Dear Law Makers

[Major03]

Bad idea, and I'll tell you why. What you're doing is planting the idea that further legislation to restrict rights is a GOOD thing. You take people that might be on the fence and get them thinking that it's a good idea to ban guns/assassinate terrorists without a trial/arrest people without probable cause/etc. because you can prevent horrible things from happening in the future. And when bad things happen (because they will), the people you "convinced" will vote for someone MORE extreme than the ones in office.

You're losing the forest for the trees.

Exactly right! The worst thing we could do is what the OP suggests.

OP: Your argument, while I think intentioned to turn the voting public against those who sponsored and supported the recent legislation, only validates their thinking.

 

[fabsroman]

And the chicken came first.

Some thing had to have laid the egg.

From the egg comes the chicken.

Nah, the egg came first. A genetic mutation from some other animal is what caused the chicken to come to being and that genetic mutation usually comes from the egg of a prior species. lol

I think the OP's tactic is very poor.

1) It implies that doing something now will actually save our current children from something like Sandy Hook, which is BS.

2) Nothing that Maryland could have done would have saved the lives of the children in Connecticut or the movie goers in Colorado.

3) It is better to show them that they are just plain wrong, versus trying to wrote a "smart" comment in reply. A comment that is filled with sarcasm, which the morons from both camps can interpret incorrectly.


Me, I am getting ready to draft a letter to the superintendent of Howard County Schools, the Howard County Chief of Police, and the Howard County Executive because these morons still have not put a locked door policy in place at my daughter's elementary school. The secretaries are too lazy to continue to get up and lock/unlock the doors after the school bell rings to start the school day. Seems as though something like that would be WAY more important than all this gun control BS, but it just is not happening. There was plenty of "talk" about it back in January, but it has now been swept under the rug, along with mental health care, because both of those cost money.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

Nah, the egg came first. A genetic mutation from some other animal is what caused the chicken to come to being and that genetic mutation usually comes from the egg of a prior species. lol

I think the OP's tactic is very poor.

1) It implies that doing something now will actually save our current children from something like Sandy Hook, which is BS.

2) Nothing that Maryland could have done would have saved the lives of the children in Connecticut or the movie goers in Colorado.

3) It is better to show them that they are just plain wrong, versus trying to wrote a "smart" comment in reply. A comment that is filled with sarcasm, which the morons from both camps can interpret incorrectly.


Me, I am getting ready to draft a letter to the superintendent of Howard County Schools, the Howard County Chief of Police, and the Howard County Executive because these morons still have not put a locked door policy in place at my daughter's elementary school. The secretaries are too lazy to continue to get up and lock/unlock the doors after the school bell rings to start the school day. Seems as though something like that would be WAY more important than all this gun control BS, but it just is not happening. There was plenty of "talk" about it back in January, but it has now been swept under the rug, along with mental health care, because both of those cost money.

Dear lawmakers, this bill is unconstitutional and takes our rights away.
Dear Citizen, the law saves lives and is constitutional. Public Safety trumps your right which is why we drafted under Public Safety.
This was our argument and it failed miserably.

Dear lawmakers, Sandy Hook was a tragedy which should have been prevented. Over 20 children were killed because of your inactions.
Dear Citizen, this is why we passed the bill. Those evil looking guns will not hurt anyone else.
Dear lawmakers, You had the votes to act before this tragedy, yet you let children die. Are you saying this bill will prevent another Sandy Hook or mass shooting from taking place.
Dear Citizen, no law will prevent someone hell bent to commit mass murders.

Boy! Even I can see if you walked them down this road you'd get them to admitt it won't save lives or prevent mass murders. All we did was yell, " But you can't! It's unconstitutional! " That argument has worked so far right? So why change the argument? Yeah! Not changing it was stupid.

 

[Sportstud4891]

Dear lawmakers, this bill is unconstitutional and takes our rights away.
Dear Citizen, the law saves lives and is constitutional. Public Safety trumps your right which is why we drafted under Public Safety.
This was our argument and it failed miserably.

Dear lawmakers, Sandy Hook was a tragedy which should have been prevented. Over 20 children were killed because of your inactions.
Dear Citizen, this is why we passed the bill. Those evil looking guns will not hurt anyone else.
Dear lawmakers, You had the votes to act before this tragedy, yet you let children die. Are you saying this bill will prevent another Sandy Hook or mass shooting from taking place.
Dear Citizen, no law will prevent someone hell bent to commit mass murders.

