Can’t The Gun Community All Just Get Along?
BY Herschel Smith
3 years ago
First up, I had failed to mention that David Codrea did a followup at Ammoland on the commentary Rob Pincus co-authored supporting universal background checks.
Second, Anthony Garcia, president of Save The Second, ostensibly a Rob Pincus organization, wrote a commentary at Ammoland defending Rob, or so it seems from his words. He pleads for unity.
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.
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.
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.
There, you have the gist of it.
But the problem is that a discussion about whether we are going to support a bill that effectively creates a national gun registry isn’t about internal politics. We covered that in my response. This commentary by Garcia reeks of a demand for agreement with Rob, with the tool of extortion being the appearance of lack of unity.
But the lack of unity wasn’t created by me, or most of my readers. It was created by Rob. One cannot simply defenestrate one of the core doctrines of liberty and then demand agreement with those who love liberty by simply appealing to unity.
This has been the trick of traitors, quislings and turncoats for millennia. It has occurred that way in politics (witness the tide of collectivism in America over the past 150 years), the church (witness here the agreement of the mainline Presbyterian church [PCUAS] with the Auburn Affirmation in 1924, and in gun control (witness the push towards UBC, a renewed AWB, permitting schemes, etc.). Many more thousands of examples could be given.
The example of the Auburn Affirmation should be telling. It reads at the beginning, “An Affirmation
designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Submitted for the consideration of its ministers and people.” Unity, they said. Unity means everything.
In that document, the ministers and elders of the PCUSA denied that the Scriptures are the word of God (they only “contain” the word of God), denied the deity of Christ, denied … They had the audacity to affirm that “The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.” A bolder lie cannot be imagined.
Concerning the person and work of Jesus, they affirm that “we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.”
This all led to the separation of the PCA and OPC from the PCUSA. And unity in politics has led to the separation of the people from the controllers. And we must separate from Rob Pincus and anyone else who affirms that UBC must be approved. Amos 3:3 rhetorically asks, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”
They can’t. And we cannot walk with Rob Pincus, or Mr. Garcia for that matter. Unity in error is no unity at all. No, we can’t all just get along – not when core values are at stake.
Here is the last question: Is this the sort of commentary we should expect from Ammoland in the future?
On April 5, 2021 at 11:17 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel Smith
Re: “They can’t. And we cannot walk with Rob Pincus, or Mr. Garcia for that matter. Unity in error is no unity at all. No, we can’t all just get along – not when core values are at stake.”
When the left/deep-state/gun-banners use the term “compromise,” invariably they mean surrendering some of what is being defending as the price for having them cease attacks for a while. They realize that if the debate starts with us having one whole pie and they are successful in getting us to surrender small slices of it via “compromise,” then eventually, they’ll have everything they want.
And ever notice that such calls for temperance and compromise only work in one direction? When’s the last time you can recall the left giving up anything to get what they want, in a genuine give-and-take negotiation? I’ll admit my memory isn’t as keen as it once was, but I cannot recall a single instance of that.
The word “compromise” gets thrown around a lot on this side of the fence, too, only when the backstabbing GOP (or the NRA or whoever) use the term, what they really mean is “surrender,” as in giving the would-be gun-banners what they want. Too often, calls to compromise and “get along” are really just manifestations of a lack of courage and/or a functioning moral compass in the first place.
When core values are at stake, defenders of liberty should not be content with “defend” anyway, because they aren’t going to reclaim those lost liberties in that manner. Barry Goldwater once said a long time ago, quite rightly, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
On April 6, 2021 at 12:03 am, blake said:
Herschel, interestingly enough, I’m currently reading B. B. Warfields “The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.” A bit of a tough read for me, but, that’s good, because I’m expanding my vocabulary in the process.
With that said, did Mr. Pincus ever get back to you, Herschel? I notice he dropped by the original thread and you offered to debate/discuss with him.
Anyway, this whole, “can’t we all get along” when it comes to Mr. Pincus is nonsense. His article speaks for itself. One cannot make common cause with an enemy.
On April 6, 2021 at 12:20 am, George 1 said:
Mr. Pincus and Mr. Garcia. You two will find, if you bother to look, that many (MANY) people have reached their limit. No more compromises. This is the hill we die on.
On April 6, 2021 at 1:05 am, Hudson H Luce said:
My comment to that article in Ammoland-
“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 of the social contract between citizen and government. Any government which abrogates these rights loses its just powers to govern, and then it is not only the right, but also the duty of the governed to alter or abolish that form of government. These rights aren’t up for debate, period.
Second, very few people know about the Public Duty Doctrine, especially those of a more liberal bent, and when they find out, they are enraged. “Government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.
