Guns in America: Ending the Culture War & Starting a Productive Conversation

Editors Update 03/29/2021: This is not the opinion of AmmoLand News.  It seems we are old school in that we still publish opposing points of view on controversial topics. Our regular readers all know where the ownership of AmmoLand News stands on the issue and we have 10,000’s of articles and over a decade of advocating for the RKBA. Sorry if we offended anyone but we still have the balls to print various opinions, for good or bad. And deciding whether they are right or wrong is left up to you, our readers, to decide. That is why we are one of the few media outlets left where you can freely leave a comment …uncensored. ~ Fredy Riehl, Editor in Chief.

Read Every Article from Rob Pincus on AmmoLand News here.

Open Letter By Dan Gross, Former President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence & Rob Pincus

Finger Prints Background checks nics privacy iStock-924058482
Guns in America: Ending the Culture War and Starting a Productive Conversation, iStock

USA –  -( Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed H.R. 1446, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of “assault weapons.”

We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.

The key to any meaningful change begins with changing the conversation, from one defined by politicians, lobbying organizations, and the media as a partisan political debate, to one that truly reflects the interests of the American people, whether they own guns or not. Change will never happen just by making “common sense” political proposals in the emotional aftermath of another mass tragedy, and then expecting the truth, a claimed respect for the Second Amendment, a latent overwhelming majority and skillful political strategy to do the rest. We are often asked how terrible a mass shooting must occur in order to inspire real change. We believe that is the wrong question. The fact is, a tragedy of horrific proportions happens every day in our nation, both in terms of the number of deaths and injuries that occur with guns and the extent to which they are preventable.

To expect meaningful and lasting change, we must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics to one defined by our common values and goals. This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it “gun control,” “gun violence prevention,” “responsible gun ownership” or “gun safety.” It is about advocates, leaders and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create. It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too-often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.

Common Ground Messaging

At the end of the day, every decent American, from those who love guns to those who hate them, and everyone in between, wants the same things: to protect themselves and their loved ones, and to make our homes, schools and communities safer. This common ground provides ample opportunity to achieve historic impact on the gun deaths we all want to prevent.

But bringing this opportunity to fruition is easier said than done. This basic point of fundamental agreement between people who own guns and those who don’t has always existed. Yet it is still perceived as a culture war and, as a result, little has been achieved. This is because no true counter narrative has ever been established to seriously challenge the polarizing political debate being perpetuated by extremists on both sides and, unwittingly by those with pure intentions. As long this remains the case we cannot expect anything to change. Fortunately, we believe a paradigm-shifting counter narrative exists, specifically:

Together, we can cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half and make all of us safer, just by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them (i.e., people who are a danger to themselves or others).

We believe that it is essential to root any solution, political or otherwise, in this deceptively simple message.

  • For gun control advocates, it demonstrates an authentic respect for rights, and a compelling context for the most impactful proposed solutions, a context which creates a more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts.
  • For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners.

But simply saying this message is not nearly enough. Advocates must also wholly accept the onus of clearly demonstrating how any proposed solution, legislative or otherwise, actually impacts the number of gun deaths, and does it only by keeping guns from the people gun owners easily agree should not have them. This may be a tough pill to swallow for many of the staunchest gun control activists, most of whom strongly support solutions that have the potential to undermine this message. However, we would hope that the potential for real and significant impact makes that pill go down a little more easily.

Importantly, we must also consider the optics that are being created, often unwittingly, which have the potential to do irreparable damage to the credibility of proposed solutions and chances of their successful implementation. This requires looking at policy and program priorities through the lens of the messages they communicate, particularly to members of the gun-owning community that would otherwise be supportive (and whose support the media and gun control advocates enjoy touting). It also means giving more careful strategic thought to messengers. Truly shifting the narrative requires far more than the usual talking points from the usual suspects. You cannot expect the American public to perceive preventing gun deaths as anything other than a political issue if most of what they hear is from politicians, pundits and organizations that have effectively been cast as partisan.

Most importantly, in the end, true change is going to require an unprecedented degree of empathy and open mindedness from everyone with pure intentions who agrees with the fundamental goal of doing everything we can to prevent gun-involved tragedies without impacting the rights of responsible gun owners. This means all of us accepting, without the appearance of judgment, those who make different choices around gun ownership; This means truly listening in order to gain a deeper understanding of how our words are being perceived and the many, avoidable subtle cues that belie our best intentions and make it easy for those with other motivations to undermine us.

Policy And Program Recommendations

We believe there are three major areas of solutions that have the potential to elevate the conversation around guns in our nation from one defined by an ideological political debate to one defined by the common goals outlined above. Most importantly, taken together, the examples below have the potential to add up to an overarching campaign to cut number of gun deaths in our nation in half just by keeping guns from the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them:

(NOTE: These areas are ordered purposely in terms of the messaging that is most meaningful in genuinely engaging the gun-owning community)

