[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Murf_The_Surf

I believe you are accusing me of the very thing you yourself are doing. I cited specific facts, relevant history, and asked honest questions. In response, your whole argument is profane sexual reference and a vague accusation that I’m attacking someone else for my own interests.

Your entire argument focuses on the lack of merit concerning Andy himself, which is almost the textbook definition of Ad Hominem. The argument against the person fails on merit simply because the facts of the issue and the validity of the particular debate position do not generally rest on the character of the specific person making the argument.

What interests are those? I’ve always operated as a volunteer, and have spent countless hours and many thousands of dollars over the years that I couldn’t afford in an effort to help protect our rights. All leaders in PSA, FOAC, and ACSL are unpaid volunteers. Men like Kim Stolfer and Harry Schneider have made large sacrifices on behalf of our civil rights as gun owners. Andy Barniskis, on the other hand, says he wants a paid position.

The same logical fallacy of ad hominem. Andy clearly spelled it out for you, the "me" was figurative, yet you continue to reference it as if it was what you claimed it was initially or that it is even relevant to the issues at hand. Whether or not Andy is a jerk or a greedy, lazy bastard (or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on the merits of his argument (or yours).

NineseveN, were you even around, let alone involved, when Barniskis was running the Mifflintown meetings? You guys preach about openness, yet Andy ran secret meetings and engaged in the same sort of “intrigues” that he likes to accuse others of engaging in.

Again, it doesn't matter, focusing on Andy Barniskis to the point to where you brought the argument here, a place where most don't know Andy, Andy is not a member and you have a mostly built-in sympathetic audience is nothing more than an attack on the person himself, not the argument. You could have made any points about lobbying or activism that you desired without even mentioning his name. You purposely brought this here to attack his character, which is a political stunt. Politicians do that when they know their opponent is coming out with something dirty on them or when their opponent starts leading in the polls. What makes you guys so concerned about Andy Barniskis that you have to do this twice now? What are you guys so afraid of? This kind of crap is one step away from building a web page to discredit someone (which is, needless to say, lame and the works of the foolish and petty).

And speaking about openness, you mention that Andy sent out a reply to my last message more than 8 and one half hours ago (as of the time you posted). Interesting how you and he pontificate about open debate, yet he has not sent that reply to me. I guess I will have to call around and see if someone can forward it to me.

I guess if Andy can’t stand the heat, he will kick you out of the kitchen. He should re-read his post concerning the fragile flowers. He has kicked me off his mailing list, and didn’t even send me his response.

That's interesting, I wasn't aware that you were no longer on that list.

One other thing, NineseveN: name one single legislator in Pennsylvania who has done more for gun owners than has Daryl Metcalf.

It doesn't matter if there were 20 legislators that did ten times more than he has or if there were none, it's irrelevant. You don't wed yourself to a politician. When things look screwy, you ask questions. When things go bad, you expect answers and action. For our so-called "friends" to then attack us and accuse us of flinging crap for asking questions and taking umbrage with something one of their pet legislators did is ridiculous.

I simply can’t believe you mention his office’s communication about the Kenney cosponsor memo and then say, “should we have not been a little concerned?” just like it’s some kind of smoking gun impugning Rep. Metcalf’s integrity.

Who said anything about a smoking gun? That's a blatant straw man, save it. When we see something so vague or concerning, we should ask questions, those questions should not be met with animosity from those who fashion themselves as our RKBA friends. Asking questions or being concerned != impugning someone’s character. For you to take that to such an extreme length is absurd. It's not like there aren't plenty of people that fashion themselves as ardently pro-gun who support mandatory training, so it's not particularly out of the realm of possibility, especially given the shifting nature of politicians and their platforms. It’s also funny that even if Metcalf didn’t support this (which is probably obvious by now), the thing is, someone did support it, and Metcalf saw it as important enough to have his staff send out a quasi-alert on it, yet it ended there.

Since you seem challenged in sorting out these matters, let me spell it out for you: 1.) Daryl Metcalf is adamantly opposed to mandatory training; 2.) Rep. Kenney floated a memo announcing his intention to introduce legislation requiring mandatory training, which the antis and Ed Rendell are certain to push; 3.) Rep. Metcalf instructed his office to send out a communication to concerned activists to give them a HEADS-UP on this bad legislation being introduced.

Why do you have a problem with THAT? One of the favorite themes on Andy’s list is the lack of WARNINGS going out on bad bills that are being introduced. So what’s the problem here?

That stupid memo was forwarded to me right around when it was originally sent out, I wrote Metcalf and asked about his stance on the matter, no reply. That was back in September, 9-28 as I recall. There was no accompanying text, it was very vague. And while some of the people supposedly in the know have no problem jamming this site and others (and lists) with other things or attacking someone totally unrelated to this forum, you couldn't spend 2 minutes posting anything about the Kenney memo. I mean, if it was important enough for Metcalf to have it sent out to the activists, why was it not important enough to share with the rest of us? I don't blame Metcalf for that BTW, in case you're keeping score.


There is only one thread I’ve seen about it on here, and unfortunately, not enough people commented on it to keep it on the front page. It was posted 3 weeks ago, and yet somehow many of us apparently missed it, including myself (or people saw it and didn’t care). I don’t see any comments from the RKBA champions or their supporters in that thread, yet they keep popping up in the threads surrounding it in the same area of the forum.

So my question is, what is your agenda by bringing Andy Barniskis personally up for discussion on a site where he doesn’t participate, is not a member and is relatively unknown to the membership? What is your purpose for creating the illusions that infighting, as specific to this one particular person alone is responsible for an imminent avalanche of gun control in Pennsylvania? I don’t know Andy personally, I don’t agree with him all the time, but I do enjoy his discussions; I have no desire to defend him here or become a cheerleader of his only to counter the tirades people like you launch against him. Any argument you can make that is no directed towards discrediting a specific person can be applied as a counter to their arguments, so some watered-down form of character assassination is hardly the only way to accomplish a refutation of the argument. If your entire premise is indeed that Andy Barniskis alone is responsible for the imminent landslide of gun control coming to Pennsylvania, then I suspect that you are either delusional or you really do have such an axe to grind that making such accusations is merely a convenient form of insult or attack. Infighting, in and of itself, is hampering the effectiveness of the movement here (as it does in other states), but thinking your way (you in the general sense) is the only way is part of the problem too, which makes you part of the problem…the same thing you claim against people on others sides of the issue. But of course, you don’t see that, do you?

Sebastian and I had a nice conversation going as an aside to your purpose on this thread where we discussed some of the particulars of both schools of thought without focusing on discrediting one specific person totally unrelated to this forum, perhaps you’d find it a bit more positive to discuss this on those terms instead of continuing down the path you’re on currently.