Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

[LittleLebowski]

Read the article first.

https://www.libertyparkpress.com/fmr-brady-president-gross-joins-with-pincus-in-common-ground-effort/


In a candid interview two days after addressing the Gun Rights Rally in Washington, D.C.—where he acknowledged “law-abiding gun owners have been unfairly demonized”—former Brady Campaign President Dan Gross told Liberty Park Press and TheGunMag.com about a project he is preparing to launch with veteran firearms trainer and Second Amendment activist Rob Pincus that could be a turning point in the gun rights versus gun control debate.

Pincus confirmed the two have been working together for almost a year on creating the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibilities (CGRR). They will announce a modest project “before the end of the year,” Pincus revealed.

Rob Pincus

[Grey]

Could be a huge win for 2A, having someone from the "ban all guns" crowd to someone that is moderate and is actually starting from a sensible position and understands that a sweeping ban isn't going to get shit done. Looking forward to seeing what these guys put forward.

Good find LL. Nice to see some people doing something rather than buying suits and mansions...

[GOTURBACK]

Not very optimistic about this partnership, I don't middle ground my constitutional rights sorry.

[BillSWPA]

I have thought for a long time that we are in far more danger of losing our rights from idiotic gun owners making us all look bad than from the anti-gun types. Every time a kid accidentally shoots a friend or sibling with an unsecured gun, or some open carry moron walks into Wal-Mart with a slung rifle or a handgun in a sausage sack holster, we all get a black eye.

Done carefully, and with precautions put in place to prevent scope creep, this initiative could be a good thing. There are definitely some people who should not have guns, and people who need more training, but addressing this issue requires careful due process protection as well as ensuring that the class of prohibited people does not slowly expand.

The former Brady president’s perception of the pro-gun motives is completely incorrect. We have seen too often how agreeing to supposedly “reasonable” restrictions leads to nothing except the next set of “reasonable” restrictions. Part of what I want to see from the new organization is a definite push to expand rather than restrict gun rights.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

Excellent. This is the kind of collaboration we need. Taking the long view, building trust, and finding common ground is the approach advocated in the Guns Guide to Liberals Podcast. I am convinced that we can make progress by moving the narrative away from restricting rights, and toward the factors that cause violence and suicide.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCApab7KHvtm2uBDgLjT_Ycg

It would have been nice to hear from Pincus in this article.

[Jim Watson]

They will announce a modest project “before the end of the year,” Pincus revealed.

Sounds good, but I am about googled and facebooked out with no "modest project" or other information located.
Got a link?

[Nephrology]

Given that we have been thrashed at the state level since the AWB sunset under the Bush administration, I think this is a strategy we need to embrace.

Lots of states that once had very minimal restrictions on gun ownership are becoming increasingly blue, and maintaining a stance of non-negotiation and non-engagement with folks on the other side of the aisle will restrict our ability to defend our rights to a political wrestling match. Unfortunately, as we are seeing in VA, this is not a fight we can always expect to win.

I think re-framing the discourse around gun control will be critical to our success. We have already seen some limited movement away from AWB-style laws and an increase emphasis on mental health, community dynamics, etc. By acknowledging our common ground, we only stand to benefit.

Let's be clear: nobody on this forum - or in this country- is pro-gun violence. Finding common ground in approaches that do not restrict our 2nd amendment liberties is the first step towards re-framing the conversation away from pointless and unconstitutional restrictions on our rights. By refusing to engage, however, we essentially cede our place at the table in finding solutions to a problem that is simply too big to ignore.

At the very least it is worth a try, because clearly what we are doing now is not working. I lived in CT when they passed their laws after Sandy Hook, and now live in CO where I suffer from the legacy of the Aurora theater shootings. On both occasions, vocal protest from 2A supporters did absolutely nothing to stop new legislation. I don't have any reason to believe it will work the next time, either.

[GOTURBACK]

A good start for agreeing on a common ground would be not including gang bangers, hood rats, and hood rats children who have accessed said hood 🐀unsecured guns deaths into the gun control / rights discussion which has been the MO of the gun control lobby, the inclusion of those statistics will continue to adversely skew the conversation of expanding, and or securing our rights even further. The criminal justice reform NYS has enacted with no bail catch and release, and just plain releasing convicted criminals back into the streets will only give them more fuel for their fire. The red flag laws showing up around the country are another problem as guilt is predetermined and defense is difficult.

[Wise_A]

His intent now, he says, is what it always has been, and that’s to keep guns away from people who should not have them.

Yes. Those people that shouldn't have guns. We're unable to predetermine who shouldn't be allowed to drive, reproduce, or enter the country, but goddammit, you bet we can decide who's going to be a problem with a gun!

Gimme a break. And guys, stop falling for this "reasonable", "common sense", and "common ground" nonsense. There is no negotiation, because they other side will never be happy. That's why they're called "progressives". Thus, I believe it is my duty to never be happy, until I can drive to work in my M18 Hellcat, with a suppressed SBR slung on my back.

But only in the spring and fall! The M18's a convertible, you see...

You wanna prevent fatal accidents with firearms? Fine. De-stigmatize gun ownership. When people don't want to talk about their guns or shooting at work, but are okay plastering their Facebook with boozing and fucking, that's a problem. And when there's no difference between your average responsible gun owner and a pants-on-head halfwit, then I guess being a halfwit with a gun isn't so bad.

Step #2--start teaching kids gun safety. A few times a year, I go teach school transportation safety to grade schoolers in my district. And some of these kids suck--we're talking 2nd and 3rd graders that don't know how to cross the damn street because they live in the suburbs. Good news is, I'm pretty good at it, and I learned to be good at it by being a (*duh*duh*dummmmm*) NRA CRSO and instructor. I will happily go to schools and teach Stop/Don't Touch/Leave/Tell for free. If I can get a 4-year-old to stop, wait for the hand-signs, look both ways, cross, stop, look again, and walk around, gun safety will be freakin' easy.

