Time to Say No More: Gun Owners Have Compromised Enough ~ Letter to the Editor

Opinion By Anon Reader

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor Large
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Once again, an op-ed published in an established Second Amendment blog has unified Americans against gun control. This is the second major publication, this month, to give screen time to opinions that are wildly out of step with gun owners. It is wholly appropriate for these outlets to give a voice – from time to time – to opposing views.

The editors in both outlets felt it necessary to issue statements about the need to publish opposing views and letting the readers decide.

This time we are considering an op-ed by Dan Gross and Rob Pincus in an AmmoLand News.

Dan Gross is the former President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Rob Pincus is the Executive Vice President of Second Amendment Organization.

The Brady Campaign is perhaps the premier American organization dedicated to:

  • Restricting purchase for “military-style assault weapons” (i.e., America’s most popular rifle),
  • Banning ghost guns and the practice of making firearms at home; which is an American practice older than the Republic itself,
  • Repealing stand your Ground Laws which allow Americans to use deadly force when they reasonably believe their life is in mortal danger,
  • Enforcing and maintaining a narrow reading of the landmark DC v. Heller Supreme Court Case. Heller, in their view, should be no impediment to enacting more gun control.
  • Preventing Americans from carrying firearms in national parks

Rob Pincus is known for his work in the Second Amendment community. Among other responsibilities, he is a firearms instructor and public speaker.

For the reader’s benefit, read the article they published in AmmoLand before reading this response. This will provide a better understanding of how their subtle rhetorical tricks can be used to disguise bad ideas with anapestic policy talk.

Their op-ed starts with what they think is a key insight into the gun debate,

[M]eaningful 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.

Changing the conversation to serve the American people, they write, should unite the American public and provide “the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.”

All they want to do is give peace a chance!

Here we have the first rhetorical trick used by the authors.

Both gun and non-gun owners can read the above and agree with it in theory. Lasting change, solutions that reflect the interests of the American people, even a side shot at the media will garner a sympathetic ear from Americans who are tired of the political posturing on the Second Amendment.

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

They also blame the “polarizing political debate” on the “extremists on both sides”. But both sides of the debate include those who want to ban all firearms as well as the millions of Americans who support gun rights.

It seems that the national Pincus/Gross debate on guns doesn’t include me, my friends, and millions of law-abiding Americans.

But Gross and Pincus have framed their arguments is such a way as to put those who disagree with them opposite the American public and their best interests. They would have served their own interests better by being honest with the readers by asking for more gun control, which is what they want. More on that below.

They believe there should be a new narrative in the discussion on guns in America. Specifically, one that advocates “just [keeping] guns from the people we all agree should not have them.”

In case Pincus and Gross were not aware, there is nothing new about this. I had to read their “paradigm-shifting counter narrative” a few times to be sure I didn’t miss the point. But in the end, their plan is gun control, not even a new idea for gun control.

For this totally unoriginal idea, Rob Pincus teamed up for an op-ed with the former president of American’s premier gun control group.

After the world premier unveiling of the game changer, Pincus/Gross give reasons why both gun control advocates and gun rights supporters should get on board.

The gun rights groups can be assured by this new narrative, they say, because it will assure them that no one is going to take guns away from responsible gun owners.

Ok. But again, nothing new here. We’ve all heard that no one is coming for our guns since the 1934 National Firearms Act.

The more interesting part is when Pincus/Gross give the reason that gun control advocates should support their new narrative. I need to quote it in full so the reader can appreciate it’s majesty.

For gun control advocates, it (i.e., the new narrative) 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.

What the heck does that even mean?

They are not proposing a new idea. There is nothing transformative or bold here. If you read their article, you know the punchline, they want more gun control. If you haven’t, keep going and I’ll show you.

This was their second rhetorical trick. They pretended to unveil something that can cut through the politics and divisions. There is something here that everyone can appreciate, they say. It’s simple, deceptively simple according the Pincus and Gross. So simple even a child can do it! Let’s just hope that child doesn’t grow up and want to buy a gun. If we follow the Pincus/Gross plan, guns won’t be legal by the time that child becomes of age.

The next rhetorical trick is a slight of hand that should be obvious to most readers.

Pincus/Gross write that gun control advocates should advocate to keep, “guns from the people gun owners easily agree should not have them.” They write that “this may be a tough pill to swallow for many of the staunchest gun control activists” but that the possibility for “real and significant impact” (i.e., gun control) should be enough to get them on board with the new narrative.

Let’s look at what just happened here.

Pincus and Gross suggested that gun control groups jump onboard with their proposal, because in the end they will get more gun control.