  1. Education, Awareness and Norm Change: In the long run, we believe this area represents the greatest opportunity for deep and lasting impact by reducing the staggering number of gun suicides and the far-too-many fully preventable unintentional shootings. Strong evidence also shows this area represents the greatest opportunity to prevent most school shootings. Achieving success here requires fostering a deep appreciation among gun owners of the real dangers of owning and carrying guns and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. Doing that requires a disciplined strategic approach, with messaging and programs that pass the smell test as being completely independent of any policy goal or those advocating for them. This is obviously tricky business, but we are certain there are numerous unscaled initiatives and ideas already out there, such as furthering public education about warning signs of mental illness and suicide that, with the right communications expertise and strategy, have great potential. Another area of education, awareness and action that clearly holds great promise is the work of “violence interrupters” in cities and communities across the country. We believe these efforts are entirely consistent with and complementary to all the ideas reflected in this document.
  2. Simplifying, Clarifying and Enforcing Existing Laws. Of the many opportunities to have impact in this area, the strongest example, and the one entirely consistent with our messaging goals, is the opportunity to substantially reduce gun homicides in urban communities by cracking down on a small number of gun dealers that are clearly bad actors. Most federally licensed dealers are decent, law abiding folks who share in the goals of public safety. Significant evidence shows that there is a shockingly small percentage of dealers that are selling the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes, and that they are doing it knowingly and illegally, and that this is a major source of the illegal gun trafficking and sales that are disproportionately plaguing too many communities of color across the country. We believe this warrants, at the very least, an investment in further investigation and then a proportionate response from law enforcement.
  3. Policy. In short, we believe the key to success here is establishing a messaging principle, consistent with everything mentioned above:

The greatest opportunity for policy impact lies not in keeping certain guns from all people, but in keeping all guns from certain people (the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them).”

As with other messaging recommendations, unlocking the potential of this one requires political strategists to think about more than near-term expediency. It requires a disciplined messaging approach to policy being pursued, with this as a clearly and consistently articulated goal. Successful policy change also requires giving careful and strategic thought to which policies reinforce this message and which have the potential to undermine it. This means evaluating the viability of policy proposals not only with the onus of demonstrating clear impact, but also through the lens of what they communicate to the responsible gun owners who overwhelmingly support the most impactful measures. This means viewing concerns about confiscation and slippery slope as legitimate, and going to the greatest length possible to avoid policy proposals that can be used to legitimize those concerns.

Expanded Background Checks.

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check. At the same time the two of us believe that many private transfers, such as gifting a gun to a family member or letting a fellow member of a gun club borrow a firearm for a competition or hunting event should be legal and remain a private transaction outside of government regulation.

We believe any expansion of the Background Check requirement should be focused on transfers to strangers. Sure, there are some important details to work out around exceptions such as specific definitions of “strangers,” and exceptions that would make it impossible for the government to compile a comprehensive list of gun owners; but we are confident that there are solutions that can make a huge impact if we stick to the principle and message of only keeping guns from the people we all agree shouldn’t have them. This is also how to “walk the walk” in terms of demonstrating that we are not trying to limit gun ownership among responsible gun owners and how to give substance and true credibility to the claim of respecting gun owners and the Second Amendment.

An irony about expanded background checks is that they are perceived by many activists as being “softer” than an assault weapons ban when in fact, evidence shows they would have far greater impact. Considering that, and the potential for conversation about a ban of any kind to provide red meat for those who benefit from perpetuating a polarizing debate, we believe the public face of any policy push should, as entirely as possible, be focused on background checks. The same caution goes for other measures like repealing the second amendment and postures of public protest against gun rights organizations. These create easy opportunities for those with motivations other than our common good.

Finally, we believe an important part of the solution is a significant investment in an overarching, concerted and sustained messaging campaign which contextualizes all of the above solutions, and any others that fit within the recommended common ground goals and messaging as part of a greater unifying effort that transforms a series of on-off initiatives into a far more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts (e.g., “to cut the number of gun deaths in the U.S. in half in 10 years by keeping guns out of the wrong hands”).


At this unique moment in history, there is a lot of well-intentioned rhetoric about empathy, overcoming divisiveness and uniting our nation around our common good. We propose that there is no greater way to do that than through the gun issue, and that the time to do it is now. But to bring this opportunity to fruition, we must build from the foundation up, giving every bit as much thought to messaging as to political strategy. Change is being made impossible by perceptions of a culture war that does not actually exist. There is no group of Americans that doesn’t care about safety, protecting our children or respecting freedom; yet inaccurate characterizations persist and thwart the possibility of change. To have a truly productive conversation, we must do the hard work of genuinely listening to each other, rather than reflexively retreating to our ideological corners. We must come together based on the common goals that can truly unite us and transform our advocacy efforts into a whole greater than the sum of its parts – a new united voice that results in the real change almost every one of us wants.

About Rob Pincus

Rob Pincus has been educating people about defensive shooting and related personal defense topics for over two decades. He is the Executive Director of the Personal Defense Network and the owner of I.C.E. Training Company. He has authored several books, produced over 100 training DVDs, appeared on several TV & Radio shows, and trained military, law enforcement, and armed individuals around the world. His advice focuses on efficiency and practicality based on his own experiences and continuing research of both real-world events and cutting edge training practices.

Rob Pincus
Rob Pincus
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dean Weingarten

Consider Rob’s statement of the thrust of his policy: Together, we can cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half and make all of us safer, just by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them (i.e., people who are a danger to themselves or others). No research backs this up. None. There is no way we all agree to keep guns from old white males who have had them for decades. That is over half of gun-involved deaths, which are from suicide. There is no reason to believe background checks would reduce… Read more »


exactly dean, how are they going to keep criminals, who commit most of the firearms deaths other than suicide from getting firearms?
have background checks had any effect on homicide rates since 1968?
you cannot negotiate with dictators. the only thing the other side wants is to eliminate our civil right to defend ourselves.
you cannot legislate morality.


