The New York Times’ article Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns “exposes” gun journo “extremism.” It’s based on an unsurprisingly sympathetic profile of Dick Metcalf. You may remember Mr. Metcalf as the Guns & Ammo writer given the old heave-ho after writing a column suggesting that government regulation of gun rights isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Suffice it to say, Warren Zevon’s Poor Poor Pitiful Me. More specifically, this: “Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices . . .
He says he is still contemplating how a self-described “Second Amendment fundamentalist” who keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach has been ostracized from his community. “Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
Yes. Yes they do. Keeping in mind Senator Barry Goldwater’s famous quote “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Now for the juicy bit. In its effort to diss gun journalism in general, the Old Gray Lady reveals that Guns & Ammo’s reviews are bought and paid for . . .
Reporters and editors say that reviews are often written in close consultation with manufacturers. If a gun is judged to be of poor quality, magazines will quietly send it back for improvements rather than writing a negative review. The system is broadly accepted at these publications, gun writers say.
Mr. Venola, the former Guns & Ammo editor, described the relationship between the magazine’s editors and the gun makers as a necessarily cozy one. “You have to be in cahoots with the manufacturer, in order to make the publication appeal to the readership,” he said. “Say you write about boats. At some point you’re going to end up on the sun deck of a boat, downing sundowners after testing one, with the guy who makes it. It’s just how it happens.”
So, G&A has Sundowners’ Syndrome. Their “commitment to the Second Amendment” may be “unwavering” but when it comes to remembering the bad bits about a gun they’re “memory impaired.” Who knew? Except anyone who’s been reading the ballistic buff book in the last 55 years.
To be clear, The Truth About Guns tells the truth about guns. I chose that name because guns are a matter of life or death. You need to know the straight dope on firearms so that you can protect your life, the life of the people you love and maybe even innocent life. Oh, and your gun rights, too.
As for Dick’s assertion that 16 hours of state-mandated firearms training doesn’t mess with Americans’ gun rights, the writer doesn’t and won’t “get it.” As soon as the state steps in – BAM! – your rights are infringed. Oh, and as someone who just completed six hours of Texas CHL training (that somehow ran seven hours) I’d like to point out that these courses are also a violation of the Geneva Convention. That is all.
Wow, I’m so shocked to hear that gun magazines publish reviews in close cooperation with the people making guns.
😉
Oh, and note to Dick: “Listen, Dick, you are just piling stupid on top of stupid. You got what you deserve. Not shove off and go hunt turkeys on your farm.”
Well, ladies and gentlemen, here’s how it works: You don’t always have to agree with everything you hear and read. Mr. Metcalf has more experience than, for example, probably anyone who writes for or reads TTAG all day today. That means he has a lot of knowledge and experience. And he writes well. So we (the shooting community) should let him keep writing – no, encourage him to keep writing, and then we should read what he says. And then think about it. And then agree or disagree, or better yet, partially agree or disagree. What happened to Metcalf in our community was no less shameful than what happened to the Duck guy, in fact much, much, more so because Metcalf *is* an expert in guns, history, law and such and the Duck guy is not (presumably?) an expert in homosexuality.
Anyway, what we need to do is listen and read. And think. Even to people with whom you disagree. Then think some more. If your originally held views remain unchanged, then good for you. If they evolve, then good for you.
But no community that feels that it must silence its members in order to continue to exist has much of a future, and that’s what really worries me.
Compromise is what the Jews tried with Hitler…. how did that work out for them…. I agree with the socialist gun grabbing commies they should compromise!
And there you go: Godwinned!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
And he thinks he’s a genius for coming up with that “law”, you can tell.
The country should have been Godwinned in November 2008.
Re: Jews compromising with Hitler
“Two Jewish men are facing a firing squad. One says, ‘I’d like a blindfold,’ and the other says, ‘Let’s not make trouble.'”
I don’t want a blindfold. I want to look my murderer right in the eye. That way, when my Immortal Soul’s sojourn to this Earthly fun house of horrors is ended before its time, it will know whom to haunt. Mwahahahahaaaaa!
He is dead to me. There was no misunderstanding, no miscommunication. Dick wrote from the heart, what he truly felt. New York, NJ, and Chicago have a perfectly acceptable licensing system that in no way infringes on its citizens right to bear arms. Dick can go eat a, well, he can eat himself.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff; the NYT held up Metcalfs editorial as justification for more gun control; we got to where we are today because “reasonable” people; like Metcalf; said we could compromise on an inalienable right.
Metcalf is a statist, an elitist, a Judas, a snake, a back stabber.
You don’t get it Jeff, there is war going on for our freedom; Metcalf was an apologist for and a defender of subjugation, enslavement and ultimately, what could lead to mass slaughter by a tyrannical government; Dick Metcalf got off easy.
Until the gun community, and most of America for that matter agree that a Right is not subject to restrictions, we will tear each other apart.
Some people get it, most do not. A right is absolute, there really is no need for discussion.
No, Jeff.
Jeff,
When the topic of discussion is something like the best industry to invest money, the best place to build a bridge for public transportation, or the best foods to eat for heart health, I agree completely with your sentiments … your sentiments to read/listen to others, mull over their message, discuss their message openly, and move forward.
When the topic of discussion is freely offering our daughters to rapists, demanding that elite statists run our lives, or that we must give up rights for any reason, I disagree completely with your sentiments. People who emphatically propose such arguments and move them forward publicly are your enemy: they should literally be tarred and feathered. In fact one could even argue that such activity is conspiracy to violate the rights of others and as such is not protected “free speech”.
“In fact one could even argue that such activity is conspiracy to violate the rights of others and as such is not protected “free speech”.”
I would totally agree. I was thinking about the same thing lately. This is hate speech plain and simple. Calling for infringing on somebody rights should be condemned and punished.
Only speech which elicits strong emotional response needs protecting. True hate speech is already controlled via slander and libel laws.
>> People who emphatically propose such arguments and move them forward publicly are your enemy: they should literally be tarred and feathered. In fact one could even argue that such activity is conspiracy to violate the rights of others and as such is not protected “free speech”.
I hope you realize that you’re making a very eloquent argument in favor of restricting gun rights to the “crazies”, lest they start tarring and feathering and shooting people for what they say. If some outfit, like, say, NYT, would repost that quote of yours – especially at the right time (when another killing spree happens), it will do much more damage than anything Dick Metcalf ever said on the subject.
Me thinks thou protests too much
I understand your paraphrase, but the literal quote is:
“Methinks the lady doth protest over much.”
No one writes like Bill.
Jeff:
I read what Metcalf wrote. I thought about it. I acted and demanded he be removed. The man does not even understand the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
I also read what you wrote. I thought about it. I think you are all wet. And frankly, it seems you don’t understand the issues well enough to appreciate the magnitude of precisely what Metcalf said and why it is so harmful.
Here, Jeff, read and THINK about these words, VERY, carefully:
“The right to keep and bear arms … shall NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Go look up that word “infringe.”
Think, Jeff, think!
Paul, you seem to have a much higher opinion of yourself than your limited knowledge justifies. It seems like the only Amendment to the Constitution that you have read is the Second. The First Amendment states among other things that Congress shall make no law “abridging the Freedom of Speech,” but there are plenty of laws and legal rules that limit a person’s ability to speak. You can’t engage in false advertising or fraud without getting sued or even going to jail. You can’t call someone with a stock tip if it’s inside info – you’ll end up in a federal penitentiary. You can be sued for telling lies about someone. You can be jailed for inciting a riot or threatening someone. If you look at the word “abridging” in the First Amendment in isolation I’m sure you could make the same argument that you make about “infringe” in the Second Amendment, but thankfully we have judges who, unlike you, live in the real world and realize that a 230 year old document has to be applied to modern reality. No one in 1780 could ever dream the horror that might result when a semiautomatic gets in the hands of a lunatic like that kid in Connecticut. Metcalf realized this. You don’t get it.
What this boils down to is that there are people like you, who don’t give a d-m about anyone other than themselves, and there are reasonable people who realize that a functioning society requires that people work together and recognize the rights and needs of others will sometimes require you to compromise.
COME ON. You can NOT seriously believe anyone abridged Metcalf’s First Amendment rights. You are deluded if you do. He is still free to speak his mind anywhere and everywhere. Just not at his former workplace, because, GUESS WHAT? He doesn’t work there anymore! Can YOU speak your mind at any of YOUR former workplaces?
…um….your response is so hollow…one hardly knows where to start…but for the sake of being gentle…let us start with this…if you look throughout history…and you examine the current Chinese, North Korean regimes…Saudi, Turkish etc….they are a road-map of “compromise” on the issue of guns….and…hows that working out for them?
If you think our government is any less tyrannical than histories worst…or our current best…you are nuts…and “compromising” on any of my rights…gives a corrupt government the “instinct” that they can trample on any or all of my rights…
Look around you…look at the increase in blatant corruption…and get ready…I worked for US DoD all over the world for over two decades as a Federally Protected Whistle-Blower…the corruption is so deep…you have no idea…such naivety…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
It is not the speech itself in any of the cases you mention that is being abridged, it is the effect of such speech that may be illegal. Just as owning a gun doesn’t mean you can unjustifiably shoot people. You may notice that most of the things you mention are provable false statements, that negatively affect others. But still, the utterers were free to speak their words, they were just held responsible for them. The one exception, insider trading, is also not related to the act of speech, but the transfer of information in an improper manner, to the detriment of others. My owning a firearm, or carrying one on my person, has no detrimental effect on others. If my words have a detrimental effect, and you cannot prove them to be inaccurate, I am free to keep speaking them. Pretty simple. And it has been that way for 230 years too, despite the slow churning of time.
I’m more with you than not, Jeff. When I think of all the years I’ve been reading that man’s articles and all I’ve learned from the guy, I’m shocked that one bad article had him thrown to the wolves. I agree with many posters here in that he got several things wrong, one of which was his interpretation of “regulated” in the 2nd Amendment, further fueling our anti-gun opponents AND his poorly worded assertion that his 16 hours of training wasn’t any huge infringment, but rather than opening up what could’ve been a very interesting, extended dialogue as Metcalf intended, everything got shut down post haste. Imagine what great dialogue got killed in the cradle with his dismissal!
I said “poorly worded,” because as Metcalf explained in his blog, his assertion was juxtaposed against the many, many years of having NO way to legally obtain a CCW by comparison. But I’m sure he’d have been much happier with a shorter class, or none at all (Vermont carry).
Personally, I think he should be cut some slack: pack him off to Ted Nugent’s Spirit Wild Ranch and have a Jim Zumbo-esque “come to Jesus moment,” with maybe a pow-wow between those two and Jeff Korwin, and maybe Massad Ayoob. Then absolve him with the sign of the cross (hairs) on his forehead with gunpowder and let him write and sin no more.
“I’m shocked that one bad article had him thrown to the wolves”
Absurd!
You should have been shocked that a guy proclaiming himself to be an expert in all things firearms in the USA could have possibly thought it was a good idea to write an article like he did. He exposed himself as profoundly and most fundamentally IGNORANT of the very thing that keeps him and his gun company cronies in business.
Count me more shocked that people like you are so utterly tone deaf to the issues here.
Funny — that’s my whole point: it’s about “tone” and “deafness.” If you read Metcalf’s blog and his reasoning behind what he wrote, it was a benign opening to a bigger conversation. Perhaps his attempt to be provocative was taken the wrong way? I’m not sure. But I don’t think this is how we should treat one of our own who blunders into the weeds. Don’t forget that he had a LOT of help from G&A — they approved, edited and vetted the article before it ever went to press.
I also think he wrote what he did because the time was right for it. Seldom has the clamor for more restrictions and intringements been greater than post-Sandy Hook, and Metcalf, thinking he was speaking to people who could entertain ideas without necessarily embracing them, brought up some very pragmatic and topical issues. And again, I feel a bit ripped-off by the bigger discussion his firing defused. (Although thankfully TTAG has partially filled that void.)
And it’s not that I’m oblivious to the bigger issues. I just see the cure as being just as bad as the symptom; while Metcalf may have given ammo to anti-gunners by his assertions, they also gained ammo by how he was treated, and the latter may well end up being the more aggregious of the two.
