Poltics - Need Q&A Advice for face to face w/Senator. UPDATE

[Blackhawk]

My US Rep, Senator Vic Snyder, is coming to my area for Q&A on August 13th. I'm thinking about taking off work to go and discuss 2nd Amendment issues with him. 1. HB1027 - Stand Your Ground which is Arkansas's version of the Castle Doctrine. 2. The issue of open carry here in Arkansas.

Here is his voting record concerning gun control.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

I really want to bash this guy but know that is not the approach to take. Yall give me some tips or advice?

Johnny

[cnjarvis]

Have you considered placing a call to your local NRA rep? They should be able to help or at least point you in the right direction.

[Ysabel Kid]

My usual way of trapping dedicated anti-gunners is to ask them why they think law-abiding, free men and women should not be allowed the use of arms, for self-defense or pleasure. Usually the response starts into risk to the community, crime, "saving the children", etc.

I then ask if it is all about saving lives. They normally jump at this. When they do, you have them. I start with a list of common things that result in many times the fatalities that guns cause annually - such as driving. When you look at pure accidental fatalities of true children (not the high teen gang bangers the anti's normally lump into their statistics), drowning small containers (a bath tub, a 5-gallon pail, etc.) kills more than firearms each year. If it is all about saving lives, I ask them if they support banning cars and swimming pools. This is when they normally start to squirm.

I then ask them if they agree that the pen is mightier than the sword. If so, freedom of speech should be controlled in the same manner they prescribe for controlling guns. This is especially effective when they argue that modern weapons and "assault weapons" weren't around at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed. My response was, using their logic, we can ban all radio, TV and the internet - which also weren't around when the 1st Amendment was passed.

Logically, the anti's don't have a leg to stand on. One just needs to, very politely, continue to take apart their arguments piece by piece. However, as with everything advocated by the left, logic, history - even common sense - has little to do with their "reasoning". It is all about feelings. The strategy above tends to work with "fence-sitters" - those not vested either way but generally anti-gun. When you run into a true statist/leftist/anti-gunner, they will normally bail out of the conversation, quite emotionally, within 30 seconds. Heaven forbid reality ruin their world-view!

[donw]

be factual and be prepared to present the facts to back your questions/statements...do not rely on "he said, she said" or "i've heard"...although "is it true that..." may be used in a polite questioning format...

from some of the legislation that's proposed nowdays, facts mean little to nothing to many legislators, though. the attitude of "don't confuse me with facts or truth" seems to run rampant in most legislatures now.

be polite and DO not use profanities or be threatening in ANY way...most legislators tend to be very paraniod and have a very high self worth/importance complex...

many, if not most, legislators are from, and represent large metropolitan areas that normally view firearms as "evil" because of the crime problems and the firearm involvement in them...most legislators have little or no experience with firearms and nowdays most do not have or understand military experience and in fact many are opposed to the military. most have a distorted view of the firearms community, the use of firearms as recreation and hunting tools. what they are exposed to is the gang violence and killings, "rambo" movies, accidental shootings and suicides; all involving killing and injuring of people. it gives the distorted view of "only police are good guys and should be allowed to have guns"

i have a low opinion of most legislators...most of them rank just above pond scum as far as i'm concerned, but they make laws we are forced to live by under the threat of their police guns...so...it's up to me/US to make sure the ones that do not do what is to our needs/likes/dislikes/wants are removed from office or installed.

we all know and understand that there must be law and order...but it's also up to US to determine what laws and what order there is...WE control that by way of the representatives WE elect.

that must be conveyed in and honest respectful way

[Blackhawk]

Thank you gentlemen for the post. I plan to have questions on paper along with any material need to give/convey the point of facts. IF I do indeed go. I don't think I'll change his mind but there may be someone close by that does not completely understand what the man stands for or has voted against. Abortion is another big issue that the senator supports and it surprising to me that most, in my local bible belt, would vote in support of that issue.

Please keep the comments coming. This countryboy could use all the help he can get to not make himself look like a fool.