@Dean – Certainly my primary take away. Hard to take any article seriously when their logic rests on such an obvious falsehood. They do however touch on a solution. They talk of reducing partisanship, reducing demonizing, dehumanization, and devaluing those with whom we disagree. Is it any wonder that so many turn to suicide or violence? “All” it will take is a fundamental culture change so that we all respect and listen to each other. This is the path to utopia! Given impossibility of this, all I can do is all I can do. I strive to always adher to… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Love your articles Dean. How about repealing every gun law, ebery lsst one. Except for minors to purchsse. And if a person is too much a danger to othrrs yo be allowed access to guns, he remains locked up?


Dean, thank you! As a long-time advocate disability rights, you are indeed correct and the authors, Gross and Pincus, are wrong. Please discuss what you think about what the Chair of the Bazelon Institute had to say about this very topic: ======================== “Our main priority is to eradicate the stigma and the misconceptions around people with mental illnesses. We try to break down the prejudices by challenging them legally, and therefore proving that those assumptions were wrong,” Eve Hill, Chair of the Bazelon Center, says. Gun violence and mental health Perhaps the most harmful misconception surrounding people with mental health… Read more »

Dubi Loo

Well said Dean

Green Mtn. Boy

Sorry I don’t converse with Marxist’s hell bent on destroying this republic, if mr. Pincus wants to practice verbal mastrubation with Leftards by jacking his jaw and end up back where he started, that’s on him.
No compromise,Not one more inch

Hard Target

So the gun grabber is going to issue a statement that he acknowledges the 2nd Amendment is real. Wanna prove it? Then support the removal of *ALL* existing gun laws that cannot be proven objectively to work. This would be a repeal of almost all current gun laws. When should I start holding my breath?


How about IQ and civics tests for voter registration? Seems to me like we need this more than anything else.

Mr. Pincus obviously forgot that when you give a leftist an inch they want (and will try to take by force if necessary) the whole mile. This isn’t coming together, this is surrender. Coming together implies mutual benefits for both sides. In his deal we get nothing.


Thank you, Marine. You speak the truth clearly. These people are leftists, not liberals. Semper Fi


you overlook the fact that the government can shut down the background check system anytime it wants for whatever reason. That stops everyone from transferring a firearm. And as MLK said, a right delayed is a right denied.

That’s enough out of you Mr. Pincus. we don’t want compromise with gun grabbers who are taken rights away from us by whatever increment they can at any given time. Compromise with the devil is never successful fo ranyone other than the devil. You should be Jim Zumbo’ed out of the public eye.


Nope, I only made it halfway through before conceding that this has got to set a world record for seeing how high you can stack shit. Years ago I thought Pincus had something worthy to add to the firearms community. He has devolved greatly since then. I am surprised that Ammoland allowed this tripe to be published here.


I don’t blame you, but I forced myself.

Lot’s of words to pretend non-solutions are solutions and avoiding the real issues completely. His collaboration with Dan Gross provides insights into his position as well.


Same here. I had to take a couple of breaks from reading but forced myself to finish. I think the worst of it is encapsulated within this … “The greatest opportunity for policy impact lies not in keeping certain guns from all people, but in keeping all guns from certain people (the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them).” That sure worked out well for Jewish and other undesirable people in Germany during the 1930s and ‘40s. Just one example. The only people in the U.S.A. who shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their right to bears arms are… Read more »


I agree.

A better way to summarize what should be done would be:

  • Improve the dysfunctional micro-culture in high crime neighborhoods that leads to violent behavior and prevents investment;
  • Dramatically increase the rate of arrests for violent crimes (currently at about 12% for murder in some high crime areas).
  • Increase conviction rates of violent criminals;
  • Increase the length of sentences given to violent criminals;
  • Decrease the frequency of paroles given to violent criminals;
  • Revamp the approach to mental illness.

By now means an expert, but I do know there are proven outreach programs addressing suicide. Given those are the majority of deaths and possibility of meaningful improvements – anyone who truly cares for others should focus on suicide,

I am selfish caring more about safety of my family and self. As I perceive violence from others to be my larger risk, I support allowing teachers to be armed and carry much of the time. Yes I know it should be all the time)


Thanks – I should have had a bullet point on suicide as well.


I agree with most of what you stated. But I do feel a lot of people could be prosecuted living in these neighborhoods just trying to protect themselves with current laws & judicial system. We have been seeing quite a few people falsely incarcerated whether it was from a DA ,LEO testimony, or just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Why are victims being treated as criminals ? First thing LEO does is take possession of your firearm. Leaving you a defenseless victim now, when you may need it even more. Depending on who you defended yourself… Read more »


Hi Arny, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that people using firearms for self-defense should be prosecuted (or even arrested). When I refer to violent criminals, I’m talking about robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. Most of the people committing murder in high crime neighborhoods have previously committed other violent crimes and frequently are out on parole at the time they commit murder. I share your concern that if society ever demanded that more violent criminals be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated, we should do so in a manner that does not snag victims (people using firearms in self-defense) in the same… Read more »


Posted a response, but it’s on hold.
(agree with you that self-defense is not a crime)

Dave in Fairfax


Everybody gets a voice here.