[BehindBlueI's]

“The solution,” Gross explained, “on this issue from policy perspective is not built on a foundation of taking certain guns away from all people but all guns away from certain people.

Agreed.


According to Gross, the notion of banning all firearms or just whole classes of firearms is wrong.

Agreed.


He believes that background checks will prevent far more tragedies than any effort to ban guns.

Sorta agree, but neither is going to be as effective as serious enforcement and real penalties for violent criminals or those who supply them found in possession of guns. I know, hurk-a-durk, laws don't work because criminals don't follow them. If there's no law being broken there's no criminal activity, so by definition criminals don't follow the law...so no shit. The point of the law isn't solely to dissuade a certain activity. It's to have a legal mechanism to punish the activity, usually by sequestering the given individual away from society at large. If there's no law against a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm, there's no legal mechanism to take the gun from said felon or to jail him for it.

It's very well established that lengthy in-custody sentences are effective at reducing violent crime. It's not hard to figure out why.

47335

47336

Source: United States Sentencing Commission (USSC.gov)


Have the balls to stop talking gun control and start talking violent criminal control. We have armed robbers using toy guns, not because they can't procure a real gun but because they know they'll get more time for the real gun then for the robbery. On one hand, good that they aren't using a real gun and increasing the danger to the clerk but on the other hand HTF does it make sense that robbery isn't punished more strongly then it is based on the above facts? If these assholes were still in prison where they belong we wouldn't be worried about how a background check could stop them.

[Nephrology]

Gimme a break. And guys, stop falling for this "reasonable", "common sense", and "common ground" nonsense. There is no negotiation, because they other side will never be happy. That's why they're called "progressives". Thus, I believe it is my duty to never be happy, until I can drive to work in my M18 Hellcat, with a suppressed SBR slung on my back.

There are a very large number of solid blue states that have very reasonable gun laws (eg. MN, WI, MI, etc) and a large list of purple states (PA, WV, OH, FL, NV, and sooner than later, TX...) that are similar. All of that can and will change if we continue to alienate potential allies because their world view does not align perfectly with ours.

We clearly have common ground because people of very different political beliefs inhabit these states and manage to co-exist reasonably well. Taking a big, loud, angry, and ultimately impotent stand against the large chunk of people who live in these states each time there is a mass shooting simply Will. Not. Work. I know this because we have seen it over and over again in the last 15 years. It is completely irrational to think it will work in the future.

The only way you'll be able to de-stigmatize gun ownership and drive to work with an SBR on your back is by helping people see that gun ownership is not at odds with a safe and peaceful society. By refusing to engage with the very same people who you hope will also see the importance the 2nd amendment, you simply are dooming yourself. This is not radical Islam - you will never convert people to your side via brute force. So long as current demographic trends continue, you can simply expect even more failure with this strategy.

In my life I have taught dozens and dozens of new shooters and been directly responsible for at least 4 people's first ever gun purchase. Many, many more have softened to the idea of gun ownership because they know that I understand and respect their views, which led them to understand and respect mine in turn. This would not have been possible if I had dismissed them for having political or ideological differences in belief. Given my experience, I feel strongly there is a lot more opportunity for victory on common ground than not.

[Old Man Winter]

I'm of the opinion we've always been willing to find common ground. Common ground isn't adopting measures that impact law abiding citizens while failing to address mental health, crime, etc. This approach no longer appeals to me as I don't believe the other side is capable of being fair or rational which appears to be supported by Dan Gross leaving the Brady Campaign.

It's time to change things up. I'm done handing money to the NRA and similar groups. I'm done kneeling before the ruling class begging them to hear my voice. I'm done seeking remedy in the courts because some tyrant can't honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. History has shown time and time again this approach does not work and we only have to look at California, New York, Illinois or the long list of other states where our rights have been severely eroded to confirm it.

Far too many in the 2A community are scared to win this fight because of optics. Seems to me the only optics at this point are the 2A community getting our asses handed to us.


There are a very large number of solid blue states that have very reasonable gun laws (eg. MN, WI, MI, etc) and a large list of purple states (PA, WV, OH, FL, NV, and sooner than later, TX...) that are similar. All of that can and will change if we continue to alienate potential allies because their world view does not align perfectly with ours.

Living in Minnesota I wouldn't consider our existing gun laws very reasonable and the big blue machine may tell Virginia to hold my beer soon enough. Michigan has registration laws, I don't find that very reasonable.

[Borderland]

I like to use this statistic. I wonder if many people know this?


Texas had 148 concealed carry permit holders convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in 2016. This works out to a conviction rate of 12.3 percent per 100,000. When the Texas and Florida data is combined it shows that CCW permit holders are convicted of felonies and misdemeanors at a rate of 2.4 per 100,000. While among police the rate is 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Texas and Florida have some of the highest rates of CCW permit holders but the figures are similar in other states with less permit holders.

In summary CCW permit holders are convicted of crimes at less than a sixth of that for police officers.

https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/

I'm not a big fan of permits but it does say one thing. Those who pass those permit BC's are more law abiding than LEO's in general. A UBC insures that a restricted person isn't buying a firearm. I don't have a problem with that because I don't want to sell a firearm to a restricted person.

The middle ground here is more states are dropping permits for CC and more are requiring BC's to purchase. We just got a UBC here.

So if people want a UBC lets have one and drop the state permits. That would be the middle ground. Lets see how the progressives react to that. I don't think they would buy it but the truth is out there if you just want to look for it.

[Wheeler]

Not very optimistic about this partnership, I don't middle ground my constitutional rights sorry.

You missed that part about reading the article first didn't you?