“a benign opening to a bigger conversation”
No, rather, a cancerous growth that required him to be cut out.
Again, you seem to have an embraced a shocking ignorance about precisely what the man said. He proved he does NOT even understand the Second Amendment.
Seems you do not either.
The one thing I’ll say about Dick Metcalf, at least he had enough courage to put his name to his comments, unlike the little girls here rising to his defense.
Verily.
DJ, are you nucken futs?
“Thrown to the wolves”? Keep talking like that, son, folks will think you’re feeble-minded.
He was THROWN OUTTA THE OFFICE. Not “to the wolves”.
Well, his underpants aren’t exactly safe around HERE. The pack is still attacking long after he’s been run off. Shameful.
Jeff, I think I know where you’re coming from. I’m not far away, myself.
I can see how Metcalf’s editorial gave aid and comfort to our enemies (who already have the whole traditional media establishment at their beck and call), and I vehemently disagree with his opinion. It should have been rejected wholesale, and it was.
But the way it happened…torpedoing a guy’s life for saying something that didn’t square with the current orthodoxy…. It’s a tried-and-true tactic of the progressives, the politically correct elite, and it has an ugly smell. Maybe it was necessary and inevitable, but I don’t have to like it.
Keep in mind, the people who currently wield the sledgehammer of political correctness against the rest of us were in the minority once. They had to use some brutal tactics to get their ideas out of the margins and into the mainstream. Now that they’re embedded in the media and the cultural elite, they’re still using those coercive tactics — with the weight of the establishment behind them. They think they’ve brought enlightenment to the public, but they’re too busy enforcing their own orthodoxy to see how profoundly coercive they’ve become.
I don’t want the People of the Gun to end up like that.
He torpedoed his OWN goddamn life! Stop blaming the victims.
Victims? Really? The man didn’t commit a crime, he wrote an opinion in a magazine.
Lying and cheating aren’t necessarily crimes either. And yet, you know what? Liars and cheats leave a trail of goddamn VICTIMS in their wake, everywhere the go!
Think! Think! It ain’t illegal yet!!
Wow, what’s wrong with some of you guys?
The man wrote an editorial in the nation’s premier firearms magazine, one of the oldest, that revealed he DOES NOT SUPPORT AND UNDERSTAND THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Are you guys nuts?
Let me him spout his crap in the New York Times where it belongs!
>> But the way it happened…torpedoing a guy’s life for saying something that didn’t square with the current orthodoxy…. It’s a tried-and-true tactic
I have to say that the language used in the comments on this blog to refer to people who are not orthodox Second Amendment fanatics, even slightly deviating, is eerily reminiscent of the kind of stuff that you can read in court rulings from Stalin’s era of political terror. “Treason”, “aid and comfort to the enemy”, “stab in the back” and all that kind of stuff.
Whatever you say. Y’know what? NOBODY AT TTAG FIRED, OR CAUSED TO BE FIRED, Dick Metcalf. GET OVER IT.
Red Dawn. Patrick Swayze puts a .357 round through the chest of a former compatriot who betrayed them to the enemy. You don’t have to like it, but sometimes when someone you thought you could trust turns their coat you have to take drastic action to save the movement.
“Torpedoing a guy’s life”?
People who smile to your face and display the decent, common manners of a polite society while entertaining (and even firmly holding) philosophical ideas that undermine your natural rights and liberty, even tossed out there as “food for thought”, are not your friends – they are your ENEMIES.
And they should be treated as such. Naïveté generated by “reasonableness” can get you killed.
So much fail, where to begin?
“[…]Metcalf has more experience than, for example, probably anyone who writes for or reads TTAG all day today…”
Being an expert on the technical aspects of guns and/or shooting does NOT confer on Mr. Metcalf ANY specific authority on the subject of what does or does not infringe on MY natural, civil and Constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. Hell, even SCOTUS keeps getting that wrong and they’re supposed to be REAL experts.
“…So we (the shooting community) should let him keep writing – no, encourage him to keep writing, and then we should read what he says… ”
Why exactly should any of us continue to financially support Mr. Metcalf or G&A if we believe they are okay with compromising away our 2A rights? It is our RIGHT and our DUTY to remove our support from these individuals and organizations.
“…What happened to Metcalf in our community was no less shameful than what happened to the Duck guy, in fact much, much, more so because Metcalf *is* an expert in guns, history, law and such and the Duck guy is not (presumably?) an expert in homosexuality….”
What happened to Metcalf was in no way shameful. It was the market he was supposedly writing for telling him, in a very free market way, that we no longer trusted him and did not want to pay for his product. G&A got the same message and THEY terminated him, not the gun community. And if Metcalf is in fact a real expert on law [citation req], how is it he does not know the definition of “infringed”?
As for “the Duck Guy”, he never claimed to be any sort of expert on homosexuality and never advocated infringing on anyone’s right to be queer. He is, however, a born again Christian and based on that level of expertise he said that he understood the Bible to say that homosexuality is a bad thing and that he could not support it on that level.
“[…]But no community that feels that it must silence its members in order to continue to exist has much of a future, and that’s what really worries me…”
A community in fear for its very existence (have you been following the efforts of anti-2A groups to effect total civilian disarmament?) must ensure continuity of message and goals within the community. If someone claiming to be a member of that group promotes a message the rest of the group cannot abide they have a perfect right to demand a retraction or to ostracize that member. No one has attempted to silence Mr. Metcalf, we just told him to take his crap elsewhere because we weren’t going to pay him for it any more.
And in your rush to judge us regarding our opinion of and reaction to Mr. Metcalf’s Judas editorial you are attempting to silence us and our opinion just as vociferously as you claim we are trying to silence Metcalf. Hypocrite.
Mr. Metcalf is free to say and write anything he wants and to have it published, if he can, anywhere he can, what he can no longer do, which was the crux of our effort and apparently a vast majority of the POTG, was to cancel his supposed credentials as a spokesman for us, which he quite obviously is NOT.
+100
Dick was no legal beagle so far as I knew. Nobody is trying to silence him or his views, they just don’t want him doing so for profit in a magazine they purchase.
+1
Mr. Metcalf certainly doesn’t have more experience in history, fact, or civil rights than the writers of TTAG or even the readers of TTAG, regardless of his knowledge and experience in firearms. Metcalf is a “gun” guy – no doubt about it. Metcalf, as he has made it clear, is not a “rights” guy. This is bluntly obvious and if you can’t see this i’m not even going to try to debate with you. We can agree to disagree – end of story.
This is a ridiculous statement. Metcalf a expert in history?? What a laugh. I think that both you and Mr. Metcalf should do 5 minutes of googling and look up some of the statements the founding fathers made regarding the second amendment. Then reconcile that with your and Metcalfs support of 2A regulation. Mr. Metcalf’s comparison with the fire in a theater was equally ridiculous by the way – but I digress.
No one silenced Mr. Metcalf. Furthermore, Mr. Metcalf is not “our member.” Mr. Metcalf wrote for a magazine and he betrayed his customer base and the interests of his employers. He suffered a fate similar to actions applicable to any other profession. If Mr. Metcalf worked for the New York Times and wrote a 2nd amendment absolutist article in support of civil rights he would not last there long.
But it would be a hoot.
Jeff, as I’ve said on other forums. A gun guy on a gun magazine editorial page using anti-gun rhetoric… No one should be surprised at the outcome. He couldn’t have been any more inflammatory if he had used the phrase “Common sense gun restrictions.”
As for Roberts, if you read the full text of what he says, most of us aren’t going to heaven by his standards.
Bulldonkey.
Not only are we not required to respect a sellout to American First Principles, continuing to support said sellout would be stupid.
Neither what happened to Dick and what happened to the Duck guy are shameful. Both are exactly what should happen when people say stupid shit in public, they get called out on it.
We live in a country where you are free to express your opinions, but you aren’t entitled to pulpits from which to preach, bought and paid for by people who disagree with you.
If I take a job as an NRA commentator for example, then do a youtube video about how Shannon Watts is really worth listening to, then the NRA can, and should, show me the door.
Right?
Very well put, Jeff.
We belong to a Mutual Admiration
Society,
My baby and me.
We belong to a Mutual Admiration
Society….
Except Mr. Metcalf is obviously no expert on rights, and he opined on rights of great importance to gun owners. His fate is decided by the readership…and his employer. No travesty whatsoever.
Does anyone remember PISTOLERO Magazine? Now that was one brutally honest gun publication. Used to love reading their gun reviews. They tested most of ’em on LIVE HOGS. 😉
Metcalf became an elitist, ergo, he sold his soul. Too bad for him, he made his bed.
So… no guns for elitists, is what you’re saying?
Don’t you realize that elitists enjoy the same 2A protections as the rest of us?
Even better, you might say.
Jeff, now your just being incredibly obtuse, or being deliberately provocative, which means your just being a troll.
So just in case you really meant your question as being honestly stated; let’s say this one more time. Everyone has the right to the uninfringed right to KABA’s; even elitists; but elitists hire their gun carrying protection while trying to infringe everyone else’s.
Which is what this is all about, now do you get it Jeff?
Elitists always have guns and a Miltarized Police to wield them
No Jeff, your not that obtuse; you were making the point about denying first amendment rights as the second amendment rights; but they don’t correlate; we aren’t saying to stop Dick from spouting off about his elitists beliefs, he has his blog, the NYT for G-ds sake is printing his statist elitist drivel; but we as the gun community are also free to reject his screed supporting slavery and deny that he speaks for the gun community.
The gun community tarred and feathered him figuratively speaking and ran him out of our community, but he still free to promote his enslavement beliefs.
No, but you’re obviously a troll and best left ignored.
Nobody here is calling for Dick to lose his right to bear arms. Nor any elitists, or anyone else to lose their rights. Maybe you have comprehension problems.
There is a comment higher up where the poster expresses the desire to take away his First Amendment rights:
” In fact one could even argue that such activity is conspiracy to violate the rights of others and as such is not protected “free speech”.”
People say all kinds of stuff here. None of them speaks for all the rest.
Actually, he claimed it was “arguable”, which is a far cry from what you describe. Obviously you do have comprehension problems.
I’m trying to understand how you came up with this response, given his statement. Pretty far out there. Either it is you putting words in his mouth, or you are answering a totally different question from a different person and you clicked the wrong button?
Wrong button? Did you read the original post? It was a direct response, and a very good one.
Either you’re being flippant, or you’re a fool. Or both.
He has a right to his guns. He doesn’t have a right to a job. He has a right to seek employment, but not to have employment provided for him, nor does he have a right to remain employed despite the proprietary decision of his employer to dismiss him.
Bone up on First Principles, dude.
A reasonable compromise that wouldn’t infringe could probably be that everyone takes that 16 hour class as some class project in the tenth grade or something.
Infringe means to encroach in any way, and the “fringe” part relates to fringe on a garment in that such encroachment in even a minor manner is an infringement, you do not even skirt the borders of the concept legitimately.
Since when do we “compromise” on rights?
I actually love this and would support it. THe training is required for the permit, but it’s also free and mandatory. If you don’t want to get a gun afterward, don’t.
The key would have to be that folks who don’t grow up through public schooling would be trained by their parents, and that should the program ever lose funding, it also loses the force of law in its restriction.
I would follow that with a mandatory class in journalism for people like you, in order to express an opinion.
Ummm, sure, because an errant comma at 3000 fps can sure do some damage.
The pen is mightier than the sword….why else do you think propaganda is so useful? A man with a gun may kill a few people, but a man with words and a bully pulpit can do far worse. I am truly sorry if you are too small-minded to understand such concepts.
Yes Jeff, because ideas are more dangerous than bullets.
+100. No… +1000.
Well, not journalism per se… But English, yes. English classes are already mandatory.
Paul’s point is obviously that it would make as much sense to require government mandated training before exercising your right to free speech as it would to require government mandated training before exercising your 2A rights. Obviously.
As for Jeff, How many MILLIONS of people died in the 20th century due to Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler, and the things they wrote? Words are most definitely dangerous when they express ideas contrary to our natural rights.