I really don’t have a problem with that as long as I am allowed to characterize things as I see them. And, so far that has been the case which is to Ammoland’s credit.

Dave in Fairfax

RoyD, THAT is exactly the point. There are people who write articles that routinely get blasted for their views. There are commenters who make comments that are “intemperate”. Unless someone does something that is truly beyond the Pale, they get to speak their piece. It would be easy to flag everything what didn’t melt in the mouth, but there’s too much of that in the MSM and most publications. Restricting speech and cancelling people that are disagreeable is NOT what this country id founded on. Someone has to stand up and actually support free speech. That’s what we try to… Read more »

F Riehl, Editor in Chief

Unlike other “woke media” we still allow the occasional exchange of “ugly” or “dissenting” free thoughts and words. …plus we like to see which readers are still paying attention. You passed!


I look at it this way. When somebody insists on tattooing a big L on his forehead, it’s a public service to publish the photographs as widely as possible.


Blah, Blah,Blah! More word twisting BS from morons that want to comprise! We’ve been bending over to these Statist egalitarians and the Socialist doctrines for almost a hundred years. Enough( is enough! Start enforcing the laws and bring back public executions! If we start hanging a few of these Gang Bangers and Drug dealers, crime would diminish quickly!


Just make all drugs legal and tax the sh!t out of it!! It’s that simple!! Organize crime will shrink to almost non existent. The housing market will become the “new” drug to push then! Lol


Anything but suggesting people make different decisions, because suggesting people do that is ——. Amirite?

You realize there are many, many neighborhoods in the country with extraordinarily low rates of both drug use and violent crime, right?


Taxing the shit out of it doesn’t solve the most destructive part of drug related criminality, the violence; since, those engaged in the black market have to protect their economic interest with violence. They can’t turn to the State to resolve conflicts. Black markets exist because the white market product is significantly more expensive than the black market. There is a reason “loosies” are popular in NYC. Legalized “weed” in CA & CO hasn’t eliminated black market growers or street sales.* In CA the environmental damage caused by illegal weed growing hasn’t abated. The problem with the advocates for legalizing… Read more »


Just trading cartels for government. Government already realized that There is way more wealth, power, and control in Government than there ever was in Cotton. And, they can put not just blacks but over half of the non-whites on the Government Plantation…….Government Plantation Dwellers. And, they can tax Productive Citizens to pay for the shanty shacks, sow belly and collard greens…….and they still get all the Dwellers’ votes. Ooops…Government already is a cartel.


People who should not have guns are people who should not be walking around free or unsupervised. Period.




I appreciate Ammolands commitment to freedom of speech. That said, this is one of the most anti-gun things I have ever read. It took several breaks for me to lower my blood pressure to finish it.


Of course it is. Idiot Pincus wrote it.


“Worse than thieves, murderers, or cannibals, those who offer compromise slow you and sap your vitality while pretending to be your friends.

They are not your friends. Compromisers are the enemies of all humanity, the enemies of life itself. Compromisers are the enemies of everything important, sacred, and true.”


Frolic with the Devil, get damned by the Devil. No Quarter!!!


I’m glad Ammoland printed this. We need to know who is on our side and who isn’t. Now it’s time for the gun community to disown Pincus. Stop supporting him in any way. Put pressure on anyone affiliated with him in any way to stop supporting him.


My thoughts EXACTLY!


A. Open NICS to voluntary public use. It WILL get used. Then in a few years, look at the data and see if there have been any net benefits in crime rates and prevention.

B. “Common ground”? “Together”? What has the ANTI-gun side EVER given up? We gave up many things, in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. We only ever got ONE thing back, and they’re trying to take it away again.

Line-in-the-Sand Time, boys.

Or get the hell out of the way.


See A policy of “cooperation and appeasement” with evil (defined as gun control) will not work.
1.Soap Box (done that)
2.Ballot Box (done that)
3.I forget what comes next – maybe you guys can help me.


See my comments above. This is your return on investment from my Vietnam Era GI Bill. Semper Fi


Eloquently spoken my friend. Nailed it straight the wall. But Pol Sci at San Francisco State? How did you escape with your sanity? (I spent my Vietnam Era GI Bill learning how electrons flow, what a conductor is, and how to solder correctly.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Terry
Ansel Hazen

@ Terry: We start throwing tea in the harbor. @ Rob Pincus: The education part is essential yes, but as far as I’m concerned our side has been the side that has been compromising all of my adult life. Today’s problems have it’s roots in all of the so called legislation that were offered as a means to achieve an end to “gun violence”. Top of the list would be gun free zones introduced by the crook now sitting in the White House. Most everything else are simply infringements on the 2A colored as solutions to the same. You point… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Ansel Hazen
Charlie Foxtrot

We have had 1 large-scale pro-2A demonstration in the past 90 years of passing gun control. That was the 2019 VCDL Lobby day. I would say that we haven’t “done” the soap box! There are just too many lazy couch potatoes that yell “civil war 2.0” on the Internet. That’s all.


‘No discussion, cooperation, agreement, nor understanding is possible among men who substitute emotion for proof’ – Ayn Rand.


Wow. An article on which we all seem to agree.

Now where is to tell us how racist Gross and Pincus’s proposal is? He would be right, as “prohibited persons” make up a considerable larger fraction of the minority communities.

