Huh? Rob Pincus calls for expanded background checks, gun control and then says he didn't

The longtime instructor, author and entrepreneur co-wrote a lengthy column with a former president of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which calls for more gun control.

Rob Pincus

Rob Pincus is a divisive figure in the gun community — that’s about the only thing everyone can agree on when his name is mentioned.

It started with the shooting method he developed — the “Combat Focus® Shooting Program,” which he now calls “Intuitive Defensive Shooting™.”

There are some folks who swear by Rob’s methods, but there are others who say it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I should point out that I’ve never taken one of his classes, and I probably never will.

I’m more old school and less New Age when it comes to shooting. I believe in mastering the fundamentals — that’s pretty much it. I’m not looking for someone to help me achieve Zen, inner peace or “combat focus” — especially if they’ve never been in combat themselves.

I should also point out that I don’t know Rob. We never had a conversation until yesterday, when we talked about his column.

He seems affable enough, and he comes across as a strong Second Amendment proponent, which is why you could have pushed me over with the proverbial feather when I read this: “Guns in America: Ending the Culture War & Starting a Productive Conversation,” which was published on Ammoland.

Rob co-wrote the piece with Dan Gross, former president of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — AKA: Handgun Control, Inc. — AKA: the Brady Bunch.

“He reached out to me,” Rob told me Sunday. “We met through a third party, and then he offered me some insight into why he’s no longer president of Brady.”

When I read their column, I first thought it was a joke. After all, April Fools’ Day is right around the corner, but it’s definitely not a joke. There’s nothing funny about it.

In my humble opinion, it’s treasonous.

I could literally dissect the column line by anti-gun line, but I don’t know if there are enough pixels on my website, since it’s mostly psycho-babble and anti-gun gibberish.

Instead, let’s talk about the main points, starting with this:

“Change is being made impossible by perceptions of a culture war that does not actually exist,” they wrote.

I beg to differ, fellas. The war against the gun culture does exist. It’s all too real, and it’s stronger and more intense now than ever. With the Democrats in charge of the White House, Senate and House, we are in a serious defensive posture.

Besides, the anti-gunners have been at war with our culture for decades, and if this culture war is the reason why we can’t change or compromise with them — so be it!

I guess we’re smart enough not to compromise with our enemy.

And don’t forget that every time we’ve been sold out by Quisling lawmakers and forced to compromise, we get nothing out of it except fewer gun rights and more regulations, which further infringe upon on our God-given, constitutional right to self defense.

Therefore, why would we even want to change?

Rob walked these comments back Sunday, when I asked him if he truly believed that the other side wasn’t waging a culture war.

“There are a very small number of noisy people who are absolutely on a war against gun ownership and gun rights,” he said. “What we’re addressing is this idea — that there is an even split in this country of those who oppose and those who support (gun rights).

“That’s the narrative of the NRA and Everytown — everyone who wants to get some significant publicity. There are extremists on both sides who generate revenue and attention and further their own agenda by saying there’s an even split on gun rights in this country.”

Note that despite his lengthy response, he didn’t answer my question.

Here’s another highlight, or lowlight, from the piece:

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

In my humble opinion, when gun prohibitionists talk about an opportunity for real impact, look out.

For them, an opportunity always entails us giving up guns and/or gun rights.

But while that’s worrisome, this is the authors’ worst point:

“Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks.”

That’s right, firearms instructor, author and onetime candidate for the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors, Rob Pincus, wrote that he is all-in on expanded background checks.

I never expected that.

The problem with expanded background checks — and Rob knows this — is that they only work when partnered with total firearms registration. And what comes later, after all the guns have been registered? Confiscation.

Rob knows that too.

However, during our interview Sunday, Rob said I and the other folks who have read his column misinterpreted what he was trying to say.

“I oppose background checks, period,” Rob told me. “All of that — that statement that you just read — can be true. It (the statement) does not support the idea that we need or should have expanded background checks. Instead, it says of everything on the table, it’s the least worst. It’s a comparative statement, as opposed to the other things on the table.”

His column says otherwise.

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

While I found his rationalization somewhat laughable, the best was yet to come when I asked him about the overall tone of the column, which, in my opinion, is decidedly anti-gun.

Rob disagreed.

“Why would I possibly be part of anything that has an anti-gun tone,” he said. “I think it has a decidedly pro-gun-rights tone.”

I told him I disagreed, and that based upon the comments on the story, most of the Ammoland readers disagreed too:

”This is a joke right? If you haven’t learned by now that the anti-gun people will never stop, you’re beyond naïve. They keep wanting us to ‘compromise just one more time.’ ‘Do it for the children.’ Well, I’ve had enough of it,” one reader wrote.

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

“I appreciate Ammoland’s commitment to freedom of speech. That said, this is one of the most anti-gun things I have ever read. It took several breaks for me to lower my blood pressure to finish it,” wrote a third.

Fallout

I remember what happened to Jim Zumbo when he wrote that ARs weren’t good for hunting.

He lost everything, and rightfully so. But his blog post pales when compared to Rob’s column. After all, Jim ceded a bit of ground to the anti-gunners, but Rob gave up the whole playing field.

I honestly don’t know what will happen to him. He’s involved with several organizations — all supposedly pro-gun. It will be up to their boards to determine if Rob’s comments accurately reflect their members’ views and opinions, or whether, like me, they’re not capable of understanding what he really meant to say.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the angst currently being directed toward Ammoland for publishing the column is misplaced. That’s a classic mistake — blaming the messenger for the message.

As an avid Ammoland reader, I’m glad their editors published the column. It’s important for us to know what people are thinking when they’re involved with national Second Amendment organizations at a senior level, and are capable of influencing discussions and policy.

Motivations

I’ve spoken to several friends in the gun community about Rob’s latest work.

No one knows why he wrote it.

One believes Rob may be angling for a position in the Biden administration.

If that’s the case, he’s off to a good start.

His column mentions the word “change” a total of 14 times.

Change has always been a hallmark of the progressive movement — hope and change.

But change has never been a part of our culture.

The Second Amendment doesn’t change, thank God.

Hopefully — if we zealously guard against it — it never will.

As always, thanks for your time.

Lee