Moreover, even though the state of Florida has compulsory schooling laws, the students themselves are not “in custody”:
“Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”
Gun control advocates not only favor breaching the social contract, but also seek to deny individuals the most effective means of self-protection. There’s plenty of case law on this, btw. This of course is a subsidiary point, the right is absolute and there’s no room for debate. 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.
On April 6, 2021 at 1:31 am, skybill said:
Hi Herschel,
‘Not going to pick apart any of the above or the “Article!!” I’ll just add a few words from “MY LATE FRIEND!!”… Mike Vanderboegh….
…….”NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!!!!”…..
And.. if I may add a quote that Mike had at the top of his blog by someone he obviously knew well……
“There aren’t too many human interaction problems that can’t be fixed with
a .45ACP 230 grain fat boy.
“I wonder who that could be????” heheheheheheehe!!!!
Audentes, Fortuna, Iuvat!!!!,
III%,
skybill-out
On April 6, 2021 at 6:42 am, Wes said:
From Pincus’ public defender:
“We must stay on point with our messaging and not allow ourselves to be distracted by internal politics.”
Sounds like the left; “unity as long as you think like me.”
Or the Swamp Right; “open to discussion as long as it comes back to my agenda.”
There are some colorful Hemingway-esque phrases to tell them what to do with that. But really the above are just false premises; thus, no.
On April 6, 2021 at 7:01 am, Red Man said:
Pincus is a cop. Always will be. Thinks like a cop. Don’t you dare challenge my authority. I get the guns, you don’t, unless I say how when and why. Now sit down and shut up.
On April 6, 2021 at 8:16 am, Herschel Smith said:
@blake,
No. Rob dropped a comment that he thought I was wrong, and then challenged me to a conversation, “if you’re up to it.”
I responded that I will always discuss things.
I haven’t heard back from Rob.
On April 6, 2021 at 8:43 am, Ned said:
So this Pincus apologist’s article introduces me to Hank Strange, who I agree with on this issue way more than Garcia or Pincus.
On April 6, 2021 at 8:57 am, George 1 said:
@ Hudson H Luce: “There can be no constitutional prior restraint on the free exercise of these rights by the government, and they are a vital part of the social contract between citizen and government. Any government which abrogates these rights loses its just powers to govern, and then it is not only the right, but also the duty of the governed to alter or abolish that form of government. These rights aren’t up for debate, period.”
And this goes times one million when you have a government that was “installed” and is completely illegitimate.
On April 6, 2021 at 9:02 am, George 1 said:
@Herschel Smith: “I haven’t heard back from Rob.”
Of course not. He is not going to actually engage with you concerning God given rights or U.S. Constitutional rights. He would be clubbed like a baby seal and he knows it.
On April 6, 2021 at 9:26 am, Longbow said:
I said before, “F*%^ Pincus”. I won’t say it again.
I will ask, do you see now?
Years ago a close friend told me how amazed he was at former President Jimmy Carter. I asked what he meant. He said the he was amazed at how naive and gullible Jimmy Carter was when it came to the Communists and particularly the Soviet Union, especially being a Naval Officer and a nuclear scientist. I told him, “Friend, Jimmy Carter wasn’t naive. He was on the other side!”
When you knowingly subscribe to the enemy’s lexicon, and declare that you have the “common interests” with him, you are not “naive”. You are on the other side.
A Statist believes that all power, all good, and all “right” emanates from the State. In other words, the State is benevolent Daddy. Advocating universal background checks (forcing all good, decent, law abiding, peaceful people to beg Daddy’s permission first), is a perfect example of this mindset.
Yes we must have unity of cause, purpose and focus. Each time someone from “our side” tips his hand and exposes that he is secretly sympathetic to the enemy, he must be exposed for who he truly is. He must be opposed vigorously and vocally. He must be shunned. If that forces him into he arms of the enemy, then it was where he belonged all along. Yes, I used the word “enemy”, for it is they who make war upon us who want merely to be left alone.
Pincus has tipped his hand.
On April 6, 2021 at 9:34 am, Longbow said:
Red Man said:
“Pincus is a cop. Always will be. Thinks like a cop. Don’t you dare challenge my authority. I get the guns, you don’t, unless I say how when and why. Now sit down and shut up.”
Yep.
Pincus has also said that open carry is stupid. So, every cop in this country it stupid. Right Rob? No, not really. Of course the rules don’t apply to Daddy’s minions.
I live in Montana. Open carry is common here. Montanans are stupid. Right Rob?
Exercising one’s Natural right, without begging Daddy’s permission, is stupid. Right Rob?
On April 6, 2021 at 10:08 am, blake said:
@Herschel, I noticed that remark, also, and rolled my eyes. It doesn’t surprise me Rob didn’t get back to you.
On April 6, 2021 at 10:49 am, Aesop said:
Freedom means that Mssrs. Pincus and Garcia are at liberty to trample their own junk whilst wearing track spikes.