“…I know there is common ground that already exists, and because I believe that common ground represents a huge opportunity to do what we all want at the end of the day, which is to keep us all safe…Without any involvement of the government.”—Dan Gross"

"I don’t think this is something that should be mandated by the government,” Gross stated. “This is how gun owners can change that conversation. We are going to acknowledge the risks and responsibilities of owning guns and carrying them, and I think this is a far more productive conversation.”-Dan Gross

“There are people out there,” he began, “It’s almost as if there are people who are trying to turn this into a culture war and that is where the conversation devolves. They get the most attention from the media and the organizations perpetuate and escalate the culture war."-Dan Gross

[OlongJohnson]

He acknowledged that some people in the gun control movement have “an ideological hatred of guns and people who own them.”

“I saw that firsthand,” he said. “I want to emphasize there are a lot of amazing people when I was at Brady (and) I do believe they were purely intentioned, as I was.”

He told the rally, and reiterated to TGM and Liberty Park, “There is nothing that pisses me off more than people who pretend they care about saving lives, but really have other agendas.”


One of his chief criticisms about gun control proponents is that many would say they were “looking for common ground, but then project an ideological hatred of guns. It made my job impossible.”

I'm all for winning hearts and minds of well-intentioned, honest people who just want the world to be safer. That's a possible and rewarding task.

However, Dan Gross clearly understands that there are people using gun control as a weapon in the very literal culture war they are prosecuting. In my mind, those are the dangerous ones who will stop at nothing to get it done. There is no amount of gaslighting that will give them pause. As one podcaster said of Newsom (for example), "He sat in that chair and lied for an hour."

I would like to see ideas on how to resist those people if we are not to call them out for what they are.

[LOKNLOD]

I often hear about all the “common ground” of how “most” gun owners support AWBs and mag bans and universal background checks. The antis love to tout all those.

I’d like to give Pincus the benefit of the doubt but it’s hard to trust any antis that aren’t really converts, but just trying to find a new angle.

[GOTURBACK]

No I read the article completely my statements still stands.I've heard it all before and like I said I'm not very optimistic. Yes there is common ground but there is also an agenda throughout the power brokers who make the decisions, been there and done that.


You missed that part about reading the article first didn't you?

“…I know there is common ground that already exists, and because I believe that common ground represents a huge opportunity to do what we all want at the end of the day, which is to keep us all safe…Without any involvement of the government.”—Dan Gross"

"I don’t think this is something that should be mandated by the government,” Gross stated. “This is how gun owners can change that conversation. We are going to acknowledge the risks and responsibilities of owning guns and carrying them, and I think this is a far more productive conversation.”-Dan Gross

“There are people out there,” he began, “It’s almost as if there are people who are trying to turn this into a culture war and that is where the conversation devolves. They get the most attention from the media and the organizations perpetuate and escalate the culture war."-Dan Gross

[Old Man Winter]

I'm not a big fan of permits but it does say one thing. Those who pass those permit BC's are more law abiding than LEO's in general. A UBC insures that a restricted person isn't buying a firearm. I don't have a problem with that because I don't want to sell a firearm to a restricted person.



Bolded text is not entirely true. UBC may keep a restricted person from buying through a FFL provided they've been added to the system. UBC does nothing to stop private sales if people intend to skirt the laws.

[ssb]

I like to use this statistic. I wonder if many people know this?



https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/

I'm not a big fan of permits but it does say one thing. Those who pass those permit BC's are more law abiding than LEO's in general. A UBC insures that a restricted person isn't buying a firearm. I don't have a problem with that because I don't want to sell a firearm to a restricted person.

The middle ground here is more states are dropping permits for CC and more are requiring BC's to purchase. We just got a UBC here.

So if people want a UBC lets have one and drop the state permits. That would be the middle ground. Lets see how the progressives react to that. I don't think they would buy it but the truth is out there if you just want to look for it.

In principle I have no objection to a background check before a gun is sold, whether by a dealer or a private seller. In practice, I also know that this sort of law is completely unenforceable outside of law enforcement stings unless somebody has a database of who owns what which records who transfered what to whom.

I'd like a middle ground, and in a perfect world I'd be willing to trade UBCs for aggressive prison terms for violent felons with guns and a rollback of the myriad of category restrictions on guns. Finding middle ground requires trust, however. You don't build trust on a mound of shit. I'm completely unwilling to hand that sort of power over to the people who run your state, or the people who just took control of Virginia's government, or the laundry list of people who have demonstrated time and time again that they see themselves engaged in a culture war and know that "guns" are an easy way to hit the other side, the Constitution be damned.

Edit:

By "aggressive prison terms," I would be looking for something along the lines of "mere possession during the offense = 5 years," "employing but not discharging a firearm = 10 years," and "discharging a firearm = 15 years," "discharge with injury = 20 years," and so on and so forth.

[Borderland]

I would like to see ideas on how to resist those people if we are not to call them out for what they are.

There isn't a lot you can do about a duly elected governor or legislator. The laws they pass won't accomplish anything to keep people safe. That will become clear as time goes by. Actually, it should already be clear to most who would cast an objective eye to the number of mass shooters who acquired firearms legally or illegally. They either passed the NICS which failed or were not restricted when the check was run. Or they didn't bother with the check in which case a check can't be a deterrent.

I've always been a proponent of banning people and not firearms. That seems to be the problem here. A person should have a right to own and carry a firearm until they prove they shouldn't be allowed to and restricted. Restriction could come in many forms. DL could have a code or symbol, registration as a felon like a pedofile, RP cut into their forehead, :D any number of solutions come to mind.

And of course the sentence as BB suggested. If a firearm is involved, well shit, see you in 10 years. No plea bargains.

[Casual Friday]

Rob Pincus can eat shit. I don't care if he's a member here or not...and yes, I read the above article. These were his words following the NJ magazine ban a few years ago.



