Communicating with Cantwell and Murray about Gun Control - Change the Tone

[Heredoggydoggy]

Don't know about Cantwell, but Patty Murray only got re-elected by the skin of her teeth.  The libs pulled her through...

Not sure I'd call 52-48 (118,766 votes) "skin of her teeth."

Take away the I-5 Corridor Libs, and we wouldn't be inflicted with them any more. 

[netcoyote]

Good thread P-man. I'd also suggest that people use a spelling and grammar checker when writing reps and be considerate. Calling them names or lobbing insults will only reinforce stereotypes they probably already have about gun owners.
I wouldn't be too concerned about getting a canned response. They probably get swamped with letters, emails, tweets etc from both sides on many issues and can't possibly respond individually to all of them. What's more important is to state where you stand on the position before you go into detail. Someone in their office is counting the feedback, you can be sure of that. They are political animals and they want to know which way the wind is blowing.

[Wenatcheejay]

The gun bans were planned with the Dem's as soon as Obama got reappointed.  All the talk of "he would not dare" was BS. They knew it, we knew it.

By all means we need to keep writing. Just don't expect those 2 old bats to change their minds.

And the next time a Dem tells you they don't want to take away rights, change the country, tax you and business owners, that voice that tells you not to do what you want to do or say, don't listen, do it, say it.

Most important, in the next election VOTE!

[huntingfool7]

Yes, I hate their canned replies and their politics. However, the more they hear from us and how we feel, the more they'll pay attention. So far, most of what they see is the unchanging canned emails. When we change them up and address their actions specifically, they'll take greater notice. They're still my senators and I won't let them forget that.

Good point Pianoman. 

[Cougartail]

I ask her a very pointed question. If gun control is about public safety and they are so concerned about our safety. Why would they allow and encourage 12 to 20 million people with unknown backgrounds remain in our country? I inform her they are the reason I own a AR15 and will never give it up until they are "all" deported. I told her that I do not trust her or any other politician with my safety as they seem to make policy on self intrest, money and not mine.

Thier policies are far more dangerous than an occassional mass shooting and I tell them all, every death of a US citizen caused by an illegal alien is blood on their hands and I vote for no one who supports amnesty and is weak on illegal immigration, Republican or Democrat.

A equivalent of a Sandy Hook in numbers occur every day in this country due to illegal immigrants and I ask where thier outrage is? I tell them there political correctness has caused far more deaths than AR15 by far and they should become intellectually honest with themselves and more importantly us.

[npaull]

Traitors. Both of them. I wanna know what a person has to do to be charged for treason. They both qualify in my opinion and I would love it if one of these people who claim to be LAW ENFORCEMENT would enforce some laws against these two for trying to undermine our rights, , our freedom and our indepndance as a country and as a state. They are criminals so why doesn't someone arrest them?

Because they're not criminals, they're people you disagree with.

Pianoman's right - the way to make change is respectful, relentless dissent. Going over the deep end - whether by accusing politicians of treason or with whacko conspiracy theories about the imminent threat posed by illegal aliens - will only make them write you off and stop listening.

[Cougartail]

Wacko theories? Hummm... 16 people are killed by illegal aliens everyday accross this nation in alcohol related car crashes. Talking with local policemen I know, they say better than 90% of all people pulled over in the valley have no license or no insurance or both. (and their lack of driving skills show!) If this is of no concern to you as to the dangers, let alone all the homicides they commit in this country then you are as clueless as our moron legislators.

[Windwalker]

Many good ideas and comments here- the question revolves around how to convince someone to do what we want- essentially.

One of the issues plaguing us is the “look” and refutable nomenclature used to describe an AR- example is how commercials sell a product works on the vulnerability of sensory perceptions that attract the target audience. While guys like the utilitarian rugged look- now we are dealing with…ah softies..I hold no keys to their vulnerabilities but may be something that should be scrutinized if we wish to manipulate their perception favorably.  One I like is a fallacy but calling it a Modern Musket- or showing a picture like this as a selling point might soften their view of wicked ArmaLite derivatives.

[pianoman9701]

I ask her a very pointed question. If gun control is about public safety and they are so concerned about our safety. Why would they allow and encourage 12 to 20 million people with unknown backgrounds remain in our country? I inform her they are the reason I own a AR15 and will never give it up until they are "all" deported. I told her that I do not trust her or any other politician with my safety as they seem to make policy on self intrest, money and not mine.

Thier policies are far more dangerous than an occassional mass shooting and I tell them all, every death of a US citizen caused by an illegal alien is blood on their hands and I vote for no one who supports amnesty and is weak on illegal immigration, Republican or Democrat.