Once again, nothing here that hasn’t already been debated before.

Pincus and Gross also briefly gave some consideration to the concerns of gun rights supporters. While still talking to gun controllers, they suggested that the messages the anti-gunners use not deter “members of the gun owning community that would otherwise be supportive” of gun control from joining the new narrative.

But they are begging the question (making a claim they assume is true) on what gun-owning Americans want. Do the millions of Americans want to be part of the Pincus/Gross new narrative? Working with non-gun-related groups or even across the aisle is great, but never when it means gun control.

And yet, I still have not really gone into their plan for gun control. There have only so far been allusions to it in their op-ed. I promise, it’s there and we will get to it.

But before we do, there’s one more skin-crawling piece to the Pincus/Gross path to total gun control and better wellness.

Here is the most important part of the Pincus/Gross plan that we are all going to have accept:

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.

When I took my friend, a good father and someone who only votes for candidates that support gun control, to buy his first rifle I was reaching across the aisle. But I was doing it on my terms and it showed him a new side to gun ownership.

When we take friends and colleagues who have never fired a gun to the range and pay for the lane and ammo (I’m not the only one, right?) that is great ambassadorship for the cause of the Second Amendment.

But what was proposed in the quoted paragraph above must be an intentional attempt to fool gun owners and Americans who support gun rights into conceding the Second Amendment. Why? Because we begin from the starting place that gun control is an answer.

Gun control is never the answer.

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

This brings us close to the end of the trip through the new – not so new – narrative.

Pincus and Gross propose three solutions – their words no mine – they think will elevate the discussion around guns.

But all three proposals are forms of gun control or are biased against gun owners.

The first is education. According to them,

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.

We know guns are dangerous, that’s why we carry them for our protection.

It is also odd that Pincus and Gross want to talk to the gun-owning community about mental illness. Why is that odd? Because we already know that some gun owners can have a mental health crisis and need treatment. It’s also why Americans who support gun rights are quick to say that roughly two-thirds of gun death are suicides. Instead, the education should be directed toward gun control groups who think all gun deaths are a result of murders, and guns should therefore be restricted or banned.

Second, on the list is to enforce existing laws.

Pincus/Gross want greater enforcement measures against some FFLs, but FFLs did not exist as they do today in law prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Gun owners should not be advocating to enforce measures created to deny them their liberties.

Their third proposal is choosing the right policy to push.

According to Pincus/Gross, the chosen policy should be friendly to “responsible gun owners who overwhelmingly support the most impactful measures.” So, once again Pincus/Gross frame the issue in terms of responsible gun owners who want gun control and irresponsible gun owners who disagree with gun control.

All this finally brings us to where Pincus and Gross were leading us all along. Gun Control!

Specifically, expanded background checks.

This policy, say Pincus and Gross has “the most synergistic message” with “the greatest potential for impact.” Again, they write that since, “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” that background checks are a viable option. So once more I say “so what?” we are all here to preserve our liberties. I will not concede on any control.

The focus, according to Pincus and Gross, should be on expanding the background check system on transfers to strangers. But they want enough exceptions for those of us who will gift a gun to a family member or let someone borrow a firearm temporarily.

That’s awfully nice of them to allow that. As long as there are exceptions carved into my natural, God-given rights I guess we’re all set.

So where does all this leave us with the Pincus/Gross plan?

The authors begin by writing that they understand that gun owners have legitimate concerns over their gun rights. But their article is polluted with nothing but gun control disguised as solutions.

Americans have already been victimized by gun control over the decades. The same kind that Pincus and Gross are advocating for in their op-ed. The kind where some politicians and their proxies said that gun control would unite us because it would make us safer if we would only just cross over and work with them.

But Americans have already crossed these lines. Too many times, in fact. We’re done giving inches away.

We want safety and we’re going to get it on our own terms. We will advocate, and push, and vote to undo the gun control that has victimized and made us weak over the years.

Subscribe
Notify of
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago

After reading the above Op-ED, I am seeing the “Ministry of truth” coming out of the story “1984”! WAKE UP Americans!! This CANNOT be ALLOWED here in America!!!!!!! NOT ONE MORE RIGHT shall be INFRINGED UPON by these COMMUNISTS who SUCK the TEAT of Americans’ government!!

EB98
EB98
1 month ago

Someone needs to take Rob’s shovel away. He’s over on Facebook literally saying that he never said those words. Kinda like the response I get when I link how the nra supports gun control and its Wayne’s own words…Or when I link Dan (the second coming of John McCain) Crenshaw’s words about how he supports red flag/TARPS and other things… Then… He tells Jim Fuller that he fell for a hit piece and the Jim is wrong for saying that Rob doesn’t speak for him…If I recall correctly, Jim escaped a socialist paradise to come here…I *think* he knows something… Read more »

Wass
Wass
1 month ago

As long as law-abiding gun owners allow the gun control crowd to steer the “conversation” to guns, their calibers, magazine capacities, etc., the gun grabbers will rule and win, just by advocating restrictions of the above, while paying lip service to the Second Amendment; “I support the Second Amendment, but…”, However, if our side avoid the above, while insisting on discussing public safety and the broken criminal justice system, always declaring how we are decent citizens, not perps, the “conversation” will be under our control. Now, it’s just a matter getting ourselves onto media.

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
1 month ago

“Gun control is never the answer.” Not necessarily. Depends on the question and the agenda. For tyrannical traitorous politicians, gun control is always the only answer. In the gun community, Pincus slit his own throat and bled out. RIP, Rob. Sleeping with the enemy is deadly.
In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” – Thomas Jefferson.  Our Freedoms and Liberties are NOT style. Hobnob with the enemy, be the enemy.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago

Hey, JSNMGC. Are you feeling ok? This is one that I would think you would chime in on in a heart beat. But, I could be wrong. Hope you are ok.

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Awwww…you missing your buddy? You need more help attacking my opinion? But good point! I thought would’ve joined you by now. I hope you’re good.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Not much more to say on the Pincus article. The article in this thread pointed out what many have already said. However, I do not agree with this statement that was included in this article: “We know guns are dangerous” Guns are not dangerous Grapes and hotdogs are not dangerous Swimming pools are not dangerous Texting technology is not dangerous Many people are dangerous, and all of the above things have contributed to the needless deaths of many, many people because people are dangerous. I would be interested in watching someone interview Pincus about his article. John Crump has done… Read more »

LauraEPro2A
LauraEPro2A
1 month ago

Well said!

Dee
Dee
1 month ago

C’mon guys we need a better explanation than “it’s in the constitution”. Americans know when the constitution was written and whom it was written by. Plus the constitution needs to be ratified by a certain margin in order for it to change. Therefore we need to continue to educate and demand and hope for change. But I can tell y’all this though, you see it in GA with Coke and Delta and others censoring The new GA voting issues. We can be like “come and take it” and they will come and take it. Most 2A supporters in our country… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

We don’t need to change or ratify shit. It’s a shame that We the People way back then had more common sense then 47 percent of the people today which equates to 100 percent of the democRATS. They knew back then and had learned previous lessons and been taught about tyranny as well as seen and been abused by it. They knew what would happen if they were subjects rather than a free people. Changing the constitution to read something more modern to meet todays standard is the beginning of being a subject because of what idiots like you want… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

47%?? Oh you counting the 15% Independents that generally vote progressive.

PMinFl
PMinFl
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Dee, I’ll bet that all of your guns are black guns. You seem to see things that way.

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  PMinFl

Not all. The sexier one just happens to be white but there are several FDE ones that I love like they were my kids;-)

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

I’d rather see residents of inner city communities just decide to: Not make babies at an extremely young age; Not abandon their babies to the mother/grandmother; Instill self-control in children; Instill work ethic in children; Value education; Go to parent/teacher meetings; Ensure their children do their homework; Talk to their children about careers outside of entertainment and government; Not allow children to go out late at night; Discipline their children; Not use recreational drugs; Only use alcohol in moderation; Not murder people; Not shoot at people unless in self defense; Not do car-jackings; Not rob people; Not rape people; Not… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yeah I just saw that movie too. What it’s called again Hillbilly Elegy? That’s a good one.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

In your world, racial slurs are a one-way street.

Which of the items listed do you believe are either reflective of an abnormal culture or beyond the capabilities of the residents of high crime neighborhoods. I don’t think any of them fall into either category.

The residents of high crime neighborhoods are capable of making all those decisions and all of those decisions would result in a better outcome.

Currently, there is this:

https://heyjackass.com/category/2020/

Do you want that to continue?

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Of course. Let’s continue. You see you want to keep the status quo. “I’m Bennie and I’m ain’t in it.” Well you know where that gets ya? Everybody against ya. And I mean everyone. Let me ask you a question. How comfortable are you flying commercial when you know the company dislikes your ideas? Or if you work for a company that supports an anti-gun platform? If your plan is to wait and let “them deal with it” then you’re either naive or all doubt is removed by the words you type because you’re not the smartest. Drawing a line… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Dee, I indicated that change needs to occur. You mocked and ridiculed the very things that need to change and you supported the fallacy that the people living in those specific neighborhoods are incapable of making different decisions. Why do you think so little of those people? If there are enough people telling them the things they are doing are not wrong and that they are incapable of making different decisions, the dysfunctional culture they have created will never change. Much of what you wrote is unintelligible but based on what is understandable and the fact that you mocked good… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

I dont give a rat phuk about “saving what’s left of the 2nd Amendment”. The only goal is fully restoring the 2nd Amendment, doing away with NFA. GCA, and just nullifying Hughes.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Now see, that was racist. It pissed me off at work that the word Negro was racist but redneck was just fine.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Thats s lot to ask of our inner city minority communities.

