Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by erudne, Nov 2, 2013.

  1. erudne

    erudne The Pie Matrix PPL Say Sleeping W/Your Rifle Is A bad Thing? Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,279
    Likes Received:
    6,918
    Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

    By Robert Farago on November 2, 2013


    Guns & Ammo Technical Editor Dick Metcalf (courtesy gunsandammo.com)

    Click here to download a pdf of Guns & Ammo‘s column Let’s Talk Limits. Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .



    Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:


    Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”

    You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!

    Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.

    Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.


    I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

    I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .

    I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.

    More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.

    Equally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Wikipedia defines the term thusly:


    Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

    Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

    I have a major issue with the word “unwarranted” (wikipedia won’t let me delete it). But the point is made: Americans have a civil right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by . . . wait for it . . . the Constitution. Specifically, the Second Amendment. This despite the fact that . . .


    Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

    So civil means natural, and natural means inviolable. Except by people who support their violation. People like Dick Metcalf, who ends his pro-gun control polemic by asserting that Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”

    “But that’s just me . . .” Metcalf closes. Yes it is. And I believe that anyone who supports a gun magazine that prints this kind of anti-gun agitprop is supporting the diminution and destruction of our gun rights. Or is that just me?
     
  2. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Slippery slope of liberalism.....

    After time it is acceptable to argue against our right to freedom, self defense and self determination. Our rights are God given and no man can, or should; legislate them from us!
     
  3. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Do I remember that a few years ago some gun writer walked into a buzz saw about AR style weapons.
    I don't remember who or what magazine (American Rifleman??) but I think he was forced to apologize and may have lost his job.

    Sheldon
     
    Caveman Jim and (deleted member) like this.
  4. 4Freedom

    4Freedom Boise, Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    815
    Never bought that overpriced magazine and have no plans too.. There are so many cooler gun magazines out there anyway, who needs Guns & Ammo.
     
  5. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills Cave Creek, Arizony Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes Received:
    705
    Did it start with a Zumb?
     
  6. timac

    timac Loading Magazines! Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Start your writing to Guns & Ammo, no more magazine or TV show.
     
  7. trainsktg

    trainsktg Portland OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Likes Received:
    798
    I wasn't too impressed when I read that either.

    Keith
     
  8. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Yes, I think it was "Dumbo" Zumbo . . .
    I can't recall how it turned out but he and the magazine took a lot of heat.


    Sheldon
     
  9. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills Cave Creek, Arizony Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes Received:
    705
    He got fired and his writing career went down the drain
    just like this sorry excuse for a gun magazine
     
  10. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    Metcalf at it again. You can't fix stupid
     
  11. oknow

    oknow amboy wa. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    3,565

    yes and he did lose his job
     
  12. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    I think I have a subscription through Amazon on my Kindle. If I do I'll be dropping that!

    Yep I did, I cancelled it and let them know why.


    Deen
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    "Defender of Freedom" award
    Second Amendment Foundation Member
    Washington Arms Collectors Member
    Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member


    "Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"
     
  13. nwo

    nwo Southern Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    245
    I knew years ago that Guns&Ammo magazine was trash.
     
  14. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    Be sure you e-mail G & A and tell them
     
  15. Sling Blade

    Sling Blade Yamhill County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    364
    Would someone please explain this: "You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!"

    I am serious - I don't get what the author is getting at.
     
  16. Diamondback

    Diamondback A cold, wet green Hell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    2,623
    Crossposted to other gun-boards.

    Memo to Primedia: "We got a Burn Notice on you--you're Blacklisted."
     
  17. chariot13

    chariot13 Near Eugene/Springfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    No, even with Empirical evidence and absolute knowledge that additional regulation would stop gun violence. No, never should any additional regulation ever be allowed. In fact destroying the current and any past regulation is a necessity to survive any past, current or future government. You can kill off 99.9% of the worlds population and crime would occur 99.9%+ less than it ever has. It does not mean it is a good idea to kill off 99.9% of the population.
     
  18. chariot13

    chariot13 Near Eugene/Springfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    Well regulated back in the day meant Extremely effective. Meaning a militia that could pounce on any and every adversary both foreign & or domestic. It was never intended for the States to have a standing army, let alone a 'communal one' nationally like we see today.
     
  19. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    I always thought and have read the "well regulated" meant well supplied and trained in their use.
     
  20. chariot13

    chariot13 Near Eugene/Springfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    True and most people relate "well supplied and trained" as being more effective. But knowing how effective people are with arms when they act unconventional, I'd say formal training isn't what they meant as much as capable and or willing. A desire to fight even if its only done discreetly, is all that's needed.