we got different vibes from each office.
Donnellys office was all formal, strict, stuffy. We gave our statistics and opinions then it felt like an attack from them. I was glad I have the background I have, FFL dealer, as they did touch on that. The one thing that sticks out from them was their question "Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?" They said they asked the question because so many opponents come in saying no one "needs" them. I hope we were able to answer that question for the better.
Coats office was so very different, laid back, informal and eye opening for all of us. same routine, we presented what we had and his aide agreed with just about everything we said. He has a background in firearms so he isn't clueless.
The one thing we got from both camps is they will NOT vote affirmative for an AWB. Donnellys office never gave us an answer on how he planned to vote on S649, but we were very clear, as written, we oppose it. Although there are some good things inside and we pointed those out. Coats also we got no answer on how he is voting as he wants to actually read through the bill and listen to his voters on how they feel before he makes a decision. Again, we voiced to him that as S649 stands, we oppose it.
It was an eye opener for me, I know it isn't done and I will have to go through the whole thing again. I am more prepared and more ready for this now though
I love this question when debating with people. My response is "do you really want the Government to decide what you Need or Don't Need??"
You don't NEED that SUV, you don't Need that IPhone, you don't NEED that big house, etc. Makes em think.