“A reasonable compromise” no such thing when our rights are concerned.
I wouldn’t mind being reimbursed for the cost of my training, bullets, and firearms, By doing so, I contribute to the overall safety and security of society.
I remember reading, a few years back; I think it was a Congressman from South Dakota, that proposed a $500 penalty to those that choose not to own a firearm. Because they reap the benefits of a safer neighborhood, provided by those citizens that own firearms. And this penalty would help offset the financial burden of training, and arming, that responsible citizens voluntarily take.
I was looking at it the same way they teach first aid in schools, or did you stop doing that.
As a recent high school grad (~ 2011), I can tell you that we do not learn any sort of first aid. But we do learn to call 911! The job is too much for my measily little mind to handle, I need to call professionals to save me.
F*** it, I tried but you are too much screwed for me to help.
But seriously, they didn’t even teach you to make an inprovised bandage? Y’know tampon (sterile to prevent infection) + duct tape?
I really feel sorry for you.
Travis: Thing is, First Aid is what you do while you wait on the professionals to get there, which is what the “first” implies. And high school doesn’t teach a LOT of things you really need to know as a grown-up.
I really hope you’re deliberately satirizing the sheep mentality and not simply kind of dumb, but going by Hanlon’s Razor…
lolinski: Nothin! Not even how to apply a bandage correctly…
Lucas: I was twisting the issue at hand to fit the mold of the gun debate. You are correct that first-aid is for while you wait for someone else to come. However, I was using the term much more liberally, even including applying a band-aid, not just at the level of CPR.
It wasn’t the perfect topic to twist into the gun control mold, but I tried.
So… yeah. I was being sarcastic.
I actually do like this idea a lot. It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights because everyone can keep and bear arms. The fact that the vast majority of folks would be required to take a gun safety course before graduating from public school is a totally separate issue.
A few nice side effects would be that non gun friendly people would at least have a little background on the subject and school kids would get an interesting quasi physical activity to do instead of sitting in a class all day.
I realize this won’t ever happen, but it would be nice.
When it comes to inalienable rights, there is no such thing as “reasonable compromise.”
No. None whatsoever.
The unreasonable compromise, however, is inevitable (heck, it’s the status quo), and it’s up to you to play the political game right to make it less unreasonable rather than more unreasonable.
True, Rich – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…unalienable rights. How, then, have we allowed the government to draft people into the military and send them against their will into harm’s way?
If you give a tyrannical government even a millimeter they will expand it to infinity. It’s what they do.
” How, then, have we allowed the government to draft people into the military”
I don’t know which “we” you’re talking about, but _I_ never had anything to do with any such thing.
I had the same thought – universal firearms training in grade school – right before universal conscription.
Jan, see my comment just above.
In the first place, IMO (and mine is just as good as anyone else’s) mandatory conscription is a violation of the 13th Amendment, Section 1: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The draft is de facto unconstitutional. That camel, however, nose and all, is already in the tent. Given an agreement to universal conscription we already provide universal firearms training, so why the duplication with high school classes?
The solution – make basic military training (8 weeks) mandatory in the summer between the junior and senior years and a requirement for a high school diploma. Make it also mandatory at any time before awarding a G.E.D. So long as neither training nor document is required before exercising your 2A rights. This basic training provides for a “well regulated militia”, but should in no way be a conscription to arms. All subsequent military service, especially in combat arms, MUST be voluntary.
Providing 16 hours of classroom instruction on firearms and firearms safety would be an exceptionally good thing. As long as it was in no way considered MANDATORY to pass this class as a prerequisite to exercising your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
The INSTANT you allow the government to impose ANY sort of restriction or requirement on the exercise of 2A rights you have agreed to infringement, at which time the right becomes a privilege restricted by the very government it was intended to protect us from. THIS was the error in Metcalf’s reasoning and the reason he was vilified.
Yes sir, this is correct!
This piece goes beyond the “gun nuts are nuts” mantra.
The subtext is one that feeds the “evil gun corporations” narrative.
They are going the “big tobacco” route.
They’ve been working that “Big ______” angle for quite some time now.
Didn’t you notice the “NRA is funded by the gun companies” line being pushed by the gun-control lobby after Shady Hook?
Or the attempts since the 1990s at least to use product liability lawsuits to drive gun-makers out of business?
Except Big “G”
Hey, Big “G” with Little “o”
Are you old enough to remember that one?
“The road of good intentions….”
NY Times… Comments disabled. Shocking.
Maybe he can write stupid hat reviews for some magazine bought by that industry now.
Haha. Yes.
“I’d like to point out that these courses are also a violation of the Geneva Convention”
RF, please elaborate. I don’t understand.
In some civilized countries listening to an instructor read “Personal Protection in the Home” verbatim for 8 hours straight could be considered a form of torture…..
Second
Depends on the instructor I suppose, I actually enjoyed myself during my CHL class and got something out of it. The instructor was a retired APD officer and did a good job of making the material digestible and in handling Q&As about the legality of situations. I also shot 300/300 on the range eval 🙂
Training can be quite valuable. One really ought to get some if one is serious about this sort of thing.
But requiring it by force of law is a no-no.
16 hours…. I believe that might constitute prior restraint.
So, does that mean we’ll have to sit through 16 hours of civics that we have to pay for in order to vote?
“Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices . . .”
To be fair, he has a point since Dick Metcalf is an extremist as is anyone who so blatantly wishes to deprive other Americans of their God-given rights. And the media is chock full of others like him.
To some degree I agree with what Metcalf was saying. For example, It is in the best interest of all citizens, especially law abiding gun owners, that violent felons lose their right to have access to firearms. I think most gun owners would agree that this type of regulation is sound and necessary.
The problem though is that anti gunners aren’t starting from zero and often fail to recognize the volume of regulation that already exists. Unfortunately Metcalf forgot to mention this in his piece as well.
Furthermore, this notion of “compromise” suggests some degree of give and take, I.e. nobody gets everything they want but everyone gets something. This isn’t what the gun grabbers are asking for. The only compromise ever suggested is that the pro 2A compromise their rights by giving up something else. Metcalf probably would’ve avoided this storm had he mentioned something along these lines as well.
Wrong. Violent felons should not be let out on the streets. Any time you start playing games with our natural rights, we lose. Do not negotiate with the rights of free men.
Yeah, but they are every day. What are you doing about it?
Carrying. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and inviolable.
You do not, however, have a right to shoot people.
Your question makes no sense. People speed every day too, what are you doing about that?
Driving is not a natural right, unless you want to equate it with liberty which I would love to do. For example, in Germany, on the Autobahns, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a speeding ticket (but you can be ticketed for going too slow and obstructing traffic). They seem to do pretty well, all things considered.
The right to keep and bear arms IS a natural right. No one should be restricted from nor ticketed for exercising it.
As Rich says, exercising your 2A rights is fundamental, but shooting people without a good reason is not. The solution is the ability to shoot back and kill the S.O.B. violating your fundamental right to Life.
Wrong. Look it up. The right to travel via normal and conventional means of conveyance is a right.
TRAVEL is a right; driving is a privilege. The Founders did not – indeed COULD not – envision a conveyance so complicated it needed training and instruction to use.
Wrong. Look it up. Travel via the normal and conventional means…once that meant horseback or carriage, today it means motorized vehicle. This has been upheld in courts in multiple states and at the federal level. I know it hurts to find you have been lied to for your whole life, so research it and free your mind.
Worry about your own mind, not mine. Thank you very much.
And oh – operating a car may be “easy”, but they are far from simple contrivances. How many parts does a horse have that need maintenance? Hooves… teeth. That’s about it.
Your car? You’re not as smart as you fancy yourself to be.
No problem, just figured you might want to dispel your misconceptions.
http://freedom-school.com/travel/no-law-requires-you-to-record-pledge-your-private-automobile.pdf
http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Driver’s need only be licensed for commercial purposes. However, when people started driving and having accidents, insurance companies started requiring licenses in order to qualify to be insured. Banks would only loan money for cars to people who insure the vehicles, etc….it is a big can of worms, and now nobody wants to believe simple truth, they have been taught otherwise for too long.
For the record, and to put this to bed once and for all, I NEVER advocated for drivers’ licenses. Anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
I don’t even drive, dammit!
I have built a car completely from parts, I would not attempt to do so for a horse. I can easily maintain or rebuild a car, not so a horse. I guess I am pretty clever. Or cars, even modern ones, are not so very complex as some think. The complexity of the contrivance does not negate a right to travel via the common mode of travel of the era.
Even as a Radical Libertarian Loon™, I think an argument could be made for driver licenses just because the roads are “community property.” If I’m forced to pay for something, shouldn’t I have some say in how that thing is used?
Like I said, Rich. I have zero advocacy in the matter, just opinions.
As so called “community property”…you have no right to restrict others from using it…they paid too.
“As so called “community property”…you have no right to restrict others from using it…they paid too.”
Ah, the tragedy of the commons. If everybody owns it, nobody owns it, therefore, it goes to crap.
You are free to buy property, make your own roads, and establish any rules you like for their use.
Of course, they won’t actually GO anywhere…. in the real world, it is impossible to buy a right of way from Buffalo to El Paso.
It seems you are confusing democracy where the group rules, with our republic in which individual rights are paramount.
“It seems you are confusing democracy where the group rules, with our republic in which individual rights are paramount.”
Well, since that’s simply not true, then what “seems” to you apparently has no connection to what is. And what does either of these have to do with roads?
What is untrue, not a thing? Maybe you need to look into the difference between a republic and a democracy. Individual rights versus group rights, for starters.
“What is untrue, not a thing? Maybe you need to look into the difference between a republic and a democracy. Individual rights versus group rights, for starters.”
What’s untrue is what you said.
You’re trolling, putting words in my mouth, and I’ll stop trollfeeding you now.
If you don’t understand, no need to get snooty. You started talking about community overriding individual rights like driving….remember now? Your bad memory or lack of knowledge of our form of government does not make others into trolls. Grow up and stop the petty name calling to cover your failings.
“You started talking about community overriding individual rights like driving”
I did no such thing, and I’ll thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. I said that an argument could be made for licensing simply because roads are community property.
I’ll stop trollfeeding you now.
You said:
“Even as a Radical Libertarian Loon™, I think an argument could be made for driver licenses just because the roads are “community property.” If I’m forced to pay for something, shouldn’t I have some say in how that thing is used?”
That sure sounds like making an argument that the “group” could veto the rights of the individual, convert said right to a privilege…an appeal to democracy. You can argue semantics all day, to no avail. Your statement is clear.
So, when caught in your own statement, your answer is to call people names? I believe the only trollfeeding (as you call it) that you would be doing is when you sit to breakfast.
“That sure sounds like making an argument that the “group” could veto the rights of the individual, convert said right to a privilege”
Then you need some remedial training in reading comprehension.
No, I do not. Perhaps you need to learn to write. Do I have to actually parse your statement for you?
It sounds like no such thing. It IS no such thing. Get over yourself, troll.
The founders need not imagine anything. Motor vehicles are hardly complex, billions operate them daily. Try running a spinning wheel, early printing press, weaving loom, even loading and firing a matchlock. That argument holds no weight. Government does not get to decide when something is too complex for mere citizens absent government sanction. The exception being when driving for hire…regulating commerce.
Indeed. If you’ve paid your debt to society you’re a full-fledged citizen again. If the crime you perpetrated was heinous enough for that to not make sense, then you should never be a free citizen again. Parolees should be restricted, but not those who have completed their sentences. If you have a problem with that, then make the sentences longer.
Or maybe just have them serve the full sentence. As in, twenty years is an actual twenty years.
Parolees are restricted, they are being allowed to taste freedom in lieu of spending their whole sentence imprisoned. They are given enough rope to hang themselves, in a manner of speaking. Many do indeed end up back in prison, any violation, however trivial, can result in revoked parole. However, those who prevail and have finished their sentence are indeed free men (persons for those inclined to argument).
You absolutists sound nutty; you would want someone convicted of rape, armed robbery, etc, to be able to legally purchase guns upon release?
If they’re not dangerous enough to keep in prison, they’re good to go with their RKBA. You’re calling names, because there is no substance to your arguments.
