Previous Post
Next Post

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? [h/t b0b]

[UPDATE: BREAKING: Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal]

Previous Post
Next Post

426 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks. And thanks to GUNS & AMMO; now I get to never buy another issue.

    Actions have consequences.

      • If recoil gets slammed for its mention of machine guns then G&A should be loosing a few thousand friends

        • Lost one here- I just submitted my cancellation online. FYI: How do I end my subscription?

          To cancel your subscription, please call 800-829-3340 or Send a Comment to our Customer Service Department through the Manage Your Account area of the Customer Service site. You may also write to us at Guns & Ammo, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235 .

          For international orders please call 386-246-3326.

          A refund will be issued for any un-served issues of your subscription.

        • Thanks to Big E listing the “How To” I just cancelled my subscription and told them why. I certainly encourage others to do the same.

          BTW Ironically, in the same issue of Metcalf’s ill-conceived article a letter-to-the-editor calls out G&A for sitting on the sidelines during the 2A fight. The editors defend themselves by saying they try to be timely but that’s not always possible in their print edition. Then, to show that they consider the 2A important they refer you to Metcalf’s article. I wonder if they had read it before they referenced it?

        • Cameron, the word is “losing”, not “loosing”. There is a difference, believe me. Look it up. Loosing is related to lose and lost. When you lose something, you lost it. One example of loose: You’re holding the end of a rope; you let go of it. You have turned it loose. This is one of a long list of common missused words, called “homophones”, one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (as the words to, too, and two)
          2 : a character or group of characters pronounced the same as another character or group. You shouldn’t feel too bad; you have a lot of company, but if you don’t want to appear to your readers as bordering on illiterate, you need to read what you write before you click “Post Comment” and learn better grammer.

        • Hey, Larry…. After wasting everyone’s time with your scathing “grammar” lesson, you managed to misspell “grammar”. Practice what you preach, brother.

        • Hey Larry, “Loosing is related to lose and lost..” Actually it is not. “Losing” is though.
          lol This guy here..

      • Stopped ready G&A eight years ago because of their leanings that were starting to show. They have just become more blatant as time as passed and the idea of control is more believable by the uninformed public.

    • I just got a letter from G&A begging me to buy another 2 year subscription for $15. I was considering it. Not anymore.

      BTW does anyone know what ever happened to Richard Venola after he drunkenly shot and killed his “friend”?

      • His first trial ended in a hung jury I believe. On second trial earlier this year, he was acquitted of all charges. He is a free man at this point. From what I read of the facts of the case, it was just one of those things that happens when alcohol and guns mix. The right guy survived this time. I haven’t heard what he doing these days. I suspect that he might be writing under a pseudonym. I always enjoyed his appearances on TV and his articles. Hope he does well.

        • He was not acquitted. Two trials ended with deadlocked juries that were split in favor of acquittal. In March the Mohave County attorney’s office moved to dismiss the second-degree murder charge and not try him again.

          Prosecutor Rod Albright stated in his dismissal motion that “The evidence presently available for the state is apparently insufficient to overcome the statutory presumptions that strongly favor claims of self-defense and justification. Since the State has the additional burden to disprove claims of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no likelihood of a jury conviction without additional evidence.”

    • Pretty much my reaction. I think I’ll read the article first (due diligence, you know), and then – assuming what I read above is an accurate representation – cancel my subscription.

    • I just emailed G&A the following message. go to their web page, bottom left corner, contact:

      I was disgusted to read the anti-RKBA garbage in Dick Metcalf’s “Let’s Talk Limits.” Ever heard of recoil magazine and Jerry Tsai? Well prepared to be recoiled. I and thousands of other shooters intend to boycott your magazine and contact every one of your sponsors to make sure they understand that their advertising dollars are being used to promote harm towards their industry. Unless you fire Dick Metcalf at once nd print an IMMEDIATE retraction/apology, G&A is FINISHED in this industry.

      Shame on you. I will never purchase another issue.

      Good luck at your new jobs working for the Brady Campaign, traitors.

    • Why buy a gun magazine when you can just read about stuff for free online? But yeah…. I definitely wouldn’t buy G&A after this if I was the type to purchase gun mags.

    • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The next time you hear or see a progressive liberal saying that ‘regulated’ is interpreted as the government stating what the citizens are allowed to own, show them this: The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. [Merkel, p. 361. “Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations.”] In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. “[District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] -MD — with Jeff McKay and 4 others.

    • I agree. Looks like Guns and Ammo has a technical editor with the IQ of a mushroom. That’s one yearly subscription I can cancel. Thanks for being such a dick… Dick.

    • The 2nd says

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The first part talks about the militia, but has no impact on the second part. So even if well regulated specified regulations it doesn’t affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    • I’m no longer a reader of Guns & Ammo magazine either. But not because one of it’s editors wrote an anti-gun piece. I don’t think it was anti-gun at all, but that’s another discussion. I don’t believe Metcalf’s editorial was so off base to be fired. My point is, if his editor had the guts to read it and publish it in the magazine, then he should stand by his writer and defend the piece. Instead, they did the cowardly thing and fired him because of the hate mail from the die hards. If anyone should be fired, it is Jim Bequette for throwing a good writer and long time gun advocate under the bus to save his own hide. Pathetic.

  2. “Constitution, What Constitution?”
    IOs Metcalf former Navy like Carter and McCain?
    Seems like all the media wannabes, not just Field and Stream, have swallowed the same steaming load and begged for more
    reminiscent of the BBC and their decades long Boy perv society

    • Just an FYI field and stream didn’t change till the anti-gun Dick’s Sporting Goods took them over. Now they are even opening stores under that name.

        • Dicks refuses to sell ARs and other “assault weapons” as they call them. That’s anti-gun in my book.

      • I will never buy anything from Dicks Sporting Goods because they stopped selling AR rifles after the Sandy Hook shooting to appease the liberals! I ask everyone to join me in a boycott against tehm!

        • There’s more to that story than meets the eye. Troy made a huge blunder with their pricing for their rifle for the deal they made with dicks. Dicks psold some rifles and made rainchecks for a crapload more, but troy was taking a loss on each rifle and renegged on the deal. I think instead of honoring the rainchecks, Dicks just used the sandy hook ordeal to say they weren’t going to sell any more AR15’s. So it may not neccessarily have been a political move, but rather a business move.

        • Same here. They don’t have much anyway other than bolt guns and shotguns as far as center fire firearms are concerned.

        • “So it may not neccessarily have been a political move, but rather a business move.”

          IMHO, that’s just as bad if not perhaps worse. If that’s true then they used the murder of some children to save business face and a some money. (I’m not wanting to step into the middle of the discussion. Its merely that I’ve not read what you wrote anywhere else before and wanted to comment about it.)

  3. “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 . . .”…..

    What an excellent analogy, Mr Metcalf.
    You’ve just made our point for us, because indeed despite the DMV and Law Enforcements best efforts, unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers, illegal aliens and DUI repeat offenders drive where they wish no matter what.Any episode of Cops you pick is littered with traffic stops involving suspended licenses and unlicensed drivers.

    Whether the law says it’s kosher or not, people will drive a car.So it goes with firearms. The government not only doesn’t have the legal standing to regulate firearms, they’re incapable of preventing it even if they had the legal standing to do what Metcalf suggests.

    Speaking of legal standing, we also don’t have to read obsolete print media which is advancing Bloombergs agenda .Metcalf should be fired with prejudice, and if he’s not…Guns and Ammo WILL be used in place of IDPA targets at my next range session. I’ll buy an issue and use every ad within for target practice.

    I’ll then include the bullet holed ads with a genuine nicely worded letter to the companies indicated , encouraging them to do business with a different firm.Understand , I mean no Ill will to anyone, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

    • I think Metcalf’s screed does merit ill will. He’s entitled to his opinion, but he certainly needs to find out about consequences.

      • Wow, a guy on a gun forum speaking about how speaking your opinion has consequences in a menacing manner.

        I wonder why us non-gun nuts to find you guys to be so creepy and not worthy of owning guns…

    • His analogy was ignorant on another point, anyone can walk into a car dealership and buy any vehicle regardless of their age, license, etc., they just can’t operate it on public roads. His argument might have limited validity if he was discussing weapons carry permits, it is blissfully ignorant when applied to the purchase of any firearm.

    • “The government not only doesn’t have the legal standing to regulate firearms”

      So background checks are out, and anyone, including the mentally ill and felons, should be allowed to own firearms?

      • Might I ask, if such a person you describe is a real threat to society, why is he not receiving involuntary mental health treatment or still in prison?

        The only solution the government sees is to punish everyone with the NICS system while the crazy people and criminals still get guns illegally. If NICS went away with its pathetic prosecution rate, there would be no change in violent crime.

    • Does the DMV let you buy an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank? How about a Bradley fighting vehicle?

      What’s that? They don’t? I wonder why, Einstein…

    • I agree, I haven’t purchased another recoil, and I’ll never again purchase another guns and ammo. Damn looks like TTAG will continue to find dirt on printed publications lol.

