Rob Pincus
Courtesy Winchester.com
Previous Post
Next Post

You may be aware that firearms trainer Rob Pincus and Former Brady Campaign president Dan Gross published a piece at Ammoland recently arguing for expanded background checks. As you might imagine, that stance has stirred up a Zumbo-esque shitstorm among the gun rights community.

A well-written, representative take on a prominent gun community figure such as Pincus coming out for expanded (but not universal) background checks was written by The Gun Writer, Lee Williams. Read his post here.

For the record, my take on the Pincus/Gross proposal is virtually identical to that of Williams. I am firmly in the not one more inch column. But Pincus is adamant that the specifics of what he’s proposing does not constitute more restrictions or gun control. So I wanted to give him the opportunity to answer the most important criticisms of what he and Gross are proposing.

I sent him the following questions, and here are his answers . . .

-/-/-/-/-

TTAG: You wrote that the differences between those who own guns and those who don’t or would further restrict our rights “is still perceived as a culture war.”

Change is being made impossible by perceptions of a culture war that does not actually exist.

The gun control industry and the media have been attacking the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms for decades. It’s a constant battle against hunting, the shooting sports, armed self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, and those who would exercise it. How is that not a culture war?

Pincus: There is a small group of noisy people that claim gun owners “care more about guns than children” and all that kind of tripe…and noisy people on our side have been selling the idea that everyone who votes Democrat wants to take all guns away for a couple decades. Both are lies that keep getting repeated because they are good for business and they get “the base” fired up.

But, there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants loaded machine guns in vending machines at the elementary school because they don’t care about kids’ lives. Just as there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants to abolish the Second Amendment (if there was, they would try, right? It’s literally never even talked about seriously by anti-gunners).

So, you’ve got some extremists with agendas that like attention and ask for donations with fear mongering rhetoric. That’s not a “culture war.” I’ll bet within the margin of error, 100% of Americans would honestly answer “yes” to “Do you want to reduce negative outcomes involving firearms?. Particularly if they weren’t afraid of losing freedom in the process…that’s the rub.

Our side has to admit that we care and then engage in the conversation about how we do it. The other side needs to either then be honest about their intention to restrict freedom or acknowledge all the many things that the gun community already does or can do (without any law) to work towards reducing negative outcomes.

TTAG: You wrote in support of expanded background checks for private firearm sales to strangers (but not to friends and family members).

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.

…we believe the public face of any policy push should, as entirely as possible, be focused on background checks.

How – specifically – would something like that be implemented? How would a “stranger” be defined and a friend or family member be exempted?

Pincus: Again, that’s the conversation that needs to happen. First, it’s important to establish clearly here that the original article was intended to create conversation, just like this one that we are having. The draft was read by many leaders in the gun community.

Some offered some great suggestions about verbiage. Some asked great questions that lead us to clarify portions. Some advised me not to publish it, while others were very supportive of the idea of doing something controversial to create dialogue and thought. None of them volunteered to add their name, however.

It’s the nature of our community to attack anything outside of the orthodoxy. I stopped worrying about that a long time ago. So, I get a lot of private support from people whose jobs, business or dependence on social media support prevent them from stepping out of certain boundaries. I’m happy to play gadfly so that we can get to the important details in a context that is relevant and not just “shall not be infringed!”

As I said in my follow up interview with John Crump, if I have the power, background checks go away…but, I don’t have that power. Quite frankly, the people with the power right now want to end private transfers completely through universal background checks.

So, a couple of thing to establish first:

A. Exemptions are exemptions. Think of it like a breathalyzer device that prevents a car from starting if the owner has repeated DUIs. Most people don’t need to have one and we don’t get asked to prove we aren’t drunk when we started our car. If someone is suspected of being drunk while driving a car, it has to be investigated and proven.

A lot of people jump to: “But, how would you prove you transferred a gun to an exempted person?” You don’t have to. The burden of proof would be on any accuser that wanted to charge you with doing the opposite.

B. As a piece of any actual legislation that I would help a legislator craft, federal prohibitions against interstate transfers (for dealers or individuals) should be abolished and the BATFE should be directed that they must follow up on NICS denials. I believe these two steps are crucial to the long-term goal of abolishing background checks entirely.

Next, let’s talk about the exemptions list. Millions of people will be on it for just about any conceivable gun owner in America. That’s the primary mechanism for precluding the establishment of a gun registry.

Here’s my starting list of people who would be exempted from the need for a background check if a firearm owner wanted to transfer a firearm to them:

-Anyone who can legally carry a concealed firearm in their state of residence
-Anyone who is a member of the same gun club as the gun’s owner
-Anyone who is a member of the same competition shooting league as the gun’s owner
-Anyone who is active/reserve/retired military or National Guard.
-Anyone who is active/reserve/retired law enforcement.
-Anyone who is a licensed armed security agent.
-Anyone who is a certified firearm safety/shooting instructor by a national organization.
-Anyone who is a member of the immediate family, an intimate partner or a co-habitator with the gun’s owner.

TTAG: An incremental expansion of the current background check requirement would be a half step toward a “universal” background check mandate, and would make taking that final step politically and logistically easier. It’s clear that the only way a UBC system works is with the outright registration of firearms. And that would, eventually, someday facilitate actual confiscation. Given that, how can you support taking that next step?

Pincus: Hopefully, what I’ve already answered covers this. And in the work I’m doing to protect private gun making, you should see a pretty strong recipe for making a comprehensive gun registry practically impossible.

TTAG: Anti-gun advocates and politicians have been arguing for and achieving incremental, “common sense” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms since the 1960s (or longer). Gun owners are told each time that it’s a small, reasonable compromise. Yet they never stop pushing for another limit, the next restriction on civilian gun ownership and use.

The gun control advocates use language much like yours when you wrote that we need . . .