A equivalent of a Sandy Hook in numbers occur every day in this country due to illegal immigrants and I ask where thier outrage is? I tell them there political correctness has caused far more deaths than AR15 by far and they should become intellectually honest with themselves and more importantly us.

This is a very astute, excellent point. Thank you!

[Elkaholic daWg]

Don't know about Cantwell, but Patty Murray only got re-elected by the skin of her teeth.  The libs pulled her through...

Not sure I'd call 52-48 (118,766 votes) "skin of her teeth."

Take away the I-5 Corridor Libs, and we wouldn't be inflicted with them any more. 

 The difference in votes in King county ALONE were DOUBLE what inslee won by last election

[pianoman9701]

"Dear Mr. Wallace,

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on gun ownership and violence prevention. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. 

As you know, on January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a series of legislative proposals and executive actions intended to reduce gun violence. I applaud the President's efforts to close gun purchase loopholes and to create new tools for further background checks.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill to regulate assault weapons (S. 150) on January 24, 2013. The proposed legislation bans certain military-style, semi-automatic weapons, and makes it illegal to produce, import, or sell magazines with capacity over ten rounds. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further review and was favorably reported from the committee on March 14, 2013. The bill is now awaiting consideration before the full Senate.

In the past, I supported the original Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill, as well as the Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1993, which prohibits juveniles from possessing or receiving handguns. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to strengthen responsible legislation to rein in gun violence. We need to work to close the loopholes in existing laws that allow criminals and children to gain access to firearms contrary to the law's intention. One example is the well-known "gun-show loophole" which allows people to purchase firearms at gun-shows without undergoing the background check required when guns are bought from licensed dealers. Lastly, I believe we must support increased gun-safety and gun-use education.

I support the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding Washingtonians who own guns. I also remain focused on addressing the deeply troubling violence in this country and making our state and our country as safe as possible for all people, including our most vulnerable citizens, our children. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.


Along with addressing gun violence, making services for the mentally ill and their families more accessible will encourage those suffering from mental illness to seek needed care and support. Mental health care is a critical component of our healthcare system and an individual's overall health status. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately one in 17 Americans suffers from a seriously debilitating mental illness. I care deeply about mental health care and understand the important role access to behavioral health services play in the lives of both those who suffer from mental illness and their family and loved ones.


Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator "

My response:

"Senator,

I'm glad some of your focus is on mental health issues, but with all due respects Senator, taking away my rights will not make anyone safer, ever. Modern sporting rifles are an excellent home defense weapon and much easier to use for women than a shotgun. This isn't about hunting. This is about my ability to protect my family and me from those who would harm us, which includes a tyrannical government looking to steal my liberties.

The criminals aren't going to follow your rules for me, ever. If you REALLY want to take a bite out of violent crime, if you're serious and honest about this, then do something about the millions of undocumented illegal immigrants in this country. Because they can't legally work and because our policies are so lax on their presence here, they often must turn to crime to support themselves and their families. Working on that problem would do more to diminish violent crime in our country than any restriction of my rights.

John W"

I didn't hit on all points in this reply as I had done that in the original communication.

[ghosthunter]

Many good ideas and comments here- the question revolves around how to convince someone to do what we want- essentially.

One of the issues plaguing us is the “look” and refutable nomenclature used to describe an AR- example is how commercials sell a product works on the vulnerability of sensory perceptions that attract the target audience. While guys like the utilitarian rugged look- now we are dealing with…ah softies..I hold no keys to their vulnerabilities but may be something that should be scrutinized if we wish to manipulate their perception favorably.  One I like is a fallacy but calling it a Modern Musket- or showing a picture like this as a selling point might soften their view of wicked ArmaLite derivatives.

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say this every time the old dogs of the NRA stand in front of a microphone. We need to get some fresh faces out there. The old guard needs to run behind the lines and push the young ones out front. 

[SGTDuffman]

Handwritten letters seem to get better responses. I also try to explain to these people what they seem not to know as well. They all parrot the same old nonsense about some fictitious "gun show loophole" oblivious to the fact that WAC administers all the gun shows on the west side. They have absolutely no idea that you currently already have to be backgrounded, at least twice, to buy a gun at a gun show because of the requirements WAC has put on the shows.

I don't know if there is some organization on the east side that does something similar, if there is maybe some of you east side guys could chime in. I'd love nothing more than to throw it in their faces if you could give me a name for an organization that does something like WAC does on the west side, except for the east side.