      • It’s not exactly “finding dirt” on these idiots if they willingly publish such drivel themselves. More like a self-inflicted wound…

    • I am happy to have had a part in the destruction of Recoil.
      Far Too Many ‘icons’ of the gun world are selling out the Constitution, and their nation, next they will be backing Obama’s Climate Regulations which are only designed to cripple this nation.
      “The defense of liberty is no vice!”
      I smell Sunshine Patriots every time this rag comes into view, time to save some trees and end all GandA publications for the good of this nation’s future.

      • The actual quote is:

        “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” – Senator Barry Goldwater, 1994

      • Recoil did the right thing and canned Jerry Tsai. Since Iain Harrison took over it’s been a really good mag, I’ve bought the last 4 issues and I’ve heard not a peep of anti-2a sentiments from it.

    • Disagree. Recoil is still in the mag rack at my local Wally World and the content gets better every month. The online mag is growing as well and is polished and professional. I’ve met and talked with Iain Harrison, the new editor. The man is unswervingly pro-2A… period. If you’re holding a grudge against a magazine that did the right thing and canned a moron, I believe you’re making a mistake. We don’t grow our numbers by shooting the wounded.

      • Recoil did NOT DO THE RIGHT THING, they did NOT CAN the previous Progressive, he was transferred to a place where he could continue to damage the BOR, just as with the IRS, a horizontal promotion so that the puppets can say the problem is solved.
        Your low information endorsement is highly questionable and serves only to expose the depths that Progressives will descend to in order to push the anti-Constitution agenda

        • So, let’s review…
          1. I’ve met and talked with Iain Harrison at some length.
          2. I once again began buying Recoil after the meeting/conversations.
          3. In my opinion, the content is much improved both online & paper.
          4. I stated that Tsai had been canned. Probably misspoke. However, in my 40+ years in the workforce, a “resignation” under such circumstances is usually a face-saving euphemism for “fired”.
          And all these lead to the conclusion that I’m a Progressive.
          Brilliant.
          People of the gun need to be living in a big tent, not excluding any/everyone whose “hoplophilic theology” isn’t as pure as your own.
          Faulty thinking and crappy allegations such as this aren’t part of the solution. They are part of the problem.
          Yep. Metcalf needs to be fired, now. But, if G&A does the right thing and boots his a$$ into the street, how does the gun community as a whole benefit by watching another old media source (that may be some bored person at a magazine rack’s first intro to guns) dry up and die?
          Low information? I don’t think so.
          Different opinion? Obviously.

      • Iain Harrison is awesome (particularly for an Englishman :D) and definitely a good face to help Recoil recover from the massive mp7 SNAFU. Always liked seeing him on Guns and Gear and the other Crimson Trace commercials when he was workin for them.

        Edit: Just read the comment from ensitue and have to do some google fu to find out about the previous recoil editor. Thought I read on here that he was sh1tcanned?

        Edit2: He did resign and I havent really found anything to the contrary yet. PLEASE correct if I am wrong as Id like to find out the truth of the matter. However, trolls should go toe tickle a shotgun 😀

        • I did cancel my Recoil subscription after the whole MP7 Tsai fiasco. I recently restarted it though. The last issue was really good, nearly 150 pages of really good articles on AR triggers, the old Springfield armory, the Sig brace, incognito rifle cases and backpacks, making a gillie suit, clearing stoppages, tacticool gear, and of course guns.

  4. Disturbing and disgusting, but not unexpected. Many “supporters” of gun rights (Mr Metcalf no doubt would be included) are horrified at open carry of a handgun, which is the litmus test of a true friend of our rights. Luckily I’ve never given that outfit any money, nor will I.

  5. actually, a better response may be to organize a boycott of every advertiser in G&A to put pressure on the rag to fire this a$$clown

  6. I haven’t wasted money on a dead tree gun rag in years. I finally got tired of the constant stream of PR for the advertisers. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I’ve even looked at the G&A website more than once or twice in the last year.

    I have been watching their TV show, but I’m getting pretty tired of it so it won’t be much of an effort to stop.

  7. The “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a theater compares apples to oranges. It is not an equivalent comparison and not a logical argument. Antis continually use it as an example for regulation on freedom of speech – but it is not a correct comparison. Again and again I have to argue this point with them. Never ends.

    Yelling fire in a theater could cause people to be trampled and killed. Shooting a gun in a theater can cause someone to die (by bullets). Both of which are and should be illegal (with exception to using a gun in defense for saving your life or another – yelling fire in a theater cannot save any lives). Comparing yelling fire and shooting a gun in a theater are a similar second and first amendment comparison.

    Comparing yelling fire in a theater and gun regulation is not equivalent. Banning guns or banning some types of guns is equivalent of banning some types of words that you wouldn’t be able to use in a theater or anywhere else. Do we ban words or statements? I think not. Do we sew mouths shut? Nope. Not equivalent at all.

    Yelling fire in a theater incites a panic and can kill. Walking into a theater and randomly shooting at things can also kill. Both are already illegal.

    • What if the theater really is on fire? Then yelling fire would in fact save lives.

      In both cases shooting a murderous gunman in a theater and yelling to warn of fire fire are both lawful acts.

    • Wikipedia has a good summary of the two SCOTUS cases about “yelling fire in a theater” The second SCOTUS case overturned the first for the very reason that if there is a real fire, then you must yell and alert people to the fact.

      However, there is a point here for the first and the second. You rights are protected to “yell fire” even if false but most especially if true there is fire. The second amendment should be held in the same way. You have the right of self defense if someone is trying to do you or others harm, you should go to jail if you use a gun to commit a crime.

      If laws simply stated that guns are illegal when you use them to commit a crime any crime, we would have the same standard as the “yell fire” example. You can yell fire all you want unless you do so in such away that it harms someone.

        • Yes. And that’s the correct analogy.

          You cannot be arrested for merely possessing the capability to yell fire in a crowded theater. Illegal “constructive possession” is not merely having a Broca’s area, lungs, and a pair of vocal cords.

          But suddenly when it comes to the 2A, there are all manner of things the gov’t has infringed on such as possessing certain firearms (FA, SBS, SBR, AOW, DD, suppressors, etc.) without their express say-so and constructive possession can put you in prison for ten.

      • If yelling “Fire” were treated like guns, everyone in a theater would have their mouths duct-taped upon entering.

    • Like Gloomhound said. The “you can’t yell fire” argument is alway missing a couple of key words. Here’s how it should read: “You can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and not expect to face the legal consequences of your actions”. For further information on how this short blurb of a line was used by Justice Holmes in a 1919 SCOTUS case that was eventually overturned, see: Schenck v US.

      • The standard instead of “fire in a crowded theater” is now “imminent lawless action” ie incitement to riot.

        Brandenburg v Ohio.

    • You are exactly correct. The second amendment analogy to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is fire a gun in a crowded theater.

      The first amendment analogy of banning the carry of a gun in a theater would be the requiring of installation of a gag on the mouth of people entering a theater.

    • Of course you may yell “Fire” in a theater, if in fact there is actually a fire, it would be the sensible thing to do.

    • The “can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is an urban myth so pervasive that it is even believed by many attorneys, and by at least one gun-hating US Supreme Court judge. Nevertheless, the legal opinion this is from does not say that at all.

      “The Crowded Theater of War”:
      http://level-head.livejournal.com/482087.html

      According to the original case, you are REQUIRED to shout ‘Fire!’ if there really is a fire, and even if there is not, you must be proven to have planned to incite harm. Plus the underlying case was overturned, which was about Woodrow Wilson’s stifling of the Bill of Rights.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • then you have a very narrow viewpoint, the same was said about outlawing Communists from holding public funded jobs, that law was changed and now we have an education system that produces 10,000 brainwashed commies each year.

      • Wow, you got all that from one, single, open-ended statement….

        So, long how have you been waiting to find place to squeeze that little ditty in?

      • I don’t know how the statement was meant, BUT it can be interpreted as Metcalf is the worst enemy, since he is, after all, of the “gun people”.

        • In this case, Metcalf is his own worst enemy.
          Aside from that, he is just misinformed, not hesitant about sharing that misinformation, and unregulated by the editors of G&A.

      • Amen to that brother, I educate my kids real well on truth so that they know the problem when they hear it. Parents are a problem, sheltering poor little Danny from everything…

  8. Time to pack Metcalf up, as happend with Jim Zumbo, for a Come To Jesus moment with Ted Nugent. Dick’s a good guy, but even good guys can be confused. After all, it took the U.S. Supreme Court to finally tell a whole LOT of people that the 2nd Amendment meant exactly what is plainly written. So, time for a Ted Talk, and I’m not talking about some nerdy tech convention.

    • An editor for a gun magazine has no business writing about firearms regulation without having first read the two major SCOTUS cases directly speaking to the meaning of the exact words of the 2nd Amendment. To opine publicly on gun regulation under the 2nd amendment, but uttering statements both at odds with the Court’s opinion and more restrictive in outlook that the Court, is bizarre. His opinions reflect incompetence as to the subject matter about which he was writing. He is writing, though, about an issue that goes to the heart of professional firearms-related journalism. “Aw, cut the guy a break!” You must be kidding.