…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.

Gun owners have seen this movie before and have taken the “not one more inch” stance in response. Why wouldn’t this be one more step on the road to toward complete civilian disarmament?

Pincus: Again, I expect that the answers provided above make it clear that my proposal actually increases freedom. There is no “incremental loss.” There is no “further infringement.” There is no “giving up ground.”

A PR consultant would tell me to end this paragraph at that last period and not offer the following, but I think it’s important to the conversation: An un-asked question is, “What is “expanded,” exactly, in your proposal?”

The only thing that I have explored expanding is information related to mental health issues getting into NICS. It’s a very tricky area that most people I’ve talked to in the mental health world are against. They don’t want people being afraid to seek treatment. I get that, but I still think it’s worth exploring.

There is also the issue of clarity around who needs to have an FFL to transfer firearms. I’ve said for a long time that this needs to be defined more objectively in some way. Either by frequency or volume of sales, duration of ownership before sales…somehow.

I’d also suggest cleaning up and relaxing the requirements for those who want to engage in the business of gun sales, but don’t want to have a traditional retail location.

Getting clarity here would prevent anti-gunners from attacking private sales, especially at gun shows, as nefarious. They wouldn’t be able to rationally accuse people of functioning as dealers without licenses just to avoid background checks, at least not without providing evidence that they were outside of the bounds of the clear definition of dealer.

Other than those, cleaning up the timelines and details of the how/when the courts and DOJ report to NICS are really the only other things that are reasonable to look at, and those wouldn’t be “expansions” in the scary sense.

So, you might be asking what in the actual *&$# all the ruckus is about? Simple: There are people out there in the gun media/social media who are willfully ignoring that I’ve been fighting for gun rights for over two decades. They are willfully ignoring the fact that I’ve regularly gone into the land of “liberal media” and successfully represented responsible gun owners by doing more than saying, “Shall Not Be Infringed!”

They are willfully ignoring the fact that my co-author, Dan Gross, left Brady over three years ago and that he stood on the grounds of the US Capitol with thousands of gun owners at the 2019 2A Rally and called out the disingenuous gun-grabbers who pretend they don’t want to take away guns.

He’s on record, for many years, even when he was still at Brady, as being against gun bans that, in his words, “take some guns away from all people.” They are going after the cheap likes with cheap shots at me… and some people eat that stuff up.

That’s what the ruckus is about… and that’s what has people talking. Thankfully, some are talking about the right things and I appreciate that you are among them.

Previous Post
Next Post

116 COMMENTS

  1. Pincus doesn’t want machine guns in vending machines because he’s an un-American cuck-extraordinaire.

    • Pincus is a perfect example of why I detest people who claim to be “moderates”. They make this claim because they are actually taking a political stand—on anything. They are “moderates” because they actually think they can find some comfortable (for them) middle ground where they don’t have to make any commitments which might identify them as actually standing for something They naively think they can somehow bargia with progressive-fascist gun-controllers. In this they are on a fool’s errand.

    • Mr. Pincus…Gun Control in any shape or form is rooted in racism and genocide. Instead of being a useful idiot creating more hoops for law abiding citizens how about working to eradicate what is a racist and nazi based agenda?

  2. As far as I’m concerned he’s a traitor and should be shunned at bare minimum. Hell, if I were presi-tator I’d throw him out of the nation.

  3. “To provoke a conversation.” That’s some Greta level autism there. Filling the air with unworkable, impractical and unconstitutional noise hoping that, what, somebody else does the figuring for you?

    For the record I care about my guns more than children. I don’t very much like children. Still, mine and all the guns in the world haven’t harmed as many children as those children loving abortionists seeking to separate me from my guns. Some consistency would be nice.

    • Thunbergian?!? Good lord pincus is like the criminal helping the hangman put a noose around his neck. Duh…

    • Did Pinkus think to ask at what point do the gun control people say that they won’t call for any more infringements? Is this the last compromise we have to agree on?

      • I didn’t read all his answers, so maybe he addressed this … what does he think he will get in return? National CCW reciprocity? National unpermitted concealed and open carry?

        Anything less is a bad joke. If he’s not trying to get anything at all, it’s not a joke, it’s givuptitus.

        And frankly, I don’t care if he actually thinks he can stave off worse, or if he thinks he can get more than national unpermitted carry. Too many compromises are all on our side. No more!

        • There’s a list of people who, in his proposal, would be exempted from background checks entirely:

          -Anyone who can legally carry a concealed firearm in their state of residence
          -Anyone who is a member of the same gun club as the gun’s owner
          -Anyone who is a member of the same competition shooting league as the gun’s owner
          -Anyone who is active/reserve/retired military or National Guard.
          -Anyone who is active/reserve/retired law enforcement.
          -Anyone who is a licensed armed security agent.
          -Anyone who is a certified firearm safety/shooting instructor by a national organization.
          -Anyone who is a member of the immediate family, an intimate partner or a co-habitator with the gun’s owner.

          To Pincus’ credit, this actually IS a useful compromise conversation-starter.

          In return for getting “universal” background checks between strangers, the other side gives up the idea that *everyone* has to always be checked for every single transfer. In return for exempting everyone who is in a trusted category (CCW licensed, retired LEO/military, etc.) from background checks, we accept more background checks on people who are more likely to be a problem.

          Now THAT is a true compromise, in which both sides give a bit of ground to gain some.

          Would we be giving away too much for what we get? Maybe. Should we completely refuse to negotiate? Maybe. Zero compromise is my first reaction, but it’s not always the right choice.

          I hate the idea of background checks, myself, but like it or not they’re here to stay, so we need to make the best of them somehow. Smart negotiation (like the sunset clause in the ’94 AWB, for instance) could actually strengthen our position in the medium-to-long term and make it possible to get bigger wins in the future.

