Shooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
I go back to more info is better than less and Metcalf isn't exactly a leftie and you wouldn't normally hear hi viewpoint on any of the liberal mainstrseam media outlets, to them he is too far RIGHT, believe it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Those folks claiming "censorship" are, no doubt, working hard to get pro-gun and pro-hunting articles in the magazines that PETA, HCI, et al, publish.... :rolleyes:
Great point! I will add it can't be censorship anyway because G&A is a private organization that can do what they want. The analogy would be Kirk Herbstreit saying college football sucks. ESPN may have some heartburn with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
I go back to more info is better than less and Metcalf isn't exactly a leftie and you wouldn't normally hear hi viewpoint on any of the liberal mainstrseam media outlets, to them he is too far RIGHT, believe it or not.
Why would they think he is far right? I know plenty of Dems that are supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Granted, not many on the national level but a bunch are locally that haven't been corrupted by the DC establishment. Outside of the 2nd Amendment I really don't have any idea what Metcalf's political views are and really don't care. Not sure how they would know what those views are either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,287 Posts
Discussion Starter #44 (Edited)
That argument is indeed what he was saying and why his piece was so .....well, not well thought out. You can't compare the 2nd Amendment to yelling "fire" because that is not what the 1st or 2nd were about. To compare it to human sacrifice in religious practice is equally ridiculous. The taking of human life is murder and is not protected by the Constitution. The use of these two examples to demonstrate why he thinks the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation is just absurd. The Framers obviously felt the 2nd was different because they included the words "shall not be infringed." This is very strong language and when the preamble is studied there is no question as to their intent. To suggest some simple argument that says all rights are regulated and now lets talk limits is just ridiculous and shows a very clear lack of understanding about the Constitution regardless of what side of the gun control debate he is on. Go back to school, Dick.

+1 Agreed !! They never should have let it go to print. Metcalf knew what he was doing/writing and he had to know what might happen. He could have voiced his opinion to his wife and kids or neighbors or whoever, but it shouldn't have gone in one of these magazines. He used to be a history professor at both Yale and Cornell so he's darn sure smart enough to know he would get himself in a heap of you know what over this. His editor writes a column in every one of those magazines about the 2nd amendment, IIRC, so I don't why they let it go to print. :confused:


I did a little more looking around and found out the the editor Jim Bequette ( spelling ) resigned his position and stepped down when all of this flared up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Sorry Web,
You lost me with the duct tape.
But Metcalf got "duct taped".
You missed it.:eek:

Taking our gun rights away from us (NO CCW, magazine limits, etc) is like duct taping ALL people walking into a theater because someone MAY yell fire.:rolleyes:

We all know yelling fire when there isn't one is against the law.
So is shooting someone for other than self defense.

If people can be trusted to not yell fire, why can't we be trusted to be armed and defend ourselves?

If you use the yelling in a theater story this is what you get.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,668 Posts
TheWoodCrafter,

You got it right. In college I had a conservative government professor. He clearly pointed out the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals believe IF they can impose ENOUGH Prior Restraints (gun registration, licenses, assault weapons bans, etc.) they can stop crime. Conservatives prefer to rely on Subsequent Punishments for wrongdoers and let the honest folks alone. The prof answered a liberal student's question about "Limits" and how one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater by replying, "They do not duct tape your mouth shut when you enter a theater to PREVENT you from yelling "FIRE!" The duct tape is a Prior Restraint.

Webley
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Metcalf wrote his article, submitted it to the editor and it was approved for printing.
Guess what, the editor got fired, now there's a new editor.
The readers of Guns & Ammo had no say in this.
The advertisers did.
Big money rules.
I have nothing to say one way or another about military type rifles or handguns. Some folks like them, some not so much and I realize that publications like Guns & Ammo need to make money by their sale of the magazine.
They made their choice and we lost a good journalist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
IMO, he put on his own golf spikes, & stepped on his own junk, If he is as smart as people say then he had to know this would cause trouble! WE SHOULD NOT GIT DIVIDED OVER IT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
IMO, he put on his own golf spikes, & stepped on his own junk, If he is as smart as people say then he had to know this would cause trouble! WE SHOULD NOT GIT DIVIDED OVER IT!
Mike, that's our problem.
When a moderate expresses his opinion, he gets attacked by the right and the left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
Easternhunter, I try to see both sides,but it is getting harder to stay moderate, I grew up in southern Ill, across from St. Louis, if you worked for a living you were Dem & union, if not you were Republican, that changed when Dukus ran for pres. He was anty gun, I was young then I really had to think about how things worked. I was smart enough to see when you are out of money, you can spend no more, WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS A DEPARTMENT OF COMMON SENSE!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Mike, that's our problem.
When a moderate expresses his opinion, he gets attacked by the right and the left.
People equate being a "moderate" with "tolerance" and being "reasonable." Well, I don't consider having an opinion that is contrary to the constitution as being "moderate." I consider that opinion to be extreme. Quess what? This country was not founded by moderates.....whatever a moderate is. Just because Dick took a position the enlightened ones consider favorable doesn't make him a moderate or reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StretchNM

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Well said, Riflefan. The problem is that the Left defines any conservative as "right wing" or "far right wing", and we've always let them get away with it. The fact is there really is no "right wing", just everyday Americans trying to hold on to the principals that led this Country to its best years and trying to stay away from those leftist principals that have taken us downhill. No, there's a Left wing (communists) but I don;t think a right wing exists at all.

If you love this country for what it is, and not for what you can change it to, then the Left will call you "right wing". And if you believe in the principals of the Constitution, then add "extremist" to that title. I say to them.... "so what?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Folks, the anti's aren't talking regulation of rights; their intent is the removal of them entirely. Remember Feinstein after the Clinton AWB was passed: "If I thought I'd had the votes I'd have taken all the guns away". The 1st Amendment is regulated according to race and political affiliation. Thanks to "the safety of the nation", the 4th Amendment has been regulated to the point that it no longer exists. The 10th Amendment has been regulated to the point that the government can now require you to own health insurance or face losing your income, property and possibly face jail time.
Liberals aren't about pre-emptive legislation; they are about socialism; restricting individual rights for the public good. The analogy of using duct tape is wrong; liberals would take it to the point of sewing your mouth shut. This philosophy has never worked because, by their very nature, those who would assume power have no respect for individual rights. History has proven that governments and political leaders are not to be trusted. That doen't stop the political elite, and I include both Democrats and Republicans, from trying.
Liberals got their "concessions" in 1968, not because the public was in danger, but political leaders were. The politicians didn't pass the '68 GCA to protect John Q. Public, but themselves. The '68 GCA was originated by one of the most corrupt US Senators ever to hold office with portions taken directly from Nazi German law, for crying out loud. Then, as now, the intent isn't to stop criminals and madmen, but to control the public and give the government more power. It's the same thing with the current push. Sandy Hook is used to support legislation that in no way would have prevented the shooting, (and they even admit as much), but it will certain help if the time comes where martial law is declared.
And that time is coming.
Didn't Waco and Katrina teach anyone what the government, from the federal to the local level, is capable of? Ask yourself this. If the government is so dead set against certain weapons sales, large capacity magazines and all for "improved" background checks in an effort to stop mass killings and known criminals, then why are those who orchestrated and carried out Fast & Furious being protected by that same government?
We don't need people like Metcalf saying that we should "see the light" and compromise. That arguement ended in 1968 when the government made its position clear that the citizen could be armed only if they allowed it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
I do not read gun magazines. They are entertainment. More often than not, articles are advertisements. Gun writers have little or no actual experience, especially in the realm of self-defense.

I was delighted that we as defenders of the Second Amendment have coalesced around a deviant in our ranks. We can never know how a person truly feels; however, given opportunity, his true beliefs usually surface.

I have rejoined the NRA. When I dropped out I had assumed it was for good. When the NRA threw in with Bush 41's gun control legislation, it rationalized its stabbing Second Amendment defenders in their backs with what was essentially Metcalf's rationale. I can only pray that I wasn't hasty in rejoining the NRA. The second it again floats phony rationale of virtue in compromise, I will be gone for good. We have miniscule remnants of Madison's Second Amendment because long ago we as a group bought in to propaganda of virtue in compromise.

The contentious '12 presidential election was of serious concern to me. While there was no way I was ever going to vote for the incumbent (I have difficulty even writing his name.), there was also no way I was voting for a wolf in sheep's clothing. Romney had a proven record of being every bit as dangerous to defenders of the Second Amendment as Obama. What concerned me was that that gun owners believed that Romney had put on suit of new stripes. He even conveniently joined the NRA during his campaign in order to sell his ruse.

The short of it was that Ron Paul was the only authentic defender of Madison's Second Amendment. Yet Romney supporters (I'll go out on a limb here and guess that 90% of Romney supporters were voting against Obama as opposed to voting for a virtuous candidate.) castigated authentic conservatives that had refused to again be burned by a Trojan Horse candidate.

My point is that Romney should have been more vigorously opposed than Metcalf was rightfully vilified because Romney had a proven record of Second Amendment hostility. In '16 gun owners ought to carefully consider the opponent seeking the nomination to run against the lead donkey. If the GOP nominates another Greek bearing false gifts, I can tell you right now how that election will turn out.

I am no longer a Republican. That party left me when it became the Party of Democratic Light. But were I still a Republican I'd be searching for a candidate who has a proven record of defending the Second Amendment. If he has ever mentioned compromise -which is the strategy of our enemies for destroying the Second Amendment: one nasty compromise at a time- I'd keep looking until I found an authentic patriot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
People equate being a "moderate" with "tolerance" and being "reasonable."

I can't resist one of my favorite quotes here. "Tolerance, taken far enough is cowardice".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,269 Posts
What's right is right, and Metcalf was wrong. It is not just right, but a God-given RIGHT that law-abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves.

As one who writes opinions that others sometimes strongly disagree with, I am a firm believer in the 1st Amendment right of free speech, but never at the expense of any other rights.

Our 2nd Amendment rights are already legislated and restricted, excessively so if ya ask me. There are far-left writers of op-ed pieces trying to convince Americans to eliminate that right altogether; we don't need dissenters within our ranks adding fuel to their fire.

There was a time in America when common sense, decency, and Godliness ran rampant in this country. There was a left and a right, but the rift was not so great; knowledge and wisdom were far more universal than they are today. Just as assuredly as complacency leads to corruption, tolerance begets cowardice, and ignorance propagates absurdity, FEAR has become a guiding force in our nation. Perhaps Dick is afraid of what today's guns are capable of, but he would be far more wise to fear what our leaders will do if American citizens are ever denied our right to own them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Some asides:

If you followed the link to the National Review article, contained within it is a link to a another National Review article about the origin of the "fire in a theater" principle that was part of the SCOTUS decision in Shenck v. U.S. in 1919. The article concludes:
…The arbitrary power that laws such as the Espionage Act give to the state is precisely what those who call out {for} “assault weapons” bans and intrusive background checks seek to avoid, an upside-down presumption that rights require demonstrations of need or are contingent upon circumstance. Suffice it to say that to hear Chuck Schumer favorably referencing the most famous censorship case in the history of the country, in which the Supreme Court ruled baldly that state power was more important than the Bill of Rights, is no comfort at all.
That "fire" is where Metcalf's and Schumer's reasoning crossed paths.

I note that the Heller decision also followed Metcalf's reasoning to the degree that it recognized so-called reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment. People who say the whole Heller decision was politically motivated forget that all nine justices agreed the Second Amendment is an individual right. They only disagreed on what did or did not constitute reasonable limitations. That's the part where political leaning showed, with the "liberal" justices demonstrating illiberal preference for greater prior constraint, and the conservative justices favoring more liberal allowance for personal choice. However you look at it, the wiggle room for government discretion is where the details lie and the Devil lurks.

I think gun safety training is something all citizens should be exposed to, but it's clearly Second Amendment interference to make it a prerequisite for gun ownership. Instead, it should be offered in High School like First Aid Class. Cooper's four rule system, plus how to check the condition of common modern firearms, plus a brief on federal and local gun laws. Let the conscientious objectors decline, but get the majority of people aware of what bad vs. good gun handling looks like and what the laws say. It could be done in a day or two and would likely prevent a lot of stupid accidents and stupid gun conduct in the future. It might spoil the ability of Hollywood writers to get viewers to suspend disbelief about gun handling in various fictional settings, but I think that's a sacrifice they should be willing to make for the safety of the children.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
.....................
I think gun safety training is something all citizens should be exposed to, but it's clearly Second Amendment interference to make it a prerequisite for gun ownership. Instead, it should be offered in High School like First Aid Class. ..................
.
Outstanding. I have tried and failed to put the same thought down that succinctly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Firearm safety training is available to anyone who wants it.
Not by High School because they don't have the facilities.
I took an NRA safety course years ago, I think that they're still available.
Some states require a hunter safety course as a prerequisite for getting a hunting license.
More regulation????
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top