While I don’t subscribe to “white privilege” theories – I don’t doubt I’ve gotten away a number of felonies. Have read we each average 3 per day or some such. If that is the case, remaining free and retaining one’s rights is overly dependent on chance – which is no way for a civilized people to live.


Good one! I was thinking of this…

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that
can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that
can profit.”
―Ayn Rand


OK, you don’t know how to establish or enforce a universal background check system that will not create an owners’ registry and will impact only criminals, and you don’t really have any evidence that this as yet undiscovered process will actually “make a huge impact” in the misuse of firearms, or keep them out of the wrong hands. Still, you expect us to somehow be “confident that there are solutions” that will reach these goals….They’ve just eluded everyone all these years, I suppose, while you worried over whether a rifle had a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud. Get back… Read more »


OK, you don’t know how to establish or enforce a universal background check system that will not create an owners’ registry and will impact only criminals,

…which is a hoot, since hundreds, maybe thousands of us know precisely how to do this… but the concept of BIDS will never, ever, ever pass the lips of a dedicated gun-grabber. And that’s because the desired effect of the system is never the effect advertised, it’s always the hidden side-effect of oppressing legal gun owners.


Absolutely, BIDS needs to be widely promoted by the 2nd amendment community. It is the ONLY solution that does what gun grabbers “say” the want, and what will actually work. As stated, they’ll never do it because it won’t create their registry they so desperately want.


There is 0 chance of a common ground conversation among the people who decide what laws will or will not be adopted. Why? Because it’s not in their best interest. Keeping the surfs fighting amongst themselves is and has always been the goal of the Elites who Govern Over them. That allows them to do the things that effect their ability to gain more power and fill their pockets. Has anyone EVER seen or heard of a politician who went to D.C. and came out poorer than when they went in. They always come out millionaires on salaries of less… Read more »


Yeah they’re neighborhoods look nothing as the ones they represent. lol

Not A. Potato

No, this is isn’t a conversation, this is throwing a wolf a piece of meat in hopes he will go away. The problem is that this has been done and the wolf keeps coming back for more. He wants more and more, eventually you run out of meat and he decides he will just eat you instead. A conversation would be sitting down and working out a deal where both sides get something they want. Expanded background checks (with exemptions for a sworn statement that you are related or know the person or the buyer holds a valid carry permit)… Read more »


OK, so where do I begin. I recognized the ‘culture war’ for what it really is in about 1977 while an undergraduate in Pol Sci at San Francisco State. Here is what it is: the ‘culture war’ is the subtle expression on all fronts of cultural Marxism. It is not simply a spat about particulars in public policy. It is THE slippery slope ubiquitous glide toward totalitarianism. It is THE contest between the real sides, the classical liberals and the collectivists. It is THE contest between state and individual. It is THE contest between the Laws of God and the… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Alinsky was a Marxist, but he was also a gangster.


Very well said!!!


Two quick points. I would like to see some explanation on how expanded background checks would have stopped a mass shooting where the perpetrator had his background checked and passed with flying colors. Just to mention one bluer than blue stronghold, Chicago has the equivalent of a mass shooting each and every week, and has done so for years on end. What is the plan for bringing Chicago’s recurring carnage under control? Until the authors of this snake oil article have some workable answers they’d like to bring up for consideration, I’m not interested. I want my damn cake back!… Read more »


This looks like nothing more than yet another self proclaimed 2A “advocate” claiming that background checks work when they clearly have not. He also likes to parrot that gun control advocate talking point of the majority of gun owners supporting background checks. Even if they worked and even if they had wide support it wouldn’t change the fact that they’re blatantly unconstitutional. They violate numerous rights on the grounds that they not only prevent or delay many people from exercising their 2A rights but also require one to waive their 4A rights by submitting to a search of themselves. You… Read more »


Can you imagine if Julio González had been able to buy a Hi-Point? Someone could have been hurt.


Open Letter By Dan Gross, Former President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence & Rob Pincus. Dan Gross has evidently found a mouth-piece to spread his propaganda and make no mistake, it is propaganda. The history of the gun control advocates (including Gross) is a lesson in incrementalism and every time gun owners have acquiesced to their demands, in the guise of “compromise” we have been met with more demands for more “compromise”. Here, we have more of the same, only done in better obfuscation, but it’s still the same old shit packed in a prettier bag, with Pincus… Read more »


This is a joke right? If you haven’t learned by now that the anti-gun people will never stop, you’re beyond naive. They keep wanting us to “compromise just one more time”. “Do it for the children”. Well, I’ve had enough of it. What is an “enhanced background check” anyway? Are they going to come into my home, interview my family, friends, and neighbors? Are they going to insist that we go in for a mental evaluation before we can buy a gun? NO, I’ve already had local, state, and federal background checks to get a license to carry. What else… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot

A rather naive and delusional view of the current background check system and the ongoing push for expanded background checks. It’s not about the background checks, stupid! It is all about the government’s ability to know who owns which guns! The current background check system is a de facto firearms registry. With a simple change in federal law, the government can already request every single existing transfer record there is and compile that list today. After all, ATF 4473 is a Firearms Transaction Record form and not a Background Check form. So, to have a truly productive conversation, we must… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Charlie Foxtrot

The fact is the other side in this case doesn’t want to compromise. They do not want a productive conversation and they are not acting in good faith as they are lying to achieve their goals.

