I know there are several threads about HR 1022 and most of them say to write our Reps to voice our opinions. Then there's this post which has degenerated into a GOP family feud:
Spoke to John Boehner's office about AWB 1022. The response was not good.

That is just pointless. We can't control what happened in November. We play the cards we're dealt so let's get to work. Some background on me. I'm ex-Army and have never owned a firearm. I came to this forum because I decided I wanted to build an AR. I still want to but I might not have the chance before this abomination gets rammed down our throats. I want to fight so I'm joining the NRA and GOA.

Now,  what I'm looking for when I write my reps are the "talking points" defending semi-autos. I've never been in this fight since I've never owned a gun. If there's websites that have the info I need then post them here. Point me the right way.

Forget all the trash talking about who's fault it is we got Democrats in power. There's nothing we can do about it now. I'm fighting this thing every way I can...Who's with me?

www.awbansunset.com

Good info about the old AWB.

A.) Doesn't stop crime, cite failure of AWB I to have any impact on violent crime rates

B.) Costs jobs, dozens of companies, tens of millions of dollars, thousands of employees displaced by AWB II

C.) Infringes on law abiding citizens right, cite the growing popuarity of ARs in target shooting and hunting.

Here's my talking points

1) No co-sponsers
2) It won't pass
3) Write your reps

Well, this may help some of us out.  I found this digging around in my C drive.  It is a letter regarding a state level AWB by a member here during the FEDERAL AWB.  Definately lots of good talking points herein.  Substitute the "state" for "federal" and change the bill designation number and you have a home run:



    I am writing to you regarding HB 2414, which seeks to ban semiautomatic "assault" weapons throughout the state. I find this bill to be based on fallacious reasoning, and I also believe that it runs contrary to constitutionally protected rights. Before you write me off as another "gun nut", hear me out.

    The term "assault weapon" is not a technical firearms term, but rather one that was created in the legalese of the national 1994 Crime Bill (the "assault weapons" part of which expired near the end of 2004) and the similar legislation enacted in California. The term "assault weapon" is applied to an otherwise ordinary group of weapons in order to evoke an emotional response. "Assault Weapon" sounds scary, until you realize that these sorts of weapons are commonly used for target and sport shooting, varmint hunting, and other recreational activities. In addition, many of the physical features that are singled out in the definition of "assault weapon" are cosmetic or comfort-enhancing in nature, and have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon. A perfect example of this is in line 3, page 8, "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon". What this is, basically, is a handle to hold on to that makes holding the weapon for a long time (such as in target shooting) more comfortable. It in no way increases the inherent lethality of the weapon.

    Furthermore, the bill suggests that these weapons "pose a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this State, that the use of these weapons and attachments for sport or recreation is substantially outweighed bye the danger these weapons and attachments present to human life...". Notice that no justification is given for this statement. If you do the research, you will find that the number of crimes committed with legally possessed weapons of this type is minuscule compared to the number of crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons of these and other types. The idea that these weapons are being used by "bad guys" everywhere is simply often-repeated convention wisdom, proposed frequently enough that it is taken on face as fact, when in truth it is totally false. It is also important to realize that convicted felons, those subject to restraining orders, those under the age of eighteen, and those considered mentally ill are already barred from purchasing or possessing these weapons. This bill seeks to make criminals of sport shooters, recreational hunters, and collectors. These people are students, firemen, lawyers, police officers, National Guardsmen, teachers, doctors...pillars of the community who enjoy recreational shooting and collecting of firearms. As you can see, the supposed significant threat posed by these weapons is not that significant at all, and is outweighed by the vast number of legal uses for and possessors of these weapons.

    Another illogical portion of the bill bans "high-capacity magazines" (actually, these magazines are standard capacity, but the term "high-capacity" is used much like "assault weapon" to provoke an emotional response). These magazines are used to good effect on shooting ranges, reducing the amount of loading and reloading a shooter has to do. I challenge the authors of this bill to find any significant number of incidents where a criminal has used standard capacity magazines to inflict high damage on property or persons (it would be especially difficult to enumerate enough negative incidents to justify taking away the rights of the general populace). A normal magazine capacity does not make a weapon any more inherently deadly, especially when that weapon is semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull), and an experienced shooter can switch magazines almost as fast as he can shoot, negating any benefit of a magazine capacity restriction.

    All of the crimes that can be committed with weapons are already illegal. Murder, robbery, reckless discharge of a firearm, brandishing a firearm, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime: these are all serious crimes. All this new legislation does is make criminals of common sport shooters. Any true criminal that wants to use a weapon in a crime is not deterred by additional legislation; he has already crossed the legal and moral line. People are criminal, not objects. A rifle in the hands of a common citizen is a recreational and self-defense tool. A rifle in the hands of a criminal is already illegal.

    I also find it abhorrent that I as a United States soldier, and member of the Illinois National Guard, I am trusted to use a rifle to defend my state and my country and to keep the peace, yet I would not be allowed to shoot a similar type of rifle for practice in my spare time. This paternalistic attitude is insulting to me as a citizen and as a soldier.

    I ask you to vote against HB 2414 to protect the rights of the citizens of your district to protect themselves and their families and to participate in the pastime of recreational shooting. Rifles have been in the hands of the citizenry since the Minutemen ancestors of the National Guard first took up arms to liberate our nation. Eroding the rights of the people, especially when there is no positive benefit to be gained, must not be allowed. Please consider these points when determining your stance on HB2414.

    Thank you for your time. Please feel free to send me any comments or questions you may have. I think that an open dialog is essential to understanding an issue this important.

author unknown

--VT

Thank you, I just wrote a nice 4 page letter & mailed it to the office of the Judicaiary, again thanks for some very good points.

Wow that's a great letter VT4meGunCtrlisAntiUS!

I've already written my Rep...I'll be editing this one and sending it as well.

Thanks!

This is what we need, we should be discussing how to phrase and form these letters. We dont need to look like a bunch of white trash idiots writing in deffense of the 2A

please check this out  letters and info to fight the AWB

trying to keep it info only