          To use the cake analogy, with an idea like this, we could take a little bit of *their* cake for once — and soften them up for bigger bites later. It’s worth considering.

      • @Ing… Well written. I want to add:
        the other side gives up “background check on everyone”? That isn’t giving up anything. How about National Reciprocity or National CCW? And that would qualify the “exemption”. However, the exemption problem is it assumes “Guilty Until Innocent.”
        They also give up
        *NFA suppressors
        *SBR & SBS
        *insert other ideas

        • True. They wouldn’t be giving anything up in this scenario, but we would be. Kind of…ish. Although you could look at zero (additional) background checks for CCW holders as a net gain for us and net zero for them, since they’d be getting fewer background checks on fewer people in the end.

          It’d be nice if somebody with political clout would propose a big trade like that — something the other side wants, but it’ll cost them big, like “universal” background checks in return for no firearm s/n on NICS checks or taking suppressors and short-barreled guns off the NFA or something — but I don’t think anybody’s ever going to.

      • Pretty much, yeah.

        I feel that since the Democrats/Socialists/Communists want to go so far and ban everything, we should go the other way and deregulate guns entirely. I mean, that makes sense right? If everything is banned, then nothing is banned, right?

        If everyone(well, say 60% off people) were walking around strapped, I personally feel that folks would be kinder, gentler and more polite to each other. After all, “an armed society is a polite society”.

        I’m tired of giving ground too freedom hating charlatans, it’s passed time to push back, legally of course, and gain some ground for freedom loving people.

        I love stats and numbers as much(probably more) than the next conservative, but that obviously has not been working. We need to take a page from the Dem’s book and start tugging on the heart strings and show people that gun control is rooted in racism and class warfare. Those two things usually rile up the masses!

        Lauren Bobert recently stated that gun control is anti-women, to which I completely agree. Time to find formerly anti-gunners who have suffered from not having the ability, or want, to protect themselves and shout their stories, with all the gory details, from the rooftops.

        Just a suggestion.

    • I care about my children more than my guns. Someone else can care about their children or their guns. It’s called responsibility and Rob can eat a big bag for all I care.
      I care about my children and therefore want no more restrictions to hand down to them with the guns I obviously don’t own or carry anymore.

  4. “Again, I expect that the answers provided above make it clear that my proposal actually increases freedom.”

    If you have to keep reiterating your point your really aren’t making one.
    Sorry Ron but by using the language of the anti-gun groups you have given their argument credence.
    Go woke, go broke. And here I was thinking of taking a class from his org. Nope!

    • thumbs up

      imposing a new law for people to comply with reduces freedom, it absolutely doesn’t increase freedom. Transfers at an FFL isn’t free, so Rob wants to create a new tax/fee to sell your property.

      But hey Rob got the approval of the Brady group chief gun grabber. I hope he’s kicked to the curb like the gun magazine writer who became a turncoat.

    • The only change the background check law needs in order to be absolutely PERFECT is repeal. It has never accomplished anything whatsoever, and has cost billions. And the only *real* goal of UBC is the REGISTRY it would require.

  5. Just as there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants to abolish the Second Amendment

    Ask those who support gun control what it is that the 2nd Amendment absolutely prohibits the government from doing, no matter how much they might believe its a good idea? If you ever manage to get an answer, ask yourself what that leaves as far as a constitutional right? For most gun control supporters, the answer to both questions is essentially nothing. They “support the 2nd Amendment” because they’ve convinced themselves out doesn’t mean anything. There are half a dozen different rationales for this, all of them ahistorical and/or legally incoherent, yet shielded from criticism by compliant academic and journalistic establishments.

  6. Hey Rob,

    HELL NO. There’s your answer.

    Also, I’m so sick of the carve outs. Someone is a current or retired cop so they’re exempt while a carpenter, accountant etc. have to comply with some BS gun law. Laws should be for everyone, no exemptions, especially BS gun laws.

    • DDAY……he’s just like a bunch of the one’s that will not support Constitutional Carry because they have their permission slip already.

      • I’ve had my permission slip going on 20 years, and I will always support Constitutional Carry. And I mean REAL Constitutional carry, which I understand only 3 states have currently, where everybody has the right, not just residents of that state.

  7. I have seen it mentioned in only a few places, where everyone gets optional access to NICs, where we can run a free check on a buyer. Or they could run a check on themselves and show the proof? It would be optional, if you want it. Prohibited persons are already prohibited from buying or owning a gun, and a seller is already prohibited from selling to a known prohibited person… And besides the criminal risk, would probably face civil liability if you sold to a prohibited person and they used the gun in a crime.

    Most of my buying and selling happens through an FFL, either from the dealer, or the person is in another state so I have to send via an FFL. If I was selling to a stranger and could do a NICs check (for free) I might, but I don’t really want to have to meet up at an FFL, and have the FFL process the transaction as a third party.

    Goal needs to be going after the prohibited persons (the list is known to the state anyway) instead of putting lawful sellers at risk or increasing burden or cost. But that isn’t the goal with proposed background check legislation.

    Even what I mention above would be a slippery slope, if it could stay free and optional, great, with no requirement to do it, but at best it would start that way and then become mandatory, just like current background checks -> universal checks -> registration, costs, confiscation, etc.

    • If that is what you think is right, then start working on a Constitutional Amendment, because it is *STILL* unconstitutional. Just diddling with one unconstitutional law after another is going to lose us our country. 2A is 27 words long. Read it, know it, live it, and stop offering violation after violation as though that were a solution.

  8. if I could pick between what we have now and loaded machine guns in school vending machines, I would pick the machine guns.

  9. Pincus: “Just as there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants to abolish the Second Amendment (if there was, they would try, right? It’s literally never even talked about seriously by anti-gunners).”

    Literally? You sure about that?

