The only bit of your post I objected to, discourse-wise, was the phrase:
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice their opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking about you".
Sure - while it is an opinion about me (and others), it is also (simultaneously, though not exclusively) a recommendation (perhaps only an implied one) about what is in my best interests, when I alone can decide if I am safe, for example (it is not a lamp, or a number, it is my own feeling): therefore the commentor is speaking for me. Furthermore, since I define safety for myself, my assertion that the comment does not reflect my interests also makes it misrepresentation (in addition to speaking for me) in my case.
I'll stipulate it and give some more thought to your position in that context. It definitely colors things a bit; I'm not sure whether it legitimately changes things.
On the flip-side, would you feel differently if the attribute being discussed was clearly not a feeling?
"I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the shorter we are", or some such.
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice their opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking about you".