Let’s All Rewrite The Gun Debate Narrative ~ Letter to the AmmoLand Editor

Opinion by Anthony Garcia, President of Save the Second

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor Large
Let’s All Rewrite The Gun Debate Narrative ~ Letter to the AmmoLand Editor

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- I am sure by now most of you have read Rob Pincu’s article. And if you haven’t read his co-authored article with Dan Gross and only the commentary about it then I would highly suggest you go read it and listen to his videos about it. Nearly all the attention that has been focused on the article has revolved around his discussion of background checks.

That is not what I am going to talk about, however.

What this article has done is laid bare the state of the Second Amendment community. And this has shown us that there is a demonstrable lack of unity, far too much knee-jerk reactionism, and little to no focus placed on messaging and narrative. A portion of Rob’s article was related to those last two topics, narrative and messaging, yet no attention has been paid to them. Ironically, controlling the narrative is one of the few ways that we will win and something that everyone can play a part in. Let’s discuss these topics one at a time, beginning with unity.

Unity

Gun control extremists and proponents of citizen disarmament have shown us for decades why it is important to maintain a united front. They have maintained an appearance of unity through thick and thin, regardless of nearly any scandal that comes out against one of their own, and they have plenty of legislative and cultural victories to show for it.

We must stay on point with our messaging and not allow ourselves to be distracted by internal politics.  They do not allow internal politics to play a role in their outward appearance, and neither should we. In the gun-control camp, there are people that range the spectrum – from those who only support additional universal background checks to those who want to confiscate every gun in the United States.  Regardless of their personal individual beliefs on the topic, they all remain united on one goal: gun control.

We must do the same; we must remain united and focused on the goal of expanding the legal framework of firearms rights regardless of internal policy disputes.

Your next objection is now probably something along the lines of, “it’s not wrong if the person in  question actually does support gun control!” Well as I’ve stated the political spectrum for any individual ideological belief is vast and is certainly very nuanced. You also may have objective standards by which you judge another individual’s “purity,” but purity tests have long been the downfall of many a political movement – especially one which needs as many supporters as possible.

Pro GUn Buttons Yes No iStock-Olivier Le Moal 1191857368
The answer may not be that simple. As previously discussed the spectrum of any political belief can be very wide, and it’s certainly okay to take disagreement with someone’s individual policy points. iStock-Olivier Le Moal

I proffer to you a simple litmus test to determine if someone falls in the camp of gun supporter, or gun controller.

Question one: Does that person rely on the firearms industry in some way to make their living? For example are they a firearm store owner, an instructor, a reviewer, etc?

If the answer to that question is yes then you have a firearms supporter, as logically an individual engaged in one of these professions is supporting firearms through their actions. I suppose it’s theoretically possible to have someone who disdains firearms engaged in one of these professions, however, their actions would still be supporting the firearms cause since actions speak far louder than words and thoughts.

If the answer is no then move to question two.

Question two: Are the majority of this person’s actions aligned with supporting firearms ownership and rights?

If the answer is yes, then once again you have someone who falls on the gun supporter spectrum. This question may sound very subjective, but it’s relatively easy to conclude. For example, despite the fact he claims to support firearms ownership Biden is clearly not a supporter of firearms as the only actions he has taken have been to restrict the ownership of firearms. When you look at the totality of an individual’s actions on a particular topic their beliefs become visible, as well as their level of conviction.  With that in mind, the question should be easy to answer with enough information.

As previously discussed the spectrum of any political belief can be very wide, and it’s certainly okay to take disagreement with someone’s individual policy points. I’ll give you a controversial example: perhaps someone supports full ownership of everything currently covered under the NFA as well as modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, however, they want to see the latter two moved under the NFA as well. This would result in a garden variety AR and its magazines being covered under the NFA.

They clearly fall under the “gun supporter” spectrum since they support ownership of all firearms, however, you may disagree with this policy point.

As long as they fall inside the spectrum of gun supporters however these disagreements should be conducted with reasonable discourse and not an embracement of cancel culture. Cancel culture is not an acceptable means to deal with people in our political spectrum that we may have disagreements with. This is how we remain unified – by not giving in to our desire for instant gratification and screaming for the transgressor to be escorted from the community. We are better than that, and together we are stronger.

Together we have more talent, more manpower, and a bigger voice. That is far more important than small policy disputes.

Reactionism

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

Knee-jerk reactions plague the Second Amendment community, both inside and out. These reactions range from the ridiculous and demonstrably false, to the same tired rhetoric repeated endlessly. I’m sure everyone reading this knows what I’m talking about. Unsupported conspiracy theories, ad hominems, scathing hit piece articles, and one-liners (“Shall not be infringed!”) dominate this particular arena.

Here’s the problem with the reactionism we see in the community directed at anything deemed untoward: it has a hidden irony of being counterproductive.

Think about it like this. When you are accosted in some manner over your support of firearms how do you react? If you are for instance at a public pro-gun rally and an overzealous gun control advocate gets in your face and screams, “why do you care more about guns than children?!” does that bring you around to their way of thinking? Or does it simply upset you and cause you to yell back? Similarly yelling  “Shall not be infringed, you expletive!” at a gun control advocate will not cause them to come around to our way of thinking. It might make you feel better, but it will only harden their view against you and continue to degrade the image of our community as seen by others.