“Unfortunately, while the law may eventually be found unjust and overturned, today it is the law. Second Amendment Organization is a staunch advocate of Gun Rights, but those rights are defined by our laws. We believe it is imperative that Responsible Gun Owners follow the law. In this case, that means the New Jersey Gun Owners should comply with the law… and fight it! Part of fighting it involved educating people about why these types of laws have little or no effect in regard to saving lives and why people might want or need large capacity magazines in the first place. 2AO is staunchly against magazine capacity restrictions, as stated in this set of Position Statements. Recommending that New Jersey residents comply with the law is not ‘compromise,’ it is accepting the current reality.” – Rob Pincus

ETA: Here's an article from jetfire about it. https://primaryandsecondary.com/since-when-do-laws-define-our-rights/

[11B10]

[QUOTE=Wise_A;982117]Yes. Those people that shouldn't have guns. We're unable to predetermine who shouldn't be allowed to drive, reproduce, or enter the country, but goddammit, you bet we can decide who's going to be a problem with a gun!


Seldom have I engaged in things political here. HOWEVER, the words above are, (apologies for editing your post w/o asking, Wise_A) painful as they may be, the actual history of our country - still the best country, warts and all.

[LOKNLOD]

By "aggressive prison terms," I would be looking for something along the lines of "mere possession during the offense = 5 years," "employing but not discharging a firearm = 10 years," and "discharging a firearm = 15 years," "discharge with injury = 20 years," and so on and so forth.

That’s bullshit. This only serves to demonize inanimate objects in public eye. If a person deserves to spend a portion of their life in jail, they deserve the same sentence regardless of the tool used.

[Borderland]

Bolded text is not entirely true. UBC may keep a restricted person from buying through a FFL provided they've been added to the system. UBC does nothing to stop private sales if people intend to skirt the law.

Neither do speed limits. I don't think we want to get rid of those do we?

[Clusterfrack]

It's still hard for me to argue against background checks. But...

Episode 2 of the Guns Guide to Liberals (http://gunsguidetoliberals.libsyn.com/episode-02-values-and-background-checks) podcast addresses why background checks are not effective. When we have millions of purchases and 99.9% of them are legal, false positives swamp real positives (actual cases of people illegally trying to buy a gun). Moreover they argue that additional resources allocated to properly supporting background checks could be better used elsewhere to address criminal activity.

[BillSWPA]

We simply do not know enough about this organization to know if it is a good thing or not. Let’s see some of the specific solutions they propose before we decide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Borderland]

That’s bullshit. This only serves to demonize inanimate objects in public eye. If a person deserves to spend a portion of their life in jail, they deserve the same sentence regardless of the tool used.

That's where the plea bargains and reduced sentences come in. I think we're talking about a mandatory sentence here. Too many who should be in jail aren't because of plea bargains and light sentences. All these laws would do is make sure the person convicted does the time. As in the example of the robbery with a real gun. Armed robbery is going to get you some more time for sure maybe even shot. Probably the reason so many bank robbers just pass notes these days.

There was a robbery of a bank here and the robber ran from the police. While the robber was running he took a shot at the police. That opened up a whole new can of worms for the robber. Police shot him in the parking lot.

[Borderland]

It's still hard for me to argue against background checks. But...

Episode 2 of the Guns Guide to Liberals (http://gunsguidetoliberals.libsyn.com/episode-02-values-and-background-checks) podcast addresses why background checks are not effective. When we have millions of purchases and 99.9% of them are legal, false positives swamp real positives (actual cases of people illegally trying to buy a gun). Moreover they argue that additional resources allocated to properly supporting background checks could be better used elsewhere to address criminal activity.

They're finding that out here in WA. I-1639 was an unfunded mandate by initiative. Legislators never had a chance to vote on it or question how it would be funded. I think we had a topic here not long ago where the BC was held up for over a month.

[Wise_A]

In my life I have taught dozens and dozens of new shooters and been directly responsible for at least 4 people's first ever gun purchase. Many, many more have softened to the idea of gun ownership because they know that I understand and respect their views, which led them to understand and respect mine in turn. This would not have been possible if I had dismissed them for having political or ideological differences in belief. Given my experience, I feel strongly there is a lot more opportunity for victory on common ground than not.

This is how I did it at my workplace:

"Hey Wise_A, what are you doing this weekend?"

"Probly gonna hit the range."

Long pause.

"Like...guns?"

"Yup."

Boom. Done. After a few months of working hard and being conscientious and level-headed, I came out.

One retired hippie wanted to know if I meant "weapons", whereupon I explained that no, they're just guns, and with any luck, I don't have to use them as weapons--kinda like his golf clubs. That was the only debate I ever had. He doesn't like me anymore, but that's okay, because nobody likes him. Another co-worker confided that he got a 686 after a work-related death threat, but wanted to know if I thought he needed a semiautomatic for a larger capacity. I offered to let him try out my 327 R8. Another pulled me aside and asked how she would go about getting a gun and some training, because her charming ex seems to have trouble reading orders of protection. One of the young guys asked me how to get a CCW permit. Yet another wanted to know what she should tell her kids to do if they ever found a gun, and if I would take her and her husband shooting.

So I'm The Gun Guy. And the folks the thought that we're crazy loonies had to reconcile that idea with...well, me. And I think I'm pretty well-liked around the office.

Unfortunately, that is not why purple states are purple. That, too, would be easy. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what any of my co-workers think, because we're in the Upstate, and it's the Downstate and its 50% of the population that controls state politics. This is why red states are going purple--economic and social forces are draining rural areas and driving people to the cities, where it's easier for machine politics to get out the vote...and frankly, to cheat. Most people are not smart or brave enough to think differently than those around them, especially in the face of constant information inundation.


Seldom have I engaged in things political here. HOWEVER, the words above are, (apologies for editing your post w/o asking, Wise_A) painful as they may be, the actual history of our country - still the best country, warts and all

One of the things that I love about America is our constant, unceasing belief that we can make things better, not just for ourselves, but for other people. I also believe that that optimism is being exploited by both sides in an increasingly divisive political climate. I find the culture in older gun clubs to be as disgusting as...well, when I was in college.