  9. Much like the NFATCA, another member of the old guard thinks that it’s possible to make a deal with the devil.

  10. It’s unfortunate that Dick Metcalf has chosen to pull a Zumbo. Foot-in-mouth disease can be terminal in this business.

  11. Look, it may just be me, but can we stop going on about the 2nd Amendment? The right to bear arms isn’t a right because the constitution says so- it’s a right because the world(or at least America) is a better place when people have that right. Besides, the constitution can be (sometimes justifiably) modified. (Black people are no longer 3/5 of a person, income taxes stopped being illegal, etc.)

    I hate to sound like an IBB guy, but there do have to be some limits: a nuclear weapon is an arm, and I sure as hell want there to be a law against anyone building or owning one. Same with a truck bomb big enough to bring down the building it’s parked in front of.

    Guns and Ammo got this one wrong because they don’t know what a burden 16 hours of classes is for folks working hand to mouth who have the most to gain from defending themselves. But a 30 minute video watchable at the gun store? I’d be okay with that- The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when every male and most females knew how to fire a gun- the concept of training was ridiculous. I’d say a 30 minute class/video is acceptable and compatible with the right to bear arms.

    • The opposition won’t stop talking about 2a so we have to take up the challenge. Should we all have access to nukes and enough c4 to erase Mt. Rushmore? No. But should we be restricted to shotguns and air rifles only after months of investigation and letters of reference? Again. No.

      A lot of the gun related issues could be worked out to the satisfaction of most folks if the opposition would simply meet us in an open and honest dialogue. They will not because they have an agenda. Disarm us.

      I’ve said it many times. I have no desire for an Uzi or anything belt fed. But I’ll support your right to own these if for no other reason than it puts another layer of protection between the antis and the guns I do wish to own.

      • I have enough desire for a variety of belt-feds for the both of us. 100% agreed, they will not stop until total disarmament and it seems they are actively prepping the next generation of koolaid drinkers to hold the torch for them.

        the fienslime interview where she says “Mr and Ms. America, turn em in” should be all the evidence we have needed.

    • Once you allow the state to decide that state-approved training is necessary to exercise your right to keep and bear arms you have allowed the state to regulate/infringe upon a natural right.

      They then get to choose the trainers. And the authorized training facilities. And set a fee for both the trainers’ training and trainees’ training. And decide location for the training. And the acceptable level of competency needed to receive a permit.

      And decide which guns are allowed by the permit. And what information you must submit to obtain the permit; including your name, address, physical characteristics, Driver’s License number and Social Security ID. And what misdemeanors or felonies disqualify you from the permit. And how often you must re-apply for the permit. And what fees you must pay at that time.

      Does that sound like something you’d like applied to your natural right to free speech or other civil right? In fact, how can anyone who opposes literacy test for voting (as I do) approve of a competency test for gun ownership? I know which of the two is more dangerous.

      • @Robert Farago- what you’re making is a slippery slope argument. The problem is the slope goes both ways: if we allow none of what you’re talking about categorically, then we are in the position of watching some wackjob drive a truck bomb up to a mall, or a school, and doing nothing about it until after he sets it off.

        I happen to believe that grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles (javalins) and anti-air weapon systems SHOULD be privately purchasable. If we are to have any guarantee against our own government’s tyranny, we need weapons that we can use to defeat it’s armored and air assets. But I draw the line at truck bombs and nuclear weapons.

        @ensitue- I do not regularly visit either site.

        @Software Cowboy- That’s the kind of talk that makes us RKBA people look like idiots. Nuclear weapons being banned doesn’t stop people from wanting to build them. But it does allow the government to track uranium, monitor precision machining equipment, and otherwise take action against such activity. Otherwise, we’re in the position of allowing a (suspected but unconvicted) terrorist to build a nuclear bomb in the suburbs of Houston, and being unable to do anything about it until after he (or she) sets it off.

        @RockOnHellChild- Bombs are ordinance- but so is ammunition. If that’s your argument, then we’re defenseless when San Francisco passes stupid ammunition control laws.

        @Pulatso- That is the literal text of the 3/5 clause. The implication of that clause was that slavery was legal in the United States when founded. It wasn’t until the 13th Amendment that it was specifically outlawed. The idea being that the constitution is not perfect and can be amended. Of course, it can also be amended for ill (you can thank the 16th Amendment for the IRS).

        • “…if we allow none of what you’re talking about categorically, then we are in the position of watching some wackjob drive a truck bomb up to a mall, or a school, and doing nothing about it until after he sets it off.”

          A futile attempt. You can watch many of the instructables online on how to make ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). Mix it with diesel fuel and you have a bomb. A great many bomb’s can be made from over the counter products. Bomb’s are already regulated – but it didn’t stop McVeigh did it? You can draw the line anywhere you want – but criminals don’t care about your lines.

        • @VKA
          Slippery slope goes both ways? Umm…I may be wrong, but isn’t it already illegal to drive a big truck bomb up next to a building and blow it up? Yet…it happened. Maybe he just didn’t know he was breaking the law? That MUST be it…because the only reason the rest of us aren’t blowing up buildings is we’re familiar with that law, not because we’re not insane.

        • @tfunk and @anonymous
          After the first time ammonium nitrate was used 20 years ago, it hasn’t been used since in a major attack. Why is that?

          Since 9/11, No American airplanes have never been hijacked again. Why is that?

          For all it’s (many, many ills) our government has proven to be very, very effective at countering certain threats after the first time they are used.

          There are acts that we outlaw because they directly harm someone else- murder, robbery, etc. Then there are acts that we outlaw because of the potential that they might harm someone else- driving while drunk, getting drunk in public, a truck driver going too long without sleep, etc. The anti-gun crowd thinks that banning guns falls into the second category, foolishly failing to realize that it won’t work and will harm most people.

          But that is not to say that there are no legitimate laws that ban activity because of the risk they might hurt someone else. Strict regulation of ammonium nitrate has verifiably worked, as has strict regulation of nuclear materials (barring one crazy incident with a boy scout who tried to build a nuclear reactor- and even he couldn’t get his hands on the highly enriched uranium you need for fission).

        • Your bomb argument is a red herring and the only thing that makes “us” defenseless is people like yourself…

          With friends like you, who needs enemies.

        • @RockOnHellChild

          Seriously? Did you read my posts? I’m in favor of ANTI-TANK MISSILES and ANTI-AIR ARTILLERY being made available for sale to any citizen that wants them. What part of that is pro-gun control? What part of that makes me worse than the anti-gun wackos like Feinstein and Co? My standard has always been this: if the weapon has a legitimate use by a force fighting for freedom against a military force (domestic or foreign), it should be allowed for sale to the public.

          Bombs are a Red Herring? Really?
          This debate turns on what kind of regulation counts as “infringing” the RKBA. I would argue that taking a class before getting a concealed carry license is not that big of a burden and doesn’t infringe- provided the class is of short length and affordable. Robert Farrago’s response was that ANY infringement is unconstitutional and wrong. I replied by taking him to the extreme example, and proving (in my opinion) that some government regulation is a must. The only question is how to minimize it as much as possible. My example of a bomb was made in response to the assertion that ANY regulation is unacceptable.

        • @VKA

          “Bombs are a Red Herring? Really?”

          This is actually a red herring also. He didn’t say bombs were a red herring. He said your bomb argument was a red herring. Are you incapable of honest debate?

          You can find out more here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#Logical_fallacy

          “Strict regulation of ammonium nitrate has verifiably worked, as has strict regulation of nuclear materials.”

          Ammonium nitrate as I have said before can be made. There are instructables online. I can purchase buckets of ammonium nitrate from the sporting goods stores in the form of tannerite. Ammonium nitrate can be refined and chemically processed from large abundant supplies of fertilizer. Your example has no merit.

          “My example of a bomb was made in response to the assertion that ANY regulation is unacceptable.”

          And your example has no merit and we have refuted your argument and provided a direct counter example … and instead of addressing it you wiggled around and used diversionary tactics and statements that don’t actually address the point made.

        • I am well aware of what a Red Herring is. My argument is in no way a red herring and I’ve addressed all of your points.

          1) My argument is germane because we are arguing over this principle: is any level of regulation of weapons and arms themselves acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment/RKBA? I say yes, you and many others say no. My argument is this: if regulation of nuclear, chemical, and conventional WMDs is acceptable, then some regulation of weapons/ordinance is okay in principle. From that, a 30 minute or less video that must by law be shown to all concealed carry applicants is also acceptable and compatible with/does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and broader RKBA.

          2) “Ammonium nitrate as I have said before can be made. There are instructables online. I can purchase buckets of ammonium nitrate from the sporting goods stores in the form of tannerite. Ammonium nitrate can be refined and chemically processed from large abundant supplies of fertilizer. Your example has no merit.”
          If making a bomb was so easy, why hasn’t it been done more often? You claim making an ammonium nitrate bomb is easy via commercially available materials. Well, Al Queda’s not stupid, and neither are a lot of wack-jobs in this country. Why haven’t they succeeded? Yes, the Boston Bombers used a different technique- but that was the first successful attack on the US since 9/11- 10 YEARS and we’ve had 1 attack, despite a lot of people that want to kill us. I say that sales of tannerite are quietly tracked- and if you buy a ton of it (or even small amounts from different stores), your name just ended up on a government watchlist- and you’ll be getting a visit from someone pretty soon. How about this: go ahead and buy a (literal) ton of tannerite- and let me know in a week if you’re not in Guantamino.

