Infighting threatens imminent avalanche of gun control in PA

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Some of the people in this movement who enjoy doing little more than sit on the sidelines flinging pooh at others trying to accomplish something might as well be working for the other side. The worst thing that could happen to the pro-gun movement is to turn our squabbles into a circular firing squad.

Disagreement is inevitable, but some people have forgotten that we're all on the same side.

Pretending to be the good guys while they talk smack and engage in underhanded campaigns isn't the same as being without blame in this whole mess. People harp on and on about how so and so is trying to accomplish something and do good for us, and that if someone happens to disagree with their methods or their premise (or have even simple questions), that they might as well be working for the other side. Then they fail to make the connection between that and why their calls for "let's work together" (which really mean, 'hey you, stupid, come over here and do things our way and we'll be together') fall on mostly deaf ears.

Cheerleading sucks no matter whose pom-poms you're waving. Personally, the only thing that I'm more sick of than the constant garbage coming out of many so-called pro-gun groups or individuals are the tireless sycophants that cling to them and whirl themselves about as emissaries for the one true path.

[Sebastian]

The problem is, you need those relationships with legislators. Grassroots matters, but if you don't have people who are spending time representing the issue to legislators, they won't have any idea how to serve your interests.

If every single gun owner were to vote on the gun rights issue nearly exclusively, we probably wouldn't be as dependent on interest groups, because we'd have the raw numbers to destroy any politician who opposed us. But we don't. The people who are really doing do work on this issue, learn how their legislators vote, and bother to get informed, are a small small minority; too small to have much of an impact on elections. So we need people to represent gun owners, inform gun owners, and give them an idea of how they can participate in the movement as grassroots.

I don't recommend anyone have unwavering trust in pro-gun leadership, but to some degree you have to trust people to represent you. I don't really see any viable alternative.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

The problem is, you need those relationships with legislators. Grassroots matters, but if you don't have people who are spending time representing the issue to legislators, they won't have any idea how to serve your interests.

My legislators know how to best serve my interests, I tell them so. For those that don’t speak up, I guess in theory that brings the need for people and groups to represent us, but I do speak up, so make no mistake, none of those groups speak for me. So when people make comment about sitting on the sideline, they should keep in mind some of the others things they profess as well.

If every single gun owner were to vote on the gun rights issue nearly exclusively, we probably wouldn't be as dependent on interest groups, because we'd have the raw numbers to destroy any politician who opposed us. But we don't. The people who are really doing do work on this issue, learn how their legislators vote, and bother to get informed, are a small minority; too small to have much of an impact on elections.

That's pretty much what Andy states, and it's pretty much what those of us at odds with certain RKBA groups have been saying all along (though all of us in that position don’t agree on the particulars 100% of the time). You can't have it both ways. If you complain that we have to engage in such access-oriented acts because gun owners don't know any better or aren't politically active, then anything that detracts from the ability or goal to engage, empower and inspire gun owners is totally counterproductive to rectifying that situation (assuming the desire is to remedy it at all, which is a point of contention). But instead of seeing wide-spread support for such an undertaking, those very same RKBA groups actively work against it (most often behind the scenes or one gun owner at a time).

So we need people to represent gun owners, inform gun owners, and give them an idea of how they can participate in the movement as grassroots.

Ah, but I have it from the horse's mouth (at least one or two of them) that this is not in their playbook. They stay informed and tell the rest of us how to vote because we wouldn't understand the process and/or can't comprehend legislation for ourselves. When we offer an alternative opinion, they or people that support them with a little too much fanaticism start posting threads like this one.

The alleged need for access to those legislators might be an effect of the lack of politically educated or active gun owners, but certain RKBA groups won't work towards changing that because that's not in their model of operations. Again, something many of us, including Andy Barniskis, has said time and time again. And when we say it, we get shit on for it.

I don't recommend anyone have unwavering trust in pro-gun leadership, but to some degree you have to trust people to represent you. I don't really see any viable alternative.

That doesn't mean we all have to trust the people you trust; no one died and made you or anyone else the decider. The problem comes when cheerleaders for one group or set of groups (of either side really) starts to take a difference in opinion personally. Look at the title of this thread and then realize that the list the OP is referring to is a privately moderated list that reaches maybe a few hundred people, many of them not even in Pennsylvania. Yet the OP came up with a fantastic headline that would make CNN or the Washington Post's anti-gun journalism squad proud. I'm actually laughing out loud at the title and the implications of this thread, it's hysterical. Someone might as well have posted a thread titled "gun owners eat babies" based on comments scribbled on a men's room wall at Burger King. If anyone made this an issue, it was the person that took a small message from an e-mail list with almost no mass penetration and put in onto a site that gets more than a million hits per month (especially considering they didn’t wait around to let the discussion run its course and instead stampeded off to post one side of it).


“Infighting threatens imminent avalanche of gun control in PA”
LMFAO. Let’s blame one guy who wrote something that reached a few gun owners (some not even in this state) on a small, private moderated list for an imminent avalanche of gun control… seriously? Sounds like somebody’s deal is being queered somehow and they’re thumbing through the ol’ address book looking for a convenient scapegoat to me.

[Murf_The_Surf]

Greg Murphy responds to Andy's replies:


Andy, if you regard yourself as nothing but a commentator, what was KFC all
about?

Did you or did you not write to Rep. Godshall (the leader of the squishy old guard) in an attempt to convey a message that the grass roots groups are ineffective? And did Rep. Godshall not fall into your trap and agree with you and then cc the entire Republican caucus that there is no grass roots?

Did you not forward this to your list where it was cross posted by your true believers elsewhere?

Rep. Godshall was probably telling the truth when he said that he only hears from the NRA. Schneider and Stolfer do not work with Godshall and other squishy so called pro-gun legislators who sometimes introduce gun control. They work with Metcalfe and other hard core leaders who are only attacked by the anti-gunners -- and by Andy.

You ask why Harry didn't sound an alert on HB 1744.

Harry Schneider never beats drums or sounds alerts as long as he, and fellow coalition members, can keep bad legislation bottled up in committee. When it gets out of committee then they send alerts. Harry and Kim Stolfer have credibility because their alerts contain accurate reasons for opposing the legislation.

The ACSL and the PSA are on record as opposing the original draft of HB 1744. Just before the Judiciary Committee vote, Kim Stolfer sent an email to each individual member of the Judiciary Committee who is not listed as anti, informing them that the PSA and ACSL continue to oppose the original bill and have not had time to analyze the new amendments and thus encourage a NO vote. Judiciary Committee passed the legislation anyway, apparently with NRA agreement, but - legislators indicated that they are concerned if the ACSL and PSA are concerned, so they did not schedule a quick vote to give time for analysis and reasoned discussion.

Schneider and Stolfer do not exclude anybody. You may recall that when Harry corrected your inaccurate analysis of legislation, he invited you and every other interested party to step forward and establish credibility in reading legislation and offering talking points and amendments.

If Schneider and Stolfer and the leaders of the other Coalition groups step down, that will leave only the NRA. Is that what you want?

Andy, are you offended that they can assemble the coalitions that KFC with your leadership could not? I seem to recall about eleven years ago, Act 17 Godfather Bob Godshall denouncing the PSA and FOAC on the floor of the House, but somehow forget to mention you and KFC.

Could it be that unlike the way you ran KFC, the PSA and FOAC and ACSL never hold secret Friday night meetings to determine the Saturday agenda?

Andy, come to think of it, now that I see that you are the gatekeeper on this secret Florida seminar you just announced, could it be that you have been working to undermine those who have been fighting gun control in Pennsylvania to fit an agenda? Is the passage of gun control necessary to destabilize things in Pennsylvania to pave the way for whatever secret agenda that you and your friends are hatching in the Florida seminar?

Will you perhaps resurrect your KFC with more secret meetings on Friday night and execute Delphi Technique actions on the gun groups who attend the official meetings on Saturday? Will it be that or will it be something new? Sounds like you aspire to be much more than a commentator again.

Maybe that’s what you meant back in August when you wrote: “Pay me a salary, rent me an office, and buy me some mailing lists, and watch what would happen.”

Andy, for three whole days last year the entire House debated dozens of gun control bills and each time they introduced one, Rep Daryl Metcalfe stood and read off the list of the entire coalition. The coalition stood united. NRA did nothing but join and be listed as number 4. All of the gun control proposals were defeated and you bashed Schneider, Stolfer and Metcalfe.

What is your agenda?

Andy, were you truly incapable of understanding the two short bills that your misinterpreted so badly, causing Schneider to correct you? Or where you so frustrated that gun control has not been passing, that you tried to create the false impression that it had?

Andy, you ask: Where has the power of a grassroots PA organization been demonstrated?

Answer: Committee of the Whole and the fact that exactly NONE of Rendell's flagship anti-gun proposals have passed, but Schneider and Stolfer have written and passed pro-gun legislation such as restoring the right of hunters to carry protection guns - something that was taken away long before they became involved.

Andy, lets review. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League wrote a two page bill that will force the State Police to provide people with the information they need to get their gun rights back. You misread the legislation and falsely claimed that this pro-gun legislation was anti-gun legislation. Harry Schneider pointed out your error and you claimed that: "the law doesn't matter".

In fact, you often say that the law doesn't matter. When asked then why do you even care about legislation, you responded that the law DOES matter but is sometimes disregarded as in the case of the registry.

Well shucks Andy, Schneider and Stolfer know far more than you about the registry being illegal. It became illegal with Act 5, of 1997 - which they were insiders in passing and which came as a pleasant surprise to you - after the fact. The NRA didn't clean up Act 17 until the PSA and ACSL badgered the NRA and leadership to do so.

Andy, you call yourself a commentator. Your comments remind me of what Robert E. Lee wrote about commentators:

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

“Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing Editorials - after the fact." Robert E Lee 1863


Greg

[Sebastian]

My legislators know how to best serve my interests, I tell them so. For those that don’t speak up, I guess in theory that brings the need for people and groups to represent us, but I do speak up, so make no mistake, none of those groups speak for me.


They do? They are aware of your concerns about every piece of legislation that comes up? Most people don't have enough time, energy, or insider knowledge to really be effective as individuals on this issue.

Wondering how effective you could be if every gun owner cared about the issue and became a single issue voter is a moot point because it will never happen. I don't think the presence of pro-gun groups make it harder to motivate gun owners. Apathy is what makes it hard to motivate gun owners, and the existence of pro-gun groups has little to do with that.

The alleged need for access to those legislators might be an effect of the lack of politically educated or active gun owners, but certain RKBA groups won't work towards changing that because that's not in their model of operations. Again, something many of us, including Andy Barniskis, has said time and time again. And when we say it, we get shit on for it.

Without access to legislators, how the hell do you expect to influence the legislative process to work toward your interests as someone who cares about gun rights? The type of political situation you guys want isn't and never will be reality, so we're stuck working within the realities we have now, and given that, it makes little sense to sit on the sideline and bitch that the world isn't ideal. It makes even less sense to actively fling pooh at legislators who are actively trying to help us (Metcalfe)

That doesn't mean we all have to trust the people you trust; no one died and made you or anyone else the decider. The problem comes when cheerleaders for one group or set of groups (of either side really) starts to take a difference in opinion personally.

I'm not saying you have to. I am saying flinging pooh at organizations and legislators that are trying to help is counterproductive. It's one thing to offer constructive criticism, but the kind of things Greg is accusing Andy of here would appear to be outright sabotage of pro-gun efforts. It's one thing to disagree. Disagreement is inevitable. It's another to completely forget we're all on the same side.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

They do? They are aware of your concerns about every piece of legislation that comes up? Most people don't have enough time, energy, or insider knowledge to really be effective as individuals on this issue.

That's a false dilemma. Your premise assumes that some advocacy group could represent my concerns on "every piece of legislation". If one could, I would surely be 100% supportive of them. The fact is they can't, they don't, and they won't...and I am far from unique in that situation.

I join and support groups that advocate my thoughts and positions in general and notify me of issues and pending legislation so that I can make the choice on how I wish to proceed, knowing full well that there will most certainly be times when they fall short in that endeavor, after all, they're not my personal pet advocates, they represent a larger group than I alone.

It's not that terribly difficult, provided that you can find a group that actually alerts you of everything they're aware of. There are only so many issues out there to be discussed, things rarely change. While the specific provisions of different pieces of legislation are not always the same from one attempt to the next, there's not too much of a gray area (for me anyway). Gun control is gun control, and an assault on civil liberties is an assault on civil liberties. One letter, e-mail or phone call on one piece of gun control need not be radically different than the next. People surrender themselves to this horrid delusion that they can craft voluminous collections of words and arguments and change a politician's mind, but it doesn't work that way. One letter generally doesn't make a difference, no matter how persuasive it may be. The net effect of one of my normal verbose ramblings is much lower an impact than 10 letters stating nothing more than "HB 1234 is crap gun control, if you support it I will not vote for you and I will do my best to make sure others are informed not to vote for you either."

The problem with this method is that it the volume requirements can be pretty exponential. While 500 letters to your local county politicians just might be enough to give them heartburn and reconsider their stance on certain local legislation, when you get to state-wide and nation-wide issues, 500 letters is mostly a drop in the bucket.

Wondering how effective you could be if every gun owner cared about the issue and became a single issue voter is a moot point because it will never happen. I don't think the presence of pro-gun groups make it harder to motivate gun owners. Apathy is what makes it hard to motivate gun owners, and the existence of pro-gun groups has little to do with that.

But I'm not and never have been arguing for the eradication of pro-gun groups, neither specific or in general. I do think lobbyists and activism groups have shelf-lives, wherein the longer they are exposed to or part of the system, the more it permeates their objectives and reduces their efficiency. The more time you spend within the system, the more likely it is that you'll make more friends than enemies, and that means more people you have to treat with kid gloves at times in order to balance the relationship and maintain access (whether that access be for getting information, submitting legislations, directly endorsing or lobbying politicians, whatever).

Voter apathy is an issue on any platform, it is not solely reserved for gun control/gun rights issues. How do other issue-oriented groups combat apathy? By informing, educating, persuading and motivating others. To do that requires information sharing and a good system of communication or penetration. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "they're apathetic, what can you do? I guess we might as well just do it this way." is avoiding the issue, not combating it. Apathy is human nature, people these days are constantly bombarded with responsibilities and necessities, you have to compel them to take time away from that and do something else, especially when there's a common misconception that someone else can and is doing the work for them. You can observe this in almost any group-oriented situation. Something as simple as an employee survey, where the results could mean a company-wide shift in benefits or the environment (i.e. positive outcomes for the employees) will regularly see a low turn-out in almost any company in the world if the employees are not bombarded with communications of how important it is and how the survey in question serves their interests if they only take the time to submit a response. There are a number of factors that contribute to such scenarios, but I think you'll find that they're similar regardless of the situation or environment.

Without access to legislators, how the hell do you expect to influence the legislative process to work toward your interests as someone who cares about gun rights? The type of political situation you guys want isn't and never will be reality, so we're stuck working within the realities we have now, and given that, it makes little sense to sit on the sideline and bitch that the world isn't ideal. It makes even less sense to actively fling pooh at legislators who are actively trying to help us (Metcalfe).

You're assuming, incorrectly, that at that level, once can influence the system without the system exerting its own influence on you. Every citizen has access to their reps, it's not difficult to get your communication to them or their staff. The political situation is exactly this, the only thing that compels a politician to act outside of their own interests is concern over retaining their power and position. This whole dog and pony show that people want to pretend goes on where legislators have their strings so easily pulled by activists is nonsense. It's simply not true. A politician in the general sense, is a liar and a false appeaser by very nature, that's how the game is played to get to that level.

Sometimes activist and lobbyist groups do really great things, and sometimes they just get in the way. Take the NRA's support for the so-called "veteran's disarmament bill". They're still pushing for the bill's passage are they not? Despite the volumes of contact coming from concerned gun owners opposed to this legislation, it's still alive and active, is it not? Why? Because the NRA is basically telling them not to worry, they'll cover for them because they speak for gun owners and they're basically telling gun owners we don't know anything, just shut up and let them make the decisions.

And what you're advocating with this and the defense of Metcalf as if he's a sacred cow, is a system where we don't mean shit. If Metcalf is criticized at all, his lobbyist pets and their fanatics swoop in to attack and discredit anyone that so much as farts with a rhythm similar to the syllabic properties of Metcalf's name. And if Mr. Metcalf is so petty as to stop supporting any gun rights initiatives at all because some gun owners criticize him, then exactly how committed to the cause was he in the first place? The willy-nilly scarorism about how criticizing a politician will result in a loss of access and an imminent flurry of gun control is bullshit. You cant have it both ways.

When Metcalf's Legislative Secretary, Amy Dohner, e-mailed out Rep. George Kenney's cosponsor memo about a mandatory training requirement for an LTCF with the note, “Good morning: Rep. Metcalf asked that I share the attached cosponsor memo with you. Have a great day!”, should we not have been a little concerned? Should we not have asked questions? If Metcalf is so ardently pro-gun, then what does he have to worry about? Surely if he's opposed to such things, and he'd have to be in order to truly claim the status that so many of you loft upon him, a simple statement or note indicating this is not beyond the realm of a reasonable expectation. But instead of answers to that kind of query, we get people that are supposed to be on our side doing damage control on behalf of that politician's name, all in order to keep up the image that they've helped them build to sell to gun owners.

I'm not saying you have to. I am saying flinging pooh at organizations and legislators that are trying to help is counterproductive. It's one thing to offer constructive criticism, but the kind of things Greg is accusing Andy of here would appear to be outright sabotage of pro-gun efforts. It's one thing to disagree. Disagreement is inevitable. It's another to completely forget we're all on the same side.

Greg here has engaged in nothing more than ad hominem propaganda in an attempt to assassinate someone else's character to suit his own interests. Greg's post is nothing more than an Internet accusation filled with spite and speculation, nothing more. Again, I go back to what I said about this thread in the first place. All the OP is doing is masturbating to a sympathetic audience and then congratulating himself for the stain on the cushion.

Look at the title of this thread and then realize that the list the OP is referring to is a privately moderated list that reaches maybe a few hundred people, many of them not even in Pennsylvania. Yet the OP came up with a fantastic headline that would make CNN or the Washington Post's anti-gun journalism squad proud. I'm actually laughing out loud at the title and the implications of this thread, it's hysterical. Someone might as well have posted a thread titled "gun owners eat babies" based on comments scribbled on a men's room wall at Burger King. If anyone made this an issue, it was the person that took a small message from an e-mail list with almost no mass penetration and put in onto a site that gets more than a million hits per month (especially considering they didn’t wait around to let the discussion run its course and instead stampeded off to post one side of it).


“Infighting threatens imminent avalanche of gun control in PA”
LMFAO. Let’s blame one guy who wrote something that reached a few gun owners (some not even in this state) on a small, private moderated list for an imminent avalanche of gun control… seriously? Sounds like somebody’s deal is being queered somehow and they’re thumbing through the ol’ address book looking for a convenient scapegoat to me.

Andy responded via that e-mail list more than 8 and a half hours ago, I'll leave it up to Murf to post the reply as he's the one that brought the debate here, on a forum outside of where it originated and one that Andy is not a member of.

[Murf_The_Surf]

According to NineseveN:
“Greg here has engaged in nothing more than ad hominem propaganda”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[NineseveN]

There are always two sides to every story...which is true? In this case, regarding the prior history stuff, does it even matter?

For those playing the home game, the KFC mentioned below is not, as one might think, Kentucky Fried Chicken, it is (was) the Keystone Firearms Coalition (http://kfc-rkba.com/ and http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/kfc.html for reference). And the Delphi technique, in case you're unaware, can be pretty much explained, here: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html.

>Greg Murphy responds to Andy's replies:
>
>Andy, if you regard yourself as nothing but a commentator, what was KFC all
>about?

Your keyword in the above sentence is "was."

KFC was a good idea based on a failed premise -- that independent groups
would make at least some effort to cooperate on RKBA issues. It was
affiliated with GOA. It was an idea endorsed by practically everyone
who attended the meetings of groups that were held in Mifflintown, all
of whom then went home and then acted as if the job of the organization
was to support their autonomous initiatives. At least one county
organization had the combination of both honesty and arrogance to say up
front that they did just fine on their own and didn't need no stinkin'
coalition, thank you, but all other participants gave lip service to
cooperation that never materialized. Then when the people authorized
to speak for KFC (Bill Duff, but with me working with him) had the
temerity to so much as question the sincerity of a couple other groups'
pet legislators, those groups turned on not only KFC, but GOA, running
to the defense of legislators rather than fellow RKBA activists. They
didn't even have the political acumen to turn an honest disagreement
into a "good cop, bad cop" ploy; they sincerely preferred the legislators
who stroked them to having a working statewide coalition.

Within the past few years there was a half-hearted attempt to resuscitate
KFC, but that underscored one of the many things I've learned along
the way -- a functioning state RKBA group cannot be a part-time undertaking.

I have backed away from claiming to be a "group" when the group consists
of the proverbial "two-three guys and a fax machine." It is embarrassing
to talk to the press and posture political power when it doesn't exist.
Even if others get away with it for years (the press does tolerate what
makes a good story) I think eventually it is going to backfire. But I
digress.


>Did you or did you not write to Rep. Godshall (the leader of the squishy old
>guard) in an attempt to convey a message that the grass roots groups are
>ineffective? And did Rep. Godshall not fall into your trap and agree with
>you and then cc the entire Republican caucus that there is no grass roots?

Here's the sequence of events:

Jeff Knox wrote an editorial in an August edition of Shotgun News decrying
the NRA's lack of cooperation with Pennsylvania's "grass roots activists."

I sent it to my list, and pretty much on a whim of a moment, copied it
to every PA legislator. I did not send it exclusively to Rep. Godshall.

Rep. Godshall then replied to me that he had not heard from anyone but the
NRA for ten years. I presume that is what HE copied to either the entive
General Assembly, or the Republican Caucus, or whoever he did.

I think I replied only to Rep. Godshall, something admittedly dumb like
"Gee, that's not what they tell us," or something to that effect. I
don't even remember.

>Did you not forward this to your list where it was cross posted by your true
>believers elsewhere?

What I said above. I forwarded nothing that I perceived to be untrue.
Godshall said he never heard from anyone but the NRA. It is true that
is what he wrote. What a legislator said sure sounds like worthwile news
for the RKBA community. The counters (e.g., that it was because he was
"isolated") were up to those who disagreed.

>Rep. Godshall was probably telling the truth when he said that he only hears
>from the NRA. Schneider and Stolfer do not work with Godshall and other
>squishy so called pro-gun legislators who sometimes introduce gun control.
>They work with Metcalfe and other hard core leaders who are only attacked by
>the anti-gunners -- and by Andy.

But I would have expected Godshall to hear from people who had heard from
Schneider and Stolfer, and to at least have wondered why he wasn't hearing
the pure, choreographed NRA party line.

>You ask why Harry didn't sound an alert on HB 1744.
>
>Harry Schneider never beats drums or sounds alerts as long as he, and fellow
>coalition members, can keep bad legislation bottled up in committee. When it
>gets out of committee then they send alerts. Harry and Kim Stolfer have
>credibility because their alerts contain accurate reasons for opposing the
>legislation.

They are purely "access oriented" and that is a tactic I do not agree
with. They want to keep their maneuvers to themselves. As with the
NRA, I do not trust that I will always endorse their compromises, or
what they think may make legislation "good."

>The ACSL and the PSA are on record as opposing the original draft of HB
>1744. Just before the Judiciary Committee vote, Kim Stolfer sent an email
>to each individual member of the Judiciary Committee who is not listed as
>anti, informing them that the PSA and ACSL continue to oppose the original
>bill and have not had time to analyze the new amendments and thus encourage
>a NO vote. Judiciary Committee passed the legislation anyway, apparently
>with NRA agreement, but - legislators indicated that they are concerned if
>the ACSL and PSA are concerned, so they did not schedule a quick vote to
>give time for analysis and reasoned discussion.

"Juidiciary Committee passed the legislation anyway," but I'm glad to hear
they are "concerned."

>Schneider and Stolfer do not exclude anybody. You may recall that when
>Harry corrected your inaccurate analysis of legislation, he invited you and
>every other interested party to step forward and establish credibility in
>reading legislation and offering talking points and amendments.

I have little interest in offering amendments. I want to see gun control
bills killed. I want the benefits that would have been offered in those
amendments reintroduced as pure, pro-gun legislation with no non-germane
amendments. I want the legislators who support anti-gun bills identifiable,
and I want the legislators who fail to support pro-gun bills identifiable,
with no appeal available based on "good" and "bad" amendments.

I want those things to be tools that can be used by an organization with
the credibility that it really can influence votes, otherwise legislators
"concerns" are non-existent puffery.

>If Schneider and Stolfer and the leaders of the other Coalition groups step
>down, that will leave only the NRA. Is that what you want?

No. I want a credible statewide RKBA presence in PA. Schneider and Stolfer
indeed have tremendous capabilities, but in my opinion they err in believing
what they do is sufficient. I also dislike that "working behind the scenes"
as they do, they style themselves as having the authority to decide what
is good for all of Pennsylvania's gun owners, and what we all should want,
and how much is achievable. I also believe that their closeness to
legislators renders them somewhat deluded about their own importance,
and that occasionally results in them serving more as lobbyists for
legislators TO the grass roots, instead of vice-versa.

>Andy, are you offended that they can assemble the coalitions that KFC with
>your leadership could not? I seem to recall about eleven years ago, Act 17
>Godfather Bob Godshall denouncing the PSA and FOAC on the floor of the
>House, but somehow forget to mention you and KFC.

Could that possibly be because, as I mentioned above, PSA and FOAC had
attended the KFC meetings, yessed everyone to death, then went home
and in their importance forgot to mention KFC?

By the way: What coalition?

And also by the way: I never ran KFC, any more than you run PSA. I
just happen to live close to Bill Duff. I never had a title that
I can recall.

>Could it be that unlike the way you ran KFC, the PSA and FOAC and ACSL never
>hold secret Friday night meetings to determine the Saturday agenda?

You mean, had dinner with the early arrivals, and took a couple nips
while sitting on a bed in a $25 truck stop motel room?