[Windwalker]

Got the April edition of The Blue Press in today-

How to Talk to Liberals about “Assault weapons” bans

  This article may be useful for those of us that don’t speak ‘liberal’.  I can usually empathize or corral a sense of where folks are coming from but in this case have come to the conclusion that –they just don’t get it- we are not getting through to some of these people. We need to better understand their point of view or what their corner stone of passion is made from to rebut these arguments in their language. Kind of a, men are from Mars women are from Venus…so where are liberals from standpoint. 

I am of the opinion we need to add more ‘tools’ to our shed if we want to convince some of these utopian minded socialists our reasoning is sound and in their best interest.
I will summarize a few points brought up in this article- BTW, I am still on the fence trying to decide if these are valid as a whole or partially. Either way I do think – with some massaging from those more enlightened, this will provoke thought and with luck a liberal’s epiphany.

By Marko Kloos

‘Debating “assault weapons “ bans with progressives and liberals is usually a frustrating exercise in flinging reason, statistics, and historical evidence against a nigh-impenetrable wall of uninformed righteousness.’
Gun ban proponents aren’t often swayed by talks of “inalienable, God-given rights,” the demonstrated counterproductive effect of gun bans on crime statistics, or any of the usual arguments gun owners employ when defending their right to keep and bear arms. Worse our side often turns off the other side from the start with confrontational statements – start talking about your cold dead hands with the average gun-hostile liberal, you will get mentally filed as a nutcase whose opinion can be safely discarded as that of a confrontational, unstable crackpot who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a firearm. (Caution using statements that may harden their resolve).
You have to move away from Molon Labe (come and take them)
You have to show them the law they propose is not just useless, but that it’s actually harmful to them. You have to appeal to their self- interest.

1. It will harm the economy and the pocketbooks of others, and waste valuable and limited public resources.

There are millions of these rifles and tens of millions of magazines in private hands to be added to the registry- process time coupled with a notoriously expense bureaucracy invariably useless for crime prevention for hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent without any tangible results (Canada has came to that conclusion BTW at a cost in billions of dollars). And will only hurt one of the few sectors of the economy that is actually healthy.

2. It will harm the respect for government authority irreparably.

The certain noncompliance with a ban will bring us to the bigger problem of authority erosion.
It stands to reason that few owners would be willing to register newly-banned firearms or forfeit their new property. If millions simply ignore the law it will become worse than worthless- it would be a constant reminder that the state is basically impotent.

3. It amounts to immoral collective punishment.

‘Let’s set that one straight right out of the gate: if it’s immoral to punish a classroom of kids for the misbehavior of a single child, or punish all Muslims for the actions of a few radical terrorists, then it’s immoral to punish law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few mentally ill sociopaths. This law harasses and punitively fines a specific group of people for the act of peacefully owning an object you don’t like that was previously lawfully acquired. To possibly surrender thousands of dollars of property that will never be used in a violent crime is an unjust punishment.  Your consent to such a collective punishment could set precedence for collection of items of yours in the future that others condemn. Can you be against racism, sexism, classism and other social injustices if willing to invoke collective guilt in this case?

4. It will have legislative repercussions for progressive agenda.

Two million people purchased firearms just in the month of December 2012.
America has tens of millions of gun owners and that is a lot of votes. Restricting, depriving them of their rights or punitively punishing them will be met with a backlash at the polls in whatever election- national-state or local that comes next. Are you willing to trade Obama care or all the other items on your progressive wish list for a gun ban that is useless at best and disastrous at worse?

5.  It will set a strong precedent for ignoring or removing other amendments.

This is perhaps the single biggest reason for progressives to oppose an evisceration of the Second Amendment: it creates a blueprint for others to invalidate the civil rights they oppose. If they can cancel a Constitutional amendment because the outraged masses of the day want it gone, then the Bill of Rights is worthless. You should never assent to the government having sweeping powers if your not comfortable with those same powers being used against you. Because history teaches sooner or later that’s precisely what will happen. A ban or restriction would be, in fact, much worse than “better than doing nothing”.

[Wenatcheejay]

The problem with the Republican or center right is the lack of will to get out the vote. There is no reason IMO that we do not have Mckenna as Governor. This discussion at the State level would not be happening if we had a massive turnout. It is great to fire off a robo letter or even a heart felt one. I am sure it truly moves these fine ladies. (not.)
When they run for reelection show up at their Seattle Rallies with an NRA baseball cap, a Bible, and an, "I AM The Infidel" tee shirt. Hell, read the Constitution with your friends while your at it. (Sounds like a party to me anyway.)

If we want change get involved with the next election cycle. If not, just sell the freaking guns, quit your job, smoke a joint, and be done with it.

(off soapbox)