This counterproductive reactionism comes solely from a place of emotion, either anger or fear or sometimes both. Fear and anger are the strongest emotions, that’s why unethical organizations and individuals often use them in extremes to solicit money from people in our community. Don’t we want to come from a place of reason instead? Furthermore we, as gun rights advocates, frequently deride the opposition for the exact characteristics of being emotionally driven and having knee-jerk reactions – why would we as gun rights supporters knowingly participate in the same and thus position ourselves as hypocrites?

Rather than the same old rhetoric, I believe we should try a new approach that doesn’t have logical and emotional inconsistencies. We should adjust our speech to persuade others, not to attempt to force our beliefs on them. We should debate with people, not react with anger. We should talk to those we  disagree with about their policy choices and ask them simply, “why?” That produces a conversation and a conversation is what is needed.

Messaging

Changing our messaging is not only a good idea, it’s going to be necessary if we ever want to expand the legal framework of firearms rights. We have a perfect opportunity to do it right now, and more than that it is necessary to act immediately. Support for stricter gun control has been rising very steadily for the past ten years, while gun ownership (as a percentage of households) has remained stagnant (Source:  news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx). What this means is that through their careful manipulation and control of messaging and narrative those who seek to disarm citizens have been winning minds to their side in no small amount. If you have a careful look through the polls however you’ll see that we still have remarkable support in certain areas and a window in which we can retake those in the center.

For a long time now the gun control extremists in the mainstream media and no small number of talking heads have been clearly focusing on a few messages. They are emotionally based first (which as discussed before has the biggest impact), followed by duplicitous statistics designed to fool anyone who doesn’t do the research themselves. They stay united and on point with this messaging. Above all, they claim that they want to save lives. Through careful repetition of this messaging, they have cultivated a very large following of people from all over the spectrum, a great number of which simply like the idea of saving lives. Make no mistake: some of these people are true sophists simply trying to take every gun in the country, and others are in it for more noble reasons but are misguided.

This is an important distinction, and I believe Dan Gross is a fantastic example of the latter – noble but perhaps misguided in his actions.

This comes back to a point from Rob’s article where he talked about finding common ground in the desire to save lives. Even the phrasing itself, “a desire to save lives,” has become so conflated in our culture with gun control that most gun rights supporters will cringe a little bit (I do anyway) because they know that anyone who says it will just want to infringe on my rights.

This is a big victory for gun control advocates. They have taken a phrase that should not be controversial at all and they have weaponized it. As a gun owner, there is nothing wrong with saying I want to save lives. There is nothing wrong with saying I want to find a way to reduce accidents. There is nothing wrong with saying I want to help reduce suicides.

So why do these phrases often invoke a visceral reaction from gun rights supporters? Why are they often met with fear, anger, and skepticism?

If you’ve been paying attention then you’ll know that the answer to that question is messaging. And in order to fight fire with fire, we must change our own messaging. We must communicate on common grounds with those who are noble but misguided. Contrary to popular belief, and I agree again here with Mr Pinucs, the majority of gun control supporters are not the extremist variety. They will listen to a well-reasoned argument. Even if the person you are talking to directly does not change their mind keep in mind that debates are often much more for the benefit of the viewer rather than the debater.

A well-reasoned argument along the lines of these common grounds could go something as follows:

“I  want to save lives as well, let’s talk about the defensive uses of firearms versus the real statistics of violence perpetrated with firearms.”

A reasonable person will read the statistics and a seed will be planted in their mind that perhaps there is something to what you are saying. The extremists will never agree, but the debate was not for them in the first place. By communicating along common grounds we can stagnate and potentially reverse the rising trend of gun control support. This is something that can be done by everybody reading, you don’t have to have a public platform or a TV show. You can do this in every interaction you have online or in person.

Far more people than you may think will be responsive to this sort of reasoning. The most extreme beliefs of any ideology are usually the smallest number. That goes for me as well. I believe the right to self-defense is a natural right that every human being has. I don’t believe that it can be taken away by anyone, for any reason that society cares to construct. And I believe the right to self-defense encompasses the ownership of weaponry and accessories, as well as training, such as to allow you to be on equal footing with anyone who would attempt to harm you and available to anyone who could purchase such items in a free market economy.

Having these beliefs I know puts me at the thin end of the bell curve that any political ideology rests upon. I am what the gun control crowd would refer to as a gun rights extremist. That doesn’t bother me.  But I understand that when compared to society at large I am most decidedly in a small minority. Most people will fall somewhere else in the spectrum, clustering mostly around the middle as in any bell curve. The other side understands this as well and this is why they frame their messaging the way that they do – to capture as much in the net as possible.

If we can communicate with people on the other side on that common ground then we can sway minds and if we can sway minds we can start to change the narrative. And changing the narrative is the most fundamental aspect that we should be focusing on as gun rights advocates.

Narrative

What is a narrative in this context? The one that’s being pushed against us is simple:

“Common sense gun control saves lives, and anyone who stands against saving lives is bad.”

While there’s perhaps some more nuance to it than that I believe that’s the main thrust. Wouldn’t a better narrative be “Having educated and armed individuals saves lives, and anyone who stands against saving lives is bad?” The narrative constructs itself through repeated usage of precisely selected messages, and right now the gun grabbers have all the power in constructing it.