“You absolutists sound nutty; you would want someone convicted of rape, armed robbery, etc, to be able to legally purchase guns upon release?”
Of course. If a person is not safe to be a full-on citizen with all his rights intact, then why did you turn him loose in the first place?
Anon, you keep bringing up this same straw man.
Of course we would PREFER that such people not exercise their 2A rights, but we know that they will anyway. Why should we then promote other illegal activities such as gun running and the theft of guns to support that endeavor? Criminals, in spite of any legal hurdles you erect, WILL obtain the weapons of their choice or the weapons they can afford.
Passing laws against these people in an attempt to prevent their exercising their fundamental natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to bear arms is a fool’s errand and an agreement to allow the government to infringe on all of our 2A rights by creating and enforcing an arbitrary list of persons who are, in THEIR opinion, to be denied their 2A rights. This makes the RKBA a privilege conferred and licensed by the government, not a natural right.
Since you CANNOT prevent criminals from arming themselves your only protection is to arm yourself, not to allow the government to infringe on that right. Keep in mind that the most basic reason for the Second Amendment is not to protect you against everyday criminals, but to give us all the means to protect ourselves from a government that becomes criminal.
@Anonymous
It sounds like this person should still be in prison? If they are released they will exercise their natural rights regardless of law. Do ex-convicts not have the right to self defense?? I’m sure they would disagree. The classic “ex-felons should not have guns” is one of the pinnacles of gun control. If you support this argument, then you support gun control – that is its purpose. Registration, background checks, etc – to keep guns out of “dangerous hands.” It has been proven that gun control does not work. If you believe gun control does not work – why would you support this? It only inconveniences the law abiding. Criminals do not follow the law.
Free men? So at what point does a person become a man? Or do you think age restrictions on purchasing a firearm are a bad idea too?
(Sorry ladies, no guns for you, only free men.)
You are a troll. You know what he meant when he used “Free men” so buzz off.
In English literary convention for many centuries it has been understood that when the writer intends to include both genders the us of the masculine pronoun is standard and inclusive. It is only in the last few decades that political correctness has attempted to demand the convoluted inclusion of he/she and his/her to accommodate the gender purists and feminists.
We are all members of mankind, all inclusive, no matter which of the 7 genders you belong to.
Literary reference, per Robert Heinlein:
1. Male
2. Female
3. Homosexual man
4. Homesexual female
5. Bisexual man
6. Bisexual female
7. Neuter (asexual)
You can see where totally politically correct writing attempting address each of the above inclusively would be unwieldy.
“Shimit”.
You forgot trisexual – I’ll try anything sexual!
That one is spelled with a “y” and is hyphenated. As in “try-sexual”.
OK, thanks.
He was putting you on.
No, Metcalf’s argument was based on the incorrect definition of “well-regulated”. He based his entire diatribe on it meaning regulation, or law. The definition of the term as it was written over 200 years ago has nothing to do with law or regulation. That’s why Metcalf’s article, and subsequent ignorant statements, should be ostracized. He doesn’t understand what the 2A means, how can he support it?
Exactly. You can’t discuss the 2nd Amendment if you don’t even understand it. He revealed a fundamental lack of understanding in his essay. THAT is the issue.
The 115V 60.000000 Hz electric power coming from your wall sockets is well-regulated.
Channeled. Directed. Limited. You could even say it’s restricted. It’s definitely well regulated.
And at the same time there are virtually no limits on what an individual can use it for.
A well regulated militia… And the right of the people (as individuals).
You’ve made a very interesting analogy.
How exactly dose that work? You tell a violent person he/she can’t have a gun then let them roam free? How is that to be enforced? An unenforcable law is a bad law. Every single attempt to enforce that law effects law abiding citizens first and rarely if ever the criminals. I don’t consider tacking a possession charge onto a murder charge to be acceptable either.
Violent felons losing rights has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with the 4th. Unfortunately while most Rep politicians will play lip service to the 2nd, neither party has too many people defending the 4th.
The fact of the matter is that even allowing for the CONCEPT that the government can decide at any level that a person, regardless of their past, present or future criminal or mental status can “lose” their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights means that we do not agree that these are natural rights upon which no government may infringe. Which means that they are not rights at all, but privileges granted by the government at whim.
It might be very uncomfortable to consider that people we do not like or trust, and especially people we have good reason to fear, yet have those same natural rights, but we cannot have it both ways. Either they ARE natural rights that belong to everyone or they are privileges subject to democratic process and social approval or disapproval.
The very fact that we understand that people we do not like or trust to exercise their RKBA responsibly may in fact be encountered at any time is the reason we exercise our own RKBA through responsible CCW or Open Carry and demand that the government not infringe that right.
You can’t have it both ways. Either we ALL have the right or government will find a way to ensure that no one exercises their rights except the criminals and the insane. (And the government.)
Ah, THIS!
Yep, if a person can’t be trusted in society with a gun, he or she should not be let out of prison; once they have finished any parole and showed themselves as being law abiding citizens; they get all of their rights back.
Even here in Canada, the “felons lose their rights” thing perplexes people. A Canadian convicted of an indictable offense (felony) can generally apply for a Possession and Acquisition License after five years of completing whatever jail time, or parole. People convicted of indictable offenses can vote…oh, and ALL voters need to show ID at polling stations, and have to be enumerated as citizens–no ifs, ands or buts. If you told a member of the leftist, social-democratic NDP that voter ID was ‘racist,’ she’d laugh to the point of incontinence. The American exceptionalism is not gun control, which varies widely in your country and, in many cases, is more strict than in other countries. What is strange is your permanent criminal blacklist, and the fact that non-citizens and dead people vote in your elections, as well as voting ‘early and often.’
Of course gun magazines are advertiser-friendly. So are car mags, audio-videophile and electronics mags, even green-oriented periodicals, advertising green cleaning products and foods. I even notice that Consumer Reports, which does not run ads, has biases (e.g., they hate SUVs).
lol, this guy is getting deeper and deeper. Maybe he should go work for Pravda/NYT if they love him so much.
He can be ‘a second amendment supporter, but…’
Actually Pravda does a better job of reporting than NYT does now. It is scary how the tables have turned.
Dick doesn’t understand the first rule of holes.
LOL…….stop digging.
Duh.Magazines make money by selling ads, and you won’t sell many ads if you’ve pissed off every company in the business by telling the truth about their products, good and bad.
Ultimately, there’s so much bullshit floating around regarding firearms in print media, online forums, and even YouTube that the only way to know if a gun is worth the trouble….is to buy it, shoot it, and find out for yourself , no matter the brand.
Two years back, I would have said to the new gun owner that they should research their purchase options online.Noawadays, I’d say they should go to the nearest dealer,rent some guns, and stay the hell off the internet .
ST, I’ve found the reviews here on TTAG to be pretty good. In fact, that’s what got me reading TTAG was the review on the Ruger SR9c when I was looking to buy my first pistol in about 40 years.
Guntests. No Ads. They buy most if not all of their test guns off the shelf.
Its like the NPR of gun magazines… but in a good way. I don’t buy the slick glossies. I am not really interested in reading manufacturer ad copy.
“Slick Glossies” are just gun porn, and I for one have no problem just reading the articles. 😉
Fair enough. I’m a gun nerd. I like my details technical.
Small Arms Review is a more expensive option, but where else can you read a full color, ten page analysis of magazine spring tension?
Or Shotguns News’s bi montly, ‘Guns and ammo from, and used by, obscure 19th century country that doesn’t exist anymore’?
We got options anyway…
I don’t have a problem sending a gun back and telling the manufacturer to get it right, as long as the issue is mentioned in the article. Call it professional courtesy. Every new product occasionally has issues that are usually fixed early on in production. It wouldn’t serve anyone to trash a product for issues that consumers won’t have. I do have a feeling that G&A takes it a step further than that.
I do not always agree with “Consumer Reports”, but there is a reason they do not accept ads. And because of that even if you think they got it wrong you at least know it was probably an honest error and not biased reporting.
I wonder if he is just laying the groundwork to change sides and come out in favor of “reasonable restrictions”. Maybe even endorse Toomey-Manchin? Having lost his job, his allies, and I would imagine some friends, he continues to double down and refuses to back off.
I would look for a picture of him next to a congresscritter and a spaceman. Or a MOM……
maybe Shannon turned him out? She does like older and bitter men, like her husband John, Bloomy and not (Little) Dick Metcalf.
Dead on.
I see today where Metcalf sent an email to all members of PASA asking them to please tell him where in his article he said anything remotely anti-2nd Amendment.
Poor guy has gone delusional.
Absolutely. I’m not a PASA member, but If I was, I would announce my withdrawal from their organization publicly to other PASA members, unless he stepped down as head of PASA. He is a compromiser of principle.
I only wish we could banish politicians for questioning the gospel of constitution. That is a proper use of extremism in the defense of liberty, and absolutely not a vice in any way.
I have opined here and elsewhere in the past that any elected official who voted in favor of legislation later found to be un-Constitutional should be immediately removed from office and a new election held (NOT a new representative appointed). Further, they should be no longer eligible to hold any elected position at any level of government nor any position paid for by tax dollars.
In other words, you violate your oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” and you lose your place at the public teat. Forever.
They call us extremists because we stand by our principles, uncompromising. It’s like offering a Jew a ham sandwich and getting upset because he won’t eat it.
When Arizona legalized concealed carry in 1994, the course required for certification was 16 hours. Some years later, it was reduced to 8 hours. Now, no course or permit is required for legal concealed carry, but a reasonably prudent person is well advised to get instruction and a permit.
Good thing everyone in Arizona is reasonable and prudent, then.
The vast majority of people are, but it’s not news to say, “313,999,927 people didn’t commit any crimes today.”
That’s because it wouldn’t be true. Three felonies a day, remember?
Imagine the reaction the NYT would have had if Mr. Metcalf had suggested “compromising” on voting rights. That maybe having to get a photo ID to vote wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Imagine if he suggested a 16 hour civics course requirement wouldn’t be such a bad thing. They’d be apoplectic.
Exactly. Because unimpeded access to the polls is a right. Keeping and bearing firearms, not so much. They do not and will not understand the 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege.
Exactly!
Metcalf just doesn’t get it. Requiring a course for a basic human right is asinine. Worse yet it penalizes people that can’t afford the course, can’t get to where the course is held, can’t take time off for the course, or cannot make it through the course because of health issues or learning disabilities.
To top it all off, all a state has to do is change the number of qualified instructors to zero, or raise the price, or both and it makes it harder for people to get firearms.
That he doesn’t understand this and whines about ‘compromise’ proves Guns and Ammo were right to toss his ass to the curb.
Absolutely!! Of course, the 2A is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not so much for voting. There are some amendments, eliminating some reasons for infringement of voting rights, mentioned in the constitution. Nothing calling for a lack of infringement whatsoever on voting rights. Voting rights can be infringed except for some specific reasons, gun rights not at all. I guess they read it backwards.
Unless he implied the course would be required only if you registered Republican or Libertarian.
I for one am willing to welcome Metcalf back into the fold. That is of course after he completes the required 5 years in the re-education camp. Thank the lord for common sense “first amendment ” word saftey laws.
Pretty solid article.
I have no issue with G&A being in the hip pocket of manufacturers. I read that magazine for information, not a completely balanced view. Sort of like me asking my wife, before going out for dinner, “how do I look?” I fully expect her to say, “you look great,” but if I really want to know more, I’ll look in the mirror.
Unvarnished reviews are available on the Internet and I use them as the mirror, as well as comments from people that actually own the firearms on various forums. Incidentally, G&A is not my favorite gun mag; that would belong to Rifle or Handloader on alternate months.
Looking at Mr. Metcalf’s comments (in original article and his initial “apology”) about his long involvement in the fight for gun rights, he actually believes he is one of us. He is of that generation that believed as long as the slide into tyranny is a slow one, maybe someday we’ll get our rights back. As long as the “gun community” participates in the assault on our rights we can at least ameliorate worse things that could have happened. Sort of like Chamberlin returning from Berlin holding aloft written reassurances from Hitler that Germany and England are still buddies.
