhem" too?
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Waitone: good practical advice.
bogie
Member
Project Mayhem refers to part of one of Chuck Palahniuk's books - Fight Club. In this, a group of anarchists attempt to decapitate the financial community (among other things...). Was also made into a movie.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Thanks for the information, bogie. With anarchy there's no need for the Second Amendment or even the Constitution itself. Sounds like a plan to me.
Darnit. I forgot where I was for a moment. Okay, let's try it one more time. Anarchy. It doesn't sound like a plan to me.
Darnit. I forgot where I was for a moment. Okay, let's try it one more time. Anarchy. It doesn't sound like a plan to me.
ProjectMayhem
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 17
I realize I came across as too strong, and much too confrontational, and I apologize - I have no interest in generating enemies here and my tact was no doubt lacking. Honestly, I have lurked here long before I joined and I always enjoyed reading your well written and thought out posts. I hope we can start the discourse again, and I'm more than willing to prove the worth of my ideas if given the chance.
My handle is indeed taken from the book Fight Club, although I'm no anarchist, and I have no love of chaos or disorder.
I would like to clarify what I meant in my previous post for you, however.
What I mean by the first sentence is that I've noticed a number of threads on this board dealing with the subject of resistance, and in some cases, violence, in response to government legislation or potential firearms confiscation. I think that a number of the posters here have revealed that they would be willing to use force to defend their rights. I hope I'm not amiss in interpreting their reactions. I don't see how that makes them bullies or murderers, though, which is the question I should have posed.
I guess I'm curious as to why you think that people who say they would defend the 2nd amendment qualify as bullies?
I shouldn't have posted as hastily as I did before and I'd like to continue the discussion along more reasonable lines.
My handle is indeed taken from the book Fight Club, although I'm no anarchist, and I have no love of chaos or disorder.
I would like to clarify what I meant in my previous post for you, however.
What I mean by the first sentence is that I've noticed a number of threads on this board dealing with the subject of resistance, and in some cases, violence, in response to government legislation or potential firearms confiscation. I think that a number of the posters here have revealed that they would be willing to use force to defend their rights. I hope I'm not amiss in interpreting their reactions. I don't see how that makes them bullies or murderers, though, which is the question I should have posed.
I guess I'm curious as to why you think that people who say they would defend the 2nd amendment qualify as bullies?
I shouldn't have posted as hastily as I did before and I'd like to continue the discussion along more reasonable lines.
Mainsail
Member
I usually steer clear of doing this because many of the letters I see are so poorly written that it would take too much of my time to correct all the mistakes. Your letter was actually pretty good though, so here’s my edit:
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
ProjectMayhem:
I accept your apology.
About your name. You might want to consider the effect of "Project Mayhem" on someone who does not share your frame of reference. I recognize that there are many people who focus only on themselves and claim not to care about what other people think of them. That's all right if they accept without protest other peoples' negative responses. But they don't, at least not usually. What they want is the right to "be themselves" without incurring any costs for doing so. We all go through that stage at around two years of age. Growing past that stage is part of becoming an adult. If you advertise that you are on a mission to commit mayhem, don't be surprised when other people believe your advertising and respond negatively to it. Grow, if you don't mind my saying so, up.
That's part of the trouble with gun owners who present themselves as people who will use their guns to dominate other people. Other people believe them, have the right to believe them, and have the right to resist their domination by all necessary means. Gun owners do not have any right at all to force their beliefs on anyone. If they proclaim that they have such a right, they should not be surprised when other people believe their advertising and respond negatively to it.
I was born a few years before World War II. My early years were polluted by vermin who believed that they had some natural right to force their view of the world and fight to the death for it. They convinced themselves and others like them of that right. That's not the world I want. I certainly don't want the United States to become that kind of country. And I think you will find that most rational people here don't want it either. Don't be surprised when other people believe gun owners who proclaim that they "will fight to the death" any law they don't like. And don't be surprised when those other people recognize that their survival and the survival of their families depend on disarming gun owners to prevent the armed rebellion that they threaten.
I am a defender of the individual right to keep and bear arms. My guess is that I was one of those who supported the Second Amendment decades before you were born. It's always interesting to hear how I don't know what I'm doing from people who are just learning the dance and don't yet even understand the rhythm of the music. It's not interesting enough, though, to be worth much time.
Here's a riddle for you. What do you call someone on the streets who has a gun and tells you that he plans to violate the law, will "fight to the death " anyone who tries to stop him, and seems to be in a position to do so?
I accept your apology.
