Collection of I-594 issues

[Scarint]

I was going through, editing your document. It's a good one to start from.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get very far with the people (but I don't say it isn't worth trying!). Every specific point you made against 594 is easily fixed by amending the bill, not requiring the bill to be outright thrown out or anything drastic.

Where you point out the "7 or so pages dealing with just definitions..." well, that's not the bill. That's how these initiatives are structured (though I can't find concrete rules anywhere saying "They are to be written this way"): sections to be amended are quoted in full, with the changes indicated by underlining and striking out (similarly to how I edited your letter). Thus, we have the full text of RCW 9.41.010...the bill is only the UNDERLINED and STRUCK OUT portions. This way, the original law that is being changed is easily referenced.

While we may play the misdirection card and imply that due to the sections and reasons you mentioned we need to overturn this law, that tactic is exactly what got us here: misdirection and lies.

I have attached my edited version of your letter. It's not down to 150 words, but it's closer. I primarily removed sections for conciseness, cutting down the letter to the "meat and potatoes". Some of them don't help but to lengthen the letter, and the last paragraph is simply the "criminals already don't follow laws!" that everyone has heard and everyone is ignoring (and once they hear one of these "common" arguments that they see as a logical fallacy, they ignore everything else you have to say).

I struck out the entire paragraph "During the campaign for passage..." because supporting statements for that alone will take well over 100 words. Otherwise, it is a good paragraph.

Remember, the Federalist Papers took over 80 letters! You can do weekly letters...

 

[CarlMc]

*sigh* Wow...thank you for the tips--I had no idea...
I guess it's back to the keyboard. This will be more difficult than I thought...getting my points across in 150 words...RIIIIIGHT!!

And don't forget the annoyingly important emotional component, which is what put this monstrosity in place in the first place.

 

[MikeE]

*sigh* Wow...thank you for the tips--I had no idea...
I guess it's back to the keyboard. This will be more difficult than I thought...getting my points across in 150 words...RIIIIIGHT!!

I thought that page 1 was really strong. Focus on what you do - teach firearms safety, especially to women, and how the new law actually makes that more difficult to do, making everyone less safe. Don't bother editorializing. Let your opponents come off as the ideologues.

 

[Dave Workman]

Seattle Times whines as I-594 faces possible challenges

Yesterday's Seattle Times editorial whining over possible legislative challenges to Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that takes effect this week – and may still face legal battles – is getting no sympathy from readers.


<broken link removed>


Pretty sure the Times reader comments are still open.

(cut and paste anything you tell 'em over to Examiner if you like, as well. You know they really want to hear from you

 

[Monica Cowles]

I was going through, editing your document. It's a good one to start from.........
I have attached my edited version of your letter. It's not down to 150 words, but it's closer. I primarily removed sections for conciseness, cutting down the letter to the "meat and potatoes". Some of them don't help but to lengthen the letter, and the last paragraph is simply the "criminals already don't follow laws!" that everyone has heard and everyone is ignoring (and once they hear one of these "common" arguments that they see as a logical fallacy, they ignore everything else you have to say).............
I struck out the entire paragraph "During the campaign for passage..." because supporting statements for that alone will take well over 100 words. Otherwise, it is a good paragraph.
Remember, the Federalist Papers took over 80 letters! You can do weekly letters...

HA! 80 letters!! That's about how many it would take to clarify all I gots to say on the matter!
Thank you for your time...I appreciate your efforts to clarify and condense my rant...

I thought that page 1 was really strong. Focus on what you do - teach firearms safety, especially to women, and how the new law actually makes that more difficult to do, making everyone less safe. Don't bother editorializing. Let your opponents come off as the ideologues.

Thank you for your kinds words, and for the good points. Gee....I've NEVER been accused of editorializing...

Baking and Christmas decorating is on the agenda for today, but my mind will be brewing a new letter...as clearly distilled and concise as I can formulate...

 

[bnsaibum]

Remember, the Federalist Papers took over 80 letters! You can do weekly letters...

I was going to suggest this very thing.

 

[CarlMc]

I think it would be best if you tried to publish them in the counties that supported 594. Anywhere else is preaching to the choir.

 

[Scarint]

I think it would be best if you tried to publish them in the counties that supported 594. Anywhere else is preaching to the choir.

Not entirely; we had a dismal voter turnout; perhaps there's hope to get some of the gun supporters to actually do something this time instead of assume they don't need to fight.

 

[thirtycal]

Add to the list of "unintended consequences" the fact that WA state residents will no longer be able to buy historic collectible firearms from the CMP without the additional cost of a transfer and use tax. Yup somehow that's going to make us safer, as if evil doers were stockpiling Garands for their next driveby or school shooting.

 

[Gunguy45]

*sigh* Wow...thank you for the tips--I had no idea...
I guess it's back to the keyboard. This will be more difficult than I thought...getting my points across in 150 words...RIIIIIGHT!!

My paper will allow 250 words, but unfortunately to accurately and dispassonately explain something as complex as this is VERY hard to do in 250, much less 150.

 

[Monica Cowles]

My paper will allow 250 words, but unfortunately to accurately and dispassonately explain something as complex as this is VERY hard to do in 250, much less 150.

That's what I found...I tried to condense it down, cut, slashed and wrung it to just under 300 words, but by then it just didn't have the same effect...
I contacted a local paper and told them I had written an editorial about how I-594 was negatively affecting my business, but it was around 1000 words, and I know they probably couldn't print the whole thing, but could he tell me the word limit for their paper and I could try to get it within the requirements? He wrote me back and told me to just send it, he would love to see it, and that if my business was being negatively impacted by legislation, that may warrant a full article!! He went on to say that he believes my work is very worthy of space in the paper, and that he would work with me to see that it happens! How cool is that?

 

[CarlMc]

Congratulations Monica! This is a great start!

 

[Scarint]

That's great news, Monica! Share the article with us when ( not "if", I'm an optimist) it gets published!

 

[Gunguy45]

That's what I found...I tried to condense it down, cut, slashed and wrung it to just under 300 words, but by then it just didn't have the same effect...
I contacted a local paper and told them I had written an editorial about how I-594 was negatively affecting my business, but it was around 1000 words, and I know they probably couldn't print the whole thing, but could he tell me the word limit for their paper and I could try to get it within the requirements? He wrote me back and told me to just send it, he would love to see it, and that if my business was being negatively impacted by legislation, that may warrant a full article!! He went on to say that he believes my work is very worthy of space in the paper, and that he would work with me to see that it happens! How cool is that?

That's awesome. If you wouldn't mind, would you PM me the name of the newspaper if you don't wish to put the namre out in public?