Expecting that doing that will be pain-free is not an appeal to unity, it is an appeal to be delusional.
While background checks will, indeed catch a paltry handful of felons (who are nearly never prosecuted), the better question is why bother, when that represents 0.00001% of the millions of people being checked in any month, and why, given the number of criminals who don’t get background-checked obviates the whole process, we should waste time and effort on catching 0.000011% by making them universal (which, as crooks with guns since forever demonstrates, they will never actually be any such thing as “universal”).
If Ammoland wants unity, they should start by spouting positions grounded in common sense instead of delusions. The gun grabbers are never going to like them just because they’re willing to throw more people (and principles) under the bus. The sooner Greater Conservatardia grasps that fundamental lesson, and embraces BFYTW! as the default answer to requests for greater tyranny and bureaucracy, the sooner they will achieve the unity for which they claim to yearn.
On April 6, 2021 at 11:15 am, Ohio Guy said:
I’ll +1 that and drop the mic. Nuff said
On April 6, 2021 at 11:59 am, NOG said:
These articles seem to have done their job. Everyone is jumping up and down about “background checks”. Talking about keeping guns out of the hands of the crazies or criminals. Who would be against that? Right? The words “background checks” are the misdirection from the real purpose and what this would achieve. That is REGISTRATION. That is what this is about. They cannot order all guns turned in (one group at a time- starting with “assault weapons”). without knowing where they all are. They get that and they will move on their “final solution”, that being no private ownership of firearms and total control of the population. As noted above, if RP was a cop and mostly trains cops, he must believe he will be one of the “chosen” dear leaders. I am good friends with two county sheriffs. I have talked to them about RP and both said no training from him. I would suggest all call their local LEOs and inform them of this trash.
On April 6, 2021 at 12:11 pm, Torcer said:
Have you ever noticed that the Anti-liberty left plays their little two step game every time there is a ‘serious crisis?
Step 1: Pretend that guns aren’t any controls on guns already. With talking points such as the “Easy access to guns” LIE.
Step 2: They get whatever they can from the likes of those willing to ‘compromise’ with the enemies of freedom.
After which they immediately revert BACK to Step 1 for the next go around and the next ‘compromise’, until there is nothing remaining of our civil rights.
Georgiaboy61 Outlined exactly how the anti-liberty left operates – they know that their anti-freedom measures won’t work. So they know that they will have another opportunity to call for ‘compromise’.
“When the left/deep-state/gun-banners use the term “compromise,” invariably they mean surrendering some of what is being defending as the price for having them cease attacks for a while. They realize that if the debate starts with us having one whole pie and they are successful in getting us to surrender small slices of it via “compromise,” then eventually, they’ll have everything they want.”
“And ever notice that such calls for temperance and compromise only work in one direction? When’s the last time you can recall the left giving up anything to get what they want, in a genuine give-and-take negotiation? I’ll admit my memory isn’t as keen as it once was, but I cannot recall a single instance of that.”
Georgiaboy61 is eminently correct – the anti-liberty left has NEVER compromised.
One last point: ‘Compromising’ on the government controlling our private property IS the last step before we go over the cliff. That is the essence of “Universal Background Checks” and that is why the anti-liberty left obsesses over them. Next along the line WILL BE virtual gun confiscation – aka gun registration.
That is why the enemies of freedom have put so much effort into this one issue.
On April 6, 2021 at 12:35 pm, Frank Clarke said:
I keep scouring the interwebs for an instance where Longbow says something wrong.
Still looking…
On April 6, 2021 at 1:18 pm, June J said:
So, the “Save the Second” organization has exposed itself for its real agenda- get rid of NRA’s existing leadership so they can be in charge of Negotiating Rights Away.
There’s one simple statement that all supporters of firearms should unite around – “shall not be infringed.”
Everything else agrees in part with the socialists’ agenda to ban civilians owning firearms.
On April 6, 2021 at 7:43 pm, Sanders said:
You are either for infringement, or against. There is no middle ground. I have no commonality with anyone who is for infringement of natural rights.
In my state, you who were the ones crying the loudest against Constitutional carry? It was the CCW trainers! They didn’t want their mandated by the government classes to become optional. Needless to say, that involved some gun stores and ranges that will never see my shadow cross their thresholds ever again.
On April 6, 2021 at 8:47 pm, Ozark Redneck said:
Great comments guys! Thanks Herschel for allowing us to voice our dissent (in unity!) against our common enemy!
On April 7, 2021 at 11:27 am, Comrade X said:
How is an appeaser any different than the evil that they appease?
If anything IMHO they are more of a problem because they facilitate evil.
I was a supporter of Save the Second however my resources and efforts will be going elsewhere because now I want to save the second from them.