2. We need vocal women. Many guys own guns, but the legislature wants to see women and mothers, not the typical "gun owning guy.".
So true , Need to orchestrate the "presenters" who ever signs up to speak, remember not everyone in a group will be able to speak, usually one spokes person has less than 3 minutes and others say the famous Committee presenter slogan "ME TOO" I know its school day but also younger men and women (teen agers/young adults) have been successful in Committee Hearings in the past on Hunting Bills, sends a broader message.
I might bring my 11 year old daughter and let her read a short statement. She is the proud owner of a 20 gauge weatherby semi- auto. It was one of the only guns we could find that didn't kick her so hard. Although she dosen't officially hunt yet, she does target shoot to learn the proper skills.
Basically, we need to be professional, rational, unemotional, and a voice of reason.
So....no Liberals can come?
I might bring my 11 year old daughter and let her read a short statement. She is the proud owner of a 20 gauge weatherby semi- auto. It was one of the only guns we could find that didn't kick her so hard. Although she dosen't officially hunt yet, she does target shoot to learn the proper skills.
3. Tell them your education - college, graduate school, etc... They will take your opinion more seriously. If you have a degree of any sort tell them, otherwise they will assume you are uneducated. If you went to trade school instead of college, tell them that too. They want to see educated and well-informed people.
Any suggestions for how to work this into the conversation? I could certainly stand up, list my degrees, the languages I can read, that I have published in peer reviewed journals, etc., etc., before saying why I oppose the bill. Is that the course of action you recommend?
Thanks.
What if we talk about the 2nd Amendment specifically? Rather than talk about what we need talk about what the original framers intended. Talk about Heller, Macdonald, Miller and our very own state Constitution?
Would that come across as sounding 'crazy' ?
I feel like we are trying to argue the facts of Sandy Hook, and trying to convince these lawmakers they are wrong. They think the argument is in the realm of what a reasonable person needs. When really is about how gun control has nothing to do with public saftey.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
What if we talk about the 2nd Amendment specifically? Rather than talk about what we need talk about what the original framers intended. Talk about Heller, Macdonald, Miller and our very own state Constitution?
Would that come across as sounding 'crazy' ?
I feel like we are trying to argue the facts of Sandy Hook, and trying to convince these lawmakers they are wrong. They think the argument is in the realm of what a reasonable person needs. When really is about how gun control has nothing to do with public saftey.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD