FOAC voters guide

[bigdawgbeav]

PACs can do anything they want and endorse any candidate. Do you have any evidence that he requested that endorsement? Any anti-votes on record on core issues that he voted for? Any face to face conversations that he indicated he was anti second amendment? FOAC tracks the votes. FOAC and the guys from CGOPA had a sit down in his office, did you? Input is welcome!

Whoa! I'm not making any accusations. I just find it rather interesting. I know FOAC does it's due diligence. My comment was on that opposite sides of the same coin are supporting endorsing the same candidate. You don't find this often.

[Holden23]

PACs can do anything they want and endorse any candidate. Do you have any evidence that he requested that endorsement? Any anti-votes on record on core issues that he voted for? Any face to face conversations that he indicated he was anti second amendment? FOAC tracks the votes. FOAC and the guys from CGOPA had a sit down in his office, did you? Input is welcome!

For starters:

Fitzpatrick Statement on Toomey-Manchin Proposal
Apr 10, 2013

LANGHORNE, PA - Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8) issued the following statement regarding the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal:

“I want to thank Senator Toomey for his leadership and hard work on bipartisan gun legislation.

In particular, the Toomey-Manchin proposal includes the policies outlined in the Strengthening Background Checks Act which I introduced in the House earlier this year to ensure that the dangerously mentally ill cannot lawfully get access to a gun.

Their proposal also closes gun show loop holes while creating a national commission on finding the best ways to address a culture of violence in America. Ultimately, their proposal creates a comprehensive system for background checks that protects family transfers while not infringing on constitutional rights. These policies have my support.

However, I hope that any final proposal sent to the House goes further to include stronger penalties for straw purchases, which I co-sponsored in the House on a bi-partisan bill, and measures to strengthen school safety.

Nonetheless, as proposed today, this bill would have my support contingent on amendments or other changes that may be made in the Senate.

This is a common-sense proposal that can make a real difference. As proposed, it deserves the support of the House. I will work with a bipartisan group in the House to introduce a similar proposal this week.”

http://fitzpatrick.house.gov/press-r...nchin-proposal

[LBaker]

Whoa! I'm not making any accusations. I just find it rather interesting. I know FOAC does it's due diligence. My comment was on that opposite sides of the same coin are supporting endorsing the same candidate. You don't find this often.

If I came across as being "short" I apologize. I was looking for input. We can only go by what we know.

[LBaker]

For starters:


http://fitzpatrick.house.gov/press-r...nchin-proposal

Peoples positions change. That article is more than a year old. There was a lot of heat applied after that debacle. Like I said a group was in his office and were satisfied with what was said. If you have more info please share!

[Holden23]

Peoples positions change. That article is more than a year old. There was a lot of heat applied after that debacle. Like I said a group was in his office and were satisfied with what was said. If you have more info please share!

I'd think that his own press release from his own website saying that he wants to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and implement universal background checks (which can only be implemented via a national gun registry) would be sufficient to show that he's not worthy of our support. It's obvious why he's endorsed by the gun control organization Americans for Responsible Solutions, which also supports universal background checks/gun registration.

But if you're saying that he's cool now because he "changed his positions" or whatever, then that's just ridiculous. If that's FOAC's standard, then FOAC's ratings are a joke. There will be more mass shootings. And there will be more "heat applied after the next debacle" too. We've seen exactly how Mike Fitzpatrick will turn on gun owners when the going gets tough. Is the game plan to wait until that happens, again, and re-evaluate his position, again? I suppose right before an election he could just "change his position" again and get another FOAC endorsement, right?

What a joke.

[pyld]

But if you're saying that he's cool now because he "changed his positions" or whatever, then that's just ridiculous. If that's FOAC's standard, then FOAC's ratings are a joke. There will be more mass shootings. And there will be more "heat applied after the next debacle" too. We've seen exactly how Mike Fitzpatrick will turn on gun owners when the going gets tough. Is the game plan to wait until that happens, again, and re-evaluate his position, again? I suppose right before an election he could just "change his position" again and get another FOAC endorsement, right?

This is why I believe in "trust, but verify" and asked the question about the questionnaire and the raw responses. In the absent thereof, I maintain: "it's a couple of dudes telling you to vote X." And should be treated as such.

[LBaker]

I'd think that his own press release from his own website saying that he wants to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and implement universal background checks (which can only be implemented via a national gun registry) would be sufficient to show that he's not worthy of our support. It's obvious why he's endorsed by the gun control organization Americans for Responsible Solutions, which also supports universal background checks/gun registration.

But if you're saying that he's cool now because he "changed his positions" or whatever, then that's just ridiculous. If that's FOAC's standard, then FOAC's ratings are a joke. There will be more mass shootings. And there will be more "heat applied after the next debacle" too. We've seen exactly how Mike Fitzpatrick will turn on gun owners when the going gets tough. Is the game plan to wait until that happens, again, and re-evaluate his position, again? I suppose right before an election he could just "change his position" again and get another FOAC endorsement, right?

What a joke.

So you can point to something on his voting record that would disqualify him? If you have info pass it along and it will be considered. The REALITY is that politicians sometimes need to say things that we may find distasteful in order to get elected. Fitzpatrick is in a very liberal district. He knew that there wouldn't be a vote in the house so he appeased the other side. It's the way the game is played. I don't like it any more than you but I certainly don't want to see a complete anti in his place.

[LBaker]

This is why I believe in "trust, but verify" and asked the question about the questionnaire and the raw responses. In the absent thereof, I maintain: "it's a couple of dudes telling you to vote X." And should be treated as such.

I have never known Kim Stolfer to turn away a question from a gun owner. If you want his contact info I will share it. Better yet get active in the process and you'll know first hand...

[Dlish]

Wonderful position this voter is in….US Congress district 6 - No suitable. State Rep 167 - No Suitable. and State Senator 26 - No Suitable.

I have tried over and over with Rep Duane Milne, time to step it up I guess. Although a little surprised about US Congress district 6, Ryan Costello is running and he is a chester county lifer and raised in what I would consider a more gun accepting area.

[pyld]

I have never known Kim Stolfer to turn away a question from a gun owner. If you want his contact info I will share it. Better yet get active in the process and you'll know first hand...

I give money to get Pro-2A folks elected, and I call/write when there is Pro-2A legislation up. Don't commit the fallacy of insinuating that genuflecting before a given group is required to "be involved."

As an aside, I've asked Kim for this information before (on this very forum). One has to show at a FOAC meeting, be essentially screened, and then maybe you get to see it. Or that was the policy--I'm assuming it holds.

With that said, I maintain that you've posted a link to a document on the internet whose intent, drivers, qualifications of authorship, and criteria cannot be verified on the same medium. "Trust, but verify." I guess I'm not willing to give anyone an intellectual pass even when I ideologically agree. The questions about the guide above (as I said) demonstrate exactly why following these things blind without a way to understand how or why a given recommendation was produced is a bad idea, generally.