F.O.A.C. Endorses Biden-Harris Supporter in 50th District

[Spirit of 76]

There's a difference between being matter of fact and cocky... I'm not getting into a shit fest here. We don't throw good incumbents under the bus in favor of an unknown, it's our policy. Take a look here, she was one of 4-5 dems that stood with us on HB2060, look at all of the Republicans that voted in favor. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...=H&rc_nbr=1477

By that logic, no upstarts who truly favor the 2A and Article I, Section, 21, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would ever be considered for an endorsement by F.O.A.C., if they were up against one of its chosen incumbents.

Name me one piece of legislation where Rep. Snyder was the primary sponsor in which she sought to repeal unconstitutional PA "laws."

I will not be holding my breath for an answer.

[LBaker]

By that logic, no upstarts who truly favor the 2A and Article I, Section, 21, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would ever be considered for an endorsement by F.O.A.C., if they were up against one of its chosen incumbents.

Name me one piece of legislation where Rep. Snyder was the primary sponsor in which she sought to repeal unconstitutional PA "laws."

I will not be holding my breath for an answer.

The same could be said of every legislator... Every time I talk with one of them I ask how they are OBEYING their oath and the 145 page gun law book still exists.

[LBaker]

Here is Kim's response to the question asked via the website, I don't post things attributed to others without asking first...

"Thank you for letting us know that you got our mailer, it's good to know that this mailing was delivered.

As to the substance of your concerns, I feel it is appropriate to ask if you even know anything about organization? Do you know that we have been around for 27+ years and are responsible for virtually every major legislative victory in Pennsylvania from act 17 in 1995 to Castle doctrine in 2010? My point is that it is unfair of you to insinuate that we do not thoroughly look at these issues and judge each one on its merits, especially if you are not aware of our 27 year history of defending rights in Pennsylvania!

It has always been our position to judge incumbents on their voting record and to use any other formula of connection to what their personal beliefs are is outside the bounds of any political action committee. Every citizen has a right to lobby or take positions on support or opposition to candidates based on their own beliefs and that holds true for not only average citizens but elected officials, wouldn't you agree? What you are offering or expecting us to do is to basically apply the old adage of "the sins of the father" approach. No legitimate organization that I know of take that position especially not Second Amendment oriented organizations. You do know that right?

Our endorsement policy is readily available on our website: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Electio...2017-Final.pdf. It explains everything from our perspective and I would have hoped that you would have taken the opportunity to go to our website and examine his prior to your criticisms.

Every member and every officer in FOAC is a volunteer and we have been struggling and fighting for our rights, including yours, for a long time. If you do not know of our organization then you are not truly involved in the fight in Harrisburg or DC. One of the components of this fight is that we survey (questionnaires) every single candidate and incumbent who runs for office in Pennsylvania from the county level up. We have been fighting these battles for a long time with very little support from the Second Amendment community. So, to use your vernacular and approach, *how could any true supporter of 2A be unaware of the complicated nuances of dealing with election issues if they truly support the Second Amendment*? You mention political expediency and from my experience the true political expediency is shown by gunowners who are driven by emotion rather than knowledge of the Second Amendment fight and all of its nuances.

So in closing, there is no shame here on our part because we will stand by any politician who has fought for our Second Amendment rights and Pam Snyder certainly has done that as her record on our website shows. If you had truly looked into our analysis of this race you would see there is no way that we can deny what Pam Snyder has done in Harrisburg even when many Republicans have stabbed the Second Amendment in the back. So put yourself in her place. What would you think of an organization that plays political games in supporting a party rather than supporting the person's voting record? Isn't that also politically expedient to throw the baby out with the bathwater by looking only at a party of registration rather than the actions that are taken on the floor of the legislature?

In my view, it's long overdue for gun owners to become a little more sophisticated in how we deal with politics and that's been our goal ever since we were first put together an early 1994. We would gladly help you understand these issues if you are still interested!

[Spirit of 76]

The same could be said of every legislator... Every time I talk with one of them I ask how they are OBEYING their oath and the 145 page gun law book still exists.

True about the other legislators. A pox on all their houses, I say. However, your answer confirms that Pam Snyder is just like they are -- a rights trampler!

She is an eight-year incumbent making $90,000 plus perks. Those state legislator pensions vest after 10 years. That alone is enough for the boot. Whatever happened to citizen legislators who go back to the private sector versus career politicians?

[Walleye Hunter]

Here is Kim's response to the question asked via the website, I don't post things attributed to others without asking first...

"Thank you for letting us know that you got our mailer, it's good to know that this mailing was delivered.