At the end of the day, back in the nasty period from the mid 60s to mid 90s when gun rights became noticeably eroded, people like Mr. Metcalf did fight to keep some worse things from happening. Maybe. But we are living with laws that are the result of his generation’s compromises. It was only through stringent activism that recovering carry rights spread like wildfire in the late 90s. I’m sure Mr. Metcalf feels he fought the good fight. Maybe things would have been worse if people like him didn’t work with politicians trying to curtail their rights. But then again, “maybe” cuts both ways.
The truth about the fight for gun rights is that it is a time of no compromise, and Mr. Metcalf simply isn’t built for that kind of thing; he cannot live with the idea of being despised; he cannot handle being the “bad guy” in a bar fight. He could have kept his mouth shut – he could have disagreed quietly with the direction the fight for gun rights is going – and no one would have cared. He didn’t and for that he lost his job. He’s sort of like the old general in White Christmas who is just not up for the next great conflict. I’m sure that each of us will age out at some point. Sort of how life goes for most people. Except for the true believers. That is a fire that can burn a lifetime, and beyond.
Very well said Mark, thanks
“He is of that generation that believed as long as the slide into tyranny is a slow one, maybe someday we’ll get our rights back.”
Or he’s the type of generation that hopes the slide to tyranny doesn’t happen to bottom out while he’s on it. Disgusting.
Robert, please elaborate on the Geneva Convention as it relate to mandatory minimum firearms training to get a license/permit in some jurisdictions in the states. I’m not clear on what you mean.
Also, someone noted earlier that “violent felons” should permanently lose their rights upon release from incarceration. I disagree. With rare exceptions (say, Anders Breivik, whom I think should have been summarily executed upon conviction), once you’ve done your time and have been deemed “rehabilitated”, you should once again regain and enjoy the full rights of citizenship. As David Codrea famously said; “if you can’t trust someone with a gun, you can’t trust them without some form of custodianship”. If someone is deemed too dangerous to exercise the full measure of their human rights and their citizenship, then they are too dangerous to be out among decent people.
It is a joke comparing the class to a form of torture.
It is more of a joke requiring a class to get permission to exercise a right.
I get it. I’m a little slow out of the chute sometimes on Sunday mornings.
The problem with “violent felons” or felons in general is that our prisons do absolutely “zero” to “rehabilitate” anyone. When they come out, they have no job, no home and the only friends they have are other felons. Nothing is done to break the cycle — so they become criminals again because it is all they know or that is their only choice — how many businesses small, medium or large will hire a felon? There was at one time only one place where “some” of them could be hired — USPS — because USPS was considered the job of last resort.
Since we do no rehabilitation, no job training, no real drug counseling and give them no new path to follow, their only path is eventually back to prison. Because the state knows this, their only option is not to give them their gun rights back and in many states, not even their voting rights.
There are a whole host social, economic and government issues that would need to be solved first — government cannot even get a damn website to run correctly for healthcare sign-up you believe they can solve a large social issue? The easy solution as always is to use the color of the law to deny someone than to actually address the hard problem — it is a typical government pattern, whenever something is to hard they deny, ban or forbid it.
In addition to not being rehabilitated; to felons, prison is akin to higher education, for us citizens. These dirtbags learn new skills, from their fellow inmates, on how to rob, rape, & terrorize the populace.
Your opinion….nothing more. If it is fact, fix THAT problem, do not restrict the rights of free men instead.
I absolutely agree with PaulG here. Inalienable rights are just that, inalienable, and should only be restricted with great caution and only under the most extreme circumstance.
The underlying problems with our so-called criminal justice system are many, varied and deep. There’s an old saying that if you don’t ask the right questions then it doesn’t really matter what you get for an answer. Over many decades we’ve built a criminal industrial complex that is staggeringly expensive and monumentally ineffective, how great is that?!! YES WE CAN!! We’ve incentivized a harmful negative feedback loop. We treat symptoms, not the disease. The social pathologies that infect and afflict our society at large, and our urban cores in particular, are soluble, but it’s clear that we’ve been going about it in the wrong way and our leaders don’t or won’t recognize that. There’s an awful lot of tax-payer money sloshing around the system and a lot of vested interests want to keep riding the status quo of that gravy train.
It took a few generations to get to where we find ourselves today, it will like take a few more to get to a better place. Thoreau once said that there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. Unless and until we start striking at the root, nothing is going to change.
I agree. Self-disclosure: I am pretty liberal generally but very pro Second Amendment – we should have everything the military/police have including fully automatic rifles since that is where any potential tyranny will be coming from. With that, I think there are a lot of people on the pro-gun/conservative side of things that are very quick to think that the answer to everything is locking people away forever. At the same time, these are the same people that don’t want to pay a dime in taxes to fund those prisons and certainly would not be willing to pay even more to truly educate/rehabilitate felons so that they could actually get a job when they got out, or set up a government jobs program to funnel them into for a few years to give them something productive to do while proving that they actually have been rehabilitated. There are many interconnected issues that really cross a lot of political lines I think. How about spending money on ways to help people with serious mental illness? That would certainly not be cheap, but many of the gun massacres are committed by these disturbed people.(and these are the ones that light up the press) Realistically, we as a country do nothing for people with those sorts of needs. Most gun crime that drives the gun murder statistics happens in inner-city areas (where few “gun nuts” live) but how much time on the conservative end of the spectrum is spent thinking about why certain areas do so badly.
I guess my point is that there are many issues that aren’t natural concerns to many with conservative political view points, but some attention should be paid to them nonetheless because of their indirect impacts. At the very least, the NRA (and yes, I am a member) should pay some lip service to some of these issues so that they would have something to put on the table to appear “reasonable” to the anti-second amendment people. At the same time, they should be pushing to remove other gun restrictions (like the ban on auto sales to civilians) that have not been shown to have any impact on crime. Actually, one last point on this thought…If I were to ever go for any restriction on gun rights I would agree to have required education for concealed carry if fully-automatic weapons were once again made available to the general gun buyer on the same terms that semis are now available. Pistols are nice, but if you are serious about being a check on tyranny what the people need are good rifles and body armor, not 380 ACPs in their back pockets.
…I couldn’t agree more…with the For-Profit-Prison-System we run in the US…and our Soul-Killing 3 Strikes Laws…we destroy an awful lot of lives….and…we destroy the ability to properly care-for /
incarcerate the real dangerous human beings that need to be locked up forever….and our corrupt judicial system eliminates any hope for a legitimate death penalty…because we cannot trust those in power…to not abuse that power…so let us give up on trying to enforce these drug laws..these vices that harm no one but the user…or that bring no harm to others…and we could reduce the prison populations by 2/3rds…..
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
And in other breaking news, “Car and Driver” magazine sometimes writes puff pieces about the latest sports car…
In other breaking news, any magazine that reviews products does the same damn thing.
I worked in the recreational marine business for years at a major manufacturer. Part of that time was in marketing. Bad reviews equal lost advertising revenue and access to new products. Therefore no bad reviews.
When the New York Times is your only defender, you’re not on solid ground.
I believe that NYT believes that the enemy of its enemy is its friend
peckerwood made his own bed now he doesn’t want to sleep in it….quit crying dick!
So now we’re the extremists because we won’t ‘compromise’, huh? lol
We saw what THEIR proposal for compromise was… and if that wasn’t extremist, I don’t know what is. They caused the polarization with their extremism, not us.
Our proposal on the other hand is very moderate and sensible; maintain status quo. We don’t need MORE gun laws. We have enough of them as it is. Piling on more gun laws will do nothing to stop criminals and everything to infringe on law abiding citizens natural (and constitutionally protected) rights to keep and bear arms. Instead, maybe we should think about eliminating gun free zone death traps, or at least adding a little security to protect people while they’re stuck in them like helpless sheep. Wow, that’s SO extreme.
And underpinning it all is Dick’s extreme ignorance to whom we are dealing with. You honestly think we could TRUST these extremist anti-gun nuts enough to compromise with them on anything? Have you not seen the underhanded, late-night, while no one is watching, double-talking lies and treachery they have already used to push through draconian anti-constitutional legislation in NY, Colorado, etc?
Compromise? ….Yeah, ok DICK.
Yeah, the anti’s idea of “compromise” in response to Sandy Hook here in WA state was a proposed state AWB and mag ban that would’ve mandated annual police searches of homes where registered AWs were kept.. Oh yeah, that registration part, also a necessary inconvenience.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html
“Compromise” in WA state therefore meant:
– AW ban
– Long gun registration (we already have a joke of a point-of-sale pistol registry)
– Hi-cap mag ban
– Warrantless searches of gun owners’ homes
To top it all off, those who proposed this bill suddenly removed the warrantless search provision and tried to act like they didn’t know what people were talking about, even though the proposed bill had already been proposed in previous years past, by the same exact people, with the same warrantless search wording intact for all to see.
Liars, all of them, pushing for legislation to punish a political class who they do not like, punishing them for something they had absolutely zero involvement in.
Then they act perplexed when we tell them to GFY.
>> Yeah, the anti’s idea of “compromise” in response to Sandy Hook here in WA state was a proposed state AWB and mag ban that would’ve mandated annual police searches of homes where registered AWs were kept.. Oh yeah, that registration part, also a necessary inconvenience.
Except that wasn’t a compromise. In fact, the law was so retarded that several Democrats in legislature pointed it out and criticized it prominently, which is precisely why it died a quick death.
I reading the article from the other day I noticed this, “The original column topic was assigned/approved by G&A five months in advance.” It also says the article was submitted in September. Seeing that the article was approved in April I have to wonder if its original purpose was to placate us into accepting the new federal laws that were expected to pass. Since the article was accepted for print in September, long after federal anti-gun attempts failed, I have to wonder exactly how many still on the G&A staff are closet antis.
That’s a very interesting point. Was Metcalf a sacrificial goat, being close to retirement and all?
The man that hires the editor and signs the pay checks is the man that sets the tone for a publication, those that don’t tow the line end-up as copy boy, we saw that with Recoil Mag owned by an Obama Bundler
the same is true here
I am not new to firearms, my parents, grandparents, uncles, etc, schooled me on safety, when to shoot, when not too. That was back when people used a firearm primarily to put meat on the table with the vegetables they raised themselves. Everybody had at least a .22 rifle or pistol. The pistol was for varmints. Then there was military service, different firearms, different training for a different purpose. Does buying a firearm make you and others safe? Only if you know and understand how to use it, and when not to. You have a Right to own a firearm, you also have a responsibility to know how to use one. It’s not a toy, it is not to use as a substitute for fireworks on holidays, it is not to impress your friends and scare your enemies. Not everybody is born a firearms expert. I certainly was not, and I would not claim to be one even now. Training is essential, requiring training as a road block to owning a firearm is something entirely different. Stuff happens, it happens less if you know what you are doing. Do not get “training” for the state, for the government, get it for you, and those you might one day have to protect. How you do it is up to you.
I am all for training but not mandated training. There is a reason the founding documents go on at length about individual liberties but dose not touch on obligations or responsibilities. Responsibility is implied with every right recognized but legislating such things is impossible.
Freedom comes part and parcel with responsibility (which really just means “ability to respond”), this is why liberals fear it so much.
I gotta sit thru a 12-14 hour class to get my hunting license. And because of my zip code I can’t get a ccw. No infringement my ass.
Training is not the problem, your zip code is. Tough to cover everything.
I actually don’t have much of a problem with hunter safety courses to get a hunting license. The 2A isn’t about hunting, anyway, so some restrictions on hunting (not on the tools used to do it, or your ability to own them) don’t bother me. Unskilled, ignorant hunters can cause lots of damage (hurting themselves or other hunters, wounding but not killing game, not knowing how to safely handle the carcass once you’ve made a kill, etc), so it makes sense to provide a floor for the skill level required to be out in the fields and forests with everyone else. This is even more important now that fewer young people are being taught how to hunt by their parents/grandparents while growing up, but may decide later in life that they want to hunt.
But any training requirement, for anything, should offer an option to “test out” of the training. If I can pass a test of the knowledge and skills that the training course is supposed to teach me, then why should I waste a weekend taking the course?