How do we change the narrative? That starts with every action that we undertake in with regards to the pro-gun community. It starts with unity so that we can present a stronger base from which to attack the enemy. It continues with dismantling the reactionism that plagues us so that reason and evidence can reign supreme. Then we can change our messaging and debate with the enemy in order to sway and convince those who are in the middle to our side. And finally, when this is completed the narrative will begin to write itself as a product of a strong, cohesive community focused on saving lives through expansive firearms ownership and comprehensive education.

Conclusion

Once the whole narrative is changed in this fashion and it starts to be repeated more often by more people then, and only then, will we see the more fundamental expansion of firearms laws in a legal context inside of state and federal legislatures. This is how we fix the infringements already in place. This is how we expand going forward. We work together. We rewrite the narrative.


About Anthony Garcia:

Anthony bought his first gun days after turning 18, and his first NRA membership shortly after that. A California native, he luckily escaped in 2010 to Colorado.

After finding some legs in local gun rights activism he was appalled to find the legislative overreach in 2013 with the passing of numerous unconstitutional gun control bills in CO.

He joined with others and formed the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, serving as the Treasurer and a founding board member, of the 501c(4) that would remove former state senator John Morse in a recall in Colorado in 2013. The recall was a national first in that it was run on a platform of gun rights. He worked directly alongside former NRA board member Timothy Knight in this endeavor.

Following that he continued a path in the oilfield, the trucking industry, and finally became a stock trader, all the while supporting gun rights locally in various capacities. Today he is a husband, father, NRA lifetime endowment member, staunch advocate of gun rights, and President of Save the Second – an organization currently dedicated to fixing the NRA with the help of other members.

Anthony Garcia, President of Save the Second
Anthony Garcia, President of Save the Second
Subscribe
Notify of
98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
swmft
swmft
11 days ago

gun control is about control. nothing short if the fbi comes to see you 50 armed people with body armor machine guns and tanks it is about control, they dont want you to level them all and send back a reply leave me alone! they kill with impunity and no one screams fowl and tracks them down ruby ridge perfect example ,they loose in court and NO penalties out of control

Ripthesystem
Ripthesystem
12 days ago

Rob Pinko is a self appointed gun savior idiot.

What a smackjob. He is a legend in his own mind. He represents NO GUN OWNERS!

Effin FUDD Quisling.

He is done.

AggregatVier
AggregatVier
13 days ago

Jim Zumbo
Dick Metcalf
Rob Pincus
Anthony Garcia…

The trend continues.

hoss
hoss
13 days ago

Once again 1000 words when 50 would make the point. Makes me wonder who he’s trying to convince us, or himself!

EB98
EB98
13 days ago

I’ll give you a hint there with that shitty, needs to be shaved wannbe beard. When you spew bullshit about how I need to fill out a 4473 for a PRIVATE sale, go fuck yourself. How’s that for starters? You shitbags suck the limp cock of the nra with their GUN CONTROL SUPPORTING (http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/nra-supported-nfa34.htm WLP’s own words kids, don’t hate the playa, hate the game) backing you up with the bullshit (read HR 357 in Texas that would have passed before the nra came in to “save” *us* (*read their $$$ from forced range membership fees and instructor fees) and… Read more »

nrringlee
nrringlee
13 days ago
Reply to  EB98

Save the Alinsky attacks for the Huffington Post. We discuss serious issues here like serious people. That is how the voice of Liberty sounds. Semper Fi

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
13 days ago
Reply to  EB98

Now, this is a truly comical and tragic response to this article. Rob and Anthony have managed to turn the agenda of Save the Second on its head. After all, Save the Second seeks to reform the NRA: https://www.savethe2a.org/our-5-goals/ I guess Rob and Anthony have to ask themselves how much damage they have done to their own organization with this needless nonsense. I understand Rob’s motivation regarding his WTTA efforts, but he is clearly lost in his own world of imagination and walked off a cliff. It would be rather tragic if Save the Second suffers from this unnecessary excursion… Read more »

Buster
Buster
13 days ago

And I thought his (EB98) was a passionate response.

Passion for saving/defending our freedom seems to have died back in the mid-40’s with the end of WWII, hence the situation we face today.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
13 days ago
Reply to  Buster

There was a lot of passion in 1934.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR aren’t my idea of freedom-loving Americans.

The problem we face today is because a majority of Americans born since the mid 1800s have demanded policies consistent with Totalitarianism.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
13 days ago
Reply to  Buster

Yes, it was a passionate response by EB98. Rob and Anthony have been fighting the corruption and mismanagement at the NRA for years, yet they are now lumped together with the current NRA leadership because both went full retard. That context makes the comment rather comical and tragic!

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
13 days ago
Reply to  EB98

As a side-note, GOA’s Texas Representative, Rachel Malone is heading up much of the Texas State legislature move toward State 2nd Amendment Sanctuary status as well as Constitutional Carry.

Stag
Stag
12 days ago
Reply to  EB98

I heard that mic drop from here!

hhluce
hhluce
13 days ago

A couple of things which most people don’t know about – and that includes the author of this piece: First, the Bill of Rights is a non-exclusive enumeration of *pre-existing* rights which are inalienable and inherent in each person, derived from the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It was the clear intent of the drafters to use this enumeration to set limits on what the government created by the Constitution of 1787 could lawfully do. There can be no constitutional prior restraint on the free exercise of these rights by the government, and they are a vital part… Read more »

EB98
EB98
13 days ago
Reply to  hhluce

“And states grant privileges and permissions and licenses to do those acts which it has the legitimate authority to prohibit. The keeping and bearing of arms is not one of those acts.” Read the state cannot issue a CHL, CCW, LTC, because BY LAW the state cannot take away a right and force you to pay to exercise that right (there are two SCOTUS rulings on this and not a damn one of these “rights” groups will force the issue, implying that they actually support the licensing scheme of the states…). “It was the clear intent of the drafters to… Read more »

Buster
Buster
13 days ago
Reply to  EB98

Pearls of wisdom.

PatriotSickOfLibs
PatriotSickOfLibs
13 days ago

Anthony needs to check his statistics. 44 MILLION guns were purchased from Jan 2020 thru Jan 2021. Estimated 8.4 MILLION NEW OWNERS. So much for stagnant.

Finnky
Finnky
13 days ago

No wonder ammo is so scarce. When I get a new gun, I also purchase at least a case of ammo for it. 44 Million new firearms (OK, less because some were undoubtedly used) require 44 Billion rounds of ammo. If I recall correctly nationwide annual ammo production capacity is under 10 Billion rounds for civilian purposes – which is not much higher than our steady state consumption rate. If no one bought ammo for existing guns, it would take four years just to supply ammo for 2020’s new guns. Obviously 1k rounds per gun is higher than what most… Read more »

JimQ
JimQ
14 days ago

Read all the comments to Pincus and Gross’s article. The comments were UNITED in REJECTING Pincus and Gross’s ludicrous demand for every increasing and intrusive background checks since they’re clearly not an impediment to criminals attaining firearms.

nrringlee
nrringlee
13 days ago
Reply to  JimQ

Correct. Not only do the background check arguments fail the utilitarian logic test but they also fail the strict scrutiny test. They fail the utilitarian test because criminals do not follow law. They fail the strict scrutiny test because they present an unreasonable and unwarranted infringement on the exercise of an enumerated natural right. The strict scrutiny test is the only valid test when discussing enumerated natural rights. All of the ‘popularly supported common sense solutions’ fail not only the utilitarian logic test but fail the strict scrutiny test. In that, they qualify as nothing more than a new version… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
13 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Correct – the proper term is “common nonsense gun control”. Nothing sensible about it.

Last edited 13 days ago by Finnky
Arny
Arny
14 days ago

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Arny

Franklin was also a big fan of capitalism. You know, where people offer their goods and services for sale and consumers decide if they want to buy them.

PatriotSickOfLibs
PatriotSickOfLibs
13 days ago
Reply to  Arny

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
― Benjamin Franklin

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
13 days ago
Reply to  Arny

“In matters of style, swim with the current, In matters of principle, stand like a rock.”    -Thomas Jefferson My Freedoms, Rights, Liberties are not Style. It’s far beyond principle time.

Happy Everafter
Happy Everafter
14 days ago

Good article! You and I are in the ‘right’-side tail of the bell curve. We do need a unified front. At issue, however, is the long-standing, continuous, never-ending onslaught of ‘newspeak’ from ALL media, which has brainwashed the the growing army of breathless, eager socialists, such that they CANNOT hear ANYTHING positive when the word “gun” is mentioned unless it is matched with the word “control.” I fear something very big must happen to change the current trend of the more and more frequent little and big wins of anti-gun legislation. I possess first-hand knowledge. My wife is the complete… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by Happy Everafter
PatriotSickOfLibs
PatriotSickOfLibs
13 days ago

My deepest sympathies. Must be hell living with a woman who is polar opposite to your views.

RoyD
RoyD
13 days ago

That thought ran through my mind also. It is not quite that bad at my youngest son’s house but then it didn’t start out that way either. Between Covid and her losing her Father because of Covid last November it has been a bit of a shit show these last few months. Oh, did I also mention she is a special needs elementary teacher? You never know what every day is going to be like when you wake up each day. A pity really.

nrringlee
nrringlee
13 days ago

So, you married a product of public schools. The Progressive New Left published a little tome in the early 1970’s called the Prairie Fire Manifesto. In that document they laid out a master plan much like Marx’s Communist Manifesto to take over the American culture, destroy the American Republic and replace it with a socialist utopia. In that document they saw that they had to replace critical thinking with Critical Theory. Bill Ayers and company, aka the Weather Underground have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. And all this time ‘conservatives’ and Republicans have been asleep at the switch as… Read more »

ChiptheBarber
ChiptheBarber
14 days ago

It’s not news to some of you, but to the rest of you; I got some news for you brothers. Pincus was right when he said that there is no culture war (not for the reasons he believes though). There WAS a culture war but it is over and WE LOST my friends! Anti-Americans have the media, the DC bureacracy, the white house, both houses of congress, the courts, Hollywood, Big Tech, and thanks to constant bombardment from all of the aforementioned…The Moral High Ground. As far as influencing the narrative goes, I believe that ship has sailed. The only… Read more »

nrringlee
nrringlee
13 days ago
Reply to  ChiptheBarber

Correct. Pijncus, like many progressives can occasionally be correct but they will be correct for the wrong reasons. All of their premises are wrong. That is the problem.

