Last year, Members of Congress introduced more than 6,600 bills and resolutions. And POPVOX users shared their experiences and opinions on bills more than 900,000 times in 2013. (Their comments were often delivered multiple offices — for example, when a bill passed the House and then went to the Senate, we sent the comments to the appropriate Senators — further amplifying their influence.)
What POPVOX users write matters not just to Congress — but to other users on the platform. In a recent user survey, more than half of our users (56%) told us that they decided to support/oppose a bill after reading what other POPVOX users wrote. We'd like to share with you some of the "most appreciated" comments to Congress.
The "Most Appreciated" Comments of 2013
To compile this list, we examined the Top 50 bills and resolutions of 2013 and pulled the most appreciated comment for each of those bills, excluding comments with 20 or fewer appreciations. We hope you weigh in on these bills, and click "+appreciate" a comment when you read something you… appreciate.
- HJRes 15
#1 Repealing the 22nd Amendment
"I oppose H.J.Res. 15 because there is no reason to end term limits for the president. This should be revised to require term limits for all politicians. There is too much corruption and lobbying in Washington, and we do not need career politicians."
— 2002superhawk (Massachusetts’s 6th district)
254 Appreciations - S 150
"Regulating" (aka Banning and/or Limiting) something does not "ensure that the right to keep and bear" that thing. If it is truly a "right", then it wrong to place limits on that right that make it very difficult to exercise that right. Next, the 1994 version of this law did not work. It had no statistically significant effect on crime between 1994 and 2004. So why should it be any different this time? The writer of this law says they did not ban enough so this law expands what is going to be banned. But in reality, so little crime is committed with the these guns that Hammers and other blunt object are used in more crime than these guns. As such, this law will have no effect other than hurt the law abiding gun owners. Finally, limiting magazine capacity will endanger the lives of innocent citizens. We need mags with more than 10 rounds for the same reason Police need them. In some ways, we have a greater need as we are more likely to be outnumbered by criminals than the police. Please OPPOSE this bill."
— bitogre (Florida’s 21st district)
148 Appreciations - S 649
#3 Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act
"As a former Police and Dept. of Corrections Officer and Federal & Personal Bodyguard, I strongly oppose S. 649 because this bill will:
1) Act as a de facto national gun registration.
2) Turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by the simple act of personally gifting a firearm.
3) Do NOTHING to alleviate crime or keep firearms out of the hands of criminals as criminals will NOT subject themselves to background checks. Criminals do NOT obey the law.
4) Do NOTHING to eliminate 'gun free zones'. The FACT is, save for one (the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy) ALL other mass shootings in 50+ years have been perpetrated IN gun free zones.
5) Do NOTHING to allow "campus carry" and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against an active shooter. Every sane individual agrees, "When seconds count, the Police are just minutes away".
6) Do NOTHING to provide for properly trained and armed security at schools to protect America's children.
7) Penalize, wrongly, States that do not choose to participate in the guidelines in the bill.
I strongly urge ALL members of Congress to vote AGAINST S. 649. Thank you for your consideration."— ModernGolfer (Indiana’s 1st district)
92 Appreciations - S 744
#4 Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act
"I oppose S. 744 because it is not fair to the legal immigrants who obey our laws and have gone through the established process, which is exactly what my daughter-in-law has done. I am very proud of her. This process was very expensive, time consuming, and emotionally draining. Why should illegals come, take advantage of our resources, and end up with citizenship in a way much easier than what she went through? For those who say we need the laborers, what will we do when their children grow up and don't want to do the jobs their parents did? You are just establishing a vicious cycle. We have already had at least seven amnesties and all they have done is to encourage more illegals to come. Pass laws to prevent anchor babies being born here and secure our borders. If you pass another amnesty, YOU will be responsible for the diseases entering the U.S. along with all the other threats to Americans. Please be loyal to your country. Mexico has harsh immigration laws, as do most countries. Compassion is good, but not to the detriment of your countrymen."
— baysider (Virginia’s 1st district)
80 Appreciations - HR 499
#5 Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act
"I support H.R. 499 because contrary to what society believes about marijuana the drug poses little to no threat to an individual or community. Ideas like it causes cancer, leads to memory issues, or even causes crime have been proven to be incorrect through multiple studies. But the best test of all is time, within the last 4700 years of marijuana use there isn't a single recorded event of any of these misconceptions actually occurring."