Yeah, I could live with the “test out” option.
I think another aspect is that gun owners have been told over and over and over that we need to make this compromise or that concession on the basis that 1: THIS one will be the last one, and 2: THIS TIME it will WORK. But over and over AND OVER again it doesn’t work as advertised. THEN, we’re told WE are the problem, because we didn’t give up ENOUGH. And we’re sick of it.
It is that, exactly.
But one also has to understand Metcalf’s perspective to appreciate that it isn’t just Metcalf, and the reason why he finds our “absolutism” so disturbing.
He’s been bred into the upper-crust society, the milieu of the boarding schools, Ivy League colleges and the college classroom thereafter. Such people never like to talk in absolutes, they always like to wax philosophical and talmudic about our rights, they engage in the endless splitting of hairs, never wanting to be seen as inflexible and not ready to engage in some collegial jaw-jacking about these types of issues with the elitists in their educational cohort.
Gun owners such as you and I, coming from the unwashed rabble, hardscrabble people who had to actually do something resembling work for a living (ie, sweat rolled off our brows – the very antithesis of the life people like Metcalf would wish to live) have seen enough of this sort of hair-splitting and finger-wagging by these jaw-jackers and we’re saying “enough is enough.”
There is never enough compromise for people like Metcalf. Never. There’s always room for more jaw-jacking and mental masturbation about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.
someone needs to explain to (Little) Dick that sour grapes make for bitter whine . . . .
DUDE – READ FRIGGIN’ HELLER ON WHAT “WELL-REGULATED” MEANS AND THEN COME BACK. Oh yeah, read up on the Federal Militia and various state militias. A liberal at work tried to argue that if I was in a militia then she would support my “right” – sucks for her when I showed her federal and state statutes and then she didn’t want to “argue” further.
Dirk, it isn’t just that portion of Heller that I commend people to read.
When I point out that Heller found unanimously for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, the hysterics begin. “It was a 5-4 decision!” “It was only the Rethuglican appointed justices” and so on.
Nooooooo. All nine justices found that “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment to be dead on arrival. They have a 5-4 disagreement about limitations on that individual right, but the “collective right” theory is now dead. Deceased. It’s gone up the flume. Throw’d up the sponge. Kicked the bucket. Departed to that mysterious country from whose bourne no traveller returns.
It’s a dead theory. Finally, and not a moment too soon, because the idiots proposing Obamacare were talking of using the Militia Act as a premise for why they should be able to force people to buy health insurance.
I cannot begin to communicate the import of this one point enough, as we who had been through this fight during the mid-90’s gun control issue, heard it incessantly, even from former SCOTUS Chief Justice Burger, who called the idea that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to own a gun a “fraud.” A Chief Justice was saying, in public, loudly, that the individual right to keep and bear arms was a “fraud.”
When one looks at the history of when Heller was brought to the SCOTUS, we were lucky to have sharp lawyers on our side and timing (i.e., that Burger was now retired).
Paid the Boatman? 🙂
I didn’t realize that Chinese billionaire already bought the NYT.
Still, if convicted of a violent felony, you lose that right to own a firearm.
Not neccisarily.
Because Shawn said so. And because it seems reasonable. And because hey, it doesn’t affect me.
This kind of logic is precisely why we need to have open discussion – because for every Shawn arguing for this one seemingly “reasonable” restriction right here there are many thousands of others arguing for other seemingly “reasonable” restrictions. Anyone supporting an absolutist interpretation of the 2A must surely concede that “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says, regardless of whether or not it happens to apply to a 67-year-old widow who wants to buy a shotgun to protect herself at home but who can’t because of a felony assault conviction 44 years ago (she’s white, by the way, and she goes to church most Sundays). Or how about the 28-year-old who was just released for attempted murder (he’s not white, by the way, and he doesn’t go to church, and he has scary tattoos on his face)? So who decides what the reasonable restrictions are? Shawn? You? Dick Metcalf? A community board? The politicians who are focused on getting reelected every 2 years? Looks like we need to do some talking. Guys and gals, I think that what Dick Metcalf was trying to do was some of that talking that we need to do. Because if we don’t talk about what it means to have “reasonable” restrictions, then we’re all the way down at the bottom of the very slippery slope of an absolutist 2A interpretation (by which logic *any* limitation of “arms” shall not be infringed – – “I’d like two fragmentation grenades and a stinger missile , please”
And what is wrong with owning Stingers and grenades? The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting. It is about overthrowing tyrannical government. The “well-regulated” means to be properly equipped with the same munitions as the government. If you can’t see that then move to Canada or Europe with the rest of the sheep who blindly trust their government like you seem to.
Also hate to break it to you but grenades are legal to purchase as long as you follow the NFA restrictions and pay $200 per grenade in taxes alone. Not like your average Joe Sixpack can afford that.
+100.
“Still, if convicted of a violent felony, you lose that right to own a firearm.”
Actually, Shawn, the only thing you lose is the right to pay retail prices at a government licensed firearm retailer. And the taxes that go with it.
You were born with the right to keep and bear arms and you will lose that right when you die. The government may attempt, with varying degrees of success, to inhibit your ability to exercise that right, but the only way to lose it is to die.
What the Second Amendment attempts to do, and we attempt to promote, is to block the government from infringing on that natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right in any way, since they are, potentially, the enemy we are arming against.
So, no arming the dead, then? I’m cool with handing a corpse a piece… after I’m sure he won’t become one of the Walking Dead!
Dick Metcalf has been a PR guy for gun companies for years. His pandering video reviews were nauseating.
And, hey, Dick, here is what the Second Amendment means
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
Awesome, that.
Birds of a feather….Communalize together
Stop with all the butt hurt, Dick.
You’ve been weighed in the balances and you’ve been found wanting, move on with your life, you do not measure up.
After years writing for gun magazines, Dick Metcalf had to know there was going to be a response from readers. G&A, who let his article through until the uproar started, also should have seen it coming. Those who are angry at Metcalf should be equally angry at G&A for printing his article in the first place.
Worst of all, Metcalf still doesn’t get where he’s wrong. A single mother or retired person who has a low income shouldn’t be forced to choose between food or paying for a CCW class. To put them in that position denies them their right. I’m no professor at Cornell or Yale, but I can see that. Why can’t Dick Metcalf?
I am equally angry at G&A. I no longer read it and don’t watch their TV shows.
Americans are a forgiving people. We should all welcome Metcalf back into the fold as soon as he does a Melissa Harris-Perry by apologizing and shedding a few phony tears. Then he can go back to being a Fudd.
Dick is doing exactly what he has been told to do and to give any credence to his “Reasonable and Safe” line of BS is to fall into the Space Cadet Kelly trap.
Do not forget that the WH now has an official office of propaganda and that it is paying PPL money (Through Bloomberg) to be good little Quiselings in pursuit of the destruction of America
QUISLING. Without any “e”.
I am a moronic troll / the end.
Jeff, there is certainly a difference between being ignorant and being a moron. If you learned something here, and I hope you did, then you are less ignorant than when you first posted. A moron not only would have learned nothing, but probably could not learn anything.
As for the troll business, only if you were intentionally stirring up controversy in order to annoy people. THAT would make you a moron. 😉
Since we are snowed in here in mid-America, I finally had time to finish my reply to Dick’s open letter to PASA members. I feel it is a bit rushed and I felt the need to rush to finish today after reading about Dick doubling down on trying to confiscate our guns. Note that I used bolding to make it easier to read his words I was answering and my answers but that doesn’t come through in the blog reply. WARNING: THIS IS LONG. Here goes:
Dick,
I have so many things I’d like to say, this might be very long by the time I finish. I am a member at PASA and come up with my wife from St. Louis to shoot USPSA matches there. To start, I will copy in a few of the things in your email and comment.
“Would you reply and tell me exactly what the column said that you believe to be “anti-Second Amendment?” I am completely sincere in this request. I ask, because nobody has yet been able to show me anything in that column that can even remotely be construed as “anti-Second Amendment.””
• It’s hard for me to believe that nobody has given any reasoning why your column could be remotely construed as anti-2A. I hope you are listening with an open mind and exploring the ideas you are given.
“I’m not talking about the distortions and untruths that have littered the internet forums and Facebook pages since mid-October, but what the column actually said.”
• While there may be untruths and distortions, I’ve read a lot of good solid evidence. I’m hoping that you aren’t close-minded and have somehow missed all the good solid evidence that is (admittedly) buried in with the junk information.
“I am deadly serious about wanting to know your thoughts. I would hope a discussion might ensue.”
• I do hope that is true. I confess to being skeptical but let’s give it a try.
My explanation may appear to jump around a bit. I will also later include some other emails, one I wrote to the Shooting Wire in response to your Outdoor/Shooting-Wire response (before I read your original article to be honest – and I say it clearly in my response) and another to a family member after I read your original article and had time to look into it.
To get started, let me focus on your challenge about things you said and how they could be construed as anti-2A. My background includes training in English Communication as well as law and statistics. I’m not a lawyer and that is an advantage since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in plain language specifically so that they wouldn’t have to be re-interpreted by lawyers. I’m not saying any of this to use an appeal to authority as I’m not an authority. I found issues (logical fallacies and various non sequiturs) in many sentences in your original post but I’ll pick out a few and answer them. The overall tone of your article is based on the “argument to moderation” fallacy, also known as the false compromise. Finally, my answers will necessarily be incomplete due to the need for some level of brevity. I’m hoping this kicks off a two-way conversation where we can both learn in the process.
“Note carefully: those last four words say “shall not be infringed.” They do NOT say “shall not be regulated.” “Well regulated” is in fact the initial criteria of the Amendment itself.”
There are two things noticeably wrong with your argument.
1. The phrase “well regulated” refers to the militia, not the right. I’m not aware of any reading of the language that would allow that phrase to jump across that comma. The target of the phrase is obvious.
2. The phrase “well regulated” does not have the meaning of a law or regulation by a government agency. In the context it is used, the phrase refers to the discipline, training, and organization of the militia. In addition, it refers to being under the control of their commanders which had to come from the states as opposed to the federal government.
This type of mistaken argument often comes from politicians who are lawyers trained in using complicated logical fallacies to confuse or change meanings. This particular argument is a loose form of an etymological fallacy or an equivocation or composition fallacy. However, it is really based on an incorrect reading of the sentence. By the way, my evidence for the meaning of “well regulated” comes from the writings of Jefferson and the Federalist papers. If you’d like to dig into that deeper, I’m happy to provide references.
“I bring this up because way too many firearms owners and advocates for an armed citizenry still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. Fact is, all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
This one is interesting to argue because you’ve used so many logical fallacies in two sentences. Here are a few:
1. The first sentence is a “straw man” where you characterize the other side of the argument. However, the wording you use in the sentence such as the misrepresentation of the word “regulation” makes it difficult to classify this fallacy in the strictest form.
2. The two sentences together make up a sort of judgmental language fallacy.
3. Your second sentence starts out with a false statement, that all rights are regulated.
4. Your second sentence uses the “appeal to tradition” fallacy.
5. You also use the “general rule” fallacy. While it may be true that some rights have laws that modify or abridge them, that does not mean that all those laws are constitutional or that it should be true for every right.
6. The last part of your second sentence (“need to be”) has a number of fallacies wrapped up in it (including the divine fallacy) and you give no evidence of it being factual.
To help explain this a little, the concept of infringement needs to be understood. The way it is used is actually closer to the concept of breaking a legal contract. However, this contract is between the people and the creator, not the government. The government is essentially a third party to the contract and should not be involved by definition. A law restricts freedom by definition. A law can restrict the people or the government or some sub-group of either one. A law that doesn’t restrict the government or a sub-group of the government restricts the people. If it can be shown to restrict the ability of the people (or any person) to exercise a right, then it is highly likely to infringe. There is a lot more material I could add here from Jefferson and Madison’s writings as well as the Federalist papers but I’m trying to keep this as short as possible. If you have questions about the hierarchy of where enumerated rights, natural rights, and laws created by the federal government sit in relation to each other, don’t hesitate to ask. The courts have created the concept of judicial scrutiny, a recent addition in the 30’s, to help them find ways to violate our constitutional and natural rights. So the idea of “strict scrutiny” is applied to the 2nd amendment for purposes of determining if an infringement will be allowed. The fact that they have a way to violate our rights is nothing to be proud of to begin with. These levels of scrutiny have been used poorly in many cases. I’m sure you know the most egregious historical reference I’m making. However, most concealed carry laws would likely not even meet the first test of strict scrutiny if judges would read the language properly. (I realize that my light treatment of this subject necessarily has a few logical fallacies of its own. I’m trying to keep my answers brief and that is difficult. If you’d like to dig in deeper, I’m happy to work through this.)