Hence, I believe that that which governs least, governs best. And that applies to all things, from stuff I like, to stuff I disagree with, to stuff I hate. That's sort of the problem with truly having freedom--sometimes, people do non-criminal shit you don't like, and you can't use government as a club to beat them over the head.

Also, edit away, no harm no foul. Apologies if the original text offended you.

--

PS--Background checks are worthless, evil people will always find a way to get guns, U-Haul trucks, airplanes, and cans of gasoline.

PS PS--I think this Gross dude is probably not Satan, or an Ebil Grabber who thought up a new way to attack us, I just think he doesn't understand the reality of the previous statement.

[LOKNLOD]

That's where the plea bargains and reduced sentences come in. I think we're talking about a mandatory sentence here. Too many who should be in jail aren't because of plea bargains and light sentences. All these laws would do is make sure the person convicted does the time. As in the example of the robbery with a real gun. Armed robbery is going to get you some more time for sure maybe even shot. Probably the reason so many bank robbers just pass notes these days.

There was a robbery of a bank here and the robber ran from the police. While the robber was running he took a shot at the police. That opened up a whole new can of worms for the robber. Police shot him in the parking lot..

New bad laws don’t fix old bad laws.

You don’t make a dog shit sandwich taste better by layering on some cat shit too.

[Bergeron]

It's still hard for me to argue against background checks. But...

Episode 2 of the Guns Guide to Liberals (http://gunsguidetoliberals.libsyn.com/episode-02-values-and-background-checks) podcast addresses why background checks are not effective. When we have millions of purchases and 99.9% of them are legal, false positives swamp real positives (actual cases of people illegally trying to buy a gun). Moreover they argue that additional resources allocated to properly supporting background checks could be better used elsewhere to address criminal activity.

The GGTL podcast was excellent, Jon and Sarah did a great job with the background check numbers and analogies.

If given the opportunity, I like to voice my opposition to background checks in terms of protecting people. Multiple times, good, honest, and law-abiding people in my life have had an emergent requirement to provide for their own self-defense. In these times, being able to immediately place a gun in their hands made them, and our world safer.

I even had an ex who was given a family heirloom of a self-defense gun, but then had some mental health issues pop up. She asked if I could keep the gun till she was in a better place, which I did.

Background checks would have made people less safe in my experiences. Commercial sales can be whatever, and the idea of prohibited people is fine with me, but it makes the world less safe and more harmful to interfere with my private property and what I do with it among other law-abiding citizens.

It’s also a cultural assault, a gun given or received as a gift is always a bright experience. I also bought my first .45 1911 cash in the parking lot of a Popeye’s because exercise is good for rights just like it’s good for your muscles.

[Borderland]

.

New bad laws don’t fix old bad laws.

You don’t make a dog shit sandwich taste better by layering on some cat shit too.

I take it you aren't in favor of mandatory sentencing like the 3 strikes laws.

That's fine, but I happen to like them. Makes the judges job a lot easier.

[ssb]

That’s bullshit. This only serves to demonize inanimate objects in public eye. If a person deserves to spend a portion of their life in jail, they deserve the same sentence regardless of the tool used.

I'm perfectly fine with people demonizing violent felons using or possessing firearms. Remember that these are people we already prohibit from possessing firearms because they've proven they cannot conduct themselves in a polite society. Thus the sentencing enhancement. It's nothing novel: on paper, the Feds already do it for the dozen or so cases a year they take*. It's the states that seem to be decriminalizing, non-enforcing, paroling, and "community-based alternative"-ing these folks in the name of "smart on crime."

*Mild sarcasm.

[BehindBlueI's]

That’s bullshit. This only serves to demonize inanimate objects in public eye. If a person deserves to spend a portion of their life in jail, they deserve the same sentence regardless of the tool used.

I think the context of "violent felons with guns" is important. As SSB clarifies here:


I'm perfectly fine with people demonizing violent felons using or possessing firearms. Remember that these are people we already prohibit from possessing firearms because they've proven they cannot conduct themselves in a polite society. Thus the sentencing enhancement.

I agree with that, and would refer again to the earlier recidivism rates. If Joe is convicted of Robbery, does his time, and 6 months into his parole he's found with a gun he's probably not just decided to take up target shooting. That's a key indicator that he's committing violent crimes again. That's not gun control, that's violent felon control. Can't play by the rules, back to prison. One of the rules is you can't have firearms.

[GOTURBACK]

I take it you aren't in favor of mandatory sentencing like the 3 strikes laws.

That's fine, but I happen to like them. Makes the judges job a lot easier.

I fully endorse three strikes laws, although sadly in NYS it just means your out (on the streets). Felons here are being released in increasing numbers as our LE are second guessed, demonized and risk their lives only to have the criminals ROR'd. Bleeding heart liberal judges in NY accept plea bargains to a lesser charge from 3 time losers, so they don't even get popped for the gun charge very often.

[LOKNLOD]

I think the context of "violent felons with guns" is important. As SSB clarifies here:

I agree with that, and would refer again to the earlier recidivism rates. If Joe is convicted of Robbery, does his time, and 6 months into his parole he's found with a gun he's probably not just decided to take up target shooting. That's a key indicator that he's committing violent crimes again. That's not gun control, that's violent felon control. Can't play by the rules, back to prison. One of the rules is you can't have firearms.

If the crime is merely possession of a firearm as a prohibited person, then fine. That's one thing.
If the a crime is committed by a previous offender, and he is in possession of a firearm that he's prohibited from having, that's also fine. Charge him accordingly with the extra crime committed.