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-95622/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

    https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/589062018/what-would-it-take-to-repeal-the-2nd-amedment

    • The only reason it isn’t talked about more is because it’s not necessary. If the utterly worthless, unreliable assholes on the Supreme Court actually enforced the explicit and very plain language of “shall not be infringed” and struck down every gun control law, you’d better bet every anti gunner would be rabidly demanding that the 2a be repealed. But since it’s effectively irrelevant at this point, of course the majority of the anti civil rights crowd don’t really give a shit about it

      • It is indeed not abolition but subtraction that we should worry about at this point in the game. California is a great example, do those people actually have 2A rights or have they been heavily trampled on by the state?

  10. Pincus is buying into the gun control Rince and Repeat dance…..gun controllers say, “Give us what we want now, or we will take everything.” Later, they pick the next thing, and say, “Give us this thing or we will take everything.” And they do it over and over again…. How long does pincus think those exemptions are going to last? When a family member does a mass public shooting? They will be back and demand those exemptions which were promised should no longer exist. Universal Background checks are a Trojan Horse for gun registration…that is all they are. We know that current background checks don’t stop criminals from getting guns, since they use straw buyers who can pass any background check or they steal their guns….and mass public shooters have no criminal record before their attack, so they pass any background check. The anti-gunners know this, they also know they need gun registration before they ban and confiscate guns, and UBCs give them the next step to getting gun registration. Pincus is a fool……thinks he can negotiate with people who use each concession to set up the next one….

  11. I always thought that Pincushion was a fatuous ass. Now I know he is. No culture war? Baghdad Bob would be so proud that Pincushion can lie with a straight face.

  12. Fuck Pincus.

    How or why he’s even relevant is beyond me. This website shouldn’t give him any space.

  13. So…expanded checks…and we get to buy suppressors and full auto with no NFA…????
    Oh…we get NOTHING in return…like every other time.
    So…NO…hell no…and F%*K NO!!!

  14. Without reading the entire article cuz I couldn’t stomach the first 2 questions….All I can say, I don’t think Pincus is any different then Wayne La pissoff. They are just in it for the money & far as I’m concerned can burn at the stake!

  15. Me: So let me get this straight. We gun owners give the government MORE authority to deny people the rights to buy firearms… and MORE ability to track and keep records of them… and in return, what do we get exactly?

    Pincus: Well we get to let them. But it’s US letting them do it, not THEM doing it by themselves!

    Pincus, take your thirty pieces and go.

  16. As some one who lived through bans in both New Zealand and Australia, these “conversations” always ended with “firearms owners groups/lobbies” simply managing the decline, we always lost. It got to the point were lobbying groups would say no-one needs……

    Below is an email my father got yesterday (it went out to all firearm license holders in New Zealand).

    Subject: Firearms buy-back compensation period ending soon

    Dear licence holder

    We want to remind you there is only one month remaining to hand in items for compensation, and only one week remaining for special applications.

    The firearms buy-back ends on 1 May 2021, so if you have any eligible items – now is the time to hand them in.

    A price list is available here. And you can find information about the prohibited items here, and pistol carbine conversion kits here.

    The buy-back is based at Police stations. To make an appointment or ask questions please email [email protected]. You can also phone 0800 311 311.

    While the buy-back ends on 1 May 2021, the amnesty period will run until 1 August 2021 for anybody who still wishes to hand over a prohibited item or pistol carbine conversion kit, or other arms item (not for compensation).

    If you are a dealer, have unique items, or wish to apply to retain your items, then there is only one week to go to make these applications. All these applications must be made by 2 April 2021.

    To apply for compensation for unique items, please follow the process here.

    If you are a dealer, please email: [email protected].

    If you want to apply to retain your prohibited items or pistol carbine conversion kits will need to apply for an endorsement and/or permit. More information on endorsements can be found here and questions can be emailed to: [email protected]. More information on permits can be found here and any questions emailed to: [email protected].

    More information on the amnesty and buy-back is available at http://www.police.govt.nz/amnesty-and-buy-back.

    Kind regards

    Amnesty and Buy-back team

    • ” . . . he’s just letting his hair down now . . . “.

      ISWYDT.

      Well played, sir, well played.

      Rob Pincus is a dissembling @$$hole, with a below-room-temperature IQ. The point that the Left, anti-gunners, and Rob Pincus (ah, but I repeat myself) NEVER address is “How is it even remotely possible to enforce UBC without a registry?”. And Pincus avoided it here, with misdirection, and TTAG either didn’t follow up, or didn’t get an answer.

      Rob Pincus, hie thyself off to the theological place of eternal punishment.

  17. Pincus’ first problem is buying into the myth that the anti-gun crowd doesn’t want to take our guns. Yes they do! And they are very methodical about it. And again he’s wrong about them not wanting to drop the 2nd Amendment. His logic 8s that they haven’t tried to repeal it. BS! Yes, they will try, when they think they could succeed.
    Why isn’t he pushing to just enforce the laws we have now!

  18. Pincus didn’t vote for Trump. Pincus thinks you can negotiate with leftist politicians who’s real desire is total control (not gun control.). Guns are in the way of total control and hence…gun control. Pincus believes many who voted democrat like guns. That’s true! But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter because they continue to pull the lever for the democrats who are seeking total control and the complete disarmament of civilians one step at a time. You simply can’t work with the leftist politicians. You can only vote them out of office which Pincus and his like often do not do. The JFK/Blue Dog democrats are in essence all but extinct. This is an entirely new game now. Pincus is a very smart guy and yet laughably naive and narcissistic to boot because he just will never admit he’s wrong about anything. Also, don’t ever take a class from him. I know several friends of mine that did and they said he was a major prick in the class. Makes fun of people’s gear, etc. all that bullshit.