Johnny

[AJMD429]

One thing I find is that they assume three things we need to correct:

1. the debate is NOT a trade-off between 'safe streets' and 'convenience to sportsmen'

This puts them on the MORAL high ground. You need to tactfully educate them that those two are NOT in ANY way contrary goals. Generally, the 'safe streets' is OUR goal, not just that of the anti's, and the anti's OFTEN push legislation which CLEARLY worsens the safety of our streets, whereas 'sportsmen' tend to back off (too often IMHO) if anything they want to do even appears politically incorrect. Thus, WE should better claim the moral high ground.

2. the only source of pro-gun 'facts' is NOT biased "Guns & Ammo" articles

This puts them on the INTELLECTUAL high ground. Again, use sources like BOOKS by Gary Kleck (Point Blank - guns and violence in America), Don Kates (Liberal Criminologists Speak Out - the case against handgun control), David Kopel (The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy - should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies), R.J. Rummel (Death by Government), Zelman & Stevens (Death by Gun Control), and Medical Journal Articles by Edgar Suter (Guns in the Medical Literature - a failure of peer review, & Assault Weapons & the AMA Revisited), or Law Journal Articles by Kates (Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence, or pandemic of propaganda?) (see http://www.dsgl and go to 'favorite links' for some of these in on-line format)

WE are so obviously on the intellectual high ground on this issue it isn't even funny, and the FACTS are so squarely in support of US that there should really be no 'debate' if the media had any integrity.

I don't have the exact citation, but the Library of Congress in the 1970's cited the National Rifle Association along with some other library association as one of the two "most consistently truthful lobbying organizations" - they didn't cite the NCBH, the Brady's, or the AMA!

Anyway, the factual data supporting our side is OVERWHELMING, so do like the enemy does - focus on key facts and sound-bytes.

I would highly recommend printing out the articles (from our website) by Kates and Suter, and reading them; a wealth of information and thoroughly referenced. The Kates one is over 80 pages, and a third is reference citations. Read especially the paragraphs following the phrase "A Critique of Overt Mendacity" in Kates' article concerning outright FABRICATION of 'facts' on the part of the CDC - very enlightening stuff.

http://www.dsgl.org - go to "favorite links" - then lots of articles - happy reading...!

ALSO focus on areas pertinent to your senator. For a Jewish person, use JPFO.org literature, for a black, discuss the KKK's sponsorship of handgun legislation in the post-civil-war south.

You can sometimes find common ground as a starting point. If I meet an anti-gun woman whose main concern is childhood accidents, I will let her know I'm very much in favor of reducing the horrible toll of bicycle accidents and drownings, and wait until LATER the 'gun' issue comes up, and after I've established credibility as an 'anti-accident' person who doesn't really hate kids (she will be SURE all gun-nuts do), THEN I can help put things in perspective and she will not just write off anything I say as propaganda. I WILL have the sources in hand to back up what I plan to say, and NOT from "Guns & Ammo" but from something she'll find more credible.

3. the Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting

Legitimate political leaders understand this, and don't fear legitimate gun owners, but explaining this to a politician is like explaining to a barn rat about why you want to have a cat; it tends to un-nerve them, if they have in mind to get into the feed bin.

[Ysabel Kid]

3. the Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting

+1,000!

The words "sporting use" do not appear in the Second Amendment - or anywhere else in the Constutition. They do not appear in any of the debates surrounding the passage of the amendment or the passage of any of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment exists for five (5) primary reasons, as far as the founders were concerned, and each had to do with making sure the state did not take away the right of law-abiding citizens from individually keeping and bearing arms - a right they had, like many others, that preceded the state.

(1) To ensure the people possessed the means of self-defense
(2) To ensure the people possessed the means to assist in national defense
(3) To ensure the people possessed the means to assist during civil insurrection
(4) To ensure the people possessed the means to provide for themselves
(5) And lastly, and most importantly to the founders, that since firearms ownership is an inherent right, to ensure that the state could not deprive the people of firearms they enjoyed for whatever law-abiding reason the individual saw fit. The state does NOT get to make that call, any more than it does to tell you what religion you can and can not follow, what things you can and can not read, what things you can and can not say, etc.

