Pincus teaming up with former Brady president

[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. I've been watching Kelly Ann. She actually gets paid to do it.

[Casual Friday]

I know it sounds like a lot of spin. 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/sinc...ne-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."