  19. Rob Pincus is probably one of the worst representatives of the Second Amendment community. He tried to help Springfield Armory cover up the fact that they were donating tens of thousands of dollars to anti-gun politicians that pushed through a bill in Illinois. This bill put dozens of mom and pop gun stores out of business. Then he went on to say the owner of Springfield Armory is a great guy so great that the NRA awarded him a golden jacket. The only thing Rob Pincus is standing up for is another couple thousand dollars put into his wallet. He’s probably putting himself in this position to earn a paycheck off of regulating our second amendment constitutional rights. No self-respecting God fearing Firearms owner once Universal background checks. That’s like telling a constitutionalist yeah sure buddy you’re okay with signing away more of your constitutional God-given rights. Rob Pincus needs to be banned from the entire second amendment community. He’s a complete waste of space. Echo

  20. Pincus can take all his family members and go straight to Hell and burn for all eternity as can all the “reasonable” gun control advocates in the USA and all those that see any logic in any of that bullshit. None of that NIICS or other systems work worth a damn and never will. The govt. is responsible for the data input and when the govt. screws up nothing is done and never will be. If these sorry damn people want all this anti gun bullshit then let them go live elsewhere. They’re a lot of the same whiners that wanted to do away with our mental health systems and since they’ve succeeded in that our society has paid the price and one example is mass shootings. Now they also want to open the jails, the borders, etc., so they can screw our society up even more. We’ve never needed clowns like this in our country and we’ll never be able to live free and repair the societal damages done by them until they are permanently gone from here one way or the other.

  21. We need more Colion Noir. He is our greatest spokesman. We need zero Rob Pincus. He is our worst (and annoying too!) spokesman.

  22. Never been much impressed with Mr. Pincushion, his teachings or products. I have seen him spout stuff that could get good people killed. Having said that, I am.not surprised by what I just read.

  23. Rob Pincus: antigunner uncloaked. He has committed business suicide. A traitor. A Judas. Never, never support anything he does ever again. Never believe a word he speaks or writes. He is uncloaked as an enemy of the Second Amendment and therefore a domestic enemy of America

  24. Sounds like a lot of BS from another left wing retard… We should not even give morons like this a platform and even discuss this nonsense.

  25. How about allowing FFL03 licensees to purchase without the checks? How about allowing us to continue our hobby without having to have even more expensive state licenses? How about sales between 03 licensees?
    How about selling firearms to people who we know have firearms and have already passed?
    This is a tax on gunowners as well as a way to build a database of gunowners for future confiscation. The only reason for this is to match the guns with gunowners. They already know who the gunowners are, they want to know what and how many weapons you own.

    • “How about selling firearms to people who we know have firearms and have already passed?” He actually did propose pretty much that: there would be no background check for transfers between family members or for people who already have a CCW license.

  26. Saying again….

    Any exception to gun ownership is gun control. “Common sense gun control” is being presented here. The only difference between gun owners who call for “common sense”, and the grabbers who call for “common sense” is the acceptable list of gun laws, and the alleged justification.

    However, politics is a two headed-snake; you’re gonna get bit, one way or another. EX: gun owner – “we demand no restrictions on magazine capacity.” legislator – “we will never accept a prohibition on regulating magazine limits, and we have the votes to limit magazine capacity to three rounds for each and every firearm capable of accepting a box magazine”. gun owner – we will not accept any limit less than 100 rounds.” legislator- 50, or three.” gun owner – 60″. legislator – “25, or three.” gun owner – _25 is reasonable”. 2A activists – gun owner is a sell out!!”

    • Sam,

      Hope that was intended to be sarcasm. Gun Owner IS a sell-out; there should be NO limits on magazine capacity. Even having the discussion is a compromise (I wouldn’t; if I can carry a 1,000 round magazine, that’s my right).

      Even opening the door AT ALL is a compromise. We shouldn’t do it. How willing is the Left to compromise on abortion restrictions (and the “right” to abortion isn’t even IN the Constitution). I’m sure you’ve seen the “cake” analogy – why should we even entertain ANY further incursions on what was written as perhaps the MOST absolute right in the Constitution? In what respect is Justice Thomas wrong in saying the 2A is treated as a second class right? F*** the gun grabbers, “I want my damn cake!”.

  27. I don’t see any compromise from the gun control folks, they are only offering more gun control. I negotiate for a living.

    If they were offering the Hearing Protection Act and delisting SBRs from the NFA or national concealed carry reciprocity in EXCHANGE for universal background checks…that would be a compromise.

    In a compromise, both parties should walk away feeling good, but also feeling a little pissed…nature of the concept.

    • If this is really important, they won’t mind repealing NFA ’34 first, to demonstrate their serious intentions. If it’s not that important, drop it.

  28. Literally every comment on this article flies in the face of Rob’s “most people aren’t so extreme” comments.

    We call that IGNORANCE, Rob.

    • Those of us who are commenting on this article aren’t “most people.” We’re among a small percentage of gun owners who frequent gun blogs, a smaller number who haunt TTAG, and a much, much smaller number who actually leave comments.

      On this topic, I’m probably one of the “extreme” 5% (though not as extreme as some), and I’m happy with that. Actually, I’d be happier if there were more of us, but…

  29. If it’s to save one child then make sure children are trained and how to handle a gun properly, safely, and when necessary, they shoot accurately. There are far too many children to ignore the truth, that they have used guns successfully to defend themselves and other family members.

    I personally believe that the gun grabbers are glad when children die but at the hands of a criminal with a firearm. They want to use background checks as a way to make buying a gun more expensive and a longer wait time. It has nothing to do with Public Safety.

    There was a time in the education History of the United States when classes on archery, pistol shooting, fencing, and rifle teams we’re available to most students across the high schools and colleges of this country.

    We were much safer society when everyone knew how to handle arms safely and responsibly.
    Any gun owner who supports the ignorance about gun’s in the general population is not a friend of the Second Amendment.