“Freedom of Speech is regulated: you cannot falsely and deliberately shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Freedom of Religion is regulated: a church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of Assembly is regulated: people who don’t like you can’t gather an anti-you demonstration on your front lawn without your permission. And it is illegal for convicted felons or the clinically insane to keep and bear arms.”
This is an old argument with a number of misunderstandings at its root. The “regulations” you mention are not specific laws saying those exact words. They are anecdotes referring to laws and/or court decisions about the result of freely exercising your rights in an abusive way that may lead to the rights of others being violated. The 2nd amendment guarantees I can have a gun but does not guarantee that I get to murder people indiscriminately. The murder part would be the element you could compare to shouting “fire” in a crowded environment. In general, any right used to violate the rights of others is likely to have consequences. That doesn’t change the right, merely what happens after an abusive use of the right. I could go into a long discussion about prior restraint and what the laws and court decisions actually say here but I’m hoping you will look them up and understand them and then be embarrassed that you were tricked into using an old liberal argument against the 2nd amendment that has various straw men and non-sequiturs in it. If you really want to go deeper here, I can but you really should be able to research this on your own.
“I tended not to let myself be drawn into that argument, but I always wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to take a vehicle out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training program, driver’s test, or driver’s license. Yes, I understand that driving a car is not a right guaranteed or protected by the Constitution, but to me the underlying principle is the same.”
When you start out the first sentence that way, you expertly combine several logical fallacies, such as appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule, in an understated way. When I first read the phrase a red flag went up, then I thought I should give you the benefit of the doubt, ah, but then I read the rest of the sentence. You then move to a straw man argument that is in itself, a non sequitur. When you say that the underlying principle is the same, you negate the first half of that sentence with the “but” and then you are able to conveniently ignore the reason that they are different principles. Nicely done but I caught you. The fact that it is a right is the reason they are not the same principle. It’s sort of a weak association fallacy. I’m in favor of training but it would be very difficult for the federal or state governments to specify training without infringing. I’ll explain that in more detail in my answer to the next phrase from your original article that I chose to answer.
“It’s a “shall-issue” law, but it requires 16 hours of training to qualify for a license. Many of my fellow Illinois gun-owners say that’s excessive. They say it’s inherently an infringement. I don’t. But I’d like it to be GOOD training.” and … “I don’t think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself.”
Any situation where a right is gated by a government edict is by definition, an infringement. If you can’t exercise the right until you’ve met the government requirement, there is no right. In addition, as I’ve explained above, infringement is about the rights given by the contract between the creator and the people. The hierarchy is that the constitution and rights stand above laws or government edict. That is plain to understand. Now, let’s get to the needs part of the argument which has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the right we have already with or without the 2nd amendment. John Lott’s excellent work showed that when training requirements exceeded 8 hours, it disenfranchised poor and black people. That meant that poor and black people could afford CCW less and this is measurable and statistically significant. This is an infringement on poor and black people. Before you say that anybody who could afford 8 hours can afford 16 hours, I have several replies. First, that is the typical liberal way of viewing the world where something that doesn’t “feel” good or right can automatically be dismissed as false. This allows liberals to ignore hard facts and data. It always must feel good. Second, the facts are plain and clearly proven with studies using the largest amounts of data ever used in a study on the affects of guns in the hands of the law-abiding and with techniques that account for over 100 other potential variables that might affect the outcome. It is extremely solid research from a statistical point of view. So, even if I agreed that the 2nd amendment could be changed with laws (which I don’t because the hierarchy is to the constitution), it appears you support a training regime that violates civil rights (especially of a protected group), causes higher murder rates, and causes higher rapes. (refer to my email to a family member for the impact over 8 hours has on murder and rape – yes, it increases murder and rape). What is so magic about 16 hours? Why not 187 hours or 6 hours? I’ve seen people who train a lot demonstrate certain ingrained bad habits. They may have hundreds of hours of training. The training isn’t magic. I’m a believer in training but training doesn’t fix stupid. It seems to only fix the smart people or those with a predisposition to learn from training. Finally, why would you support more murder and rape? I realize you don’t but I always wanted to use a liberal tactic in an argument. Now that you realize that your position on training actually violates civil rights (especially of a protected group) and increases murder and rape, you have no choice but to back down from this position, right?
One last thing on this issue. I’m a strong believer in training. Therefore, I would be willing to go a little liberal in this area in one sense. While I know that having the government specify that I must have training before I exercise a right is a true infringement, I would not mind the government spending my money to do a little advertising for gun training. What I mean is that if private parties were allowed and even encouraged by the federal and state governments to advertise gun training in all media, I would be OK with these governments offering a small amount of my money as a stipend to help private parties pay for expensive media such as TV advertising. I would also be OK with the government having some kind of requirement that said advertising include some small statement saying that the government recommends training. In a TV ad, it might be a small print caption at the bottom of the ad saying “Illinois state encourages training for safe and legal use of firearms.” That might make a few people uncomfortable but it is the only way I can see government being involved and it not being an infringement.
I’ve included a couple of emails I sent, one to the Shooting Wire, and one to a family member. Please read those as additional information and let me know your thoughts.
I thought of many ways to end this reply. I was going to challenge you with some questions but I’d like to leave that for later. Let’s make it a two-way conversation. I hope you will research and think hard on these issues and reply.
Sincerely,
Mike Corum
From my Email to the Shooting Wire online newsletter, before I read Dick’s column, and only responding to his response in the newsletter:
I have not read that much about this controversy. I have not read Dick’s column. However, I have some answers for the questions in Dick’s reply below.
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
A: The Constitution and Bill of Rights have running through them, the concept that once you have been convicted of a crime, you lose rights and privileges. Even though activist judges are often giving some of those rights and privileges back to prisoners, the concept is everywhere in those documents and clearly stated. So, of course, convicted criminals can have rights and privileges taken away. That is part of the constitution. Laws further clarifying how that is done should not be repealed unless they affect law-abiding full citizens.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
A: YES, of course they are. (The word “license” is the clue).
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
A: YES
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
A: Here is where you don’t understand the concept of the Bill of RIGHTS. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not on the citizens. Therefore, by definition, I can’t violate the Rights (of citizens and restrictions on government) unless I am a government person (legislator, judge, etc…) levying a law that violates the Bill of Rights.
He mentions training. I also support training and encourage new gun owners to get as much training as they can. I don’t support government establishing training requirements to exercise a right.
My question for Dick is this: While the response to your column may be rude or even unnecessarily mean, do you expect that the 1st amendment rights of the citizens expressing their opinion about your misunderstanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be somehow limited?
Rights bring responsibility and exercise of rights can have consequences.
Mike
From my email to somebody in the family, explaining it:
Unfortunately, his reading of the amendment is actually incorrect. The comma is critical and separates two sections. Thomas Jefferson’s writings explained that clearly and said the “regulation” applies to the “militia” which is defined as “able bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age” and the “right of the people” phrase is separate and uses the meaning of “people” that means all citizens. So the “militia” is a role that able bodied men between 17 and 45 play and that “role” can be regulated, whereas, the “people” is all citizens and their “right to keep and bear arms” can’t be infringed. The word “infringed” was meant (according to Jefferson and several other letters of other constitution writers) to be the opposite of regulated in the whole amendment. It’s a common mistake to combine the phrases together. Rulings such as Heller and MacDonald and a few others explain the issue and make the separation clear.
Actually, after reading the article, I see several logical fallacy issues in his arguments (ad hominems and non sequiturs). Look for phrases where he characterizes the argument of the other side (us). When he does that, he either exaggerates or completely misstates the arguments in order to make it easier for him to argue for the control side. The car example is a non sequitur.
He is mistaken about his claim that 16 hours of training does not infringe. Lott and Mustard as well as several other researchers found that when training requirements exceeded 8 hours, there was a significant, dramatic, and statistically significant drop in the number of people who obtained concealed carry licenses. This drop was even greater among minorities, blacks in particular. Because of that, it should be possible to bring civil rights suits against Illinois to make them lower their requirements to 8 hours. In addition, carry laws with 9 hours or more in training requirements got only half the benefit of laws with 8 hours or less. The “benefit” was the drop in murder, rape, and various other crimes that occurred once concealed carry went into effect in each state. If states with 8 hours got a 4% to 8% drop in murder and 10% drop in rape, states with 9 hours or more got only 1% to 3% drops in murder and a 4% to 5% drop in rape. Concealed carry is a women’s rights issue indeed.
Then he quotes a decision from the Illinois Supreme court (Aguilar). Now, Moore versus Madigan (another Illinois case) clarified Heller (and MacDonald) to explain that keeping and bearing could be done both inside and outside the home. Many states have case law with this same clarification. That clarification actually applies to concealed carry in that any law requiring a license to carry (“bear”) arms concealed or open violates the 2nd amendment. At this point, the reason the gun community is so angry about that is that we know that all these laws are unconstitutional and it will now take millions or possibly billions of dollars to strike them down. They will all fall in time but the fact that we have to spend our money to make it happen is frustrating, especially when the control crowd is so well funded. Another issue he mentioned is that quote from the Aguilar case saying that regulation is OK. Later in Aguilar, it actually gives a list of the type of regulations that are OK. They mention three categories, laws forbidding felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms, the sensitive places restrictions (government buildings), and the regulations on how the sale of firearms is to be conducted. The last one is true and is in line with other areas of the constitution and various laws regulating commerce. The first one is also in line because of the overall concept of a felon losing citizenship rights and privileges. The sensitive places restriction is the one that is actually being struck down state by state. Lott’s studies show that mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, period. Almost nowhere else do they happen. States are seeing the writing on the wall and are getting ahead of the lawsuits that are coming in that area.
Since you’re a scholarly chap, here’s the origin of the term of art “well regulated militia,” by a Scottish patriot and political writer of the 17th century, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun:
https://ia600803.us.archive.org/1/items/discourseofgover00flet/discourseofgover00flet.pdf
And a wikipedia (yes, I know) entry on the author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Fletcher_(politician)
The arguments that Fletcher makes concerning keeping the monarchy from having a monopoly on force are no less valid today.
DG,
Thanks, that went right into my Evernote library and I’ll read it this week. Looks interesting.
Mike
A few items…one being the driver’s license analogy, one does not need a license to drive. You may wish to dig into that deeper, as you seem to grasp well the ideas that went into the coercing of the citizens into believing they need a license to drive. Licensing was originally, and still, required only for those driving a vehicle professionally, such as chauffers, taxi drivers, and truckers.
Second, the constitution does not have run through it loss of rights, but alludes to the deprivation of such through due process. In accordance with that, once a sentence is finished, it is finished, period. All deprivations shall be ended. I find nothing to the contrary in the constitution.
You are actually quite right. I learned that later after I wrote that email. It was the first one I wrote after the original article came out and I hadn’t read the article yet. I was also shooting from the hip a little because, at that time, I was drawing on old memories and not looking things up for accuracy. Correction accepted.
Well… it was a trifle… LONG. But well-written. Based on the parts I read.
I’m happy that Metcalf is hurting. He deserves to hurt. We get enough attacks from our opponents without a so-called ‘friend’ back-stabbing us.
Schadenfreude.
“Mr. Metcalf said … the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices”
You bet your arse it’s bitter! Those Commie Barstids are trying to strip away the Constitutional Protection of American Citizens’ God-given, unalienable, natural, human, civil right to keep and bear arms! We’re fighting to save the very soul of our country here!