— kress122 (New York’s 17th district)
73 Appreciations - HR 138
#6 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
"The Second Amendment, (see the Heller decision), guarantees an individual right to bear arms in self-defense. The arm I am most confident using happens to be an what Ms. Feinstein wants to label an "assault weapon". "Large capacity ammunition feeding devices" are of more use to a defensive shooter than to a murderer. Mass-murderers tend to pick undefended targets to avoid opposition. They are free to reload at their leisure. During the Columbine massacre (during the last assault weapons ban), Harris manually reloaded his shotgun at least 4 times and his carbine at least 9 times. Klebold manually reloaded his shotgun at least 5 times. During the worst mass shooting in American history at VT, Cho reloaded at least 17 times. They were not dependent on magazine capacity. In both of these, the murderers killed themselves rather than risk a firefight. We need to examine what drives people to kill and better identify the mentally ill to make sure they receive care. Some of the most dangerous places have the strictest gun control. We do not need to punish law-abiding citizens for the crimes of the sick and lawless."
— GeorgeS. (Maine’s 1st district)
67 Appreciations - HR 1094
#7 Safeguard American Food Exports Act
"We do not raise horses in this country for food under the food safety guidelines required for food animals. The FDA does not classify horses as a food animal but instead as a companion animal. As a horse owner I know that most horses in this country have received Bute at least once in their life which renders them ineligible for slaughter for human consumption. Over the last three years, FSIS has had their budget cut by over 20 million dollars, and now with the sequester FSIS will face another cut and the pro horse slaughter faction would have us take away money from inspecting food animals we do eat and raise for food in this country. How can we justify taking away money from inspecting food we do eat to inspect a non-food animal just so a very few minority can profit at the risk of sending adulterated meat to unsuspecting consumers in other countries."
— JoClaire (Indiana’s 9th district)
56 Appreciations - HR 133
"For a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, the "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signs stop them in their tracks from bringing their legally purchased weapons onto a school campus, ANY school campus… For a person who does not abide by the law to begin with, if they won't go through the process of a NICS background check, the licensing requirements for a CCW permit, etc, how much do you honestly think a SIGN will serve to deter them? Take a cue from the laws of nature; a wolf will not attack a flock of sheep when that flock's shepherd and his dog are actively patrolling and keeping the flock safe. The shepherd's sling (gun), his skill at using it, and the sheepdog's teeth (bullets) give the wolf pause… The wolf moves on to the next flock, hoping it will be an easier target. See the parallel?"
— 25mmssg72 (Oklahoma’s 4th district)
44 Appreciations - Guns
#9 Toomey-Schumer-Manchin Amendment
"I oppose The Toomey-Schumer-Manchin Amendment because Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. The sad truth is no background check will prevent tragedies like those in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, mental health issues and, at the same time, protects the rights of the law abiding."
— Michael_O'Brien (Pennsylvania’s 18th district)
43 Appreciations - HR 25
#10 Fair Tax Act
"I support H.R. 25 because this is the only way to truly be fair. The current tax law is punitive and so onerous that no one can ever be completely sure they are in compliance. Lobbyists get tax code written to their benefit. 90,000 pages of tax code is a recipe for abuse. Pass the Fair Tax and give us all a level playing field."
— R.Pins (Washington’s 1st district)
40 Appreciations - HR 142
#11 Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act
"I lawfully acquire ammo through online services. I am a citizen, father and police officer. I see crime daily and know that this would eliminate ZERO. Criminals don't shop online for supplies. Most use weapons/objects of opportunity. All this would do is handicap law abiding citizens such as myself and those I serve. I have yet to hear any gun control suggestions that would keep a criminal from finding a gun. Banning anything will not keep it from criminals hands. All it will do is cripple law abiding folks from being able to defend (second amendment) themselves or enjoy themselves. This is common sense and I fully expect people I vote for or endorse to have a certain level of it. I would vote for whatever party opposes someone voting for this or any other of the feel good, meaningless gun control bills that are out now. I would also urge everyone I know to do the same. Thank you."