        • @VKA

          Response to item 1):
          “From that, a 30 minute or less video that must by law be shown to all concealed carry applicants is also acceptable and compatible with/does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and broader RKBA.”

          If they are required to watch a 30 min video which they cannot waive and cannot obtain their firearm until they watch the video then it is infringing upon the second amendment. The second amendment does not state:

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms after watching a 30 minute training video, shall not be infringed.”

          It is each persons individual responsibility to read the manual supplied with their firearm. It is not the government’s responsibility to “take care of them.” The gun dealer from which they bought the firearm can demonstrate its safe operation.

          Response to item 2):
          “You claim making an ammonium nitrate bomb is easy via commercially available materials. Well, Al Queda’s not stupid, and neither are a lot of wack-jobs in this country. Why haven’t they succeeded?

          I don’t know – they haven’t tried it? They felt airplanes were a better plan? They succeeded in that.

          “Yes, the Boston Bombers used a different technique- but that was the first successful attack on the US since 9/11- 10 YEARS and we’ve had 1 attack, despite a lot of people that want to kill us.”

          Those kids? … and the bomb made with fireworks and pressure cookers? My kid could make one of those. Anyone in Boston could have. The fact that there was no one prior or subsequent that performed that attack doesn’t mean that anyone could not have/do so. You say it was the “first successful attack since 9/11” but anyone could make one at any time today and it would not be possible to track. Just because there are no “successful” attacks doesn’t mean that regulation or government oversight has prevented them… it could mean that no attack was even made.

          “I say that sales of tannerite are quietly tracked- and if you buy a ton of it (or even small amounts from different stores), your name just ended up on a government watchlist- and you’ll be getting a visit from someone pretty soon.”

          Unless you buy it with US currency (cash). Or make it. It is just ammonium nitrate with powdered aluminum.

          The fact of the matter is simple. Risks exist in life. Risk of dying early (because we all die eventually). Risks of loss, risks of life, risks of limb, risks of loosing those we care about. In my opinion, the solution to this problem is not laws that people intent on break who can and will break anyways, but to address the matter specifically, exactly and at it’s root cause. That matter is the family unit. Quality Character, morals, ethics, and the quality of knowing the difference between right and wrong and passing that down to our children. If people are suicide bombing themselves this often, then it says something about the quality of life for these people and possibly the justice they feel was not obtained.

          Also, penalties for crimes should be harsh so they are not repeated, and ex-cons should be welcomed back after release so they are not pushed back into crime. See second paragraph here:
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/guns-ammo-supports-gun-control/#comment-1352095

      • And this statement is why Robert has a blog and I don’t. I could not have formulated a better response.

      • City of Chicago anti-gun mayors Daley and Emmanuel forced me to get firearms training and it was the best thing that could have happened to me.

        The instructors opened my eyes to gun control / gun rights issues, which led me to seek out more education, brought me here to this site, changed my politics from independent to single-issue voter, and more.

        So long as training is being delivered by gun people, the training can really reinforce pro-gun messages. That can help grow the gun rights community.

        I think it’s hilarious that thanks to Democrat-driven anti-gun training requirements, I will not likely ever again vote for a Democrat.

      • Devil’s Advocate to Farago –

        Would you rather just be fighting the antis on licensing and training requirements alone, or fighting against an AWB and against Gun Free Zones at the same time? More energy you expend on multiple issues leads to less effectiveness overall.

        Most of the fears of the Gun Free Zone supporters are that “untrained permit holders” will miss their targets – easily rectified with training. I’m sure you have the anti-AWB script down though.

      • I actually see pro-RKBA articles on both from time to time. And before you ask, it’s intelligence gathering. And staying informed.

    • Do you really think that if someone wants to build a nuclear weapon will stop just because it is against the law? Does the line of thinking go like this “Gee, I really want to build and set off this nuke. I’ve got the know how and the materials. It’s probably going to kill tens of thousands directly, poison the air, ground and water killing more over a number of years. I can live with that. But, if I get caught I’ll be doing hard time at a minimum, not because of the killing or damage, but because there is a law against owning a nuke. Dang, I really wanted to do that, but I just can’t risk going to jail or being executed over it. I guess I’ll find something else to do.”?

      • Based on a little research that I have done, nuclear bombs are not banned, they are just highly regulated. If you have the resources, it is theoretically possible for you to make a civilian nuke. The requirements that you have to legally meet make it a practical impossibility.

      • Posted this above, forgot that tags don’t work here:

        This is the kind of talk that makes us RKBA people look like idiots. Nuclear weapons being banned doesn’t stop people from wanting to build them. But it does allow the government to track uranium, monitor precision machining equipment, and otherwise take action against such activity. Otherwise, we’re in the position of allowing a (suspected but unconvicted) terrorist to build a nuclear bomb in the suburbs of Houston, being unable to do anything about it until after he (or she) sets it off. If an activity is banned, the police can monitor for and take action against it before a hundred thousand people die.

        • “If an activity is banned, the police can monitor for and take action against it before a hundred thousand people die.”

          You’re kidding right? I’m not even going to address this.

          The government has nothing to worry about in regards to nuclear bombs. The experience and theory behind it is so complex that unless you were a nuclear engineer and was employed in the process of making nuclear bombs, you would likely die trying to build one. The equipment and facility to build one alone no individual would be able to economically afford. You would have better luck breaking into a secure bomb storage facility than trying to build one. The other statements you made regarding government monitoring of “precision machining equipment” seem pretty bogus. Do you have any evidence of such to support such an unlikely activity?

        • I happen to have studied the area of nuclear and WMD proliferation somewhat extensively. Building a nuclear bomb is merely a series of technical challenges that must be overcome. Believe me- if starving, crazed wack-jobs in North Korea could do it, I think that’s evidence that a sufficiently motivated group in the US could as well. As for precision machining- that is a critical component of any nuclear weapons program and surprisingly difficult to do- you need it to make the centrifuges to enrich Uranium, and the US has banned the export of such equipment to various (non-trusted) countries for many years via ITAR, among other things. Such companies get visits from various agencies of the government periodically reminding them of what they can and can not do.

          Look- this is a sideshow debate. If you won’t accept nuclear, how about chemical? If we do not ban things like the production or possession chemical weapons, then here’s what could happen: Al Queda sends over an a well-funded, un-convicted, no-history terrorist to the US on a student visa. That student then proceeds to buy a bunch of large beakers and flasks, and makes up several batches of mustard gas. Even if the Dow Chemical company spots that this guy is ordering 2 cloroethanol, potassium sulfide, and hydrocloric acid (the modified Meyer-Clarke method used by the Germans in WW1), they can’t do anything. And neither can the police or anyone they report it to- until the guy drives up to an elementary school playground and lobs it over the wall (which is already illegal). After all, how do you prove what this guy is planning on doing, until he does it? Hence my conclusion that we need some level of regulation. How does this apply to gun control? The principle: if regulation of weapons is acceptable to prevent the above scenario, then to extend it some regulation of the RKBA is acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment and the principle of RKBA for a free society.

        • @VKA,

          “Building a nuclear bomb is merely a series of technical challenges that must be overcome. Believe me- if starving, crazed wack-jobs in North Korea could do it, I think that’s evidence that a sufficiently motivated group in the US could as well.”

          Fine Agreed. I agree that if someone motivated enough wants to build or obtain something (be it ammonium nitrate, firearms, centrifuges, yellow cake uranium mineral, etc, then they will do it regardless of regulation). In total agreement.

          “After all, how do you prove what this guy is planning on doing, until he does it?”

          Exactly. I’m sure this was well debated in 1791. The conclusion they came up with was… “we are innocent until proven guilty.” Please read first paragraph of this comment:
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/guns-ammo-supports-gun-control/#comment-1352011

          Now I see that your point is… to prevent crimes from happening… before they happen. Basically, this is not possible as long as we go with the statement “innocent until proven guilty” – they are mutually exclusive. Now that those have been laid out and established the real question becomes… which is better? Living in a society where individuals perform terrible suicide attacks and live with the risk of being blown up by a pharmaceutical induced suicide bomber/shooter/etc vs everyone living the animal farm/1984 meme that every purchase and every action is recorded and analysed by the US government (and forcefully taxed as much as possible due to this level of power). My personal opinion is… I prefer freedom in lieu of being a well fed, protected, caged animal, shepherded by a master that chooses my fate, and the founding fathers preferred this too. Most people of this nation were of this opinion when this country was founded.

          Also, in regards to the above, if you know someone who is building a bomb or a weapon with intent to kill people… there is a charge of “attempted murder” that exists. One should have proof of intent rather than just point at a weapon or bomb or a perceived weapon or bomb.

          “Hence my conclusion that we need some level of regulation. How does this apply to gun control? The principle: if regulation of weapons is acceptable to prevent the above scenario, then to extend it some regulation of the RKBA is acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment and the principle of RKBA for a free society.”