Dee
Dee
14 days ago

It has been my experience with liberals including gun grabbers is that you can’t debate with them because debating indicates some acceptance of facts and logic. Psychological, liberals do not use either one. They act and believe on fired up emotions. I say this as a fact, you can prove to them that the earth is round and if they believe it is flat, it won’t change their mind. I have seen it happen 100% of the time. Their final argument is calling you a name and dismissing your logic.

Rob
Rob
14 days ago

There is NO common ground to be found with ANYONE who would trample the Bill of Rights. And saying an individual is “for the 2A” and liberty just because he or she works in the firearms industry is like saying ever individual that wears a badge is a legally and/or morally upstanding guy or gal because they making their living catching criminals. Its a bullshit argument. Rob Pincus deserves every ounce of hate he’s getting right now, and you, him, and every other apologist turncoat can go f#!$! yourself. Not one more inch MEANS what it says.

mike
mike
14 days ago

just say NO to gun control

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
14 days ago

Question: Anthony, would you be willing to find common ground with people who want to outlaw 80% lowers, so called “ghost guns”, to “save lives”? I know that Rob Pincus would not, because he made a video about that just a few days ago. Rob is using 80% lowers to tinker around with gun designs and opposes any restrictions on 80% lowers. Your unity argument fails, because it assumes that there is a common ground on giving up rights in the gun culture. Fortunately, there isn’t. The proper unity argument would be about approaching gun rights issues only from a… Read more »

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
14 days ago

I didn’t really read the whole article, seemed far to ‘tedious’ to me.
Maybe I’m being overly simplistic but it seems to me that you are either for us or against us. Not too much else need be said.
One quick example – a gun shop owner in VA ‘celebrated’ when barky got elected. Then he started paying attention to what he was up to – and started screeching bloody murder when he found out how barky was ham stringing the gun biz. Not sure how that ended up turning out.
For or against? Your call.

Coach
Coach
14 days ago

If we do not take a seat at the table, we will continue to lose. If we control the narrative, we will win. This includes creating more pro gun laws.
We must make ourselves approachable.

RoyD
RoyD
14 days ago
Reply to  Coach

You know all those females walking up and down the street wearing little of nothing? They are approachable.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
14 days ago
Reply to  Coach

In Oregone they have made sure the seat at the table is on the tv screen locking us out of our right to share our interpretation of the infringements on the floor only held by the élite while they force it down our throats just like using covid to prevent us from protesting or worshiping in church.

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
14 days ago
Reply to  Coach

Im not setting at a table with people who want me chained or dead!
You do you,ill continue getting my alamo ready!

PMinFl
PMinFl
14 days ago

I think that you have overworked your points, I agree that we must unify and compromise in that when we agree among ourselves we must present a united front. We like and buy/shoot firearms,they don’t Okay if you don’t want (or are afraid of) guns then don’t buy them, we won’t REQUIRE that of you; on the other hand don’t PREVENT us from our right to keep and bear same. Simply put…live and let live,you do you, leave us alone.

Buster
Buster
14 days ago

Why not simply declare war on any person – foreign or domestic – that advotates or conspires to subvert the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

The “enemy” would include co-conspirators, and any person who aids and abets. The penalty would be death on the spot, without trial.

Where in the Constitution does it say we must tolerate and appease such people?

Why over-complicate this?

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
14 days ago
Reply to  Buster

At this point that’d be alot of killing,but they’ll reach a point where they’ll fill trenches with our bodies. First they need to remove our claws and teeth

JNew
JNew
14 days ago

This article lost me when the phrase “Shall not be infringed” was considered a mere “one-liner.”

Finnky
Finnky
14 days ago
Reply to  JNew

Consider the context. If you are publicly screaming “shall not be infringed” at politically opponents – it is a one liner. As a philosophy and political approach it is laudable. As a legal argument, while valid, it has met limited success. As a political argument it simply pushes more people toward thinking 2A should be repealed – which is counter productive. Know your audience. Speaking to a 2A rally this is a great line to get them fired up. Speaking to moderates, a moderate approach stressing social benefits guns provide is more effective. For extreme antis, lead may be the… Read more »

HLB
HLB
14 days ago

While you are rewriting the narrative be sure to loosen your weapon in your holster, because words are what have led to the many actions that have already lessened our carry rights.

HLB

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago

OK, I am going to suggest that you have David Codrea review your work before posting articles on Ammoland in the future. THIS was nothing more than a bunch of twisted psycho-babble and a waste of everyone’s time. No more flag waving, no more cries of “Shall not be infringed” or “Molon Labe!” Just flat out… NO COMPROMISE! Now go back and write something that is on point and altruistic to the Constitution of the United States of AMERICA!

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
14 days ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

USMC0351Grunt, This is an opinion article, a letter to the editor. Agree or disagree, editing opinions is wrong. Commenting on them after they are stated is perfectly alright. Think about the $hitstorm we just had over Pincus’ article, which you’ll notice he hasn’t stepped up to defend or explain more thoroughly. Editing an opinion is pretty much the same as silencing the person. Everybody gets their say, and hopefully, has what it takes to join the conversation and defend their viewpoint or explain why they are being misunderstood. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. ANY of you who… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago

Everybody gets their say” So, what’s your point?

