Well, mine pay no attention to me. Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson eventually reply (it often takes many weeks) to my many letters with stock answers telling me they appreciate my comments, BUT...

No matter what my topic, their replies always begin and end with the same things with a stock fill to my specific letter tactfully tucked in the middle, essentially telling me why I'm wrong, how they always do what's right for the American people. No matter. I will continue to write them. I certainly feel that they need to know that all their constituents do not agree with them.

sheesh, the responses I've received in the past have been like yours. But I am going to continue writing. I try to keep my notes concise and respectful in tone. I have to believe that they will have to pay attention if masses of reasonable constituents contact them on issues like these.

Each one is a drop in the the bucket. What else can we do to make our representatives represent us?

I am in Texas. But I should, and will. Thank you for the useful suggestion!

Mine are also right wing nut jobs. I send notes expressing my views about the issue and ask that they vote in certain ways about gun laws. I receive polite responses that basically say NFW.

Like cattyles, I'm in Texas and feel it would be a waste of perfectly good paper. (I know that's an absurdly negative view, and I should write, although I can't help but think that it truly would be an exercise in futility. Politics here are so far whacked to the far right, it's not even funny.)

Until we vote them out of office, they will not change. Letters don't seem to matter, votes do. I am afraid I am stuck with Ryan because of gerrymandering, Johnson maybe not.

I, too, am respectful in my letters, always.

I have emailed my state reps on a few occasions about state and local issues. It's convenient to do so, although I do get a standard auto reply.

I do wonder how much a difference my drop in the bucket really makes, but drops in the bucket got medical marijuana laws passed in my state, which I never would have thought would happen even 5 years ago.

sheesh, hope my comment didn't read to imply that your letters wouldn't be respectful. I wouldn't have thought they'd be otherwise.

I was more thinking about how I feel when I'm moved to write. Sometimes what I am actually thinking is blunt and discourteous. I reel myself in because I think the note might carry more weight if it comes off as well thought out and not just an angry rant. I know boorish and brash is a winning tack lately, but I'll do my part to restore civility to political discourse.

IdaClaire - you can contact your reps via email & not waste paper ;) But I do understand your frustration.

We had some hope in NC with Kay Hagan and I would occasionally write her and not just a form letter. Unfortunately, she lost to Tom Tillis which was the most expensive senate race ever. Now we have Deborah Ross running against Richard Burr, so if you are looking for someone, especially a woman to support, Deborah Ross is the one if you donate to out-of-state campaigns.

My congressional district was redrawn and I am now in a different district that has a Democrat. But the districts are so gerrymandered the chances of real change will likely take many years.

Oh, no, amck, I didn't think that at all. And I agree completely with your second paragraph. Robo signatures are probably as effective with politicians as robo calls are with us! I've always been a letter writer, now more of an email writer.

Yes to restoring civility to political discourse!

Also, I've definitely written my city, county, and school board representatives. I am a member of a local women's group, and the women representatives are from our group. Our mayor is from our group! So, I always write a personal email and always get a response. The candidates for state and federal offices attend our meetings and especially our fundraiser, so it is a good way to personally interact with them,

Get involved at the local level if you can with Board of Elections, League of Women voters, or your local Democratic or Republican or Libertarian, etc. women auxilliary. Sometimes it is easier to effect change at the local level vs. state.

Interesting, gscience. Twice I have served on local school board advisory committees, and twice the school board thanked us and ignored our suggestions. Oh, well. I would serve again if asked. I also work for local and national politicians, knowing full well I am being ineffective.

Yes to local involvement. It's where your voice matters most and often where it's most needed too. We have 2 notorious members of my community who were quietly pushing drastic changes in funding that were not in the best interests of our schools. When parents found out, we got involved and influenced the school board members to vote against it.

There are so many fundamental decisions made in communities (from beautification programs to road work, etc), that impact everyone's daily lives, but which are made by just a few people who are paying attention to the issues.

ETA, Sheesh, I'm sorry that was your experience. Even local politics can be off-putting but good for you for continuing.

When writing to your representative, you'll get your letter open more often if you use one of these as a return address:

Special Interest Group

Wall Street Manager

Union Leader

Pharmaceutical Lobbyist

etc.

This is a link to a petition lobbying to reinstate the ban on assault weapons for those who might be interested. Thanks for considering it.

Whitehouse.gov petition

An Easy Guide To Contacting Your Elected Representatives About Gun Control

Thank you, I emailed my senators and representative. However, with Ted Cruz and John Cornyn as my senators, it will fall on deaf ears.

Nothing makes my blood boil so much as the form letter ignoring everything I said and extolling the excellent job my senator and representative has done opposite of what I asked. Didn't their flunky read my letter? I think not. When I email I have to choose a drop down subject then a sub subject. That triggers the already written form letter telling me how wonderful my politician is and how he/she will continue to do what's best for the AMERICAN PEOPLE! So I'm not an American? I don't know what's best for me? Just keep on doing the same thing and getting the same result as always, Mr/Ms politician. And it will never change because THE PARTY rules. As long as you have the majority you will win reelection for a record setting term. Example Gov. Terry Branstad (R) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R). And if your constituents want you to hold the meeting for a replacement justice just dig in your heels and refuse. GO Patty Judge!