          Yea… except they are not compatible. They are not even literally compatible. The second amendment clearly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is a very clear, precise statement that lists no objections, no exceptions, and no limits. The limits they you are looking for are “common sense.” The 1st amendment doesn’t mean one can shout fire in a theater when there is no fire for the sake inciting a panic. The 1st amendment doesn’t mean you can publicly slander and make unsubstantiated defamatory statements towards people. The 2nd amendment doesn’t mean you can point a gun in someones face and state “I have the right to keep and bear arms.” As you can see… there are already common sense limits. The freedom exists within the statement… however if you violate the rights of others be prepared to face the consequences. I guess the founding father’s didn’t include this because it was obvious.

    • Bombs aren’t arms, they’re ordinance, not understanding the difference is the only reason anyone would consider the bomb parallel valid.

    • The 3\5 clause was an anti slavery article, the slave states wanted slaves to count as full citizens. Why? Because the greater the population, the greater the number of house reps and the greater then number of electoral college votes for each state, making it easier to protect pro slavery laws.

      • Posted above, forgot that tags don’t work: That is the literal text of the 3/5 clause. The implication of that clause was that slavery was legal in the United States when founded. It wasn’t until the 13th Amendment that it was specifically outlawed. The idea being that the constitution is not perfect and can be amended. Of course, it can also be amended for ill (you can thank the 16th Amendment for the IRS).

    • “I hate to sound like an IBB guy, but there do have to be some limits: a nuclear weapon is an arm, and I sure as hell want there to be a law against anyone building or owning one. Same with a truck bomb big enough to bring down the building it’s parked in front of.”

      If a person has the intellectual capability and available knowledge to obtain/purify the materials and construct a nuclear weapon. They will… and they will do it without your or anyone else’s permission. Bombs are already regulated – despite this, Timothy McVeigh blew up a large building and killed 168 people. Regulations regarding bombs did not stop his efforts. It is already illegal to kill people. Quests to thwart access to materials that could be used to make a bomb is futile. Many components of bombs are readily available as they are used in consumer products. To effectively regulate this access would make a vast number of common products regulated with endless red tape, registration, and regulation. By the time it is effectively implemented – most people would prefer living in a world where the risk exists rather than living the life of such extreme regulation and lack of privacy. I think freedom is a better end don’t you? Of course… a certain amount of courage is required to accept that viewpoint.

      • You do realize that because such bombs are banned, the government has (successfully) tracked ammonium nitrate purchases, installed chemical sensors around critical buildings, and prevented any further mass attacks for the past 20 years since McVeigh?

        • Sure…. Like I posted above. Ammonium nitrate can be made and is readily available in the form of fertilizer – and tannerite. If the gov had such abilities of prevention… they could have stopped an airplane from crashing into the pentagon. Their attempts are futile. You cannot guard every building from attack at any moment. That is like making the claim that police are everywhere simultaneously keeping us all safe. Sure.

          Also bombs are not banned. They are regulated. If you have the necessary permits and pay the government money (ding, ding, that’s what it is about) then you can have them. This is how demolition/blasting/landscaping companies exist.

        • Adding to what Anonymous wrote:

          With freedom comes some risk. Liberty, responsibility, and risk cannot be separated. The government can attempt to continually reduce risk but liberty always suffers. At some point, there are diminishing returns. IMHO, we’ve long since passed the point of diminishing returns. I don’t want the government attempting to reduce my individual risk at such an expense to my individual liberty. The contractual constraint on government reads “shall not be infringed” and the government is in gross breech of that contract. The hour is late for government to back off. The risk is ours to individually take. The solution is not for the federal government to break the contract with the States. The solution is for states and individuals that want such nanny-ism to leave the United States of America for they want something which is forbidden by our Constitution; the contract through which the People agreed to be governed. Did I mention, “shall not be infringed”?

          (Of course, there alternatively could be a Constitutional amendment… then I’d have to take my leave of the country. )

    • May I please see proof of your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment training? Otherwise, shut up and put you chains back on. Right?

    • You have to be licensed by the US nuclear regulatory commission to even HANDLE the components of a nuclear bomb (ie the radioactive material) – and if you need a government license in order to do that, no ordinary joe schmoe is going to be able to get their stinkin’ hands on plutonium – because the process to even GET there (looks like becoming a nuclear engineer or whatnot, unless you’re some child prodigy) more or less includes a background check at multiple levels that should be snaring any potential psychotic/terrorist.

      There should be an equivalent by the CDC in licensing individuals to handle biological materials, and the same for handling chemical materials.

      Your laws against possession are redundant.

    • A point many people inside as well as outside the gun community miss is that 2A doesn’t grant anyone anything. What it does is recognize that a right to keep and bear arms is one of those “endowed by our creator” rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and therefore said right predates the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the government established by those documents. It then goes on to forbid “infringement” of that pre existing right by the government. For a deeper analysis just look up US v Cruikshank.

      In short, if Sens. Feinstein and Schumer were to see their fondest dream come true, and 2A were repealed, our right to keep and bear arms would still exist.

      • The individual right to keep and bear arms is part of the natural right to self defense. Since the 2A is an express prohibition on the actions of government, deletion of the 2A wouldn’t negate the natural right of an individual to self defense (RKBA). Since control of the individual RKBA isn’t enumerated as a power delegated to the federal government, they haven’t the legitimate power at all. It’s really bad how our government infringes on individual rights in this area because they are violating their bounds on two fronts; it’s not enumerated AND the 2A prohibits them from doing it. That’s an aspect I’ve been neglectful in pointing out in my comments. Thanks for the reminder.

    • Please don’t bring out that old canard about blacks being considered 3/5 of a person. It was never so.

      The Southern slavemasters wanted their slaves to be counted as full people only for the purposes of determining the population of the House districts in the South, and therefore their representation in the House… but since those slaves could not vote, the effect of that would have been to greatly exaggerate the power of those who could vote (the whites) in the slave states, which would allow them to perpetuate the institution of slavery. It was the slavemasters who supported counting the slaves as full people for purposes of representation. Essentially, each of those slaves would be casting a vote to keep slavery intact, just by being alive, if that had come to pass.

      It was the abolitionists who wanted the slaves to not count for the purposes of representation at all. Certainly, that does not mean that the Southern slavemasters considered their slaves 100% people, and the abolitionist northerners considered them 0% people. Quite the opposite of reality, of course.

      The Southerners were trying to have their cake and eat it too– they wanted slaves to be 100% people when it came to assigning representatives, but 0% people when it came to voting, having rights as a citizen, having rights as a human being… being something other than chattel. The northern states wanted the representation to match the facts– that is, that the slaves were not part of the population of the South as long as they were owned by someone other than themselves.

      From this clash was born the 3/5 compromise, which was still a big win for the slavemasters. The slaves were in no way considered 3/5 of a person, though– in every conceivable way, the slaves were considered to be livestock, not people at all. So then each slave only cast 3/5 of a vote to retain slavery by virtue of being alive, not a full vote. The real story was that they were 0/5 of a person– that’s kind of inherent within the word “slave”… and the preferable situation for them would have been if the representation matched that fact.

      It’s a real shame that the showdown over states’ rights had to be over something so indefensible as slavery. That leads people to thinking that Lincoln’s imperialistic presidency and the expansion of the fed’s power was a justified thing, since in this case it led to a just end (the end of slavery). To be on the side of states’ rights seemed to put you on the side of the slavers… it’s a little hard to defend that way. A lot of people still get tripped up in that today.

    • Nowhere did the Constitution say “blacks are 3/5ths of a person.” It refers to slaves, does not mention color or race of those slaves, and counts Indians as zero. It did not prevent a one-for-one count of free people who were black, some of whom owned slaves.

      Moreover, this was a compromise of an attempt to curb slavery — it reduced only the weight the southern, major slaveholding states would have in the House of Representatives. They wanted slaves counted one-for-one. The North didn’t want them counted at all. Franklin was the inspiration behind this original anti-slavery compromise.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  12. What exactly is the option for preventing the dangerous from easy access to guns? I just always hear there can’t be any infringement, but then that means guns for everyone including murderers and such.

    I haven’t heard a real answer on this. Do you just want everyone to have guns, including those that you know beyond a doubt will kill once they get one? I don’t understand that logic.

    • You’re not a murderer until you actually commit the murder. Like it or not, living in a free country entails some risk.

      • You missed the part where people want NO restrictions, on people who HAVE murdered as well. If someone goes “I’m going to shoot that person” you don’t hand them a gun because they haven’t yet done it.

        We don’t live in a free country, so that’s a totally moot point too.

        • Who says they want no restrictions on people that have done murder? What I see is people saying that if you’ve committed a crime, served your sentence your rights should be restored. If you’ve been convicted of murder you should be on death row or in for life. No guns for you.

        • “You missed the part where people want NO restrictions, on people who HAVE murdered as well. If someone goes “I’m going to shoot that person” you don’t hand them a gun because they haven’t yet done it.”