Boy! Even I can see if you walked them down this road you'd get them to admitt it won't save lives or prevent mass murders. All we did was yell, " But you can't! It's unconstitutional! " That argument has worked so far right? So why change the argument? Yeah! Not changing it was stupid.

Don't know how involved you were this year but the politicians know that it's not going to save lives. We pounded that message into their heads. The elected sheriffs were there and testified that it was not going to have any impact on crime. You are kidding yourself if you think the politicians give a damn. All they cared about was their political gain. This was so they could go back to their districts, to the ignorant masses, and say "Look what I did".

We showed them how ignorant their bill was. We pounded into their heads that criminals don't follow laws. We even pushed to keep criminals in jail longer to which the politicians responded with "it cost too much to keep criminals in jail".

The only way we're going to get through to these people is to start voting them out. If we can remove a few of them, the rest will sit up and take notice.

Your strategy is flawed in that it infers that any amount of gun control would have prevented Sandy Hook if only it had been instituted before the tragedy. This may work to get the ignorant public to vote 1 person out but does not help our overall cause.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

The whole damn thing sounds like a Devil's Advocate argument.

The more I hear the argument, the more it sounds as if it's coming from the Left.

I'll say it again. Using the words "dead kids" and "guns" in the same sentence is a really bad idea.

But who am I to say?

 

[dblas]

Dear lawmakers, this bill is unconstitutional and takes our rights away.
Dear Citizen, the law saves lives and is constitutional. Public Safety trumps your right which is why we drafted under Public Safety.
This was our argument and it failed miserably.

Dear lawmakers, Sandy Hook was a tragedy which should have been prevented. Over 20 children were killed because of your inactions.
Dear Citizen, this is why we passed the bill. Those evil looking guns will not hurt anyone else.
Dear lawmakers, You had the votes to act before this tragedy, yet you let children die. Are you saying this bill will prevent another Sandy Hook or mass shooting from taking place.
Dear Citizen, no law will prevent someone hell bent to commit mass murders.

Boy! Even I can see if you walked them down this road you'd get them to admitt it won't save lives or prevent mass murders. All we did was yell, " But you can't! It's unconstitutional! " That argument has worked so far right? So why change the argument? Yeah! Not changing it was stupid.

Dear Bobby Mercer, the lawmakers already admitted the above in talking with them before they voted for the bio. They also admitted that a) they needed to do something, per the Governor and b) it is what the "majority" of their constituents want. Since you are a Bobby come lately to this argument, perhaps you should read some of the threads from the actual days we had activities down in Annapolis.

While your approach is novel, agreeing with the enemy, ANY ENEMY, is not the way to change who the enemy is.

Depending on where you are, why don't you volunteer to help educate the masses this weekend in Bowie at the MSI booth? I will be there (I just need to get the final window figured out).

 

[dblas]

The whole damn thing sounds like a Devil's Advocate argument.

The more I hear the argument, the more it sounds as if it's coming from the Left.

I'll say it again. Using the words "dead kids" and "guns" in the same sentence is a really bad idea.

But who am I to say?

Agreed.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

Don't know how involved you were this year but the politicians know that it's not going to save lives. We pounded that message into their heads. The elected sheriffs were there and testified that it was not going to have any impact on crime. You are kidding yourself if you think the politicians give a damn. All they cared about was their political gain. This was so they could go back to their districts, to the ignorant masses, and say "Look what I did".

We showed them how ignorant their bill was. We pounded into their heads that criminals don't follow laws. We even pushed to keep criminals in jail longer to which the politicians responded with "it cost too much to keep criminals in jail".

The only way we're going to get through to these people is to start voting them out. If we can remove a few of them, the rest will sit up and take notice.

Your strategy is flawed in that it infers that any amount of gun control would have prevented Sandy Hook if only it had been instituted before the tragedy. This may work to get the ignorant public to vote 1 person out but does not help our overall cause.

Your last paragraph is exactly who the strategy is intended for. Addressing politicians using common sense, logic, and intellect fall and fell short. Why? Because the politicians go back and say see look what I did. The ignorant voter says good job, who cares about their rights.