Guilty as charged, I guess.

What were you guys doing in that car on the way over, anyway? I sure
hope you weren't TALKING or anything!

>Andy, come to think of it, now that I see that you are the gatekeeper on
>this secret Florida seminar you just announced, could it be that you have
>been working to undermine those who have been fighting gun control in
>Pennsylvania to fit an agenda? Is the passage of gun control necessary to
>destabilize things in Pennsylvania to pave the way for whatever secret
>agenda that you and your friends are hatching in the Florida seminar?

No, but I suppose I'll be blamed for it. The same way, I presume, that
an admittedly adolescent forward of a Jeff Knox column (favorable to
you guys, BTW) to the whole General Assembly has been cast as advancing
the whole gun-grabber agenda in PA, because, theoretically, now a few
legislators who never heard of you guys, realize they never heard of you,
when they didn't know that before.

>Will you perhaps resurrect your KFC with more secret meetings on Friday
>night and execute Delphi Technique actions on the gun groups who attend the
>official meetings on Saturday? Will it be that or will it be something
>new? Sounds like you aspire to be much more than a commentator again.

Heh. You're a card. Delphii techniques applied to groups who promise
a world of cooperation, then go off to do their Same-Old-Same-Old?

Guess that old Delphii needed a bit of polishing, wouldn't you say?

Or did you westerners plan how to use everyone else for your own
self-aggrandizement, in the car on the way home?

But anyway no, I expect (and pray) someone else will be taking on the
statewide role.

And for the record, I mean my comments about western subversion exactly
as sincerely as you meant your "Delphii charges," and for the same
motive.

>Maybe that's what you meant back in August when you wrote: "Pay me a salary,
>rent me an office, and buy me some mailing lists, and watch what would
>happen."

That was the figurative "me." In fact I'm retiring from earned-income making
at the end of December. And I've been too outspoken on too many other issues
to have a public single-issue role. My mistake, but oh, well. I will
happily help anyone else who does it though, even if it's only to clean
their office spitoons, as long as they shake things up here in PA.

>Andy, for three whole days last year the entire House debated dozens of gun
>control bills and each time they introduced one, Rep Daryl Metcalfe stood
>and read off the list of the entire coalition. The coalition stood united.
>NRA did nothing but join and be listed as number 4. All of the gun control
>proposals were defeated and you bashed Schneider, Stolfer and Metcalfe.
>
>What is your agenda?

Hmmm. Maybe that there not be a replay of 1995, when a gun rights leadership
convinced of its intellectual prowess and intrigue capabilities played coy
in the General Assembly until a major gun control bill got passed, and
THEN screamed bloody murder.

Which, by the way, is why everyone came to Mifflintown again, and pretended
to support a coalition.

>Andy, were you truly incapable of understanding the two short bills that
>your misinterpreted so badly, causing Schneider to correct you? Or where
>you so frustrated that gun control has not been passing, that you tried to
>create the false impression that it had?

>Andy, you ask: Where has the power of a grassroots PA organization been
>demonstrated?

>Answer: Committee of the Whole and the fact that exactly NONE of Rendell's
>flagship anti-gun proposals have passed, but Schneider and Stolfer have
>written and passed pro-gun legislation such as restoring the right of
>hunters to carry protection guns - something that was taken away long before
>they became involved.

I saw the power of the grass roots. I saw no power from a grass roots
ORGANIZATION. I think the best "leadership" the gun rights community
in PA got in the past year ironically came from the sponsor and cosponsors
of HB 760! All people had to do was read about the features of that
bill in the newspaper -- which they did -- and they were all over gun
control on their own initiative. No "leadership" was necessary. They
did it on their own.

The last analogous time I saw that happen was when the Republican Assault
Weapon Ban was passed by the PA House in the last minutes of the session
in 1993, and legislators received such a firestorm of spontaneous
protest from gun owners over the holidays that they had to reverse
themselves in a most embarrassing way in January of 1994. But as
always, there were gun rights leaders who claimed their intellect
and persuasion had been responsible for the reversal -- like the rooster
who thought the sun came up because of his crowing.

Then our intellectual leadership, who could read legislation, used
all of their guile and acumen to give us The Select Committee to
Study the Use of Automatic and Semiautomatic Weapons, which dodged
the assault weapons issue completely, and instead was used to craft
what would become Act 17 of 1995.

Good job, all you behind-the-scenes intriguers!

