Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

  1. #1
    ABUSES BATH SALTS LittleLebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    VA

    Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

    Read the article first.

    https://www.libertyparkpress.com/fmr...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

  2. #2
    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...

  3. #3
    Not very optimistic about this partnership, I don't middle ground my constitutional rights sorry.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    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

  5. #5
    King of Craft Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Redneck wonderland
    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/UCAp...tm2uBDgLjT_Ycg

    It would have been nice to hear from Pincus in this article.
    "BJJ is sort of like nonconsensual yoga"
    "You don’t really graduate from certain problems or certain things… like you always have to work on trigger control and pulling the trigger straight. " --Ben Stoeger 1/24/2018

  6. #6
    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?
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Nephrology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Gateway to the West
    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.

  8. #8
    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.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    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.

  10. #10
    Moderator BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    “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.

    Name:  Robbery rates.jpg
Views: 774
Size:  40.6 KB

    Name:  Rearrest rates.jpg
Views: 768
Size:  24.1 KB

    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.
    Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 01-17-2020 at 12:58 PM. Reason: edited for clarity and a typo that was bothering me
    L'otters are not afraid.
    WWOMJD?

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •