How do I write my Liberal Representative? HR1022

[Diesel Smoke]

I have been putting off typing up a letter to her, but now after the VT tragedy, what tact do I take to get my point across without sounding like an insensitive prick? My point in a nutshell=didn't work before, won't work again, only punishes law abiding citzens....fix the social problems...and gun legislation is the easy way out and a way for politicians to do nothing, but feel good about themselves and promote their careers.

Any ideas? She's pretty liberal, but does do well for the state and isn't totally blinded by party lines all the time. I am just stumped and have put it off long enough. I tried to get something typed up today, but nothing looked or read right. Should I bring up the fact that I am a police dispatcher and how talking to an armed citizen is different then talking to an unarmed? Should I bring up times when if people had been armed, they'd probably wouldn't have suffered, or is it all too subjective?

I know some of you have silver tongues, so give me some pointers. Oh, one other thing email or snail mail. Does it make a difference?

[Cue-Ball]

In the world of Electronic Everything, I think a hand written snail mail letter would stand out a bit more than a simply shooting off an email.

I however, do not have a silver toungue:laughing:

[C_I_A]

I however, do not have a silver toungue:laughing:
Yes, we all know it's kinda brown from rimming them peeps over at Spider for winning those wheels :flipoff2:



Diesel as to what you want, I took a sec here at work to type this up. Use it if you want, or change it....I don't care. It's a start though.






Mr./Mrs. (NAME),

After the tragic massacre that took place on the Virginia Tech campus this past (fill in time for when you send it) I feel obligated to voice my opinion as a free and voting citizen of this state. It has been shown time and again the laws dictating where a gun can and cannot be carried have done nothing to hamper those that wish to inflict harm and vengeful wrath upon others. The effect of this legislation removes any ability that law abiding citizens have to defend themselves.
Arguments are made against allowing guns everywhere by stating that if everyone had a gun, there would be more killings due to more chances of “vigilantes.” The flaw however is that not everyone will get a gun. In fact many people have a fear of guns due to the lack of education and the media’s broadcasting only the negative aspects of guns. The other side however says that if a killer has his weapon and his is the only weapon in the area, he has complete control. However, if only one person were carrying a sidearm, then the balance of power would not be totally held by the killer.
There are also two events in which teachers in schools, in other states, have stopped gun wielding men from killing more people. In the Edinboro, Penn., shooting, which left one teacher dead, a shotgun pointed at the offender while he was reloading his gun prevented additional harm. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes after the assailant was apprehended by school staff. And again in the Pearl, Miss., shooting, an assistant principal retrieved his gun from his office and used it to physically immobilize the shooter before he caused additional harm. Both of these scenarios show that if only one person carried a pistol, or were allowed to have their side arm nearby, the killing could be stopped and the death toll minimized.
I do hope that you will consider these thoughts when House of Representatives 1022 comes up to be voted upon and think of the safety of the citizens of our state. As the Virginia Tech massacre shows, these legislations do not stop the violence therefore the law abiding citizens need to have a chance to defend them.

NAME

Don't use "Thank you" or "Please" as these words make you inferior to who you
are talking to/speaking at.

CIA