          The second amendment is not special. It is no more important than the others. We also want no restrictions on the others. People are liable for their actions. If they guilty – they should be punished. They should be punished to the point where they recognize they were wrong and understand that prison is terrible and they fear breaking the law. If people do not fear the consequences of breaking the law and do not respect the law that is the problem. Trying to make additional laws on top of laws governing actions that focus on possession of materials in attempts to thwart and/or reduce criminal action is ridiculous. They already have no fear of the force of law and have no respect for the law… what is further laws going to provide? …Nothing.

          If someone went to prison and were released after a felony crime, I believe the bill of rights still applies to them. After all, if people don’t feel safe, or feel that the criminal did not learn his lesson, or does not respect the law, then maybe he/she didn’t stay in prison long enough – maybe the punishment was not severe enough. Criminals in my opinion that have served their time and paid their price should be welcomed back into society with full rights (rights are rights not privileges). The sentence should be severe enough that there is no doubt about this.

          “We don’t live in a free country, so that’s a totally moot point too.”

          Maybe we don’t… it is certainly not a moot point. Those who don’t fight for their rights and don’t voice their opposition to their elimination wont have any. It may be moot to you – but it is not moot to us. Generations of defeatist, carefree views, and misplaced responsibility are likely the reason we are not as free as we once were. Society is not responsible. Each and every one of us on a individual personal level are responsible for each and every action and consequence we individually invoked. Responsibility cannot be placed on “society” – it is placed on the individuals within.

      • Agreed! Do we want to be safe or do we want to be free? And is the only means of being safe brought about by the legalities of regulation? Safety is our individual responsibility. Not the responsibility of government. No one can keep you safe. Anything can happen at any time – this is fact of life. Trying to control it does not change anything and ultimately obtains an end result worse than the initial problem itself (Not free… and not safe).

    • Dear “Nate”

      I am going to assume that you are honestly questioning, and have not read the many places this has already been addressed. I shall summarize thusly:

      1) Murderers don’t obey the law. They are planning to break the most fundamental law of all. They almost certainly have access to guns, and no regulation will make that not so.

      2) Even if by some magic you could prevent everyone from having access to guns, murderers would still have gasoline and matches, baseball bats, butcher knives, axes, chainsaws, etc.

      3) Possession of a gun gives an intended victim a chance against a murderer armed with a gun, bat, knife, axe, or chainsaw.

      Sincerely Yours;
      Sivartius

      • Typed a big response and the site ate it.

        You don’t simply allow easy access to guns to murderers simply because they COULD get it illegally.

        If simply training new gun owners stops 25% of negligent discharges, it would be worth it because it would prevent lawmakers from coming after all of us. The “no compromise” types say no to this, and say said training should be voluntary. Well guess what? The people most likely to negligently discharge, WON’T GET TRAINING!

        Not everyone is responsible and smart, plenty of fools buy guns and walk around their house drunk, with it loaded and put their finger on the trigger. Look at the kids who’ve shot themselves or others because of a moron for crying out loud. Saying we can’t do anything to prevent these is defeatist nonsense and it hurts us more than it helps us.

        This will end up bringing society’s wrath down on all gun owners.

        • You seemed to have missed the point of my statement that:

          1) Restrictions aimed at preventing murderers from having guns do not prevent murderers from having guns.

          2) Restrictions aimed at preventing murderers from having guns DO prevent law abiding citizens from having guns, and thus being able to defend themselves against murderers.

          Thus, law ostensibly aimed at preventing murders actually enable them.

        • So laws say requiring training makes you more open to murder? Give me a break. I guarantee NICS has stopped at least one former murderer from easily grabbing a gun, but taking that stance means it’s something that can’t be proven.

          This site keeps eating long responses, so I’m done.

        • Nate, your post has multiple levels of straw-man arguments to it. #1 murderers shouldn’t be on the street. #2 you ignore the fact than there are a plethora of LEO shootings each year that shows lack of proficiency and judgement with Empire State building and Times Square shootings as an example. #3 you forget that LEO are humans and sometimes commit criminal acts.

    • What exactly is the option for preventing the dangerous from easy access to guns? I just always hear there can’t be any infringement, but then that means guns for everyone including murderers and such. I haven’t heard a real answer on this. Do you just want everyone to have guns, including those that you know beyond a doubt will kill once they get one? I don’t understand that logic.

      I’ll explain some logic to you.
      First, here in the US, we are innocent until proven guilty. That is logical right? Because if we were guilty until proven innocent – then almost everyone would be guilty as they couldn’t “prove” their innocence and everyone could and would be locked up at the whim of elected and appointed officials. (Think salem witch trials). To sum that up – you shouldn’t prevent people “perceived” as dangerous to accessing a gun or any other object that could be used to kill someone. If people were to prevent people from accessing anything that could be used to kill someone we would all be locked up separately in straitjackets in illuminated white rubber rooms spoon fed by automated feeding machines. It is a quest that cannot be done.

      Second, how do you know beyond a doubt they will kill once they get one? And if they cannot – how do you know that they just won’t steal a gun from a pawn shop, the back of an law enforcement officer’s car, or from their neighbor? Or they can use poison, sharp objects, really anything. If they are set to end a life there are millions of ways to do so. Is it logical to remove the freedom of access of the entirety of the US (310 million or so people) for one of these millions of methods at the whim of public opinion and marketed agenda of corrupt public officials pressing and pushing their opinions on everyone else? Is that logical? Do we fear the gun or do we fear the criminal? Because one method out of a million is nothing and the end result is worse than the initial problem itself.

      Third and last – murders will murder by any means they desire. They will circumvent laws, they can manufacture their own weapons, steal them, etc. Laws regarding possession of a weapon mean nothing to a man intent on ending another’s life. The only recourse for the victim is that of preparedness. Having a concealed weapon is both a deterrent to murders/predators and an end to their actions, if need be. As strange as it sounds putting a weapon in everyone’s hands is a better deterrent than taking the weapons out of everyone’s hands. This is because exactly as I have stated above. A murderer/criminal/whatever has a million methods to end a life and can and will break laws of possession of weapons to prey upon the unarmed, unprepared, victim.

      • Also, if YOU think the person will simply take the gun you sell them and commit a crime with it (because they just said they would), then YOU have the right to not sell it to them.

        I don’t know a single gun dealer who would voluntarily sell a firearm to someone who they knew would be using it to rob, murder or rape.

      • I’m sorry, but no, the faulty logic that states we can’t restrict firearms from dangerous killers and violent people because they can use other weapons just doesn’t fly. You don’t allow a numerous DUI offender to drive just because they could steal a car, that’s asinine.

        If you don’t do something to stop people from abusing firearms, society will come down on ALL OF US like a ton of bricks and we’ll end up with much worse laws and possible confiscation.

        This whole “no compromise” stance will end up destroying gun ownership.

        • You’re assuming that the motives behind, and eventual outcome of disarming the People (therefore, the militia) are about public safety. Check the 2A again, “being necessary to the security of a free State”. It’s not an individual public safety issue and it certainly isn’t a popularity contest. If you realize that infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms is really leading to the destruction of a free State (“being NECESSARY to”), then you will realize that those calling for gun control, intentional or not, are calling for the destruction of our free nation. Once you understand this basic reality, you will understand why ‘no compromise’ makes sense. Any attempt to appease (infringe) on matters of the individual right to keep and bear arms is ONLY playing toward the destruction of your nation. “Shall not infringe” means precisely what it says because it is “necessary to the security of a free State”. It’s in plain language for all to see. No compromise if you wish to live free!

        • “I’m sorry, but no, the faulty logic that states we can’t restrict firearms from dangerous killers and violent people because they can use other weapons just doesn’t fly.”

          Your kidding right? Are you actually asserting that if guns are not easily accessible then violent people will just… click cancel on that homicide they were planning? Yea? But firearms are banned in England:
          http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
          How are these homicides occurring??? Can you please elaborate on your unsubstantiated assertion? If you feel my statements are flawed – please explain precisely why they are so and why yours are correct.

          “You don’t allow a numerous DUI offender to drive just because they could steal a car, that’s asinine.”

          Yet numerous DUI offenders are still driving. If they want to drive a car they will, regardless of its legality. Also this is not a good comparison. A DUI offender can own and drive as many cars he wants “legally” as long as they are on his private property and not on the public roads. Deciding to operate a motor vehicle is as easy as making the decision to do so. Likewise a felon that decides to carry a concealed firearm or any other weapon such as a knife, bat, syringe, etc is as easy as making the decision to do so. If he is intent on ending a life that carries with it life imprisonment or death penalty, do you think he really cares about laws regarding possession of weapons?

          “If you don’t do something to stop people from abusing firearms, society will come down on ALL OF US like a ton of bricks and we’ll end up with much worse laws and possible confiscation.

          This whole “no compromise” stance will end up destroying gun ownership.”

          VKA, Regardless of how many die by bullets, I am of the opinion that the officials in power will target gun rights for extermination. Believe it or not, we are part of society. US… gun people. We are completely capable ourselves of lobbying and resisting anti-gun people. As an example, more people carry now more than ever. The US is on a steady decline in crime, and if we don’t like officials who don’t respect civil rights we vote them out or recall them: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/politics/guns-debate/

        • Jails and the gallows restrict dangerous killers. I rely on guns and other arms to deal with those that are at large. I am all about criminal control.

