From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: FAQ and Letters (was: Re: My first letter to the editor)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:41:55 GMT

(D461-David_F_Haertig(Dave)83040) writes:

>I finally wrote my first letter to the editor.

	Hey, at least yours was published!  Mine never made it beyond
the cutting room floor.  I do note that the editing removed many of
your most persuasive comments, and disallowed any pro-NRA comments
or those that would prove the statistics flawed.

	Having taken a few courses in journalism, I've found that the
best way to get a Conservative column in a Liberal newspaper is to
either purchase the space (quite expensive) or make your argument
so short as to leave many gaps.  You could try to get your letter
included as filler, but that's expensive too.  Basically, we are
at the mercy of the editors.

>    (2)  When the editorial section states that "lengths of 200
>         words or less are preferred", they mean *you* too.  They
>         *will* edit your letter down as they desire.

	Speaking from experience, they'll do so even if you don't
exceed 200 words.  "Editing" can be incredibly defeating when applied
in a selective and judicous manner.

>In order to address both of these things I learned, I plan to
>"pre-write" a letter-to-the-editor that addresses the small handful
>of points that 95% of the anti-RKBA editorials/letters cover.
>When the time is right to send another letter, I will than edit
>this pre-written letter to only address the specific points made
>by the particular anti-RKBA editorial in question.

	Now for the main reason I posted: there was a discussion on
here a month or so ago concerning a FAQ.  In light of the above
episode, and in light of how the RKBA is under attack constantly,
I'd like to see a standard form letter, with references in the
text, on the archives (and perhaps posted once a month to the
group) as a means for easily refuting the claims made in most
editorial comments.  Naturally, changes will be made for each
individual situation.  As I've been researching a topic of breaking
Constitutional law for a speech class, I've found several relevant
topics but nothing that brings them remotely together.  The ban on
guns and the no-knock searches are equally unconstitutional, yet
they are considered different subjects.

	As supporters of *ALL* of the Constitution, including the
Bill of Rights and the main Body, perhaps it's time us RKBA-types
started archiving relevant points and editing them?

	Alright, I admit it -- I don't have the time, knowledge, or
skills to do this.  If I had to make a choice, I'd nominate Frank
Crary for the job, as he seems quite suitable to the task based
upon his posts.  No, I won't nominate him to do it; rather, I suspect
somebody will have started on this, and that we could all do well to
submit material and help him or her when asked.

	How about it -- it is time to get a FAQ of all the common
arguments compiled, edited, and stored on the archives?  The anit-
RKBA can do this on their own too, and it should be given space on
the same archive.  Let's let people make up their own mind, no matter
which side of the argument they are on.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion