Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

[Bergeron]

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

Episode 2 of the Guns Guide to Liberals 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/sinc...ne-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.