Finnky
Finnky
14 days ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

I think took your comment to be a suggestion that AmmoLand force an editorial review. I took your comment as a friendly suggestion to Mr Garcia as to how he could improve his writing and the response he gets from readers.

After the Pincus brouhaha, is it any wonder is sensitive to suggestions they censor articles?

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
14 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

Finnky,

You were correct in my seeing it as a question of prior restraint. The statement was, “I am going to suggest that you have David Codrea review your work before posting articles on Ammoland in the future.”

That also asks Mr Codrea to take on the work and for Mr Garcia, and presumably others in time, to have direct access to him, which he may not want.

I am always sensitive to suggestions of censorship. It’s a slippery path leading to things like the abominations of the social networks. The cure is far worse than the disease.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago

Dave, When bad ideas get full exposure and public debate, they are less likely to survive. I appreciate your commitment to open debate and facts. On a somewhat related matter, parody/satire, and sarcasm are frequently not recognized by a segment of the firearm community (some people are very literal, a little slow witted, and have a dull sense of humor). Accidentally passing along humorous mocking of an anti 2nd Amendment politician as if it were a real quote does not help defeat anti 2nd Amendment politicians. Do you think it is a possibility that the Terry Meza quote being forwarded… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by JSNMGC
Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
14 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

JSNMGC,

Like I said initially, it was sent to me from a friend. Since it is very much in keeping with things that she’s said in the past I had no reason to doubt it. People become very literal when pressed on their strongly held beliefs, and the Net is known for misunderstandings due to the lack of facial recognition. It’s the nature of the beast.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago

I know: fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to use Ammoland to pass it along (without qualification), that’s all (especially given your position). If you dig into it and start to think your friend may have been mistaken and that it was just parody/satire, you may want to consider your previous comments about the abominations of the social networks. The reason it’s funny is that it is along the lines of things she has actually said – it’s just taking it to the extreme. Ridicule is an effective means of attacking… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by JSNMGC
Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
13 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

JSNMGC,

You’re right, violated my own rules and posted without checking. As usual, it bit me in the ass.

I think it was meant as a real quote. My beef with the social networks is their censorship based on feelz and willingness to label things as true on the same.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
13 days ago

Thanks for the update.

It was funny parody/satire and Meza deserved the ridicule.

Our side has facts, logic, and the truth working in our favor. I just don’t like to see it squandered.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
13 days ago

Post em up. I find it refreshing to see a traitor revealed right here in unedited black and white. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves.

Finnky
Finnky
14 days ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

Opinion author was not suggesting compromise, he was suggesting political strategy. As long as this remains a political fight, victory lies in numbers. I don’t care why someone votes to preserve my ability to peacefully retain my rights – i care that I don’t have to kill (or die) to do so. Appearing to be an extremist causes the general public to ignore your viewpoint – taking you out of the broader public discussion more effectively that the tech industry and media ever could. By appearing moderate and “normal” we broaden our audience and gain support instead of driving it… Read more »

Marc
Marc
14 days ago

Controlling the “gun debate narrative” is fine if you want to engage in a debate about enumerated constitutional recognized rights. The gun control advocates have weaponized every incident with emotionally driven agenda, manipulating the general population unfamiliar with their personal need for effective self defense. The life they save is likely their own, or one close to them. We have had fifty years of “debate”, “dialog” and “compromise”, much of which has explored compromise in a huge number of inventive strategies to “control guns”. The operative here is “control” and what’s missing is “stop violent crime”. There are a number… Read more »

Whatzit
Whatzit
14 days ago

Too many opinion pieces take the view that all we have to do is convince the left that more gun laws don’t equal more safety. They push statistics and research papers and try to communicate things such as, “See?! More deaths occur with fists, clubs and feet than with guns and…” The left doesn’t care about child safety. This isn’t about safety. This isn’t about “common sense” anything. This is only about disarmament. They just want our guns, period.

Finnky
Finnky
14 days ago
Reply to  Whatzit

So true of the left. There is however a large body of moderates on the topic. Our current approach is driving moderates left and (for lack of a better term) fudds into supporting increasingly infringements.

Scorched earth may work in one off battles as victory ends the fight. Unfortunately we are in a long term conflict, regardless of short term gains or losses this conflict will continue as long as our nation survives. If short term victory sufficed, gun control would have ended with ratification of the second. Clearly it did not.

Tionico
Tionico
14 days ago
Reply to  Whatzit

One solid point came accross to me in this piece: our real target is not the far lefg hard core gun grabbers. Nope. We do need to engage with those clowns when we can, but the real target needs to be that big fat high middle part of the bell curve. I’d wager the vast majority of the near five million NEW FIRST TIME gun buyers we’ve seen in the past year came from that part of the population at large. Certian things happened or were said that caused them to stand up, go get into their car get to… Read more »

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian
14 days ago

“I believe Dan Gross is… noble but perhaps misguided in his actions.”

There’s nothing noble about attacking the natural human right to self defense.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

“Ironically, controlling the narrative is one of the few ways that we will win”

And you don’t think THIS is a kick in the nuts?

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
14 days ago

I’m very black and white on the constitution and especially the teeth that are supposed to bite those who threaten it! You are pro second or a anti gun anti american. Depending on your definition of shall not be infringed! And i smelled robb pinko from a thousand miles away! LET HIM REAP WHAT HE SOWS AND THOSE WHO STAND WITH HIM!

