...
Also, getting to this point effectively prevents you from asking the legislator to answer any further "difficult" questions, as such requests can be disregarded as your continued "badgering," "pestering," or in the worst case, "harrassing," or, "threatening," the legislator; it provides a legislator with a convenient "out" to ignore you.
...
Let's be smarter than these guys and use our brains and wits to expand support for the cause.
@new guy: Thanks for taking the time to post and re-post some of your thoughts on specific strategies to address our legislators and the public in general about issues that concern us as adherents to a certain view and interpretation of the Second Amendment. I know that you were responding to and addressing Q in your remarks, but if you and Q don't mind, I'd just like to add a brief comment.
I concur with the strategies you outlined for presenting the issues to the general public. I wouldn't be the person to take on those roles, but support those who do (the articulate, charismatic, attractive, etc. public relations types). I also agree that in public forums there is a point of argumentation or persistence in asking for clear and direct answers to questions wherein other readers or listeners will begin to have a negative view of the tactic. However, I believe there is a place in private communication with the legislators for being totally clear, direct and honest in language regarding their unwillingness to provide clear answers to our questions (e.g. Please provide me with the evidence you used to vote for a bill wherein a person bringing an "unusable, unserviceable" firearm into the state must be fingerprinted, undergo a NICS FBI check, sign away their rights to any privacy regarding their physical and mental health records, and have the privilege of paying for it while taking time off of work to do so because the office that performs these tasks is only open during banking hours (actually far fewer than banking hours these days). Please provide me one iota of evidence that such nonfunctional, unrepairable firearms have ever been used in any crime, ever, in the state of Hawaii. If there is no such evidence, how can you justify... etc.).
When I see this kind of attack (and all the others) on the rights, liberties, freedoms, and privacy of American citizens supposedly living under laws governed by the Constitution I get frustrated, angry and outraged because I am wanting such laws and legislators to uphold their oath to abide by and support the Constitution and to use logic, rationality, critical thinking skills and evidence that will withstand critical scrutiny to come to conclusions about which laws would serve what public interest in what way to what degree. As you may have noted, that doesn't happen a lot, some I'm rather angry, and believe it is my right under the First Amendment to express my anger in clear terms to these legislators. When they lie about statistics, I call them liars.
Do they then ignore me? Of course they do. They mostly ignore me no matter how civil and polite I am in my initial contacts with them. It's only after they ignore me completely, or send disingenuous canned responses that ignore everything I actually asked them, that I begin to press the points of contention. Will any of them ever change their position because of what I write or call in to them? Extremely unlikely. Will any of them ever change their view or votes based upon what the charismatic, articulate, attractive public relations type tell them? Extremely unlikely. If you have some examples to show where these people were amenable to learning and/or changing votes, I'd appreciate hearing the details of the stories and the strategies that resulted in a gun control advocate voting for a gun rights bill.
My view is that they need to know that there are at least some citizens who take this seriously, know they are liars and/or ignorant, and are calling them on it. That's just me. I don't recommend it for anyone else. You know, you might end up on some list or have someone snooping on your emails or calls or something. But I support Q in his efforts to press anti-Second Amendment legislators in whatever way (short of violence or threats of such) he believes or feels might have some beneficial effect, even if it might have some negative effect as well. After all, as we've seen in the past month, some segment of the American people believe that their leaders ought not be questioned, and that those who raise questions about the integrity and truthfulness of some leaders ("If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Period", etc.) are unpatriotic jihadists or racists. Certainly we aren't concerned about how to win over such people, as that is impossible.
In my view, these legislators are selling out our country and our Constitution. They deserve to have at least a few people "hassling" them.