Redditor shares experience of meeting with firearm prohibitionist state legislator

I did that. And my state rep then proceeded to vote along party lines. It doesn’t really matter what an individual rep thinks, they will be pressured to vote in line with the party or otherwise suffer serious consequences (lack of financial support being the most obvious). The only good that having these meetings does is put these people on notice that there are a lot of level-headed constituents that disagree with their anti-2A rhetoric. Ultimately, the battle will be won or lost in the courts.
 
My experience in MA is that even some of the looniest anti-gun representatives and senators will give you the time of day and act reasonable only to turn around and vote to stomp on your neck while being derogatory. They vote as a party and not as individuals. Until the DNC isn't run by outright Maoists, Kennedy klan ass kissers, and Bloomberg whores that all have a a long term vested interest in disarming the unworthy peasants they will vote in lockstep to ban the 2A any place they have a stable majority. VT, WA, OR, CO are all finding this out the hard way after years of peaceful co-existence.
 
I hate to be the Debbie downer and burst the guy's bubble , but that's a few hours of his life he will never get back.
They don't care what you say or think or do.
You can be the most polite informed and reasonable human on the planet and they still think you are one step lower that snake shit because you are not one of their mindless drones.
You are an obstacle to the future they picture as a benevolent ruler and you a subservient subject.
Any claim they are trying to disarm you for "Public safety " is a sick f*cking joke.
You are looking at the same people who can't get pedophiles, rapist and murderers back out on the streets fast enough to pray on you and your family.
Some are way better at pretending to listen politely than others , but it's just the more polished end of the same turd.
Voting their asses out on the other hand does get their attention.
Staying in power is all they care about and they would burn the world to do it.
 
Before we all say, "Dumbass," for the guy wasting his time, he may have been in a state other than the DPRM, where there is less of lock-step politics.

Would this work with Linsky? No. Would it work somewhere else? Maybe. Would there be ANY chance, if he didn't try? No.

Good for him.
 
I really like that "angry old white guys" bullshit. Oh yes, the same gentlemen who worked hard, lived moral lives, paid their taxes, raised their families, served their country in the military, did not believe in bilking the welfare system and living as a parasite of the government. I believe those were the men that bit*h was referring to.
 
Waiaaait. A representative admitted to having no idea of the consequences of their proposal to their people?

Where is my shocked face. ...

Good on the redditor, better still for getting it out in public. But ... It sounds like we need accountability and oath requirements for representatives to understand what they are voting on.

Heck I'll add on ! Lawmakers need financial protection from financial retaliation by their party!

Let's stop yapping about guns and protect our most precious! Lawmakers deserve the right to vote their mind and vote for their people. They should not be beholden to their party requirements through coersion or blackmail!

End party line voting expectations. Protect against bullying!
 
I did that. And my state rep then proceeded to vote along party lines. It doesn’t really matter what an individual rep thinks, they will be pressured to vote in line with the party or otherwise suffer serious consequences (lack of financial support being the most obvious). The only good that having these meetings does is put these people on notice that there are a lot of level-headed constituents that disagree with their anti-2A rhetoric. Ultimately, the battle will be won or lost in the courts.
Here in MA it is "do what the House speaker or Senate President wants or you will pay when it's time for committee assignments and office space allocation".

The House Speaker is elected by roll call ballot, so the game becomes "be sure to vote for the winner or you will be punished", which is why the vast majority of reps agreed that the speaker was doing such a great job that they went along with his plan to remove limits on term a rep can serve as speaker.
 
I really like that "angry old white guys" bullshit. Oh yes, the same gentlemen who worked hard, lived moral lives, paid their taxes, raised their families, served their country in the military, did not believe in bilking the welfare system and living as a parasite of the government. I believe those were the men that bit*h was referring to.

Look. Get this through your thick skull. You aren't part of the solution, you ARE the problem. Just go back, pay your taxes and let the smart people take care of the world. ;)

I'm not that gray yet.
 
I did that. And my state rep then proceeded to vote along party lines. It doesn’t really matter what an individual rep thinks, they will be pressured to vote in line with the party or otherwise suffer serious consequences (lack of financial support being the most obvious). The only good that having these meetings does is put these people on notice that there are a lot of level-headed constituents that disagree with their anti-2A rhetoric. Ultimately, the battle will be won or lost in the courts.

The fact remains though that the #1 concern of each, individual lawmaker is getting re-elected. As this is the case, a lawmaker that hears often enough from enough reasonable, articulate pro-gun constituents might think twice when being arm-twisted to vote with their party, and would have justifiable proof why they were compelled to vote the opposite way. I give kudos to the original Reddit poster, and I think his point should be well taken by all that we do ourselves a great disservice when we deliver angry rants to our legislators without providing solutions. Yes, many of these legislators will lie to our faces and vote against us anyway, but just imagine if each of the 40 State Senators and each of the 160 MA House members had 50-100 of us individually asking to meet with them.

Think about it.
 
BTW, by "solutions" I by no means am trying to say we should EVER accept ANY "lesser" form of antigun legislation. What I mean by that is that we should articulate - for instance - why it is so important that gun owners have the means to defend ourselves with our guns, and how it acts as a force multiplier for the police and saves lives. Of course backing it up with non-biased, local news sources (as the Reddit poster did) helps drive the point home.
 
If you really want to get their attention, you go in and tell them , we have x amount of people who are willing to donated whatever time and money it takes to your opponent should you decide to further attack our rights.
Whoever runs against you may or may not win , but it will cost you far more that it would have otherwise.
 
Here in MA it is "do what the House speaker or Senate President wants or you will pay when it's time for committee assignments and office space allocation".

The House Speaker is elected by roll call ballot, so the game becomes "be sure to vote for the winner or you will be punished", which is why the vast majority of reps agreed that the speaker was doing such a great job that they went along with his plan to remove limits on term a rep can serve as speaker.
That literally describes every single legislature in the US. Even here in NH. NH Rep Steve Vaillaincourt may no longer be with us but back in 2014 he reported how a dem spoke candidly to him regarding how then dem speaker Terri Norelli was "livid" and furious that several dems in leadership positions (read committee chairs) voted to table the UBC bill in the house. She knew that because while the vote was not a roll call vote, only division, she was able to see how some voted (either through the screen by the speaker or by looking at the front row to see which buttons were set to nay).

During that same UBC bill Shurtleff brought Ken Gidge into a room and screamed at him to vote the correct way on the committee vote and evenw ent so far as to pull another wobbly dem off the committee in order to sit next to Ken to intimidate him. Ken ultimately cast a yea vote while trembling and could barely say that yea above normal conversational tone.

The GOP does the same shit on the bills they want. I heard many a tale of GOP whips behaving badly to cajole members to vote during the O'Brien term of 2011-2012.
 
There is no changing of hearts and minds, of politicians in mASS. They know they have a majority, and could give a f***.
 
Back
Top Bottom