But i read SSB's example as tacking on very harsh extra time for committing a crime with a gun vs. without. I still believe that's nonsense. Worded differently, it's the same as upgrading a crime to "hate crime" status because a gun was used or present. If I misunderstood and the original post was about combating recidivism among repeat offenders rather than elevating guns to "morally repugnant" status, than we maybe be unintentionally talking past one another.

[Suvorov]

I don't trust Pincus.

My opinion is Pincus is in it for Pincus and given that many in the community shun him - he is working on an angle that will make him look good.

As a resident of Kalifornia for the past 20 years I have come to completely TRUST that anti's( and that would certainly include the former head of Brady) - TRUST them to not stop taking our rights until we are somewhere on the scale between Britian and Japan when it comes to firearms ownership.

I have watched how every year the legislature in Sacramento take more and more. I have plenty of acquaintances that say they have no problem with someone vetted like *me* having guns and then turn around and vote for a tyrant who make it harder and harder for me to shoot and there is 0% doubt in my mind that those same legislators will be demanding my firearms soon just as their ilk are doing in Virginia. Meanwhile those same legislators that make me pass a background check to buy ammo are passing other laws that give real criminals nothing more than slaps on the wrist.

We can all pretend to sing kumbia around the water cooler with our anti acquaintances and show them how a "gun nut" can be not so scary - but at the end of the day they will sell you out for the illusion of safety.

Rob is going to get played and we are going to pay the price.

I hope I'm wrong but 20 years in this Communist Wannabe (but Beautiful) Shit Hole has taught me otherwise.

[ssb]

But i read SSB's example as tacking on very harsh extra time for committing a crime with a gun vs. without. I still believe that's nonsense. Worded differently, it's the same as upgrading a crime to "hate crime" status because a gun was used or present. If I misunderstood and the original post was about combating recidivism among repeat offenders rather than elevating guns to "morally repugnant" status, than we maybe be unintentionally talking past one another.

I thought when I specified "violent felons" in the text above the portion you quoted, I was clear. I may not have been.

There are examples all over the country where incarcerating known violent offenders on firearms possession/use/etc. charges works. I can think of one US Attorney's Office I'm aware of which regularly will take referrals of known violent prohibited possessors who post dumb photos of themselves on social media and use that evidence to get somewhat serious time for them. It works, if nothing else by taking those people out of circulation for a time. I want more of that.

You spoke earlier of simply prosecuting a robbery as a robbery, instead of making it a special gun robbery with extra time. That's all fine and well in principle, but it's also pissing in the wind -- the national trend is decidedly against incarcerating people for long periods of time, even for violent offenses. In my state you pretty much have to commit murder or rape a child in order to serve even a bare majority of the time the judge sentenced you to -- if you're incarcerated at all. If your state hasn't gone that route yet, it's probably coming soon. In that environment, if a felon with a gun enhancement lets me at least remove a person with a documented history of violence from the community for a serious length of time, even if a similarly-situated person without a violent felony history wouldn't receive anywhere close to that amount of time, I'm going to take what I can get.

[Paul Blackburn]

Rob Pincus can eat shit. I don't care if he's a member here or not...and yes, I read the above article. These were his words following the NJ magazine ban a few years ago.



ETA: Here's an article from jetfire about it. https://primaryandsecondary.com/since-when-do-laws-define-our-rights/

This is one- if not the most important posts in this entire thread because of Rob Pincus's gross misunderstanding of our rights. Here is his own words;

“While the law may eventually be found unjust and overturned, today it is the law. Second Amendment Organization is a staunch advocate of Gun Rights, but those rights are defined by our laws.“

Since When Do Laws Define Our Rights?

[shane45]

If you lived in NJ I think you might have a different take on his msg.

[Borderland]

This is one- if not the most important posts in this entire thread because of Rob Pincus's gross misunderstanding of our rights. Here is his own words;

“While the law may eventually be found unjust and overturned, today it is the law. Second Amendment Organization is a staunch advocate of Gun Rights, but those rights are defined by our laws.“

Since When Do Laws Define Our Rights?

I think Pincus may be addressing two different things here. The law and your rights. Practically speaking the law defines your rights at this point in time. You may claim a right but if a court says you don't have that right then for all practical purposes you can't use it.

It's that way with just about everything we do. If I say I can walk across my neighbor's property using a prescriptive right (been doing it for 20 years), and a judge says I don't have that right, I won't be doing that anymore. The judge may have made the wrong decision and I may actually have that right but the effect is I can't use it.

If you can't use your RKBA in effect you have lost it. Doesn't mean you may never have it in the future but you certainly don't have it now.

I look at it as something that belongs to me but I've lost it, therefor I can no longer use it.

[Casual Friday]

This is one- if not the most important posts in this entire thread because of Rob Pincus's gross misunderstanding of our rights. Here is his own words;

“While the law may eventually be found unjust and overturned, today it is the law. Second Amendment Organization is a staunch advocate of Gun Rights, but those rights are defined by our laws.“

Since When Do Laws Define Our Rights?

Exactly. Rob Pincus is not someone I want representing the 2nd amendment. He needs to go back to peddling his Personal Defense Network DVDs and that Avidity Arms pistol.

[Casual Friday]

I think Pincus may be addressing two different things here. The law and your rights. Practically speaking the law defines your rights at this point in time. You may claim a right but if a court says you don't have that right then for all practical purposes you can't use it.

It's that way with just about everything we do. If I say I can walk across my neighbor's property using a prescriptive right (been doing it for 20 years), and a judge says I don't have that right, I won't be doing that anymore. The judge may have made the wrong decision and I may actually have that right but the effect is I can't use it.

If you can't use your RKBA in effect you have lost it. Doesn't mean you may never have it in the future but you certainly don't have it now.

I look at it as something that belongs to me but I've lost it, therefor I can no longer use it.

Did you post that with a straight face?

[Borderland]

Did you post that with a straight face?

I know it sounds like a lot of spin. :D I've been watching Kelly Ann. She actually gets paid to do it.