About your name. You might want to consider the effect of "Project Mayhem" on someone who does not share your frame of reference. I recognize that there are many people who focus only on themselves and claim not to care about what other people think of them. That's all right if they accept without protest other peoples' negative responses. But they don't, at least not usually. What they want is the right to "be themselves" without incurring any costs for doing so. We all go through that stage at around two years of age. Growing past that stage is part of becoming an adult. If you advertise that you are on a mission to commit mayhem, don't be surprised when other people believe your advertising and respond negatively to it. Grow, if you don't mind my saying so, up.
That's part of the trouble with gun owners who present themselves as people who will use their guns to dominate other people. Other people believe them, have the right to believe them, and have the right to resist their domination by all necessary means. Gun owners do not have any right at all to force their beliefs on anyone. If they proclaim that they have such a right, they should not be surprised when other people believe their advertising and respond negatively to it.
I was born a few years before World War II. My early years were polluted by vermin who believed that they had some natural right to force their view of the world and fight to the death for it. They convinced themselves and others like them of that right. That's not the world I want. I certainly don't want the United States to become that kind of country. And I think you will find that most rational people here don't want it either. Don't be surprised when other people believe gun owners who proclaim that they "will fight to the death" any law they don't like. And don't be surprised when those other people recognize that their survival and the survival of their families depend on disarming gun owners to prevent the armed rebellion that they threaten.
I am a defender of the individual right to keep and bear arms. My guess is that I was one of those who supported the Second Amendment decades before you were born. It's always interesting to hear how I don't know what I'm doing from people who are just learning the dance and don't yet even understand the rhythm of the music. It's not interesting enough, though, to be worth much time.
Here's a riddle for you. What do you call someone on the streets who has a gun and tells you that he plans to violate the law, will "fight to the death " anyone who tries to stop him, and seems to be in a position to do so?
Leave the molon labe at home. keep your letter brief and easy to read.
State your position clearly in support of or against a certain bill (use the number) in the first paragraph. Throw a few brief facts in the following paragraphs explaining why you believe your stance is correct. Maybe dispel some of the false information being used against your position. In the last paragraph restate your position.
When you start to talk about "to the death" you sound a little out there.
State your position clearly in support of or against a certain bill (use the number) in the first paragraph. Throw a few brief facts in the following paragraphs explaining why you believe your stance is correct. Maybe dispel some of the false information being used against your position. In the last paragraph restate your position.
When you start to talk about "to the death" you sound a little out there.
chemist308
Member
That's exactly the point. The sheer volume might help them understand gun control is a hot topic that can and does break political careers. Helps them understand that in many cases well over half of their constituents are firearm owners.
However writing a little more to the point leaving out references to cold dead hands and rooftop elections are things we need to do when writing these. We don't want to sound like crackpots baracaded in our homes. We want them to see we are intelligent people capable of influencing more of their constituents.
ProjectMayhem
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 17
A nutcase or a patriot, depending on the law and situation in question.
Laws are not necessarily just simply because they are on the books. Alcohol was illegal in the United States by way of a constitutional amendment less than a century ago. Was that a just law? Were the anti-miscegenation laws just? If they weren’t, should a citizen stand up against unjust laws? Is he ever justified in resorting to violence to fight an unjust law, should more peaceful methods of change fail? I await your response.
Something interesting to note, perhaps:
I have replaced the bolded words to highlight a different perspective. Is it a legitimate perspective, in your opinion? If not, why not? Should we not be concerned with the efforts of our government to curtail our rights?
I don't know of any gun owners proclaiming their willingness to 'fight to the death' any law they don't like. I don't know any gun owners itching to use their firearms to install fascist governments where they live. That seems an absurd concept, as I was under the impression that the civilian populations of all prominent Fascist and Totalitarian states in the 20th century were effectively disarmed. Those people did not possess the means to defend themselves.
I was also under the impression that many gun owners were adamant in their support of the Bill of Rights as a whole, and not just the section that codifies their inalienable right to self defense. You paint the conflict as one of unarmed people reacting to aggression and violence brought by gun owners, because ‘they don’t like certain laws’. I think that it’s my duty as a citizen to reject laws and governments I feel are unjust - using force as a last alternative if no other option can be found. If other people feel threatened because of that, it’s unfortunate but that’s something I have no control over.
In my mind, it’s the question of government restricting liberty in all walks of life. Responsible civilian firearm ownership is, in my opinion, a valuable tool for helping to maintain a society free from unjust coercion. That includes any group who would seek to use unjust force to achieve their goals.
It most certainly has nothing to do with dominating innocents, and I wonder why you would assume that.
- Status