NRA Supporter
NRA Supporter
14 days ago

The old saying of “give them an inch and they will take a mile” has to be applied in the instance of additional gun control. I have not seen a single proposed “safety” measure that would actually reduce a single death or injury. As an example, so called Universal Background Checks will not stop a single criminal intent on selling a firearm to another person without the background check. Neither will it stop straw purchases at an FFL. If you want a parallel, just look at all the people who drive cars after the state has revoked their privilege. The… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  NRA Supporter

User name is ironic.

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
14 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I support the nra when its no longer the wayne la pierre association.
Hes nosedown and its a matter of quicky diminishing altitude.
I wonder what will be left of the wreakage to salvage and Continue the fight??? Fwlp

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Ej harbet

The problems with the NRA go well beyond Wayne.

The poster “NRA Supporter” posted “give them an inch and they will take a mile.”

The irony is that the NRA has done that exact thing before Wayne, during Wayne, and everything they have said (and haven’t said) indicates they will do it post Wayne.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago
Reply to  Ej harbet

So, you’re a cinch to support ANYTHING as long as you don’t have to do ANYTHING to help maintain it?

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  NRA Supporter

Do not tie penalties or enhancements to s firearm. All that does is further demonize firearms.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago

Couldn’t agree more.

Also, the definition of a “crime” is constantly changing.

Careful what you wish for.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago
Reply to  NRA Supporter

WE THE PEOPLE need to STEP UP TOGETHER, all across the country and stop all this back-door babbling and yank-my-crank logic and start DOIN OUR JOBS as U.S. Citizens! We all bitch and moan that “We have rights”, then there are those slim 3% of the country that actually stand and fight for them, well? NOW it’s time WE do OUR JOBS as citizens! The NRA “narrative” is to keep stringing it’s supporters along in the good fight for our 2nd Amendment rights, else, once we have WON that war, there is no longer a need for the NRA or… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
14 days ago
Reply to  NRA Supporter

quote: “No Prosecutor should ever be permitted to negotiate away penalties for illegal possession of a firearm” NOT as the laws currently stand. There are far too many “disabling crimes: that oughtn’t be cause to disarm anyone. Drive more than twenty over the posted limit is a felony negligent bust in most states… and there are places where roads used to be safely posted at 75 and are now posted at fifty. Sometimes fifty is too fast in a 70 zone, and thousands of drivers spin out of control, but there is no felony involved…. straight up drunk driving should… Read more »

KCsmith
KCsmith
14 days ago

No.
I’ve had enough of the ignorant compromisers and their pathetic apologists.

We need to stand our ground firmly and not accept one single bit of infringement.
They won’t give up before confiscation, why would we give up any ground at all?

Any other alleged 2A advocates out there want to show their real colors?
Come on out, we’re making a list.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago
Reply to  KCsmith

Right here! I have been fighting these battles against NICS, (AND ONE, have my UPIN number to prove it!) and others that violate the 2nd Amendment all along… I’m a disabled Marine Vet, getting old, tired, and not getting ANY help from ANYONE! http://DevilsAdvocateArmory.com (NOTE: The photo in the article was from the first Marfa Gun Show in (November 9-10, 2009 which was (5) years since Marfa’s last show… The City of Marfa begged me to bring back gun shows, so I did, reluctantly! THEN they shuttered the second show at the last minute based on fears of Covid when… Read more »

The Crimson Pirate
The Crimson Pirate
14 days ago

” I’ll give you a controversial example: perhaps someone supports full ownership of everything currently covered under the NFA as well as modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, however, they want to see the latter two moved under the NFA as well. This would result in a garden variety AR and its magazines being covered under the NFA. They clearly fall under the “gun supporter” spectrum since they support ownership of all firearms, however, you may disagree with this policy point. ” Are you out of your gorram mind?! Even if this hypothetical idiot is sincere in supporting universal ownership… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago

Well put. If you believe all arms should be available to the common man, ditch the NFA, don’t expand it.

Tionico
Tionico
14 days ago

the term “arms” in common use and understanding at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified meant all weapons of military usefulness and able to be used by a single individual. Full auto BMG 50 maks that list, as did the air powered semiautomatic rifle that existed at the time of our little tussle with England. Forty rounds a minute, no reloading until the full mag was discharged. VERY dear, but yet available to anyone with means to get one. Small (fours, some sixes) field cannon were also on that list, as were grenades. True weapons of battlefield usefulness… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago

Um…disagree wholheartedly. I have met plenty of individuals in the gun industry who were to a greater or lesser extent anti-gun. And I have no more patience with them, or any other anti-gunners. Like you said, “shall not be infringed”. No more “workibg with our colleagues”, no more “shaking hands across the aisle”. Screw that. Give us our full, unfettered constututional rights back.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago

You either got a penis or a vagina, NO compromise!