[Casual Friday]

I know it sounds like a lot of spin. :D I've been watching Kelly Ann. She actually gets paid to do it.

I don't know who Kelly Ann is, I don't watch daytime talk shows and soap operas, but it sounds like red coat horse shit to me.

[BillSWPA]

Rob Pincus can eat shit. I don't care if he's a member here or not...and yes, I read the above article. These were his words following the NJ magazine ban a few years ago.



ETA: Here's an article from jetfire about it. https://primaryandsecondary.com/since-when-do-laws-define-our-rights/

So you are unhappy that he advised people to obey the law?

When you visit states where you are not allowed to carry a gun, are you risking jail as well as everything that comes with a criminal record by doing so anyway, and openly advocating that others do the same, because it is “muh rights”?

The article’s comparison between protecting people during WWII and protecting inanimate objects is simply ludicrous.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YVK]

From standpoint of intellectual curiosity, I'd like to see what's the project. I doubt that two-people venture has any potential to be a "turning point".


That Gross is a funny guy. He cites a heterogeneity of gun control crowd and prevalence of hate ideology as a reason for his leaving the Brady. Does he think that the gun rights crowd is not heterogeneous or that there are staunch gun rights supporting groups whose ideologies are wholly unacceptable too? Can he handle that?

He was at the top of one of the most prominent gun control groups. If he saw that hate and control ideology as wrong, best he could do for gun rights was to stay there and work on changing their attitudes, culture, message etc from within. Instead he failed and ran away. At the minimum that confirms that hate and pure control people at the Brady won and that there is absolutely no way to find any middle-sensible-crime and safety oriented ground with them. At the max, it makes me question him in his willingness to persevere and abilities to get the results.

[Casual Friday]

So you are unhappy that he advised people to obey the law?

Well, yeah. I mean where would be if the founding fathers had obeyed the law?


When you visit states where you are not allowed to carry a gun, are you risking jail as well as everything that comes with a criminal record by doing so anyway,

The forum frowns upon people openly discussing illegal activity but I'll say this. My family's safety is worth me going to jail over if I had to defend them someplace it's not allowed.


and openly advocating that others do the same, because it is “muh rights”?

People are free to make their own choices, those choices being to comply or not.


The article’s comparison between protecting people during WWII and protecting inanimate objects is simply ludicrous.

No, it really isn't ludicrous. If the law defines our rights, like Pincus suggested and you're defending, then they should have turned over the Jews instead of hiding them because it's the law.

[OlongJohnson]

Neither do speed limits. I don't think we want to get rid of those do we?

Funny. The universally unreasonably low and oppressively enforced speed limits in the area where you live have only recently been surpassed by the anti-gun b.s. as a reason to not live there, IME.

[Paul Blackburn]

So you are unhappy that he advised people to obey the law?

When you visit states where you are not allowed to carry a gun, are you risking jail as well as everything that comes with a criminal record by doing so anyway, and openly advocating that others do the same, because it is “muh rights”?

The article’s comparison between protecting people during WWII and protecting inanimate objects is simply ludicrous.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely!

Its called civil disobedience. Its happening throughout anti gun states with massive noncompliance in states and cities that have banned certain firearms and magazines.

Thomas Jefferson was fond of the quote "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

[Borderland]

I don't know who Kelly Ann is, I don't watch daytime talk shows and soap operas, but it sounds like red coat horse shit to me.

Neither do I.

I misspelled her name. Sorry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellyanne_Conway. Counselor to the president. You'll see her on MSM from time to time.

[Borderland]

Funny. The universally unreasonably low and oppressively enforced speed limits in the area where you live have only recently been surpassed by the anti-gun b.s. as a reason to not live there, IME.

So where do you suggest I move to. I've lived in AZ. They have speed limits there also along with a lot of other repressive crap like border patrol checkpoints where they stop you, run your plates and ask you questions like do you have any passengers in the back of your vehicle.

That's a lot more annoying to me than driving the speed limit.

[LOKNLOD]

I thought when I specified "violent felons" in the text above the portion you quoted, I was clear. I may not have been.


Minor semantics on my part. As I said, I just didn't read it as you intended.



There are examples all over the country where incarcerating known violent offenders on firearms possession/use/etc. charges works. I can think of one US Attorney's Office I'm aware of which regularly will take referrals of known violent prohibited possessors who post dumb photos of themselves on social media and use that evidence to get somewhat serious time for them. It works, if nothing else by taking those people out of circulation for a time. I want more of that.

You spoke earlier of simply prosecuting a robbery as a robbery, instead of making it a special gun robbery with extra time. That's all fine and well in principle, but it's also pissing in the wind -- the national trend is decidedly against incarcerating people for long periods of time, even for violent offenses. In my state you pretty much have to commit murder or rape a child in order to serve even a bare majority of the time the judge sentenced you to -- if you're incarcerated at all. If your state hasn't gone that route yet, it's probably coming soon. In that environment, if a felon with a gun enhancement lets me at least remove a person with a documented history of violence from the community for a serious length of time, even if a similarly-situated person without a violent felony history wouldn't receive anywhere close to that amount of time, I'm going to take what I can get.

No denying that that system if fucked up and not working correctly to put the right people away -- but problems with laws and sentencing are not fixed by doubling down on bad laws and sentencing. I realize that it's probably unrealistic to expect the real issues to be addressed, and I understand the pragmatic view of using this as a tool to lock up animals.

But turning a gun into a magical talisman that makes crime more crimey is just a self-inflicted wound in the culture war we're rapidly losing.



My family's safety is worth me going to jail over if I had to defend them someplace it's not allowed.


But what if you go to DOUBLE JAIL! because you did it with a gun?

[Poconnor]

Any talk about a blind background check? Any background check should include enhanced drivers licenses and ID cards. It should also include voter ID and severe penalties for identity thefts.