Pointy-headed politicians who don't understand these basic facts need to be removed from office. I prefer tar and feathering, but a simple change in leadership each election will suffice!

[stretch]

The Senate and House have done such a POOR job of running the country
for the last couple of decades, one should probably shoot every Senator and
Rep one meets on sight! The remainder MIGHT get the message.........

I know, I know - you'llwill probalby have to delete the above, Hobie - just sayin'
they've done a MIGHTY POOR JOB!

Up here in Maine, I work with Tom Allen's brother. I chew holes in my tongue
all the time. Tom Allen is a Democratic Party apparatchik, and by definition,
utterly useless. His office misspells my name on every reply to letters directed
to him. I'm afraid I'd tell him EXACTLY what I thought of him if ever I met him.

You're making an effort to be polite to Mr. Snyder, Blackhawk, and I salute you
for your good manners and diplomacy. Maybe you can tell him nicely he needs to
read and understand the Constitution.

-Stretch

[kirkwood]

You better have one good question, because they won't take any others from you. He will state his anti-gun position and then move on to the next question.

[meanc]

Just be aware, there really won't be an opportunity to rebutt the Sen's answer. They just move on to the next person.

So be certain to bring a friend or two and always make your question count.

[Old Savage]

The best bet for this fellow is to have an "awakening" by needing a gun to protect himself.

[Old Savage]

Jimmy Madison explains the reasoning for the second ammendment in Federalist paper #46.

[Blackhawk]

My problem I'm running into is getting that one question just right.

I've narrow the topic down to 2nd amendment.

The issue I've decided to cover.

The Pickering Amendment.

As per Gun Owners of America.
(For zip code 72110 under Vic Snyder.)
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

Denying the individual right to keep and bear arms

Pickering Amendment
02/13/2002
House Roll Call No. 24
107th Congress, 2nd Session

Failed: 209-219 (see complete tally)


On February 13, 2002, the House of Representatives turned the Bill of Rights on its head. The House rejected, by a 219 to 209 vote, a pro-gun amendment offered by Mississippi Republican Charles W. "Chip" Pickering. The Pickering amendment would have: 1. Exempted Second Amendment groups from the draconian provisions of the Incumbent Protection Bill (see vote taken on February 14, 2002); 2. Emphasized the importance of firearms for self-protection; and 3. Found that the Second Amendment is an "individual" right which is not just applicable to the National Guard. A vote against the Pickering amendment was a vote to limit the Second Amendment to the organized National Guard. By contrast, a vote in favor of the amendment was a pro-gun vote and is listed as a "+".


But my problem is covering #2 & #3 as described by GunOwners of America.

The Pickering Amendment.

As per The Libary of Congress.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... mp/~bdcFcg::

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment sought to provide an exemption for communications pertaining to the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
Amendment numbered 27 printed in the Congressional Record of February 12, 2002 to exempt from the bill any communication/advertiseme t that consists of information or commentary about a person holding or seeking federal office on any matter pertaining to the Second Amendment.


Nowhere in the Amendment does it cover topics 2 & 3 described by GOA!?

Yet the Bardy Bunch has it as a victory.
18: Pickering Amendment to Provide Exception for Gun Lobby Campaign Ads (107th Congress; 2002-02-13) H.R. 2356, The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Representative Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-MS) offered an amendment that would have undermined the campaign finance reform bill by creating an exception so that the gun lobby could continue to run issue ads. A NO vote supported the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March position. The amendment failed 209-219.;


So I guess I need another topic to cover under the 2nd Amendment.

Johnny

[Blackhawk]

One thing I find is that they assume three things we need to correct:

1. the debate is NOT a trade-off between 'safe streets' and 'convenience to sportsmen'

This puts them on the MORAL high ground. You need to tactfully educate them that those two are NOT in ANY way contrary goals. Generally, the 'safe streets' is OUR goal, not just that of the anti's, and the anti's OFTEN push legislation which CLEARLY worsens the safety of our streets, whereas 'sportsmen' tend to back off (too often IMHO) if anything they want to do even appears politically incorrect. Thus, WE should better claim the moral high ground.