>Andy, lets review. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League wrote a two page
>bill that will force the State Police to provide people with the information
>they need to get their gun rights back. You misread the legislation and
>falsely claimed that this pro-gun legislation was anti-gun legislation.
>Harry Schneider pointed out your error and you claimed that: "the law
>doesn't matter".

It will when ordinary people start getting their weapons back. I think
the jury will remain out on that for awhile. Will a Real Gunnie with
a $20,000 collection get his rights back? Probably. Will a single
urban mother who owned a .25 ACP Raven get her rights back? We'll
see.

>In fact, you often say that the law doesn't matter. When asked then why do
>you even care about legislation, you responded that the law DOES matter but
>is sometimes disregarded as in the case of the registry.

Because, exactly as you did above, you ignored the context of my statement.

The two times in my life when I have taken local governments or their officers
to court, both times successfully, it was because they had blatantly ignored
and defied the law. Both times it was because arguably, for them to defy
the law in an anti-hunting or anti-gun spirit was politically popular.

Both times it cost a lot of money to obtain MY rights, but I could do it
because I had the street-political acumen to be able to raise the money
from interested organizations. But I emphasize "MY" rights because in
the first case, once I had established in court that the municipality
could not do what it did to ME, they shortly went back to doing it to
other people, and got away with it, because it was politically popular,
marginally profitable, and too expensive to challenge. Today you can
still find similar, totally illegal and contrary-to-state-law ordinances
on the books of local municipaliities, to be wheeled out at their
convenience. And it takes either a crank who is a fund-raising adept
or a rich man to challenge them; as I learned personally, citing the law
accurately in court will usually get you a command to shut up; it
take thousands of dollars to BUY your rights. THAT is what all
of your law-reading adepts ignore -- Reality Law.

>Well shucks Andy, Schneider and Stolfer know far more than you about the
>registry being illegal. It became illegal with Act 5, of 1997 - which they
>were insiders in passing and which came as a pleasant surprise to you -
>after the fact. The NRA didn't clean up Act 17 until the PSA and ACSL
>badgered the NRA and leadership to do so.

And yet for all they know, the PSP is still maintaining it. Go figure.

And was that before or after they claimed to have driven the NRA State Liaison
out of the state? I forget.

>Andy, you call yourself a commentator. Your comments remind me of what
>Robert E. Lee wrote about commentators:
>
>"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our
>most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by
>reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic
>defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
>
>"Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously
>superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing
>Editorials - after the fact." Robert E Lee 1863

Robert E. Lee lost the war, as I recall.

You asked more than once what my agenda is. Here is what it is, stated
as broadly as I can: TO MOVE THE GUN RIGHTS MOVEMENT TO THE RIGHT.

Everywhere, but especially here in Pennsylvania.

I don't see that happening in Pennsylvania. What I see is people who
damned the NRA for its intrigues and back-room maneuvering becoming a
a junior NRA; "Trust Us; we KNOW. . .We speak for you."

Within the past week I have received more than one email alert from
RKBA groups in other states about legislation pending in their states.
I have received nothing similar from Pennsylvania in recent memory.
I have received self-promoting alerts, "Come listen to us speak for
you from a podium in Harrisburg," but never an alert inviting us to
take action on our own -- even when the behind the scenes maneuvering
has failed.

To refine my "movement to the right" definition a bit more, I want to
see the emergence of confrontational political action in addition to
the endless NRAesque "access" politics we hear about all the time --
the behind the scenes intriguing that is boasted about so openly.

At present the extent of confrontation appears to be standing at
podiums and berating Philadelphia legislators from a safe distance.
I want to see some of our rural and suburban RKBA poseurs not only
squirm, but perhaps get knocked out of office.

I want something more than a "coalition" that represents maybe
a dozen principals who can reach and motivate maybe a few hundred
people. (And with apologies to many: A website won't do it.)

It can be done. I don't know that I can do it. I pray for the
emergence of people who can and will try. Meanwhile I will
continue to comment on things as I see them, not as others want
me to see them.


--Andy

[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.

[Sebastian]

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 would suspect because there's nothing quite as frustrating as feeling undermined by people on your own side of the issue. We all may disagree about methods and strategies to get there, but if we actively start pooh poohing, or even sabotaging the efforts of others, we're not going to win this. That kind of behavior tires activists, and makes them give up. If you get more grief from your own side than you get from the anti-gun people, it can be enough to make someone just want to give up.

I know a few people who got burnt out on the RKBA. They still care deeply about it, but have decided to leave a lot of the grunt work to fresher blood.