[Wendell]

We simply do not know enough about this organization to know if it is a good thing or not.

Rob Pincus is all that I need to know about this organization.

[Borderland]

Any talk about a blind background check? Any background check should include enhanced drivers licenses and ID cards. It should also include voter ID and severe penalties for identity thefts.

That gets to the heart of the term "restricted person". I'm sure there are plenty of people walking around with false ID or stolen ID. We have a problem with mail theft where I live (rural delivery) and it was explained to me by LEO that it happens primarily because it's a good way to collect enough information to steal someones ID.

In a country that has no system to insure that people who vote are eligible to vote, that says it's unconstitutional to even try to determine that, it's no wonder that people reject background checks for firearms transfers. How on earth are you supposed to purchase a firearm to defend yourself and family if you have to actually identify yourself to the police in the process.:rolleyes: Background checks are not restrictions on unrestricted people 99% of the time.

I was on a no fly list after 911. I was never denied a boarding pass but delayed many times, a few times over an hour. I just got used to it and made sure I had enough time to get a boarding pass.

I think we're at a point in this country where we are either going to start taking away more freedoms (AWB's and mag restrictions) from people who play by the rules or take away more freedoms from people who don't. That will probably be a tough choice for most socialist democrats.

[Poconnor]

Good point. That’s why I mentioned a blind background test. The idea is there is no record. The false ID is a separate but related issue as is the voter ID. Nobody wants a national ID card but with computers your identity, your credit and your SSN are all tied together. As a gun owner I don’t want mentally ill or criminals getting guns but it seems like anti gunners never want to actually reduce crime; just infringe on gun owners rights.

[LOKNLOD]

. As a gun owner I don’t want mentally ill or criminals getting guns but it seems like anti gunners never want to actually reduce crime; just infringe on gun owners rights.

There are a lot of “reasonable restrictions” that actually would be reasonable if they were done in 100% good faith. But so long as a big proportion of the people supporting and suggesting them are also out to eliminate gun ownership all together, they’re an unacceptable compromise.


This is one of the (many) ways the “...but cars...” argument falls apart; people would feel very differently about licensing and Registration if it were being proposed while a media darling political candidate was ranting and raving that “hell yes I’m going to take your V8s and V6s! Nobody needs more than 100hp to commute!”

The failure to negotiate in good faith is also highlighted in that voter ID discussion already mentioned. Most of us cant imagine any desire to disenfranchise anyone who is an actual citizen. But we just want a reasonable restriction to ensure non-prohibited people aren’t voting. But to the other side, it’s a clear step toward a systematic program of making sure people darker than “eggshell“ on the paint chart never have a voice ever again.

[OlongJohnson]

The failure to negotiate in good faith is also highlighted in that voter ID discussion already mentioned. Most of us cant imagine any desire to disenfranchise anyone who is an actual citizen. But we just want a reasonable restriction to ensure non-prohibited people aren’t voting. But to the other side, it’s a clear step toward a systematic program of making sure people darker than “eggshell“ on the paint chart never have a voice ever again.

Fully agree with the rest of your post. Cut down the quote to emphasize this.

The difference is, there hasn't been any serious legislation that is obviously aimed at wholesale disenfranchisement of any legal voting population in my lifetime. At least nothing I've heard about.

ETA:


This is one of the (many) ways the “...but cars...” argument falls apart; people would feel very differently about licensing and Registration if it were being proposed while a media darling political candidate was ranting and raving that “hell yes I’m going to take your V8s and V6s! Nobody needs more than 100hp to commute!”

Don't think that isn't coming. Read up on Vision Zero and where it's been going.

[LOKNLOD]

Fully agree with the rest of your post. Cut down the quote to emphasize this.

The difference is, there hasn't been any serious legislation that is obviously aimed at wholesale disenfranchisement of any legal voting population in my lifetime. At least nothing I've heard about.

You're right. The reasonings are similar, but the validity isn't.

[OlongJohnson]

The difference is, there hasn't been any serious legislation that is obviously aimed at wholesale disenfranchisement of any legal voting population in my lifetime. At least nothing I've heard about.

After thinking about it a little more, what I wrote above is false.

When a place like CA, NY, NJ, CT or VA persists in passing ever more oppressive gun control laws, the only actual effect is to cause gun owners to decide they've had enough and find a red state to move to. The end result is nothing more or less than the disenfranchisement, as far as has any effect in that jurisdiction, of people who more likely than not hold a conservative viewpoint.

If being a gun owner (and for present purposes, "gun owner" is actually a functional proxy for "conservative") was a religious faith or an ethnicity, the radical left's policies would fit definitions of ethnic cleansing.

[Wise_A]

Nah. We also just stop listening to laws--literally, choose no longer to be law-abiding. Care to guess how many people I know with un-neutered AR-15s and compensated pistols here in the great state of You Can't Have That?

Also, yeah, Prince Andrew very famously said that if anyone didn't like gun control or any of his other looney-tunes agenda items, we should get out of New York.

[Suvorov]

Nah. We also just stop listening to laws--literally, choose no longer to be law-abiding. Care to guess how many people I know with un-neutered AR-15s and compensated pistols here in the great state of You Can't Have That?

Also, yeah, Prince Andrew very famously said that if anyone didn't like gun control or any of his other looney-tunes agenda items, we should get out of New York.

I will say that I have noticed a marked increase in non-compliant lookin firearms brought to the range. While I think Kalifornia’s gun laws are mercurial enough that some might be honest mistakes - I think a significant number of people have just reached the point of willful disobedience. It’s amazing to think that someone with a USGI flash hider on their M14 clone is committing a felony while someone who walks out of a BestBuy with a $900 TV than they didn’t pay for is only guilty of a misdemeanor in the very unlikely event the police do anything about it.

[Warped Mindless]

"Common sense" and "middle ground" never deem to work out in favor of gun owners.