The other side hates us (the #2A community) and they want to disarm us. They want to make us impotent. They want to take away something we hold sacred and dear as a punishment and so they can fully subjugate us in their woke culture war bullshit.


I don’t want to unite with people who want to confiscate my firearms.


Together, we can cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half and make all of us safer, just by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them (i.e., people who are a danger to themselves or others). Just curious who’s going to determine who should NOT have them ? My niece had access to firearms & hung herself. Not exactly sure how that plays out in this scenario? When someone has it in their mind to end their life, they will find a way. Should we ban belts also ? How about bridges,… Read more »


I went back to read this opinion piece, and was sorely disappointed in the surrender stance taken by Pincus. As a self proclaimed spokesperson for gun owners Pincus shows a complete dishonesty in making a deal with the devil. EVERY concession is taken and more is expected from the firearms community, without any negotiation from the gun grabbers (not much left of our piece of cake). With friends like Pincus who needs enemies?


I feel betrayed. I paid money for Rob’s DVDs and books and was even a PDN member for awhile. I knew that he was not well liked by many in the industry, but I thought his material had value. Now I see his detractors were right all along. He’s repeating Bloomberg talking points like the idea of bad apple gun dealers or that all we need are more background checks. Maybe if we replaced NICS with BIDS and made it voluntary for private transfers that would be one thing but all I see here is a road to registration and… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by nick

Significant evidence shows that there is a shockingly small percentage of dealers that are selling the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes

I call BS on this one. FBI stats show fewer than one percent of guns used in crimes came from FFL’s directh to the perp who used it. This is just a tad short of the “overwhemoing majority” of guns used in crimes.


CALLING…….BS!!!! To come together to solve a problem, you must be able to accurately define the problem and both sides must be focused and agree on the same problem AND agenda. When the problem is mis-defined as “Gun Violence” rather than “Defective Citizen Violence” there is a major problem. Same as when OBummer’s Administration prevented the identification and verbalization of ISIS et el as the perpetrators of terrorism. Punishing the innocent good guys every time there is a bad guy acting bad eventually makes the good guys reluctant to work with the punishers…….regardless of their professed intent.   Also, when… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by StLPro2A

With friends like these who in hell needs enemies. No wonder we keep losing our #2A rights. Gun owners keep surrendering them to the police state communists.


If ever there was a person who liked to hear himself talk it’s Rob Pincus. The dude writes a freaking novel to finally get to the point of saying he is for Universal Background Checks (UBC’s). And anyone with half a brain knows that UBC’s are NOT the endgame. The point of UBC’s is to instill universal GUN REGISTRATION! Because UBC’s are worthless without a database to track the sales and go back and reference them. Yet not a single mention in his word salad novel of how he intends to overcome that small problem.


Pincus is probably doing this just to market himself – he needs LOTS of attention. For all his whining about the NRA, it would seem he’s of the same self-serving, compromising ilk.


Ah, yes, because the left will only stop there… You are part of the problem in joining the “conversation.” Finding out who truly is for the 2A these days.


As One said, “When has the American Citizens’ UNALIENABLE RIGHTS become a governmental permission?”
All of these ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTS need to go back to the Constitution and read the ENGLISH WORDS AS their INTENT was when penned!!
Stop all of this “Ministry of Truth” HOG-WASH which has and is being SHOVED down Legal Law Abiding American Citizens’ throats!


Rob, there is far more evidence and rational thought supporting the existence of Santa Clause than there is for the possibility of your background check ‘enhancements’ ever working. The best you could hope for would be an increase in burglaries, robberies, and car break-ins as the demand for stolen guns rise.

Thank you AmmoLand for publishing this article. We need to be well informed even if what we read is distasteful.

Mike L

by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them”

I’m glad Rob has a magic 8 ball and can identify people who should not have guns. I guess we can also cut auto deaths by identifying people who should not have cars before they buy one. People who should not own pools, before they buy one. People who should not have knives, before they buy one. All we need are those pre-cogs to identify precrime for us.


Robbie Pinko should not have guns.

Roland T. Gunner

Trust me, “Predictive Policing” is really a thing.


Yes, they are showing it now on tv shows saying that they can predict who is going to be a cereal killer because of their M. O..

Guy driving down the road picks up a hitch hiker. The hiker says you really are trusting pulling over and giving me a ride and not knowing who I really am! I could be a serial killer. The driver turns and looks at the hiker and says “now what are the odds of two serial killers being in the same car at the same time”.


Too bad he cant identify people who are going to have democrats so we can sterilize them. Bad joke I know.


So Rob, let’s say we go through with you and your newfound friend’s plan of “expanded background checks”, what will be done to stop the inevitable gun registration that will that will be needed to enforce said “expanded background checks”?


He has no flippin’ idea – he’s just a mush mouth of word salad.

I can’t imagine how anyone can even carry on a conversation with him in real life. He’s a delusional appeaser.

Dubi Loo

Hey Rob, let me know when your pet unicorn starts farting fairy dust. Once again you have shown us who you are. Accept your role in giving us the most tyrannical “administration” in our nation’s history. Helluva job brownie.

I was at the GPRC when Gross asked to be given a chance to show he has reversed course. His name attached to this wholly unrealistic article revokes that chance.