2. the only source of pro-gun 'facts' is NOT biased "Guns & Ammo" articles

This puts them on the INTELLECTUAL high ground. Again, use sources like BOOKS by Gary Kleck (Point Blank - guns and violence in America), Don Kates (Liberal Criminologists Speak Out - the case against handgun control), David Kopel (The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy - should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies), R.J. Rummel (Death by Government), Zelman & Stevens (Death by Gun Control), and Medical Journal Articles by Edgar Suter (Guns in the Medical Literature - a failure of peer review, & Assault Weapons & the AMA Revisited), or Law Journal Articles by Kates (Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence, or pandemic of propaganda?) (see http://www.dsgl and go to 'favorite links' for some of these in on-line format)

WE are so obviously on the intellectual high ground on this issue it isn't even funny, and the FACTS are so squarely in support of US that there should really be no 'debate' if the media had any integrity.

I don't have the exact citation, but the Library of Congress in the 1970's cited the National Rifle Association along with some other library association as one of the two "most consistently truthful lobbying organizations" - they didn't cite the NCBH, the Brady's, or the AMA!

Anyway, the factual data supporting our side is OVERWHELMING, so do like the enemy does - focus on key facts and sound-bytes.

I would highly recommend printing out the articles (from our website) by Kates and Suter, and reading them; a wealth of information and thoroughly referenced. The Kates one is over 80 pages, and a third is reference citations. Read especially the paragraphs following the phrase "A Critique of Overt Mendacity" in Kates' article concerning outright FABRICATION of 'facts' on the part of the CDC - very enlightening stuff.

http://www.dsgl.org - go to "favorite links" - then lots of articles - happy reading...!

ALSO focus on areas pertinent to your senator. For a Jewish person, use JPFO.org literature, for a black, discuss the KKK's sponsorship of handgun legislation in the post-civil-war south.

You can sometimes find common ground as a starting point. If I meet an anti-gun woman whose main concern is childhood accidents, I will let her know I'm very much in favor of reducing the horrible toll of bicycle accidents and drownings, and wait until LATER the 'gun' issue comes up, and after I've established credibility as an 'anti-accident' person who doesn't really hate kids (she will be SURE all gun-nuts do), THEN I can help put things in perspective and she will not just write off anything I say as propaganda. I WILL have the sources in hand to back up what I plan to say, and NOT from "Guns & Ammo" but from something she'll find more credible.

3. the Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting

Legitimate political leaders understand this, and don't fear legitimate gun owners, but explaining this to a politician is like explaining to a barn rat about why you want to have a cat; it tends to un-nerve them, if they have in mind to get into the feed bin.

I went back and reviewed www.dsgl.org. That's quite a site! I've only had a chance to read the email exchange between the progun and antigun docs but will review more articles when I can.

I still have no idea what that one good question is yet though.

Johnny

[AJMD429]

Remember, our current, federalized National Guard wasn't around when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, and if anything, it is the antithesis of a "militia" in that it is a federal standing army, albiet formed from regional/State units.

It is always hard to know which way to fight these anti-gun morons. Assume they are stupid, but well-intended (they usually are stupid, but NOT well-intended). Assume they are knowingly evil wannabe tyrants (they usually don't have such dramatic aspirations- they just want re-elected, lots of money, and lots of power; a few ego-strokes along the way is a bonus if people tell them they did something 'good')

I usually assume they are shallow and care nothing about real safe streets or social stability - their personal lives are too far removed from those mundane concerns of the masses. They ARE smart to a degree, in terms of brokering power and influence, but their sound-byte minds couldn't grasp a meaningful statistic if you spelled it out in words of one syllable.

Good luck...

[Blackhawk]

In short, a waste of my time.

Not that I thought I would change his mind but he is the first politican I've ever talked with. And he fit the role very well.

Johnny

[donw]

he just "blew you off" huh? why is that not surprising...