KK
KK
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

C’mon guys we need a better explanation than “it’s in the constitution”? Really? Why is it Black People have the right to vote? Oh, it’s in the constitution. C’mon guys we need a better explanation than “it’s in the constitution”. Why is it YOU have the right to express this opinion . . . oh, it’s in the constitution. C’mon guys we need a better explanation than “it’s in the constitution”. I can tell you this though, with Coke and Delta and the GA voting issues, with all the non-citizens flooding into the country, there is NO WAY to believe… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  KK

Wow!! This is probably the most racist post on Ammoland history. Think about all the crap you wrote. It also explains why the black vote has been oppressed more than any other people in this country. And it explains why white supremacist think that if “majority” is lost “we” lose. Crazy “hillbilly” thinking. And voter ID. Stop with that crap. This country never worried bout voter ID until “whitey” felt it in the voters box. Smh. Wow!! I wonder why?? “Oh!! Let’s make it more difficult for them to vote!” I can’t comment on this much further but @JSNMGC you’re… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Are you replying to me or KK?

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Both of you it seems

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

Ansel Hazen, I think you are correct.

Dee, Frederick Douglass would be agreeing with me.

You think good decisions are bad decisions.

You think the dysfunctional micro-culture created by bad decisions should be addressed by ever-increasing amounts of forced wealth redistribution by the government.

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I “think good decisions are bad decisions.” LOLOLOL. I kinda like in a subculture kind of way your way of thinking. Funny! But aren’t we always over correcting for others bad decisions?? Isn’t it what makes this country great?? So I don’t get your position or standing. Maybe it has to do with a vitality deal. 15-20 years ago I probably could walk down any street in America with confidence knowing I wouldn’t be touch. Now I maybe have that same confidence but I’m not that 6’4” 245 ripped kid anymore!! My fight now is not actually fighting. My fight… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Have you ever been in a real fight? Even just fists, or a knife?

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Your racist butt is still here. I thought I told you to go away yesterday oh but you didn’t. Why, because it is your constitutional right to speak and give the same racist attitude again and again, over and over. You are the typical black left. Everything is racist and if it’s not you still try and turn it into a racist remark or attitude and make it about race. I’m sorry you were born a poor depressed black child. I bet you think that we owe you reparations too. There is nothing that would be fair for anyone to… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Now I’m assuming you were born poor possibly white and need a job. Well good luck with that! But don’t you agree that every individual has a right to vote and that right should be made easy? Now I was taught in one of my old legal ethics courses that you generally want to know the answer to your question that you are asking. And in this case I do. But I’ll ask anyways: Have you ever tried doing something with an expired ID i.ePassport, DLs and told its not valid because it expired? Even though it’s clearly you? You… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Really, who was the person that created the word Redneck, please tell me that white boys name. A redneck in it’s first usage was for mexicans that worked in the fields because even though they were brown they were bent over all day picking crops and that gave them red necks. Redneck is a racist term. See, what your cool aid buddies taught you is wrong. If you would have paid attention to what I said, you would have surmised that I do not support everyone having a right to vote because I will state it again, people here illegally… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Exactly!! We already have voter’s registration cards. Good enough when Trump won why it’s not good enough after he lost? Major League Allstar just got uprooted in my home state of GA because of the same sh!t you preaching. Lol. Continue to preach on brutha!! Preach that old sh!t to the folks that are not on that train. I am!! We leaving you in those museums. Sh!t changing. It’s a new revolution. Sh!t won’t be tolerated!! Cancel Culture?? Nah…we just gonna store that sh!t in the museums. You know what I’m saying is true. Be on the right side of… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Every individual does NOT have the right to vote.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  KK

“Holy wall of text, Batman!”

Not that I have much if any disagreement with it.

“Dee” is what is commonly referred to as a “foil.”

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  KK

Excellent post, except that NRA has done very little to protect gun rights.

Bill
Bill
1 month ago

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

We are there now.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 month ago

“We’re done giving inches away….” Hell, I’m done giving anything away!
Ends any more of that discussion, permanently.