As to the substance of your concerns, I feel it is appropriate to ask if you even know anything about organization? Do you know that we have been around for 27+ years and are responsible for virtually every major legislative victory in Pennsylvania from act 17 in 1995 to Castle doctrine in 2010? My point is that it is unfair of you to insinuate that we do not thoroughly look at these issues and judge each one on its merits, especially if you are not aware of our 27 year history of defending rights in Pennsylvania!

It has always been our position to judge incumbents on their voting record and to use any other formula of connection to what their personal beliefs are is outside the bounds of any political action committee. Every citizen has a right to lobby or take positions on support or opposition to candidates based on their own beliefs and that holds true for not only average citizens but elected officials, wouldn't you agree? What you are offering or expecting us to do is to basically apply the old adage of "the sins of the father" approach. No legitimate organization that I know of take that position especially not Second Amendment oriented organizations. You do know that right?

Our endorsement policy is readily available on our website: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Electio...2017-Final.pdf. It explains everything from our perspective and I would have hoped that you would have taken the opportunity to go to our website and examine his prior to your criticisms.

Every member and every officer in FOAC is a volunteer and we have been struggling and fighting for our rights, including yours, for a long time. If you do not know of our organization then you are not truly involved in the fight in Harrisburg or DC. One of the components of this fight is that we survey (questionnaires) every single candidate and incumbent who runs for office in Pennsylvania from the county level up. We have been fighting these battles for a long time with very little support from the Second Amendment community. So, to use your vernacular and approach, *how could any true supporter of 2A be unaware of the complicated nuances of dealing with election issues if they truly support the Second Amendment*? You mention political expediency and from my experience the true political expediency is shown by gunowners who are driven by emotion rather than knowledge of the Second Amendment fight and all of its nuances.

So in closing, there is no shame here on our part because we will stand by any politician who has fought for our Second Amendment rights and Pam Snyder certainly has done that as her record on our website shows. If you had truly looked into our analysis of this race you would see there is no way that we can deny what Pam Snyder has done in Harrisburg even when many Republicans have stabbed the Second Amendment in the back. So put yourself in her place. What would you think of an organization that plays political games in supporting a party rather than supporting the person's voting record? Isn't that also politically expedient to throw the baby out with the bathwater by looking only at a party of registration rather than the actions that are taken on the floor of the legislature?

In my view, it's long overdue for gun owners to become a little more sophisticated in how we deal with politics and that's been our goal ever since we were first put together an early 1994. We would gladly help you understand these issues if you are still interested!

This may be news to you and some others but the bolded paragraph is a cocky response. I didn't even bother to read the rest of it. If I was talking to a person that I knew could not be won over, that is how I would talk to them. I would not talk to people who are supposed to be on my side that way.

[LBaker]

True about the other legislators. A pox on all their houses, I say. However, your answer confirms that Pam Snyder is just like they are -- a rights trampler!

She is an eight-year incumbent making $90,000 plus perks. Those state legislator pensions vest after 10 years. That alone is enough for the boot. Whatever happened to citizen legislators who go back to the private sector versus career politicians?

I really didn't have time to go back and look at every bill she has sponsored so there is no confirmation in my reply. Yes we have issues and we need term limits but as of right now we need to play the cards we're handed.

[Spirit of 76]

Here is Kim's response to the question asked via the website, I don't post things attributed to others without asking first...

"Thank you for letting us know that you got our mailer, it's good to know that this mailing was delivered.

As to the substance of your concerns, I feel it is appropriate to ask if you even know anything about organization? Do you know that we have been around for 27+ years and are responsible for virtually every major legislative victory in Pennsylvania from act 17 in 1995 to Castle doctrine in 2010? My point is that it is unfair of you to insinuate that we do not thoroughly look at these issues and judge each one on its merits, especially if you are not aware of our 27 year history of defending rights in Pennsylvania!

It has always been our position to judge incumbents on their voting record and to use any other formula of connection to what their personal beliefs are is outside the bounds of any political action committee. Every citizen has a right to lobby or take positions on support or opposition to candidates based on their own beliefs and that holds true for not only average citizens but elected officials, wouldn't you agree? What you are offering or expecting us to do is to basically apply the old adage of "the sins of the father" approach. No legitimate organization that I know of take that position especially not Second Amendment oriented organizations. You do know that right?

Our endorsement policy is readily available on our website: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Electio...2017-Final.pdf. It explains everything from our perspective and I would have hoped that you would have taken the opportunity to go to our website and examine his prior to your criticisms.

Every member and every officer in FOAC is a volunteer and we have been struggling and fighting for our rights, including yours, for a long time. If you do not know of our organization then you are not truly involved in the fight in Harrisburg or DC. One of the components of this fight is that we survey (questionnaires) every single candidate and incumbent who runs for office in Pennsylvania from the county level up. We have been fighting these battles for a long time with very little support from the Second Amendment community. So, to use your vernacular and approach, *how could any true supporter of 2A be unaware of the complicated nuances of dealing with election issues if they truly support the Second Amendment*? You mention political expediency and from my experience the true political expediency is shown by gunowners who are driven by emotion rather than knowledge of the Second Amendment fight and all of its nuances.