Neither of you are on my side, I detest double agents.

I vehemently denounce this article, but staunchly defend your Right to publicize your stupidity.


“Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides” REALLY? WHY? Because some crazy WHITE guy shot 8 people in Atlanta? Because some crazy Muslim shot 10 people at a Kosher Market in Boulder? Or is it because of the “Floyd” effect paralyzing every inner city police department, plus democrats “defunding” police, and democrats “bail reform” – making every inner city a free fire war zone, that is generating “gun-involved homicide” statistics. So now we are NOT talking about policing inner cities . . . OH N0! . . . We’re supposed to have a… Read more »


@KK – homicides DID go up in 2020. Rates had been dropping almost continuously since about 1990. No way we’ve had on contrary year and Rob has to call it “unprecedented – just because of a minor blip back to levels not seen since the last decade! Unprecedented is supposed to include “never before seen” – guessing maybe 2020 was unprecedentedly if one barely remember last year.


Chicago homicides so far this year are 135.

YTD through March 31, 2020 there were 107.

Some people want more gun laws.

Some people want more redistribution of wealth.

Some people want to legalize drugs.

None of that will help.

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC

Rob Pincus, please join the discussion.

Since stolen firearms that are repeatedly resold on the street (and never go through any sort background check after they are stolen) are the most common way violent criminals obtain their firearms, how will “expanded background checks” help?

How would you prevent the “female acquaintances” of habitual violent criminals from legally purchasing firearms for their true (shared) loves?


4,174 people shot just in 2020 and mostly in certain neighborhoods on the south and west sides:

The people doing the shooting are not buying their firearms from FFLs and no new laws requiring non-FFL sales to go through NICS will be followed.

No new laws of any kind will impact these shootings.


Numbers are great, but comparisons make a lasting impression.

Do we all remember how the shootings at the Stoneman School monopolized the MSM’s wailing and gnashing for most of a year?

Let’s call the number of dead and injured victims at the Stoneman School “one Parkland.”

Feral thugs in Chicago commit roughly two and one half Parklands every week. And that’s just Chicago.

I’m not even going to ask “where is the outrage?” because I honestly don’t care.

But I will ask, “what gives them the right to be outraged at us, and to ignore them?”


Compare the authors with the man who is the subject of this 14 minute video. No comparison.

Ansel Hazen

My father escaped the Nazi’s twice in German occupied Holland. The second time they were in one of those box cars and kicked out the side to get out. And like Roddy he wouldn’t speak much of it either. I learned more at the service for my father from relatives from Holland who attended than he ever told me.

Much of which accounts for my no compromise attitude towards our governments tyranny these days.


There are two words in Gun Violence. Everyone stops at the first in order to control it. No one has taken on the root of the issue, it’s just violence (PERIOD). It’s not the gun it’s the violent human behind it!


When have the “gun control” activists ever compromised on anything? They can’t take away our rights, period. However, way too many people seem to be willing to simply throw their rights away. I am NOT one of those people now and I never will be.


They compromise all the time. They give up something to get what they want, which is to take something from us, then eventually what they gave up becomes a “loophole” that they come back and insist on “closing.” Remember the “compromise” on private gun sales? Remember the “compromise” that you get your gun if the FBI takes more than three days to clear you? Both are now “loopholes” that “need to be closed” so that the grabbers get everything they initially wanted. But everything we gave up in those negotiations, we will never get back… not by voting, at any… Read more »

Autsin Miller III

Rob, I have always thought you to be a reasoned thoughtful person and it is apparent you have thought a lot about this but no where in this document did I see any reason to believe it would achieve your goals. Is there a reason, past just “Feeling” like it will help to tighten up sales to strangers? Is THAT where the people who commit violence with guns is acquiring them? I could argue that there is not such thing as a gun death, guns don’t die but I get what you are trying to say. I am concerned though… Read more »


I have no desire to end the culture war. I intend to WIN the culture war.


We have been “compromising” our rights away for DECADES!! The only “compromise” we should be talking about, as liberty lovers AND as compassionate citizens who want to protect the innocent is what can we do to make it EASIER for good people to get the means to protect themselves! Oh, and by the way… we are ALL supposed to be assumed “GOOD”, until we have proven ourselves not to be!


Looks like my comment yesterday was censored, so let me try again… For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners. Because the limits you set today to protect “responsible gun owners” will never, ever be ignored by a future hoplophobe, right? Let me tell you a story: The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the explicit promise… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Larry

on the issue of suicide… the gun is used so often because it is readilhy availble, no argument there. BUT anyone who has made the decision to “check out” if they cannot get their hands on a firearm, there are hundreds of other ways to “do the job”. Proof? Compare OUR suicide rate by all methods with that of Canada,economicallh and culturally bery similar to ours. Their overal rates are near identical but their rate by firearm is a small percentage of ours…. and the “missing” successes in the “with a gun” categoryh are relaced by any of a dozen… Read more »


Exactly. Japan has led the world in suicides while firearms are very heavily restricted there.


Part of why Japan leads in suicides is that in certain cases we would count as murder, they count as suicide. Here if a woman slices her husbands throat while he sleeps, then drowns her three small children before offing herself – we call it a quadruple murder and one suicide. In Japan it would be family suicide with five deaths. Overall their total homicide + suicide rate is pretty close to ours.

