"I believe we witnessed that last night when a mass of citizens gave testimony to their elected representatives requesting a vote on a resolution. And the elected representatives simply cast a vote, so the citizens can now have a voice cast forward to the state legislature."
Your 'mass of citizens' is only some. Citizens cast forward their voice to the state legislature by citizens directly contacting their state representative. Your corporate approach to representative government doesn't appeal to me.
State representatives.
Representative Kathleen C. Passidomo Senator Garrett Richter Suite 304 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112-5746 Phone: (239) 417-6200
I am confused. Corporate approach? Interesting to say the least, I guess local government is not to be contacted in support of a resolution to direct the state to act in a manner to stifle federal infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I guess our local representatives should be silenced or take a pass because it is perhaps too corporate.
If I can rebut, I believe your view is too limited in scope and a somewhat limited bureaucratic approach.
If we cannot simply have a vote (yes/no)by our local representatives, I guess I am radical in my interpretation of local governance. In fact, my initial reaction when this was originally brewing about, that it would be a slam dunk, 7-0 vote. What is the big deal? Boy, was I wrong again, but very revealing. In fact, "but" arguments to not agreeing to the resolution were eye opening.
I must be a radical or misinformed, that I should direct my concerns to the "appropriate" representative body. Well, I must have strayed from the constitutional waiting line as I await the next agent for expressing my grievances.
Did we not elect them to represent us? But you require, we direct are concerns only to state representatives? Wow!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
ajm3s writes:
I am confused. Corporate approach? Interesting to say the least, I guess local government is not to be contacted in support of a resolution to direct the state to act in a manner to stifle federal infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I guess our local representatives should be silenced or take a pass because it is perhaps too corporate.
If I can rebut, I believe your view is too limited in scope and a somewhat limited bureaucratic approach.
If we cannot simply have a vote (yes/no)by our local representatives, I guess I am radical in my interpretation of local governance. In fact, my initial reaction when this was originally brewing about, that it would be a slam dunk, 7-0 vote. What is the big deal? Boy, was I wrong again, but very revealing. In fact, "but" arguments to not agreeing to the resolution were eye opening.
I must be a radical or misinformed, that I should direct my concerns to the "appropriate" representative body. Well, I must have strayed from the constitutional waiting line as I await the next agent for expressing my grievances.
Did we not elect them to represent us? But you require, we direct are concerns only to state representatives? Wow!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.