So in closing, there is no shame here on our part because we will stand by any politician who has fought for our Second Amendment rights and Pam Snyder certainly has done that as her record on our website shows. If you had truly looked into our analysis of this race you would see there is no way that we can deny what Pam Snyder has done in Harrisburg even when many Republicans have stabbed the Second Amendment in the back. So put yourself in her place. What would you think of an organization that plays political games in supporting a party rather than supporting the person's voting record? Isn't that also politically expedient to throw the baby out with the bathwater by looking only at a party of registration rather than the actions that are taken on the floor of the legislature?

In my view, it's long overdue for gun owners to become a little more sophisticated in how we deal with politics and that's been our goal ever since we were first put together an early 1994. We would gladly help you understand these issues if you are still interested!

Endorsement is one thing and campaigning is another. Not sending out a mailer and not campaigning on Snyder's behalf is NOT equivalent to "throwing her under the bus" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Endorse whomever you like, but the mailer was an everlasting shame on your organization.

[ExFlyinguy]

I certainly dont have a problem with it and found the explanations satisfactory.

[Spirit of 76]

Here is Kim's response to the question asked via the website, I don't post things attributed to others without asking first...

"Thank you for letting us know that you got our mailer, it's good to know that this mailing was delivered.

As to the substance of your concerns, I feel it is appropriate to ask if you even know anything about organization? Do you know that we have been around for 27+ years and are responsible for virtually every major legislative victory in Pennsylvania from act 17 in 1995 to Castle doctrine in 2010? My point is that it is unfair of you to insinuate that we do not thoroughly look at these issues and judge each one on its merits, especially if you are not aware of our 27 year history of defending rights in Pennsylvania!

It has always been our position to judge incumbents on their voting record and to use any other formula of connection to what their personal beliefs are is outside the bounds of any political action committee. Every citizen has a right to lobby or take positions on support or opposition to candidates based on their own beliefs and that holds true for not only average citizens but elected officials, wouldn't you agree? What you are offering or expecting us to do is to basically apply the old adage of "the sins of the father" approach. No legitimate organization that I know of take that position especially not Second Amendment oriented organizations. You do know that right?

Our endorsement policy is readily available on our website: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Electio...2017-Final.pdf. It explains everything from our perspective and I would have hoped that you would have taken the opportunity to go to our website and examine his prior to your criticisms.

Every member and every officer in FOAC is a volunteer and we have been struggling and fighting for our rights, including yours, for a long time. If you do not know of our organization then you are not truly involved in the fight in Harrisburg or DC. One of the components of this fight is that we survey (questionnaires) every single candidate and incumbent who runs for office in Pennsylvania from the county level up. We have been fighting these battles for a long time with very little support from the Second Amendment community. So, to use your vernacular and approach, *how could any true supporter of 2A be unaware of the complicated nuances of dealing with election issues if they truly support the Second Amendment*? You mention political expediency and from my experience the true political expediency is shown by gunowners who are driven by emotion rather than knowledge of the Second Amendment fight and all of its nuances.

So in closing, there is no shame here on our part because we will stand by any politician who has fought for our Second Amendment rights and Pam Snyder certainly has done that as her record on our website shows. If you had truly looked into our analysis of this race you would see there is no way that we can deny what Pam Snyder has done in Harrisburg even when many Republicans have stabbed the Second Amendment in the back. So put yourself in her place. What would you think of an organization that plays political games in supporting a party rather than supporting the person's voting record? Isn't that also politically expedient to throw the baby out with the bathwater by looking only at a party of registration rather than the actions that are taken on the floor of the legislature?

In my view, it's long overdue for gun owners to become a little more sophisticated in how we deal with politics and that's been our goal ever since we were first put together an early 1994. We would gladly help you understand these issues if you are still interested!

Endorsement is one thing and campaigning is another. Not sending out a mailer and not campaigning on Snyder's behalf is NOT equivalent to "throwing her under the bus" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Endorse whomever you like, but the mailer was an everlasting shame on your organization.

[LBaker]

Endorsement is one thing and campaigning is another. Not sending out a mailer and not campaigning on Snyder's behalf is NOT equivalent to "throwing her under the bus" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Endorse whomever you like, but the mailer was an everlasting shame on your organization.

Will it be a shame when the dems flip the house and senate and we're still able to stop the evil because we have friends on the other side? We are a non partisan organization... Too much to do enough here.