Firearm Owners Against Crime- Biased BS!!

[Archiver]

Fireowners Against Crime Appears to NOT be a UNBIASED Organisation as they would lead you to believe!
I recently went to their site from a link here and printed out their "Pro Gun Voters Guide"---its COMPLETE BS geared toward REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES or their own personal choice rather than informing the voters and letting them choose for themselves. Very Underhanded!

For example one of the BEST Supporters of Firearm Owners of ANY Democrat I KNOW is Congressman Paul Kanjorski- District 11! The NRA GAVE HIM A GRADE OF "A" CONSISTANTLY OVER THE YEARS INCLUDING 2010!!

He consistantly votes pro gun and his voting record shows as such http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...&go.x=7&go.y=5
The FOAC "guide" is obviously gearing for the November General Election. Their apparent intent is to DECIEVE Voters into thinking there is "NO Suitable Candidate" other than Lou Barletta who is pro-gun both in the primary and general election.
By deceiving Democratic primary voters ignorant of Kanjorski's strong 2nd Amendment Support they can possibly oust Kanjorski and hope the Democrats nominate a weaker candidate so they can help Barletta win in November. (As we know the last election was VERY close between the 2 candidates with Barletta losing.) The pro gun swing votes are VERY important!
What do I think is the intent of FOAC? Elect Barletta by not fairly presenting the TRUTH that Kanjorski is VERY pro 2nd!


Since I KNOW their info is misleading how can ANYONE POSSIBLY BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE THEY ENDORSE?

[unclesam099]

The NRA and FOAC do not "grade" using the same metrics, therefore there is a difference. I personally use both FOAC and the NRA, and the look up the differences in how they voted if there is a difference.

I prefer the FOAC method, though.

[Archiver]

I still can not see how in any way shape or form that ANY "metrics" can differ so much as to not indicate that a man who has a solid voting record and completes many polls stressing the individuals right to carry arms on his person such as Kanjorski has could EVER be "no suitable candidate found".
I'm willing to bet his answers and Barlettas are practically THE SAME.

At least Kanjorski HAS a record of voting pro 2nd unlike Barletta or many of the other Democratic Candidates for that matter.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

The NRA and FOAC do not "grade" using the same metrics, therefore there is a difference. I personally use both FOAC and the NRA, and the look up the differences in how they voted if there is a difference.

I prefer the FOAC method, though.

LEGITIMATE QUESTION: What is the method?

[cigarmanpa]

when you let others tell you who to vote for you get what you get. get off your ass, stop being lazy and make your own decisions.

[Exbiker]

I`ve discussed firearms with Lou and he`s definitely pro 2A. That being said I wouldn`t vote for thieving Kanjorski if you paid me. The millions he funneled into that family business that never did anything but close and keep our money........................
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/Paul+Kanjorski
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Kanj...7-13-2008.html

[fingers80002]

The NRA liked Specter, so..........

[cgbudde]

I have known Lou for many years, and I can tell you he is very pro 2nd amendment. And as ExBiker stated Kanjorski is a thief and a lier. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

[thefirstndsecond]

Very valid question.


I know with a past PAC they stated this is the position of these candidates and if they did not answer us straight forward, then they were marked a do not vote for.

How does the FOAC choose the candidate for the district?

It is not letting other decide for you, it is about being informed by the organizations who are supposed to be in the know or in the mix with the politicians.

I would like to know, what are the qualifications for the politicians the FOAC chooses?

[renegadephoenix]

Fireowners Against Crime Appears to NOT be a UNBIASED Organisation as they would lead you to believe!
I recently went to their site from a link here and printed out their "Pro Gun Voters Guide"---its COMPLETE BS geared toward REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES or their own personal choice rather than informing the voters and letting them choose for themselves. Very Underhanded!

For example one of the BEST Supporters of Firearm Owners of ANY Democrat I KNOW is Congressman Paul Kanjorski- District 11! The NRA GAVE HIM A GRADE OF "A" CONSISTANTLY OVER THE YEARS INCLUDING 2010!!

He consistantly votes pro gun and his voting record shows as such http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...&go.x=7&go.y=5
The FOAC "guide" is obviously gearing for the November General Election. Their apparent intent is to DECIEVE Voters into thinking there is "NO Suitable Candidate" other than Lou Barletta who is pro-gun both in the primary and general election.
By deceiving Democratic primary voters ignorant of Kanjorski's strong 2nd Amendment Support they can possibly oust Kanjorski and hope the Democrats nominate a weaker candidate so they can help Barletta win in November. (As we know the last election was VERY close between the 2 candidates with Barletta losing.) The pro gun swing votes are VERY important!
What do I think is the intent of FOAC? Elect Barletta by not fairly presenting the TRUTH that Kanjorski is VERY pro 2nd!


Since I KNOW their info is misleading how can ANYONE POSSIBLY BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE THEY ENDORSE?

from what i recall, FOAC Sent 3 questionnaires to Kanjorski, he did not return a single one. therefore he gets no decision from FOAC.

how is their info misleading, if a candidate doesn't take the time to answer the very indepth questionnaire on the second amendment how can a PAC give them a grade or endorse them? the NRA questionnaire is 15 questions, the FOAC Questionnaire is 45. heres another one. CeasefirePAs questionnaire is only 10 questions.