nrringlee
nrringlee
14 days ago

Excellent work, Anthony and congrats on making it our of the People’s Democratik Republik of Kalifornia. Well done article with a lot of real clear thinking. But let’s broaden the scope a bit. The idea of ‘gun control’ as a stand alone, hot button issue has been exploited by grifters in the ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ movements for decades as have the other hot button issues of immigration, abortion, education policy and so on. What do they all have in common? Simple. They are emotion driven issues based upon a liberty loving reaction to the elimination of liberty in favor of… Read more »

gregs
gregs
14 days ago

unity is a fickle partner. one insignificant thing could break the relationship. firearms supporters are more diverse than our opponents. isn’t diversity our strongpoint? opponents are a stronger group because they have a specific agenda, taking away something from another. supporters don’t always support exactly the same thing. the recent huge numbers of new purchases of firearms demonstrates that our opponents are losing ground because of their policies and vilification of those whom do not agree. i don’t know nor have never met a firearms supporter that is a “shall not be infringed” reactionist without being set upon by a… Read more »

Hazcat
Hazcat
14 days ago

I was going to answer this weak kneed ‘can’t we all just get along’ article but what ever I might have written has been well covered by Ansel, Roy, Charlie and Knute.

Well said gentlemen. No more compromise! That is our ‘unifying message’.

Terry
Terry
14 days ago
Reply to  Hazcat

The progressives/liberals/socialists long ago told us exactly what they were going to do. lingchi – the death of a thousand cuts. Every time you make even the smallest compromise this is another cut.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
14 days ago
Reply to  Terry

And yet, WE as Americans apply band-aids to gashes! MEN! Reach down into your pants and see if you have a set of BALLS and bring them to the front of these issues, then USE THEM! Have an un-constitutional, oath breaking, anti-gunner in your city, county, state of federal lineage of elected or appointed officials? REMOVE THEIR DEAD-BEAT ASSES! The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes… Read more »

Terry
Terry
14 days ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

I checked – yeah they’re still there, although useless for most purposes due to age. My new year’s resolution – none of their laws apply to me. Neither old ones nor new ones. The 2nd amendment is the only law I will adhere to as far as weapons are concerned.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
15 days ago

Anthony, since before I was born it seems that compromises have been made with regards to the ownership and use of guns by the general population. Maybe it was a more altruistic effort in the days of yore but that was before I was born. Now just like RoyD and Knute point out, these days gun control is nothing more than people control. And all these umpteen years of compromise have only done one thing. Take away the rights of free Americans bit by bit. Not one piece of legislation put forth by gun grabbers has done what they promised… Read more »

RoyD
RoyD
14 days ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

Unfortunately I am only allowed to give you one up vote.

Knute
Knute
14 days ago
Reply to  RoyD

But here’s at least one more… 🙂

Grasshopper49
Grasshopper49
14 days ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

Amen Ansel

nrringlee
nrringlee
14 days ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

The Compromise is the Grift. Republican Party. Talk Radio. ‘Conservative’ media. Fox News. Big Gun. Big Baby. Big Immigration. Send money. Watch us Negotiate your Rights Away. The Big Grift. Our New Left Progressive adversaries have learned a great deal from our ‘side’ about how to shake down the unwary. No one in The Big Grift ever says No. They just say sorry, send more money. Should the threats to liberty and justice ever be extinguished the Big Grift is out of business.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
14 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Support only those organizations that actually get things done. For me that’s Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners of Maine.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
15 days ago

You say unity. I ask, for what purpose? One would have thought that Save the Second would like to end the type of “unity” that was created under the NRA umbrella and has resulted in our side giving in with nothing in return. The outcry about Rob’s statements wasn’t about some litmus test. It was about him arguing that we should give in on universal background checks. As I stated in my comment to Rob’s post, this “conversation” he is seeking has actually been an extortion scheme for decades: “Give up some of your rights or you will lose more!”… Read more »

Knute
Knute
15 days ago

I only have ONE question on my personal “purity test”. Usually, I don’t even need to ask it, but just observe the individual’s actions. The question is: “Have you any desire to control others?” This is based upon my belief that there are really only two types of people in the world, those who desire to control others, and those who do not. OFC, one could also label such as, master’s vs slaves, Good vs Evil, etc. But I like the simplicity of putting it into the framework of control. It appears quite obvious to me that a desire to… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
14 days ago
Reply to  Knute

BOOM!!!! Forty years after the battles at Lexington and Concord that lit the fire of war, an historian decided he’d do well to go find people who were THERE and get their first hand “take” on the issues and events. One man who had stood with Captain Johh Parker and about seventy others as the first company of Redcoats stood against the Men of Lexington was located, and an interview conducted. When asked “why were you men out that morning? Was it because of the tea tax” Naw, I never drank that stuff, so that was no matter”. How about… Read more »

RoyD
RoyD
15 days ago

Nice try Anthony, but you are not hitting in the Ten Ring. People say “gun control” when what they are really saying is “people control.” The leftists are interested in controlling the inhabitants of this Earth. That is their goal. Removing the means to resist their efforts is but one part of their operational plans. Individuals who do not fully understand this are part of the problem even if they profess to be “pro gun.” I don’t have anything for them or their ideas. I arrived in the State of Oklahoma 45 years ago on my way home to Alaska… Read more »

Last edited 15 days ago by RoyD
AggregatVier
AggregatVier
13 days ago
Reply to  RoyD

So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, “Separate those who lap the water with their tongues as a dog laps from those who kneel down to drink.” – Judges 7:5 NIV

RoyD
RoyD
13 days ago
Reply to  AggregatVier

And, as with many things, it is the why of it and not the what that really matters.