Now instead of going after the politician directly you go after their ignorant voter and say, yeah too bad a bunch of kids had to die first. Too bad they weren't proactive even though they all agreed they should have done it earlier. You make the ignorant voter second and third guess. Now you have a mad ignorant voter which is dangerous to incumbents. Now you lessen the ignorance with a DINO attack which puts in office the 2A friendly politician who realizes he is there at our pleasure. You've just removed the anti 2A politicians without them understanding how you got to their voters. This is a winning strategy. Not yelling our rights are being violated. Only we care about that.

 

[dblas]

Your last paragraph is exactly who the strategy is intended for. Addressing politicians using common sense, logic, and intellect fall and fell short. Why? Because the politicians go back and say see look what I did. The ignorant voter says good job, who cares about their rights.

Now instead of going after the politician directly you go after their ignorant voter and say, yeah too bad a bunch of kids had to die first. Too bad they weren't proactive even though they all agreed they should have done it earlier. You make the ignorant voter second and third guess. Now you have a mad ignorant voter which is dangerous to incumbents. Now you lessen the ignorance with a DINO attack which puts in office the 2A friendly politician who realizes he is there at our pleasure. You've just removed the anti 2A politicians without them understanding how you got to their voters. This is a winning strategy. Not yelling our rights are being violated. Only we care about that.

I see where you are coming from and going to now, but I still think it is a dangerous road to go down. But then again, we keep asking for new ideas that are out of the box and you have presented one. HMMMMMmmmmmm

 

[jonnyl]

Your last paragraph is exactly who the strategy is intended for. Addressing politicians using common sense, logic, and intellect fall and fell short. Why? Because the politicians go back and say see look what I did. The ignorant voter says good job, who cares about their rights.

Now instead of going after the politician directly you go after their ignorant voter and say, yeah too bad a bunch of kids had to die first. Too bad they weren't proactive even though they all agreed they should have done it earlier. You make the ignorant voter second and third guess. Now you have a mad ignorant voter which is dangerous to incumbents. Now you lessen the ignorance with a DINO attack which puts in office the 2A friendly politician who realizes he is there at our pleasure. You've just removed the anti 2A politicians without them understanding how you got to their voters. This is a winning strategy. Not yelling our rights are being violated. Only we care about that.

I just think that your sarcasm (or subtlety, or whatever) will be lost on them. They won't "see" that passing sb281 was stupid. They'll think "yeah, if it wasn't for the NRA we'd have passed these laws years ago and saved a million lives".

Why not suggest they ban alcohol to reduce drunk driving fatalities. Point out the number of children killed each year by drunk drivers and ask them how many kids need to die so that they can have their evening cocktail. Maybe, they'll realize that punishing responsible drinkers for the sins of a few is stupid. Maybe they'll realize that alcohol isn't evil, but can cause death and destruction in the wrong hands.... Maybe they'll see the parallels....

To the antis your argument just seems to concede that gun control works, and they should have done it sooner.

 

[Sportstud4891]

Your last paragraph is exactly who the strategy is intended for. Addressing politicians using common sense, logic, and intellect fall and fell short. Why? Because the politicians go back and say see look what I did. The ignorant voter says good job, who cares about their rights.

Now instead of going after the politician directly you go after their ignorant voter and say, yeah too bad a bunch of kids had to die first. Too bad they weren't proactive even though they all agreed they should have done it earlier. You make the ignorant voter second and third guess. Now you have a mad ignorant voter which is dangerous to incumbents. Now you lessen the ignorance with a DINO attack which puts in office the 2A friendly politician who realizes he is there at our pleasure. You've just removed the anti 2A politicians without them understanding how you got to their voters. This is a winning strategy. Not yelling our rights are being violated. Only we care about that.

I understand your point but it's just not a good route to go. Now you're instructing the ignorant public that gun control is a good thing it just didn't happen early enough.

This will, at best, create a temporary win for us followed by an epic fail.

Also not sure why you are stuck on the "rights being violated" stigma. That was not the point that many of us tried to make with the politicians even though we may believe it. But since you're stuck on that, tell the gay groups that it didn't work for them.