    • Nah, the blood is just us trimming the fat. I think our resolve is strong as ever, and we’ve just lost our patience for those who can’t hang.

  13. Sniff, sniff. I smell FUDD.

    Metcalf is the kind of “gun owner” that the NRA kicked out in 1977.

    FWIW, most of G&A’s editorial staff is strongly pro-2A, with no ifs, ands or buts.

    • I’m not sure I can agree with you on this one. I got my copy in the mail yesterday. Saw the title of the article on the cover. Thought “Hmm…this might be interesting…”. Read it and thought “WTF?”. Figured it had to be some kind of counterpoint to get people fired up.

      Then I looked at the front of the magazine, letters section. A reader wrote a letter complaining that G&A had done nothing to warn people about many gun control bills. Editor’s response? Some BS about timeliness (debate of the bills went on for months, they def could have mentioned it in the magazine) and the kicker- “also, please refer to Dick Metcalf’s ‘The Backstop’ article in this issue”. To me that says they agree with the crap he’s saying.

    • I wonder if he hangs out with Space Cadet Mark Kelley. I would love to see this punk Metcalfe go head to head with the late Col. Jeff Cooper. However, I would settle with R. Lee Ermey getting hold of him.

    • Going by what tfunk said above about the letters section, Metcalf might be just the kind of guy they want in G&A. All my magazine subscriptions are digital, was easy enough to cancel my guns and ammo one.

  14. you know its getting pretty bad when you just wish the gun writer would just stick to product reviews. That said, paper media is quickly becoming a thing of the past anyway.

    Tom

  15. I haven’t bought a copy of G&A in years, mostly because every single article/review, like most print gun rags, is a bought and paid for advertisement for the products manufacturer. They don’t provide any good information to begin with, and it’s downright shocking that whoever runs G&A would allow this dreck to be published. Bottom line to his argument on licenses to carry is that 3 states have constitutional carry (Alaska, Vermont & Arizona) and last I checked, people aren’t shooting each other over parking spaces in those states.

  16. I think Dirk Diggler’s going to be pissed, Metcalf is getting some action with Shannon instead of him.

  17. One note on training. Just like the requirements of schools to teach civics and government, it should be the responsibility of the public school system to train students on the correct and safe operation of firearms. Could you imagine the outrage if kids in high school did not have classes on voting or free speech. And for all the people who use the driver license analogy, most high schools teach drivers ed.

  18. perhaps someone should send Dick(head) a note with a link to the Heller decision where “well regulated” was explained. . . . . ?

  19. I for one would like to see more debate on the meaning of “the people” in the text of the 2A. At the time it was written it didn’t simply mean human beings, after all, slaves weren’t allowed to buy or own guns (and non-resident aliens and aren’t allowed to now). At the time “the people” generally was interpreted as “the virtuous citizenry” or some similar concept.

    To the extent regulation is justified (and SCOTUS says some is) it seems like the definition of “the people” is where the justification comes from. If you are part of “the people” you rights cannot be infringed, if you aren’t they can. If you have done something to remove yourself from the virtuous citizenry (sufficiently serious crime) or are incapable of exercising virtue due to age or mental illness a reasonable argument could be made that you are not a member of “the people”.

    If this theory is accepted the next question is of course where are the lines. In the past the lines were all too often based on race, but thankfully we are past that. Instead the question is what things are sufficient to remove you from “the people”?

    Should five year-olds be able to buy guns? They are people but are they “the people”? What about a person so delusional they think they are on mars and buying a ray gun? What about a convicted violent criminal just released? I suspect most people (and the founders) would agree they shouldn’t until the get older, get mental health treatment so they are operating in reality, or demonstrate a pattern of reform and good behavior (if the rights are ever to be restored). Is that a betrayal of the right, or a recognition that while the right sweeps broadly it doesn’t apply to everyone?

    Fwiw, that would be consistent with a host of other rights that are limited by age or behavior/mental capacity, such as voting, jury service, or freedom of movement that can be denied based on behavior/mental capacity.

    • I don’t have any problem with the “waiting until you reach age of majority” as a restriction. I do have a problem with this dual-age system we have now.

      It should be eighteen or it should be twenty one–for voting, drinking, gambling, and gun ownership. The fact that you’re legally responsible for yourself at eighteen but still limited in your freedoms is absurd. If we aren’t responsible enough to drink liquor or wager our own hard-earned money, we sure as **** aren’t responsible enough to make policy decisions for the entire populations through voting.

      I’m not sure whether that age should be 18 or 21. I know I personally wasn’t making good decisions at 18.

    • “The people” refers to an individual right the same as it does when used in other parts of the Constitution.

      • I’m not arguing it isn’t an individual right. But “the people” doesn’t mean “all human beings” anywhere in the constituion, so what does it mean? That is the big one for 2A purposes. Does it mean the insane? The criminal? Children? They are all individuals, does the 2A apply to them? It well may, though it would not be inconsistent with other individual rights to say that no they don’t until such time as the defect removing them from status as one of “the people” is cured.

        • Children and the mentally challenged are under the care of a parent or guardian. If they are emancipated, they should have the rights of an adult. Their parents should be held responsible for what they do until they reach majority or are emancipated.

          That was the common law until roughly the 1950s.

          I remember when you could buy anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannon and ammunition mail order, without a permit. Crime rates were as low or lower than they are now. Those sort of guns were simply not used in crime, because they are not well suited for it.

          It is one of the most chilling part of the present “debate” that we have elected officials, including the current president, demanding that the state ban weapons precisely because they might be useful in warfare “weapons of war” in spite of the fact that they are very seldom used in crime. The most clear reason for the second amendment is the have “weapons of war” available to citizens without government control.

        • Not every child has a familial parent or guardian, and even if they do, reading “people” to include them would be inconsistent with the guardian controlling them, after all, a guarding controlling your actions is infringing.

          As for the sufficiently mentally ill, the state puts them under control of a guardian or commits them, which precludes all types of rights (free movement, privacy, voting, etc.)

  20. Tricky Dick Metcalf and Money Bags Coonan are birds of a feather. They are both moneyed old timers who don’t like to hear people talk about their “rights.” This is the “it’s just a goddamn piece of paper” crowd.

    Forget their glossy bullshit, they will sell you up the river if they think you’re too uppity.

  21. Metcalfs beliefs have just caused him the loss of a life long customer to his publications.
    As soon as Im off this page its on to whatever page I need be on to cancel any further delivery of his publications.
    I cant in good faith support anything he now has his name on.

  22. Well, I surely will never buy another copy of Guns and Ammo again. I’m done. and I’ve been purchasing this magazine for over 25 years. I hope the magazine tanks now because of this too.

    Maybe he hasn’t been keeping up… but what old ‘let’s have a conversation’ Dick doesn’t realize (in his senility) is that any ‘compromise’ made with the gun grabbers is only another step towards their well-known dream of complete disarmament, and they will only then come back later (going back on their word) with a revised line of propaganda and take it yet a step further… One step at a time… until “Mr and Mrs America turn ’em all in”.

    I once too had the fantastical notion that ‘hey, is there any “common sense” changes we can make that would reduce illegal gun violence?

    Then I woke up.

    Then I saw the bill Frankenstein proposed that would force law abiding gun owners to march into police stations and be fingerprinted like common criminals and pay a hefty tax (oh, sorry… “fee”) for private property they already paid tax on. The same bill that would basically take us back to the 1900’s with lever action rifles (as long as that feed tube isn’t tooo long now) and revolvers. The same bill that would not allow me to sell my assets in the event I ever needed to, or even pass them on to my heirs!!

    Then I saw all of sheer stupidity of the people who want MORE laws just to ‘try to do something” (when everyone knows they would do nothing) tell me about ‘things that go up’ and ‘barrel shrouds’ and ‘assault weapons’ that ‘spray bullets’ and that I should just illegally discharge a shotgun in the air instead and shoot through doors and all of the other stupid crap that shows these people don’t know the first damn thing about firearms or the existing laws, but they’re just so passionate and so damn quick to tell us all about them and what we ‘have’ to do, demonstrating they don’t know the first damn thing about they are talking about as soon as they open their naive mouths.

    Then I saw a ‘mandatory background check’ proposal that would have set the ground for a national gun registry and allow any other roadblock they want to add in there to deprive citizens of their right to defend themselves in the process, until a CCW ended up like a damn NFA item. All while building a database they would very easily use for their next step in the process… disarmament.

    Then I saw even the term ‘common sense’ itself be so twisted and abused to delude the low information crowd into any lies the anti-gun crowd wanted to feed them.

    Then I saw Bloomberg and crowd want to legislate us to the point of telling us how big of a damn soda we can drink, and all of the other lies that they fund to the tune of millions of dollars to try to delude voters into following their snobby, elitist, socialist ideology of disarmament and pacifistic conformity (all while they keep their nice fleet of armed body guards at their side). A damn Mayor of NYC paying off politicians and funding campaigns in other states to enact NY-style ‘gun control’? Trying to spread their freakin Nanny state crap to other States? Better keep that crap out of MY state.

    Then I saw…
    Then I saw…

    The list could go on and on. How about in SF, where folks who were grandfathered in (to keep their own private property) are now going to made be criminals in less than 90 days if they don’t forfeit their private property to the state. What part about that isn’t communist again?? And I’m quite sure when that bill was passed, it was a ‘common sense compromise’ that oh… “we won’t take away your guns” ….Not yet, at least (wink, wink). We’ll just come back next time one person out of 300 million does something with a gun in our whipped up emotional state of delusion, completely disregarding any logic and come up with some new propaganda term, like ‘assault shotguns’ … or maybe we’ll say that Trayvon only died because of ‘stand your ground’ law (all while Zimmerman was pinned down on his back) and if we only got rid of that law everything would be ‘so much safer’… cause after all, ‘no one should be allowed to just gun anyone down they want for any reason, right’?

    And on and on…

    Wake up, Dick. It’s time to get your oxygen.

  23. My e-mail to Dick Metcalf:

    Mr. Metcalf,

    I’m a long time G&A reader and, these days, viewer, and have always enjoyed your work, having learned much in the process. What a surprise it was, then, to read your “Backstop” article entitled “Let’s Talk Limits.” See, I’ve just published a book on the topic of gun politics called “Knowing Guns: The Ins and Outs of Firearms and Firearm Politics for the Uninitiated.” My target audience are those who are uninformed on the topic, or may even be dead set against guns, but are open to learning the facts. And one of the basic facts I open the book with is the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    Given your background, you well know that the amendment covers two mutually overlapping issues: the need for the state to have a militia in order to be secure, and the needs of the People to be armed, which is what COMPOSES a militia. Traditional understanding of how 2A was understood to work is revealed by their state constitution equivalents. My state of Michigan is possibly the most clear and concise: “Every person has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” No excess terms to cloud the meaning.

    Yet that’s exactly what’s happened when you refer to “well regulated” in the context of firearms! See, the definition has taken on new meaning over the years. Think of the many words today that had very different meanings back then. (Few people talk of “feeling gay” anymore!) In 2A, “well regulated” refers to the militia itself, not firearms. See, the militia is traditionally defined as non-professional volunteer citizen-soldiers. Our “Minutemen” were ordinary citizens — farmers, shop keepers, blacksmiths, etc. — who, like today’s volunteer fire departments, could be “called up” during an emergency, often bringing their own weapons and ammunition. This, in fact, was the vision our founders had: a militia as opposed to a standing army.

    Armies require training in order to be “in good working order,” and this just happens to be the active definition of “well regulated” in use at the time. Naturally, nobody expects farmers to understand the intricacies of military tactics, so there was always the expectation that some training (regulation) would be needed once said militia was “called up.” Also, it was NEVER expected that said militia would maintain combat readiness (regulation) at all times! Because a soldier’s training is so intense, Alexander Hamilton warned that such a requirement would be the very definition of tyranny, requiring several hours a day to achieve!

    So, bottom line: any of our rights enumerated in the Constitution do indeed carry responsibilities; your rights to free speech do not include slander, libel or plagiarism, and the same could be said of a free press. Yet “shall not be infringed” is very strong language, implying that anyone taking up their rights are themselves responsible to seek out adequate training and act within the law, and the government cannot bar them from this by ANY means. “Shall not” doesn’t have an asterisk; there is no “except for” amended to it.

    Let’s get pragmatic/practical here for a moment as well. What we’re discussing here are rules governing the LAW ABIDING. Illinois’ 16-hour training requirements will ONLY impact those of us who follow the law. No gang member, drug dealer or pimp is going to sit through 16 hours of anything. And, as you say, it’s not the length of time that’s important, but the quality of the class content. If we look around the various states, few have requirements anywhere NEAR 16 hours! Why is Illinois different? I see such anomalies as evidence of “politricks.” It’s a high burden to ask an average working person to take two whole days away from their lives, and perhaps jobs, to obtain a permit for what should be considered a basic civil right. (“…not be infringed.”) To gun ban fans and hoplophobes, it’s a means to discourage. Is that the side you want to be on? This isn’t conjecture; both the state and the City of Chicago has fought the entire movement tooth and nail. They’ve used every delay tactic they can and want to do more. Sadly, your article has now given them just one more piece of ammo they can use to argue that “even gun owners and authorities agree” that more regulation is a good thing.

    We need a united front here. Since the facts are on our side, I’m not even asking for any sort of spin, obfuscation or historical rewrite. We just need to KNOW those facts and stick to them. I respectfully suggest that a correction might be in order.

    Thank you for your time and attention…

  24. Mr. Metcalf, you sir can just go FOAD, it was gun owners like you that let the bans in Australia and New Zealand happen.

  25. What is this guy, living in a cave? As said, “well-regulated” did not at all have the meaning it does today. In addition, who determines what are “adequate” laws? And WHAT THE HELL kind of reasoning is it that a the general public has any authority to force a person to undergo training to exercise a “RIGHT?”

    That’s like saying that one has a right to engage in free speech, but first must undergo training to ensure that they are knowledgeable enough to comment on the subject.

    And does anyone really believe that driver’s licenses “train” people to drive? Most people learn to drive just by doing it. Driver’s licenses are useless in that sense. If people actually had to pass a TRUE driver’s qualification and had to be TRULY trained how to drive, we’d have far fewer drivers, and that is probably how it would be with the leftists except that then society wouldn’t be able to function.

  26. “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.”
    If the time ever comes that no elderly person or young kid or young widow with an infant or anyone uses a gun for self dense, maybe we can talk or NOT. What a jerk!

  27. I don’t buy too many dead tree gun magazines, so thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will be sure not to purchase this magazine in the future.

  28. I’m happy I didn’t renew my sub. I’ll hold onto the renewal card and send if there’s action taken by G&A.

  29. I guess G&A needed traffic to their sites and some exposure..I can’t remember the last time they were in the news with anything, and what better way to think you are relevant than by having a longtime and trusted (by some) writer troll all the supporters of the Constitution in one article. I say troll, because I can’t believe he really believes this. These quotes from the article..seriously?..Regulated..you thinks it means regulated by the idiots in Congress?n WTF Metcalf..
    Why does it seems to me that J Guthrie just rolled in his grave..? He seemed like such a much smarter writer and stronger supporter of the Constitution..and something tells me he would have disagreed with Metcalf to the point of recoiling back with a look of disgust and “WTF?”

    It seems someone wanted to divide the pro-gun community..this would be a great way to try..

    “See the sensible gun owners who believe in common sense gun laws…and see the big bad crazy racist NRA who wants to give guns to terrorist and criminals at gun shows to kill children and puppies..”..
    Gag an F’ing maggot…Thanks Metcalf, you just helped in the fight to take away the Rights of the American People away from them..and once they take the 2nd, the rest will fall right behind.

    Thanks Metcalf

  30. I hate that “yell Fire” analogy because it still doesn’t work in their favor. Yelling Fire is protected under the second amendment. But if in doing so it incite panic and people get hurt, then i’m responsible for the people that got hurt.

    Same goes for a firearm, having a firearm in a movie theater shouldn’t be illegal. But if i pull it out and shoot someone, or it accidentally goes off in my pants, then i’m responsible for the people that get hurt. So i don’t see the point of their analogy???

    Same goes for the child pornography analogy. Pornography is protected, but having sex with children is not. Therefore making child porn is illegal and it gets confiscated. Having a gun is protected, but shooting innocent people is not, therefore they get confiscated when you do illegal things with them. I don’t see the gun grabbers analogy working.

    • Actually yelling fire and many other things can get you arrested for disorderly conduct even if no one is trampled. It is not considered “speech”, just like bazookas are not considered “arms.”

    • If the Schenck case had anything to do with crowded theaters or shouting “fire,” then the holding would have made sense.

      The defendant in Schenck was distributing leaflets urging Americans to resist the draft. The Court ruled, in effect, that disagreement and dissent were crimes. The case was overruled sub silentio by Brandenberg.

      The fact remains that government — any government — will always view dissent and disagreement as treason and will always try to suppress it by any means necessary. The suppression may be violent, or it may involve the IRS.

      Likewise, government will always view an armed populace as a threat and will try to suppress it by any means necessary.

  31. I agree with all of Robert’s words, and in particular “I believe in the Second Amendment but…”

    I disagree with cutting off subscription because of one mans’ opinion. People of the Gun J.O.B is to inform and communicate the facts.

    I suggest writing responses and instead of emailing, send via fax. Start mass faxing at Close of business. I’m sure this will get your point across.

  32. I subscribe to almost all of the magazines that Intermedia outdoors puts out. I will be calling them on Monday to give them notice. Either retract the article and fire Mr. Metclaff, or I’ll won’t be renewing any of my subscriptions. Simple as that.

  33. Must be terrible to have to read a single opposing opinion instead of listening to an echo chamber. You must all be so traumatized.

    Hey, it’s your money, but one would think the idea of a constitutionist would be to write an article refuting his views instead of trying to destroy the magazine that gave him the opportunity to express it…

    • He’s welcome to give his view, it should just be in a place where I don’t have to listen to it. Like CNN, MSNBC or the NY Times.