— jnk922 (Ohio’s 10th district)
38 Appreciations - HR 117
#12 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act
"I oppose H.R. 117 because there is no empirical evidence proving that this sort of registration is effective at reducing crime. In addition, this type of legislation may lead to abuse in the future, such as confiscation. I will not support any representative that is behind this."
— BenInCal (California’s 2nd district)
31 Appreciations - S 33
#13 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
"I oppose S. 33 because I have a legitimate and legal need for what is really STANDARD CAPACITY magazines (the capacity of magazines the gun was designed for) of 30 or more rounds. I need them for self-defense (just like the Police do as I may have to defend myself from the same types of threats the Police have to defend themselves from) and for 3 Gun type competitions (a legitimate and legal shooting sport that the media and many politicians seem to ignore)."
— bitogre (Florida’s 21st district)
29 Appreciations - HR 21
#14 NRA Members Gun Safety Act
"Unless the way this will be done is by including firearms safety training in schools as part of the curriculum, I'm opposed to any government infringement on the 2A.
— ky4_2a_fan (Kentucky’s 4th district)
25 Appreciations - HR 2682
"I support H.R. 2682 because this bill should have never been passed. Citizens and Action Groups were not even given a chance to comment and make changes. As we learn more about this "Train Wreck", a lot of us don't want to be in front or in it, Period! I like my current insurance program. Don't need IRS Agents destroying Health Care."
— Anonymous2502893 (Louisiana’s 6th district)
23 Appreciations - HR 141
#16 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act
"I oppose H.R. 141 because we already do this. Federally licensed dealers have to perform a check at a gun show just as they do any other time. Requiring those selling privately to perform a background check would force them to use a federally licensed dealer unless access to the National Instant Check System was granted to the public."
— dfowler211 (North Carolina’s 9th district)
22 Appreciations - HR 538
#17 PLEA Act
"I oppose H.R. 538 because I would like to see data on how many officers are killed each year by 5.7x28mm ammo. I would venture a guess that the number is hovering around zero; far fewer that the ones killed by motorists, or other police. This law shows the ignorance of the lawmakers who support it. The 5.7 x 28 may be able to penetrate soft armor, but so can virtually any magnum revolver round and all hunting rifle rounds. I am an active duty soldier. I lived in armor for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I love the stuff, but it will always have an upper limit of protection that can be outstriped by some rifle and handgun chamberings and at certain loads. This does not make those rounds unfit for citizen ownership. The .454 Casull can blow right through soft armor; will it be banned next? There are hundreds of handguns that are chambered for high powered rifle rounds: Will we ban 30-06 ammo because it is, "so dangerous that it can pierce armor"? This is a poorly thought out bill."
— coffinnailbushman (Arizona’s 7th district)
21 Appreciations - HR 437
"I oppose H.R. 437 because we already have too many limits on the "right to keep and bear arms". If it is truly a "right", then it wrong to place limits on that right that make it very difficult to exercise that right. Next, the 1994 version of this law (assuming it is the same as S. 150) did not work. It had no statistically significant effect on crime between 1994 and 2004. So why should it be any different this time? The writer of this law says they did not ban enough so this law expands what is going to be banned. But in reality, so little crime is committed with the these guns that Hammers and other blunt object are used in more crime than these guns. As such, this law will have no effect other than hurt the law abiding gun owners. Finally, limiting magazine capacity will endanger the lives of innocent citizens. We need mags with more than 10 rounds for the same reason Police need them. In some ways, we have a greater need as we are more likely to be outnumbered by criminals than the police."
— bitogre (Florida’s 21st district)
21 Appreciations - HR 65
#19 Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act
"If you are old enough to vote you are old enough to purchase and own a handgun, simple as that. Look at our armed forces. How many 'children' under the age of 21 are walking around in Afghanistan with a Beretta M9 at their side."
— Ceramic (North Carolina’s 12th district)
21 Appreciations
Please keep in mind that highlighting a bill doesn't imply a POPVOX endorsement in any way. Rather, we're simply trying to offer one more way to stay informed of an overwhelmingly complex legislative system.