    As far as a mentally ill go. The ACLU has refused to support allowing state governments to put the mentally ill, into databases for security check purposes. It’s considered a privacy issue. And with the HIPAA laws I agree with them.

    If you were that sick in the head that people believe you should not have a gun. Then you should not be walking around free in the first place.

    I’m very suspicious of any high-profile so-called pro-second Amendment person who’s not advocating for 2nd Amendment education in the public school systems.

    And the schools don’t even have to use cost as a reason not to teach about the 2A. Because you can teach students using pellet guns. And pellet guns and BB guns are lethal weapons. People use them to hunt and kill small animals all the time. And they are Arms which makes them part of the Second Amendment.

  30. Rob Pincus isn’t a traitor. He’s always been anti-gun. He just hid it enough to cash in when he could.

    Years ago he did a pod cast bashing open carry and the people who choose to do it. Of course ignoring the facts. For example you can legally open carry in MI without a carry permit/license.
    So while you wait for permission you can still protect yourself and family.
    Point is I was sure he was the absolute scum bag he is then, and this just proves it further.
    I sincerely hope I never come across him at a show. I prefer not to cuss.

  31. NOT ONE MORE INCH! At this point, anyone who favors the appeasement strategy is either a full blown traitor, or has such a severe detachment from reality as to constitute a legitimate diagnosis of psychosis

  32. Seems he is wrong about this statement, “Just as there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants to abolish the Second Amendment (if there was, they would try, right? It’s literally never even talked about seriously by anti-gunners).”

    Look at all the people promoting the end to the 2nd Amendment by removing it from the U.S. Constitution for several years now. Links below.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/589062018/what-would-it-take-to-repeal-the-2nd-amedment
    https://www.listland.com/10-reasons-to-abolish-the-second-amendment
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

    Many more published articles about the Democrats wanting to end the 2nd Amendment. Rob Pincus is a traitor to the 2nd Amendment community. Just stop doing business with him and others associated with him.

    • I think Pincus is actually right about that. He’s talking about the country, not the press and the leftist elite.

      There’s 100% agreement among the type of people you’ve linked to; they’d abolish the Second Amendment if they could, but they’re a small minority, and they know they can’t.

      So they propagandize a great big mass of people who don’t literally want to repeal the 2A, but illogically believe there’s some magical kind of “common sense” infringement that will keep them safe. They don’t understand that the lies they’ve been led to believe will destroy the Constitution for all practical purposes.

      Maybe Pincus is a traitor, maybe he’s a selfish opportunist…I don’t know that much about him. It does look like he’s smart enough to realize that if one of these two entrenched sides can get America’s big, flabby, uncommitted midsection to move even a little bit, it’s going to win big.

  33. Thanks for the kind words, Dan. It’s appreciated. I’d debate Rob’s points, but I don’t debate anti-gunners or their propaganda. They don’t accept facts, but you proved that if you give them enough rope they’ll hang themselves with their own words.

  34. There is a major point missing here: does Rob have any scientific evidence that the expansion of background checks will prevent crime? If not, then what is the point of even discussing this issue?

    • Why stop there? Is there any evidence that background checks have prevented crime? If not, what is the point of retaining them, much less expanding them?

  35. Rob Pincus is pro-Second Amendment in the way that getting out a tub of Parkay, spreading a huge dollop between your *ss-cheeks, and bending over in an alley in San Fran is pro-Vagina.

  36. To quote Ronaldus Maxis, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”

    • Yeah, cause it’s TOTES OK to infringe on my rights, if you only do it a little bit, amirite??? And then a little bit more, and then a little bit more . . . so long as you do it in small bites, it’s fine. Whatever.

  37. Thus, every disagreement on policy is either righteous, or traitorous?

    WW2 would have ended very differently.

    • Disagreements, on policy or otherwise, are just that . . . disagreements. When your “solution” to our “policy disagreement” is significant infringement on MY inherent rights, then, yeah, accepting any part of your solution is a (to use your characterization) a sell-out. I used to have all sorts of alcohol-fueled “debates” in the dorm at college. Solved all the world’s problems, several times over. That’s where the “gun control” debate belongs – in a drunken dorm room discussion.

      As a serious policy discussion, it ranks right up there with “why SHOULDN’T slavery be legal”.

      Sam, if you SERIOUSLY believe that we OWE the gun grabbers a compromise on the 2A? You are NOT my ally. You want to give up your rights, go right ahead, my mine. I’m less willing to compromise on the 2A than the gun grabbers are on abortion.

  38. Does he think that “any piece of legislation he would help craft” would be done so with any sort of genuine and honest nature? Would the enforcement of the good and bad be equal?

    Lets look at FOPA of 86, arguably a “compromise.” For the ability to not create any new machine guns short of being a SOT or similar we have gotten a law that is heavily underenforced (NJ I am looking at you.) The MG ban is certainly enforced but where are the teeth in dealing with civil rights violations by states?

  39. I’m surprised that Pincus is so naive. He can’t seriously believe that bargaining with a bunch of people (the ones in power and their rabid supporters) will in any way satisfy them. “Give them an inch they take a mile” fits this perfectly. Also, it’s none of his or any gubment thugs business who I buy/trade/sell my property to. Unfortunately bad and sick people do bad and sick things. No amount of giving in will ever change that. In short, Pincus can go F himself.

  40. We are in a culture war Rob. Politics flows downhill from culture. Hunters are barbarians who torture innocent animals to fulfill their bloodlust, sportsmen are gun nuts and the their audience are fetishists, people who carry for self defense are vigilante types waiting for someone to make their day, pictures of firearms on clothing have no place in our polite society or our schools, the NRA is a bunch enablers who terrorize our politicians into toeing the line.

