Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

[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, 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.