Has your U.S. Congress person received donations from the NRA?

The NRA didn't murder the 49 Americans in Orlando. An American radical Islamist terrorist murdered those poor souls. He had a history of extremist behavior. He stated he was inspired by ISIS. He had contact with the first American to blow himself up with a suicide vest in the Middle East. Was the NRA in Brussels? Were they in Paris? Were they in Canada? Do we need terrorists to blow themselves up with suicide vests in the USA to blame the terrorists versus the NRA?

I, also, write my Representatives & Senators.

Gun laws are not going to protect us from terrorists intent on killing us. I'm thinking I should learn some shooting skills myself.

I'm very fortunate that my Senators and Reps of my district share my same POV. I do continue to write them when a subject I support along with them is under attack-just to remind them that their constituents count on them to be their voices. And I've gotten personalized responses to some comments. I also follow them on Facebook and comment with support or dissent.

Gun advocates, why do we need assault rifles? Who benefits from them and how? I haven't been able to find the answer to this question.

I'm not a gun advocate. I'm an advocate of all the amendments, including the second. People have the right to have an "assault rifle" (whatever that means) to defend their home, their property, and their liberty.

I don't own or want a gun, but don't believe it is my right to force other people to give up their rights, and more importantly, I don't want to give the government more power to arbitrarily abridge people's rights... even if I don't personally like guns very much.

Especially when it will be utterly pointless to do so. Assault weapons bans DON'T WORK. You know why - because there is not a definition of an "assault weapon" that can be used to effectively ban them. And because there are millions of them and a gun buyback won't work b/c the people who own them don't want to give them to the government. And because criminals will always get them. And they'll just switch to a different gun if they're crazy and want to shoot up a place (Dylan Roof used a 45-caliber Glock handgun in Charleston, for example)

In the 1994 law, one of these guns was illegal and covered by the ban and one wasn't. Can you tell which one?

People have the right to smoke cigarettes, too, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea or it's not outlawed in certain places and strictly regulated nationwide.

Yes, the bad guys will always get guns, and there will always be some monster who will shoot up a place and kill people. But it's like this-we have cars on the road, but we have laws and regulations in place-seatbelt laws and speed limits and traffic laws. Every day there are car accidents and people die, but there are far fewer fatalities because of the laws and regulations put in place.

I don't think that anyone who advocates for sensible gun laws expects a magic utopia to suddenly occur where there won't be these horrific headlines seemingly every week. But man, if we can just cut back on them, well, I'd be willing to give up something.

"Mine are also right wing nut jobs. I send notes expressing my views about the issue and ask that they vote in certain ways about gun laws. I receive polite responses that basically say NFW."

I could add that I get the same responses from our left wing nut job representatives.

Because hate-filled name calling is so beneficial, don't ya know.

Where in the constitution does it say that people have the right to smoke cigarettes? Or, for that matter, where in the constitution does it say people have the right to drive ?

There are different standards applied in a court of law to restrictions on constitutional rights (strict scrutiny applies, the law must be the most narrowly tailored possible to achieve strong government purpose) as compared with regulation of other things.

We already have quite a lot of laws regulating guns. Hundreds of them. We also have laws prohibiting murder too.

What law would have stopped this guy from getting a gun? I believe reports indicate he was a licensed security guard. He also had no criminal record. So, how could he have been stopped from getting a gun?

The only law that is going to have even a chance of having any measurable impact on reducing gun violence (which is currently at record lows right now, at the same time as gun ownership is at an all time high) would be a ban on all guns. Which cannot happen in this country w/o a civil war. And even that would do virtually nothing because we have hundreds of millions of guns in this country- there is no way to get even a small fraction of these off the streets.

I know several people who've worked at the local and DC offices of my state's delegation. They love when people e-mail them because it makes their jobs much easier to do: ID the issue and check the "for" or "against" box on their boss' roll-up sheets. Then cut and paste a quick, generic reply. What they hate - and what is the most attention-getting method of communication - are faxes. A group of 50 or so folks simultaneously sending faxes on an issue jams up the machine so the office can't use it and someone has to sit there and wait for all the incoming faxes to come in before they can use the machine. These faxes usually get noticed, and read, and someone from the office will usually call the group's leader and say, Enough! We get it. We'll respond to you.

I'm still at a loss where some of these folks "find" all of these rights in the constitution pertaining to gun ownership. And, the default presumption that liberals want to come snatch up everyone's guns and block ownership is unfounded in reality. The most far-reaching proposals I've seen have simply asked to impose waiting periods and background checks. Would a short waiting period have given the Orlando terrorist time to reconsider? Who knows. But sure seems like it couldn't hurt. Who NEEDS an AR-15 assault rifle immediately anyway? Someone with bad intentions, is my guess.