    90% of communication is non verbal, Rob, look at the body language of anchors tense purse their lips. They don’t like us and wish us (2A supporters) gone no matter what we say or do.

    Double down and tell them FOAD. My rights are not for sale or compromise.

  41. “But, there is no group of +/- 50% of the country that wants loaded machine guns in vending machines at the elementary school…”

    Well, he’s probably I right. For me he is absolutely right.

    I have not, do not and will not support such an idea.

    Elementary school kids don’t have the money to make installing and stocking the machine worthwhile.

    • I’m with you, I don’t believe in vending machines in school. Didn’t have ’em when I was a kid, don’t need ’em now. Down the street in the gas station, fine.

  42. Yes, 1 year has passed since I eventually quit my last job and that choice was a life changer for me… I started functioning over the internet, for this particular company I stumbled upon over the internet, For a few hours daily, and I make substantially more than that I did in my last occupation…My past month check was for 13 thousand dollars… The awesome thing relating to this gig is that now I’ve more time for my children. Here is what I do………https://rotf.lol/Right75

  43. Articles of confederation:

    “nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.“

    No militias unless approved by Congress assembled.

    “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia”

    https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_3s1.html

    “Well regulated”, meaning ‘subject to rule and regulation’ per Webster’s.

    “REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.“

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Regulated

    • Hey, you actually provided links to the source. You’re learning.

      But of course you focused on the wrong thing. The militia is to be “well regulated and disciplined” — which means not merely “subjected to rules or restrictions,” but as Webster’s also says, “put in good order.”

      Then there’s the operative clause of the Second Amendment, which says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      The whole thing is pretty darn clear: the government is not allowed to interfere with its citizens’ ability to own, acquire, and carry firearms.

      And because those citizens are the militia which must protect the nation, the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment directs the government to make use of that non-infringed right by maintaining a “well-regulated militia.” (A duty it has abjectly failed, but that’s another subject.)

      So…

      Can you explain how any of the policies and politicians you’ve supported will help the militia — defined by law as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and…under 45 years of age” — supply itself with suitable weapons and maintain good order?

  44. If someone with a history of being so dangerous, violent and/or is so mentally ill that they are legally barred from owning a firearm, what the &[email protected]# are they doing walking around free in society to begin with?

    On the flipside, if the person has no violent past, but breaks some other law and goes to jail, why do they lose any rights upon completing their sentence to begin with? They should be able to own a firearm and vote and sit on a jury.

    A lot of this treads into the criminal law reform, and we need to look at how Constitutional Rights are handled with people who violate the law and are convicted.

    Thinking about it this way, no background checks should be needed; to wit, if you cannot currently pass a background check, which should only include any violent, home-invading/thieving individuals, you shouldn’t be among us in society. Everyone else should be able to pass a background check, and therefore if this were a thing, we wouldn’t need them.

  45. He’s full of shit. Anti-gunners ARE on record for wanting to abolish the Second Amendment. With ‘friends’ like Rob who needs enemies?

  46. Nope, not buying it Rob. Not one more inch. Im sure everyone has heard the cake analogy about gun rights already. We keep giving and giving yet get nothing in return. No more!

    If you want to reduce violence then push to punish criminals that commit violent crime and enough of this bail reform bs that lets violent criminals back on the street. But see, that works with the agenda. When they commit more violent crime the leftists say they need to restrict more freedom for our own safety.

    Im very disappointed in RP.

    Ill add this, Ive heard FFLs say that they vote for the democrats because it drives up their business, and if all private transfers have to go through an FFL Id say that these are the so called industry people that Rob said supported him.

  47. Pincus want’s to “start a conversation” with ideas but no proposed solutions framed by a mindset divorced from reality (e.g. that it’s not a culture war). In other words, he’s just stirring the pot to get attention, and in the laziest way possible (“starting a conversation is no different than, “raising awareness”) These ideas and the conversation they are intended to start puts us, once again, firmly in the camp of compromising our rights for the sake of those who refuse to compromise their political agenda. That’s not compromise, it’s surrender. Why should we bend over, again, while those on the other side remain as staunch and unbending as ever – especially when their proposed solutions never work? I’m not interested in having a conversation about ideas that add more government intervention in any part of my life, whether we’re talking about guns or not. Most of the problems in our lives are CAUSED by the government. Why in the name of God would we trust them to fix those same problems?

  48. OK, so, I can see offering an olive branch in the spirit of compromise.

    Let’s ask the leading gun controllers which existing laws they are willing to discuss rolling back a bit. This shouldn’t take long. We can wait patiently to hear everything they have to offer us as points of compromise.

    And, then we respond proportionately.

  49. I don’t know who this Pincus guy is nor do I care but he is coming off as another “useful idiot” for the left.

    Why can’t the politicians get it through their heads that the only way to reduce thugs using guns for violence is to make it less appealing/rewarding to these violent criminals. There are plenty of laws on the books already that are not enforced or just refusing to prosecute by these soros paid for social justice warrior DAs like Kim Foxx in Crook County.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/crime-illinois-catch-release-justice-system/

    Only the law abiding gun owners are impacted by further infringing on their Second Amendment Rights with more stupid “gun laws”.

    Even assuming it was not possible for a criminal to “buy” a gun from a gun store or private citizen does anything with a rational mind think that will stop them? They will simply pay or intimidate someone else to purchase a gun for them, buy it from the Mexican cartels who would be supplying them to the black market, steal it from somebody, or murder somebody and take their gun.

    Hell people lie all the time on their 4473, such as do you have a drug problem?, and even if they are caught nothing happens to them – especially if they are a prominent democrat.

  50. “Is there any evidence that background checks have prevented crime?”