Let the Leftist “wailing and gnashing of teeth” begin… F**k ’em, AND the horse they rode up on.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

I’d be willing to concede and compromise just a hair in exchange for something more valuable. For example if they are willing to rescind NFA and anything building on it – I’d be willing to accept voluntary use a public-free-anonymous NICS background check. As long as background check does not take any seller information or firearm information and destroys all record that purchaser what checked instantly. Such system could also be used for numerous other purposes such as employee checks or date checks. Think of all the lives which could be saved by background checks before the first date! In… Read more »

KK
KK
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

We already have background checks.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

You stated pretty much the ONLY compromise I am interested in.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
20 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

When the NICS was being hashed out in Congress back in 1995, the FBI flatly refused to operate it unless it was for official use only. If it was to be in any way openly available to the public, the FBI would have nothing to do with it.

Congress listened, and wrote the law to specifically prohibit use by common citizens, and it (NICS) became operational by the FBI in 1998 – exactly as the FBI demanded (and still demands to this very day).

Last edited 20 days ago by JoeUSooner
Mudhunter
Mudhunter
1 month ago

Responsible gun owners take safety, training, familiarity and proficiency seriously. I think that covers most gun owners as the accident rate is very low. But responsible gun ownership also includes understanding the American Revolution, history of inherent rights, history of gun control/despotism/usurpation/tyranny. And that free citizens are not disbarred of the right to own and carry the guns of their choice. Furthermore, they should understand via the Second Amendment, the 14th amendment, the 10th Amendment and the Supremecy Clause, the only legal regulation is shall not be infringed and that regulation is in government, not citizens. The government is not… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Mudhunter

Here hear.

Idaho Bob
Idaho Bob
1 month ago

Who is the extremist? The one who wants to violate the Constitution by banning firearms or the one who believes in upholding the Constitutions “shall not be infringed”? You are not a true American if you desire to ignore or otherwise eviscerate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Idaho Bob

@Idaho Bob — It is easy for each of us to identify extremists. It is anyone who thinks significantly differently than ourselves. In actuality it is anyone who’s position is outside a wide “normal” range – but in practice we each think we are the center of “normal”. Extremist is a label attached to anyone opposing my position. Once people hear the word associated with a group or topic – the listeners begin to internalize the association and it undermines anything the opposition presents. This type of attack has proven very effective and continues to be used by extremists (most… Read more »

Dee
Dee
1 month ago
Reply to  Idaho Bob

This is dumb. C’mon guys we need a better explanation than “it’s in the constitution”. Americans know when the constitution was written and whom it was written by. Plus the constitution needs to be ratified by a certain margin in order for it to change. Therefore we need to continue to educate and demand and hope for change. But I can tell y’all this though, you see it in GA with Coke and Delta and others censoring The new GA voting issues. We can be like “come and take it” and they will come and take it. Most 2A supporters… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

Oh my God. Hope and change. We had enough of that and especially the transparency that didn’t exist with obummer and now obiden. Go away.

Last edited 1 month ago by musicman44mag
Idaho Bob
Idaho Bob
1 month ago
Reply to  Dee

The only thing dumb here are those willing to surrender their freedom for what they believe will be safety. If you don’t understand this you are not only dumb, you’re stupid!

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Idaho Bob

and they are an idiot.

Montana454Casull
Montana454Casull
1 month ago

Gun control is being able to hit the target consistently anything these clowns are pushing is just infringement of our rights !

Hazcat
Hazcat
1 month ago

I am so tired of the ‘Responsible gun owners agree …’ line of attack. It is just a rewording of the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy. Soon as I hear it I know that the speaker is a lying snake in the grass. Which coincidentally describes Pincus quite well.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago

Excellent! I am against any new gun control. Actually, I am against any old gun control as well FFL licenses? Do away with them; let me order to my door from a catalogue. Who should not be allowed to have firearms? The “felion” who has paid his debt to society and released from incarceration? If his debt is paid, give him his damn rights back. If he cannot be trusted, put him back in jail. What guns are we not allowed? The AR-15? The best home and personal defense firearm readily available to the common man, especially in braced pistol… Read more »

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago

I still think my comment on the original article is the best summation given so far.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  RoyD

Well hell Roy. The anti gunners never seem to have a hard time saying the same thing over and over again which makes it true. You could do the same thing, we wont be mad.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Nope, I dislike people repeating themselves and I try to not be like people who do things I don’t like. We won’t get started on the Missus. After 44 years I just tune her out when needed.

Alan in NH
Alan in NH
1 month ago

Short answer– Shall not be Infringed.

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
1 month ago

Well said.