Everyone needs to pay attention. Changing a mindset takes YEARS. Not three months. In years past we had maybe 100 people show up to talk to politicians. This is the first year we had thousands. Why should the politicians care when history has shown that gun owners become apathetic anyways? We need the same turnout next year with the same amount of pressure. We need public education. We need people to write editorials explaining the facts about gun control. From a psychological standpoint just a pure bombardment of "guns are good" will take it's toll. We need to take people to the range. My mother-in-law finally agreed to go shooting (anti-gun in her viewpoints) after enough reasonable discussion.

Temporary gains without the end goal in mind is not a good thing.

 

[fabsroman]

Your last paragraph is exactly who the strategy is intended for. Addressing politicians using common sense, logic, and intellect fall and fell short. Why? Because the politicians go back and say see look what I did. The ignorant voter says good job, who cares about their rights.

Now instead of going after the politician directly you go after their ignorant voter and say, yeah too bad a bunch of kids had to die first. Too bad they weren't proactive even though they all agreed they should have done it earlier. You make the ignorant voter second and third guess. Now you have a mad ignorant voter which is dangerous to incumbents. Now you lessen the ignorance with a DINO attack which puts in office the 2A friendly politician who realizes he is there at our pleasure. You've just removed the anti 2A politicians without them understanding how you got to their voters. This is a winning strategy. Not yelling our rights are being violated. Only we care about that.

I really do think the "Too bad a bunch of kids had to die first" is a terrible argument. It implies that IF the law had been passed sooner, Sandy Hook would not have happened. We know that is not the case. Criminals/lunatics will continue to obtain firearms, bombs, knives, gasoline, etc.

Trying to be tongue in cheek, or sarcastic, with the ignorant voters, will actually make them believe that if this law had been passed earlier, Sandy Hook would NOT have happened. We do NOT need them to think that, and we know that is not the case.

The number of deaths in the nation from assault weapons is small compared to so many other methods of homicide. The biggest issue is making these moronic voters understand that our politicians are merely passing laws that make people feel better, but that do not address the real issue. Most of the crime areas are places where the poor congregate. They need to fix these areas, but that takes money and a lot of thought. Passing gun control was the easy way out. Not very expensive, and most of the morons are clamoring for it thinking that it will solve the problem.

Nowadays, guns can be made on cheap mills with CNC technology. So, anybody with half a brain can continue to pump out firearms for the underworld IF they are willing to risk being arrested. Granted, the 40+ year fight against drugs has been so successful that I have no doubt this fight against guns will be too. SARCASM

 

[ibang1]

They passed SB281 because they could! This is their one step closer to ban ALL weapons! Little by little they plan to strip our 2A from ALL of us!

 

[dblas]

They passed SB281 because they could! This is their one step closer to ban ALL weapons! Little by little they plan to strip our 2A from ALL of us!

To be clear, some of those that voted for SB 281 did so because they were told to do so or else, not because they could.

It took a come to Jesus meeting with the Governor and the Majority Leader telling them, what they were going to do or else, to get all of the votes they needed and wanted.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

To be clear, some of those that voted for SB 281 did so because they were told to do so or else, not because they could.

It took a come to Jesus meeting with the Governor and the Majority Leader telling them, what they were going to do or else, to get all of the votes they needed and wanted.

They certainly did use strong arm tactics and dealing to get the votes they needed. I wasn't there the day Smiegel's amendment passed then votes changed after threats, but I saw the video. These are politicians who don't care about repercussions from anyone. They feel untouchable because their constituents will continue to vote for their reelection to continued office. This is why going after those who elect them into office is the only tactic which will work. We can't make these people our enemies and have them pissed off at us. We need to fight back the vomit and reflux and stand beside them telling them how we as gun owners see how some restrictions should apply for gun owners. It's just terrible that they had the votes to do this letting children die before actions were taken.

What restrictions should be set for gun owners? How about you talk about the restrictions already in place before SB281 as if they were great restrictions.
1. Background checks. They keep the guns out of hands of criminals.
2. 7 day wait. This cool off period helps people calm down.
3. Prohibited persons. We don't want druggies alcoholics and those who have committed crimes to have guns.

These are just a few already there that can be spun as if they are great. We as gun owners agree with them because they are great. Then talk about how SB281 costs lives and won't keep a deranged mental person from killing.

If the politicians use illegal and immoral tactics to get their legislature votes why can't we intellectually strong arm their constituents to become angry at the person who they elected? Remember, there isn't anything more dangerous to an incumbent then a mad, pissed off ignorant voter.