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?