Only "speech" Congress understands now is money, and one has to have a lot of it to be heard.

"What law would have stopped this guy from getting a gun?"

An assault weapons ban.

That law.

To answer the question, yes I have. Many many many times. Each time I get a automatically regurgitated response letter. If you really want their ear go to lobby day with A TRUCK LOAD of money.

Beagles, do people have a right to have UZIs? Tanks? How about "Mini Specials", which is a gun which hasn't been invented yet but will be in 200 years and will do incredible things, like be able to shoot 5,000 rounds in 15 seconds from a satellite location separate from where the shooter is so that the shooter can never be tied to the weapon? It will be like a Swiss Army knife. It will have the capacity to shoot just a couple of bullets, say in a domestic fight, just to off the wife who burned the ziti; but another function will be the 5,000 rounds in 15 seconds to take out fans at a baseball game; Yet another will be the ability to penetrate skyscrapers in order to kill people inside them w/o having to actually ride the escalator up to get to them. An incredible weapon indeed!

Right to own?

I want to know where the "well-regulated militia" trains, practices, assembles to be ready for times of crisis. Who are the leaders of the militia? Uniforms? Drills? Routines? Without regular training in and by the militia, which is of course "well-regulated," won't there be chaos in an emergency?

Unless you donate more to their reelection than the NRA does, letters may be acknowledged but otherwise moot. Major campaign financing overhaul is needed to make representatives responsive to anything but getting themselves reelected.

I agree that there are a lot of nut jobs in this country, but anyone who owns an assault weapon for the purposes Beagle's states is most likely a RWNJ.

The way to get your elected officials to listen to you is to be politically active. Not once every 4 years, but year 'round, every year. Time is a good substitute for money. Of course, if you know that your Representative's opinions differ from yours, it may be difficult to change your Representative's vote. So work for their opponent.

"states is most likely a RWN"

Oh, well as long as it fits your definition and agenda., by all means reduce yourself to name calling. It speaks so highly of you.

I readily admit there are left wing nut jobs too. Extremists on both sides. Anyone who thinks they need to defend their family, property, or liberty with an assault weapon lives in paranoia. Especially if they think they can defend their liberty with an assault weapon. That really means they are arming themselves against the government military complex. That is not rational thinking.

Suero, I concur. Be involved year round. Support the opponents. One of the goals of my women's group is to mentor and encourage women to run for office. So, one woman i know is running for a state house seat that has been unopposed. She has a chance, but if no one ever runs, nothing will ever change. If we keep running people, eventually the percentage might creep up a bit. So, we have to support women like her, both with time and money. She isn't even in my district, and I went to her kickoff to support her. Now I also have to support the other woman from our group who is from my district.

Trust me, we don't always get along even among ourselves. There are liberal and conservatives within the group, pro choice vs. pro life, etc. And we even have a transgender woman on our board.

Personally, I have no interest in giving the little time I have for my self to any politician and I think Atomic Jay's response makes sense. Did anyone else read it?

I think whether writing makes a difference or not depends on the issue. Too many people make too much money on guns and violence, so probably a waste to write but not a total waste because the letters do get recorded. But I have written for smaller issues that don't get media and facebook meme attention and it has made a difference. I don't know what the solution to gun violence is, but our society is very much fascinated by violence and that bothers me. This would be so second amendment or not.

"I readily admit there are left wing nut jobs too"

Whatever. Name calling is name calling. It's inflammatory and childish and hate-filled.

Is it "name calling" if a nut job really is a nut job?

It's name calling no matter how you spin it. But carry on doing what you do.

Both our senators are relatively sane democrats, amd while I do write them occasionally, they are on what I believe is the right side of major issues. Our congress member (in our gerrymandered district, thank you for nothing, NYS republican dominated senate) is a republican but is one of the less flaming right wingers in the house, however, I don't support his party or him, and I have written to him often. To no avail, but I want him to know damn good and well that his district is home to a progressive feminist with a big mouth and a computer.

edited to change "falming" to "flaming".

Thanks, dsg, I will carry on, though I take it you've now bowed out of the discussion.

I don't use the term RWNJ when I speak of extremists or conspiracy-theorists, who I consider mentally unstable. I just repeated what was in the thread. But I'm not going to get fixated on a word like dsg does instead of addressing the bigger issue, which is that a segment of our population thinks they're going to fight off some group of people who are coming to take away their liberty. Maybe that sounds sane to some. It was shocking to me to read that in Beagle's post.

Beagles left off the "fun factor" of owning assault weapons. Read about who buys and collects these weapons--for example, former military with a love of guns, young adults who grew up playing video games, where violence is entertainment--and I think this is a much bigger problem than people afraid of the bogeyman, and therefore harder to enforce a ban. The NY Times has several good articles.