As you pointed out – this in a nation practically devoid of firearms.


Rob Pincus just threw away every scrap of credibility he ever had by putting his name on this, and Ammoland is right behind him for giving it a platform. To say nothing of all those BATFE press releases Ammoland has been posting.

Dave in Fairfax

Jeffersonian, Do you see the irony in your name and what you just said? If you want a bubble to live in, most publications and groups will be happy to accommodate you. You are arguing that anyone who disagrees with you has no right to speak. If you truly believe that then TJ would be outraged that you’ve misappropriated his name. I recommend that you go back and think about this. If the Bill of Rights only applies when it supports your beliefs then we have a very serious problem here. A lack of Principles. I said before that they… Read more »


“You are arguing that anyone who disagrees with you has no right to speak.”

Where? How? Exactly? Spell it out.

The entire “mainstream” media is on the side of restrictions and violations, unavoidably inundating us with their endless propaganda, systematically shutting down our right to speak, and now one of the few platforms supposed to be on our side is parroting their talking points.

This is war, and you cannot avoid choosing a side.

Dave in Fairfax

Jeffersonian, You are saying that Pincus and AmmoLand lose credibility by 1) stating his beliefs and 2) our allowing him to be heard. We have chosen a side, and it has to do with not just the 2A, but the 1A. We do NOT parrot talking points, we allow freedom of speech. Our views and actions are not governed by the actions of the MSM. If stating an unpopular opinion or allowing that opinion to be heard is a cause for “loss of credibility” then what you are subscribing to is cancel culture. THAT has no place in a free… Read more »


Your so-called support of the First Amendment is being used to openly attack the Second. Universal background checks mean universal registration. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation. This is not a free speech issue. You are facilitating attacks on some natural human rights while hiding behind a claim of defending others. The enemy’s speech is not being suppressed. They have every other platform in the spectrum from which to attack the natural human right to bear arms. I do hope other Ammoland readers are following this thread and considering whether this platform is worth supporting. Withdrawing support is not suppression. Unless… Read more »


I think it’s great that people like Rob Pincus put forth their illogical proposals and receive critical rebuttals. There are few other places where poor ideas like his receive open, frank criticism. Without logical counterarguments bad ideas just build momentum.

Thanks AmmoLand for giving people the opportunity to criticize the proposal made by Rob Pincus.

The only way it could be better is if Rob Pincus joined the discussion.

Dave in Fairfax

Jeffersonian, Like it or not, free speech is just that. It encompasses all sides of an argument, not just the one a person agrees with. OUR discussion is about public discussion not UBCs. If Rob joined in he might be able/willing to defend his points against yours. I am not hiding behind anything. Neither am I facilitating one argument against another. I am not taking sides, although anyone who knows me can tell you which side I personally am on. THAT is the point. ALL sides get a hearing regardless of personal views. We can’t control what other publications allow… Read more »

Not A. Potato

“We have chosen a side, and it has to do with not just the 2A but the 1A.”

Are you saying that the official position of AmmoLand is in support of universal background checks?

Dave in Fairfax


Sorry about not replying earlier, I though the discussion had petered out.

I can see that you have a reading comprehension problem. Since when does allowed both sides of a discussion to express their views equate to backing one side?

AmmoLand is a supporter of the BoR. That means ALL of it.

Not A. Potato

That is not it at all. I never heard of Mr. Pincus until reading his articles on AmmoLand, therefore I was under the impression that Mr. Pincus was speaking for AmmoLand. I noticed you went back and added a disclaimer which clarified that he was not. I agree that having both sides of a debate express their ideas and having them suceed or fail on their own merits is healthy. However, waking up to read what appeared to be AmmoLand jumping in bed with the former head of the biggest anti-2A organization in the country is not healthy for my… Read more »

Dave in Fairfax

NAP, I apologize for not realizing what I thought was common knowledge. I saw that you’d been here since July of last year, even if you rarely post, so I thought that you were up to speed on how things work. The articles that you read are written by people who have a desire to state their views, almost exclusively. When WE publish an article it is clearly marked as from us. If you, for example had a statement to make on a pertinent subject you could write it up and submit it. That wouldn’t make you an employee of… Read more »

Ansel Hazen

 and Ammoland is right behind him for giving it a platform.”

Right there bubba.

Dave in Fairfax

Jeffersonian and Ansel,

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
What you see as giving him a platform I see as allowing everybody the right to speak their mind. They can be challenged, but silencing is something I’m not willing to do.


Pincus’s proposal already has a much more massive platform than AmmoLand. AmmoLand is not providing a new platform for the anti-2nd Amendment message, AmmoLand is providing a platform for a rebuttal.

I hope Bill O’Reilly writes an article for AmmoLand calling for a ban of AR15s because they are “high-powered weaponry” that is “too easy to get.” That idiot never received any criticism in the media.

Not A. Potato

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

Ammoland and Rob Pincus decided to lie down with a dog and now they have fleas. And for your readers to point out that obvious fact is not “censorship” or “deplatforming” in any way.

Dave in Fairfax


When people complain that a person is allowed to speak their mind in a publication because they can do it in other places, what do you call it? It’s a serious question.

NOBODY said that criticism was bad, that’s a strawman argument. The complaint was that Pincus was allowed to publish his views. If people with unpopular views are not allowed to publish, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?