    This is one of those questions almost impossible legitimately prove. It may be possible to interview every living person who committed a crime by use of a firearm, but that population would only be those who were convicted. Impossible is calculating a legitimate population of those who used a firearm in commission of a crime, but were not apprehended, or convicted. It is the other side of the coin to accurately determine how many deadly attacks were foiled by the defender using a firearm to thwart the attacker.

    Let’s posit that you have a home security system that is a simple break-in detector. How many break-ins were prevented because of that alarm? Impossible to know because it is impossible to know how many attempts were deterred by something entirely different, something that caused the would be criminal to bypass your house, before a break-in was even attempted.

    The “Prove that….” line of reasoning is unpersuasive. We can can prove how many people suffered and passed a BGC, and later went on to commit crimes with a firearm. That is a meaningful statistic.

  51. TTAG: Rob, what should our response be to a demand for expanded background checks?
    Pincus: BOHICA

  52. Living in Connecticut we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The gov is involved in every legal transaction, guns are registered, owners are licensed, we have bans on magazines and on certain firearms based on their looks or features…it is the democrat party wet dream. These laws DO NOTHING to stop crime as they are not about stopping crime they are to mess with the gun owners…there are shootings nightly in the major cities by criminals.
    Pincus is entitled to his opinion but the facts are that gun laws do not lessen crime..

  53. It is clear Mr. Pincus has attending the same school as Governor Noem of South Dakota where both try to explain away their capitulation by simply continuing to talk in the hopes that some of the bullshit they are slinging up against the wall happens to stick. He adopts the Hillary tactic of simply stating that the question being asked has already been answered.

    These rhetorical sleights of hand have long since become associated with only the snake oil salesman of the current century.

  54. Dems laws do everything, except they don’t enforce anything! They just want more laws to control the law abiding!!!%

  55. The most critical question that was not asked:

    How would any background check have stopped the killer in Boulder, Colorado?

    This is the key, and how anyone grilling Pincus on this idiotic proposal could forget to ask him that question is beyond me.

    Why propose any law or change in existing law without the discussion of would it have worked in the circumstance that spurred the creation of the new law?

    The answer of course is that it would not have helped. Because the killer was already required to pass a background check, and did so.

    We need new laws and funding to handle the dangerously mentally ill.

    That’s what we need.

  56. So he voted Hillary Clinton what does that tell you. What doesn’t he understand about infringement of any kind on the 2nd?? I will be throwing his dvds in the trash. What a traitor!

  57. “The most critical question that was not asked:
    How would any background check have stopped the killer in Boulder, Colorado?”

    That is precisely what i characterize as a “pointed question”.

  58. Why do we need an Expanded Background Check System, when the current Background Check System is already, and has been for a long time a Fustercluck?

    Let’s take the recent Boulder shooting. We now know that the shooter was a “Person of Interest/Concern” to the FBI (the Parkland shooter was as well). It seems pretty logical and prudent thinking that if someone’s of Interest/Concern, that at the very least they should have a Delay on any gun purchases in the FBI’s own system. Obviously, they don’t, and that needs addressed. Because it’s happened at least twice, and I’d bet that it has happened more than that. The powers that be are being silent on it.
    Any system is only as good as the information in its database, and that is the root of the problem with the current system. Expanding it and/or adding more variables that require even more checks, doesn’t fix the problems that are already in place.

    I’m still a firm, devout and outspoken about Not Giving A Single Inch More. People that think we can reach a compromise with the Anti 2A crowd, are deluding themselves.

  59. “We need to take a page from the Dem’s book and start tugging on the heart strings and show people that gun control is rooted in racism and class warfare.”

    Not gonna work. The leftists brag that by some magic, the Democrat Party stopped being racist in the ’60s, and the Repubs became the racists, almost overnight. Combined with the belief that Dems cannot be racist because they are “woke” anti-racists, and white-haters.

    There are no heart-string stories of successful self-defense with a firearm. Confront the leftists, and they will vociferously deny it….they are unfazed by deaths of thousands each year in criminal acts, indeed it is a glorious story of self-sacrifice to die without defending oneself with a gun.

    The leftists are not concerned with gunfire in the inner-cities, but only feeling safe from right-wing crazies who shoot up places where only “good” people go. “Good” people do not go shopping in the inner-city.

  60. “Even opening the door AT ALL is a compromise. We shouldn’t do it.”

    Precisely my point, in a single sentence.

    Too many 2A “defenders” are willing to allow restrictions, but of course, those “right restrictions” (felons, criminals, crazies, blind, etc) are just “common sense”.

    It all comes down to that old saw, “We know what you are, madam, now we are simply negotiating the price.”

  61. Absolutism in regards to a natural, human and civil right is one thing. Absolutism in dealing with people is an ineffective life choice. Before we demand of others they be perfect in all things, we must be unfailingly pure ourselves.

    If every policy or philosophical difference between people is treason, out days would be filled with executions.

  62. “Sam, if you SERIOUSLY believe that we OWE the gun grabbers a compromise on the 2A? ”

    Nope. But I recognize that we live in a real, not perfect world. Life is tough. Nothing will always go our way. Which is the reason I wrote that little narrative about negotiating magazine limits. To demand absolute freedom from those holding all the cards, when something might be salvaged in negotiation, is a loser. There are no moral victories, only real outcomes. When “the power” can do as it pleases, and offers (sincerely or not) a bone in compromise, what is the long-term, smart position?

    Is it better to have magazine capacity limited to three rounds, or 30 rounds…when zero restriction is not possible? Are we better off disarmed, than restricted? Until we absolutists become “the power”, do we die on the hill of honor, or live to fight another day?

    I don’t have the answers, but I do see clearly the difficult choices that have to be made, and the complexity of the real world.

  63. Pincus is an Asshole. The short answer for him is some form(s) of gun control are A-Okay if “some” people are exempt. “Shall Not Be Infringed”, Asshole…Shall Not Be Infringed. We the People WILL Never Comply.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here