Who was it who first said, “Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice?” It’s a sad commentary indeed on the sickness permeating the American psyche when standing up for the Constitution is considered “extreme.”
Funny a man who professes not to believe in God should so often invoke him.
The complete Texas CHL course includes the range test and written test, which are not included in the 6 hour limit on classroom time.
If you didn’t learn anything in your CHL class, you failed the instructor selection process.
There are plenty of good to excellent Texas CHL instructors who make the material relevant and interesting.
The content of the course is useful information to know. I can provide plenty of examples of Texas gun owners who chose not to get a CHL, who made bad decisions with a firearm that landed them in court and/or jail.
We are not being extremist, we are adhering to facts.
Mr. Metcalf is a product of his times and where he lives, Illinois. Having lived in places much like that state myself (CA and OR), any notion of compromise or moderation has been bled out of me for many political/legal issues. He still thinks you can moderate to a workable compromise without ultimately giving up your principles. The words and actions of the anti-self defense crowd prove that any compromise is folly and leads to the loss of rights. The proof is the NFA in 1934, to the CGA in 1968, 1986 Hughes ammendment/FOPA and 1994 Assault weapons ban and now various state registration requirements and magazine capacity limits. Only the AWB of 94 has been allowed to fall by the wayside. All of those were said to be “reasonable” and then years later more reason is needed apparently.
Read most of the responses; Dick got what was coming to him IMO. He wasn’t silenced; he wasn’t muffled.. He was a victim of saying something he wanted to say that was job related- in the course of his job- anti towards those that were his real consumers- and he suffers the consequences for his actions. As I see it- it’s no different than that PR lady that put her foot in her mouth not too long ago.
The right to bear arms I believe has already been infringed time and time again; our founding fathers would have been appalled at the idea of getting a permit to carry their guns; or even a permit to hunt. Taking a mandatory class is also an infringement too; yes- you should be encouraged to take one especially if you are new to guns-in the interest of safety- perhaps a free course at the retail store where you buy your first weapon or second or whatever numbered weapon- but not mandatory. We should be working on taking back the areas that we’ve allowed our government to overstep their bounds..Silencers. SBR’s. Full automatics. High capacity mags- to name a few..
Any mandatory course could be misused to provide a less than favorable outlook- if the people giving the class are so inclined. Imagine going to a class and having someone tell newbies that a gun can go off all by itself; someone will believe him.. Or carrying a gun makes you less of a man.. Repeat the lie enough- and some will believe it. This is how it always starts anyways- does it not ?
While the idea of educating your kids by having a mandatory class covering the subject sounds good- it can be used to the anti’s favor- turned to a negative presentation which turns the kids against our ideals; it’s already being used to an extent in our public schools- where they indoctrinate our youth; they figure that over time- they will eventually win. And if we let them continue- they will. Even mandatory “Basic Training” over the course of a summer could be misused by the government to spread whatever ideas that they want to portray; you should not trust your government to not attempt to play into that. Imagine sending your kids off to “Basic Training” to have them indoctrinate your kids into believing that “Only the government and police should have weapons; if it were so- crime would be non-existent” Giving these idiots at any level the ability to stand on their soap box and present their “lessons” is not a wise choice.
OJ was a great football player,So What? Metcalf was dead ass wrong.Shall not be Infringed does NOT mean ” shall be regulated” That’s What Hitler Did,And in the midst of Clueless regulators passing Illegal gun laws while letting criminals out of jail by the thousands (STUPID CALIFORNIA) Your comments are and thoughts are yours only and not accepted or agreed with by the community of firearms owners ,shooters ,competitors,manufacturers patriots or anyone who believes in the Constitution.
All the Liberal fools who actually believe firearm exclusion makes life safer are walking down history’s path of destruction.Regulation,registration ,confiscation,intimidation tyranny,slaughter,death.
I know could never happen,funny that’s what my Holocost Survivor father in law said.
Germany thought Hitler was the greatest man of all time.(in 1939)
Hmmmm,didn’t he regulate firearms?
“Germany thought Hitler was the greatest man of all time.(in 1939)
Hmmmm,didn’t he regulate firearms?”
And America thought Barack Hussein Obama was the greatest man of all time in 2008.
And he _is_ trying to regulate firearms.
Draw your own conclusions.
So does the 2nd amendment give me the right to develop and own nuclear weapons? If you don’t believe so, then you’re really not an absolutist when it comes to the second amendment. That’s actually a good thing, because it means that there’s the possibility of some kind of rational discussion about how we should regulate the ownership of arms.
Mike
Note to [non]RationalMike:
When you have to leap to such stupidly ridiculous arguments to make a point here, you have failed.
I really don’t see it as a stupid argument. The 2A discusses the right to bear arms, which broadly defined would include nuclear weapons. When you have to start denigrating others arguments instead of addressing them, that’s when you’ve failed.
” The 2A discusses the right to bear arms, ”
No, it does not. There is no discussion. The 2A states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yes, it may indeed recognize such a right. How many weeks’ pay do you need to save up for a garden-variety nuke? Your great-grandchildren will still be saving for the first one.
How many paychecks for a nuclear submarine, rational?
So by your logic, if the technology to develop such weapons drops in complexity and price, you’d have no problem with citizens having such a weapon? Wow.
When weapons technology drops in complexity or price, no amount of asinine regulation will keep determined people from having what they want.
“you’d have no problem with citizens having such a weapon?”
Better citizens than government bureaucrats who violate the Constitution as a matter of course.
Most people (even 2A absolutists) are comfortable drawing the line at discriminate vs indiscriminate weapons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are all very indiscriminate, and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who supports ownership of them by private citizens.
Matt, I think you’re missing the fine line here between owning something vs using it.
You have a right to own whatever the hexx you damn well please.
You don NOT have a right to poison people or bomb them or infect them with deadly diseases.
So you’re cool with your neighbor having chemical weapons and see no need for regulation of them. What if he or she is careless and accidently releases them?
Wait; are you Mikey Numbers? You just don’t get this liberty thing, do you, son?
You ASSUME everyone will be careless. Until someone is, they have done nothing wrong. Maybe liberals are just totally inept, it doesn’t mean everyone else acts similarly. You have no right to assume as such.
“So you’re cool with your neighbor having chemical weapons and see no need for regulation of them.”
Yes, absolutely.
“What if he or she is careless and accidently releases them?”
THEN, we’ve got a problem. Are you capable of seeing the difference?
@William, that’s a different Mike. Why do you have to try and ridicule me? Why can’t you calmly and rationally respond to my questions?
Sure thing, Mikey Numbers!
Unlikely. mikeb302000 is in Italy. This guy is not.
Those don’t sound like absolutists to me! Damn commies ;). What about the fact that a machine gun can be used very inscriminantly, such as when fired into a crowd? Doesn’t that, therefore, argue for some level of regulation?
No, it absolutely does not. Any weapon can be used indiscriminately, but there are people who are more accurate with a fully automatic machine gun than others are with a scoped rifle. The user is indiscriminate or not. NBC the weapons, on the other hand, are indiscriminate by their very nature, hitting anyone nearby, no matter who they’re aimed at and even in spite of that aim.
Chemical and biological agents are quite regularly administered to single individuals. Hardly indiscriminate.
True!
” What about the fact that a machine gun can be used very inscriminantly, such as when fired into a crowd? Doesn’t that, therefore, argue for some level of regulation?”
It’s already against the law to shoot people.
People are forgetful, sometimes. 🙂
Grise, why do you keep bringing up the fact that these acts are illegal as an argument? It makes no sense to me. We’re talking about whether certain arms should be regulated.
Regarding your not having a problem with a careless neighbor with chemical weapons, having an issue with it after the fact seems a little too late since you’d likely be dead.
Liberty, not safety. For good reasons.
Government will always attempt to take your liberty, and government can never offer you safety, regardless of its claims to the contrary. Liberty allows us to look out for ourselves.
“So does the 2nd amendment give me the right to develop and own nuclear weapons?”
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t “give” anybody doodley-squat. You were BORN WITH the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
And yes, you were endowed by your Creator with the right to keep and bear atomic bombs. You do NOT, however, have any right to kill people.
Superb answer. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Obviously, because I didn’t.
” That’s actually a good thing, because it means that there’s the possibility of some kind of rational discussion about how we should regulate the ownership of arms.”
Why should we discuss regulation of the ownership of arms? For what purpose? Since you aren’t really interested in the explanation about rights, natural or enumerated, I’ll play and flip over to your argument about needs. What is the need? Since more regulation has been proven in every single case to increase murder, rape, and other categories of crime, what other purpose are you willing to sacrifice people for by regulating arms and causing more death and rape?
Care to cite any studies backing up your claims?
It’s especially hard for any real analysis to be done on this topic since, through the strong arming of the NRA, such questions are not allowed to be funded by the CDC.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
That’s because the CDC had done several studies, none of which got the answer that the gun-grabbers in government wanted, and wanted to just keep on doing them. The grabbers were throwing money at it, trying to win the lottery by getting the one study that contradicted all the others, and guess which one would have gotten all the press?
Matt, Please cite these studies and any documentation supporting your claim it is the ‘government’ that pressured itself to stop funding such work.
My previous source was a peer reviewed article, but here are some additional sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1
“It’s especially hard for any real analysis to be done on this topic since, through the strong arming of the NRA, such questions are not allowed to be funded by the CDC.”
This is another one of those tired liberal lines. Since you’ve brought this one up, let me first say that the CDC is definitely not the appropriate government agency to study gun control, crime, and public policy. The type of science they do is different and requires different techniques of study and different types of statistical analysis. And since you are also hinting at the other tired liberal lie that no recent studies have been done, let me give you some recent studies.
1. US Department of Justice study titled: “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011” came out in May 2013. For my taste, it could have gone further in cross-sectional work but it still has some decent raw data.
2. National Research Council (and various other parties) titled: “Priorities for Research the Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” came out this year. This is the one ordered by Obama last year. Since it didn’t get the answer he wanted, it seems to have been buried. No press that I’ve seen. Hmmm.
3. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study titled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” came out around 2007. You really have to read page 7 & 8 about England. Amazing amount of truth there.
4. Congressional Research Service study titled: “Gun Control Legislation” came out in November of 2012. This one talks a lot about the history of gun control laws and gives a lot of data which inadvertently proves that these laws had either no effect or a negative affect on crime overall.
I’m hoping this is enough for now. I have a few more and I have a list of ones I haven’t read yet also. Overall, there are about 18 major studies over the last 30 years, 14 of which say clearly that gun control equals more murder and rape. Four of them say either no effect or a slightly positive effect for the first year, followed by a negative affect. This is what happened in England after the ban. For the first year, several categories of crime went down but then the criminals figured out that their victims had been disarmed. Since then, it has gone from bad to worse in England. Read that Harvard study.
Let me know if you need more information.
I’m guessing he will. First and foremost, there is something fundamentally unsound of using a disease control model to study firearms violence. Where’s the effing pathogen?
Boy where to begin.
First, William Burke the CDC studies disease, not just infectious diseases.
Second, BluesMike I do a lot of stats and I disagree with your statement “The type of science they do is different and requires different techniques of study and different types of statistical analysis. ” Most of these studies will be using some kind of regression model.
My previous posts contained evidence, as I contended, that the NRA has campaigned successfully to prevent studies on gun violence and gun control. I don’t really think you can say Business Insider is a liberal rag.
Regarding the studies you mentioned:
“1. US Department of Justice study titled: “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011″ came out in May 2013. For my taste, it could have gone further in cross-sectional work but it still has some decent raw data. ”
Yes there’s lots of data, but I don’t see how it addresses to the efficacy of gun control? It’s not even mentioned in the study
“2. National Research Council (and various other parties) titled: “Priorities for Research the Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” came out this year. This is the one ordered by Obama last year. Since it didn’t get the answer he wanted, it seems to have been buried. No press that I’ve seen. Hmmm.”
This is a prospectus for a research agenda, not a research product so it is not surprising there was ‘no press’. Further, there’s no mention of gun control.
“3. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study titled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” came out around 2007. You really have to read page 7 & 8 about England. Amazing amount of truth there.”
The journal’s mast head states “The nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” I’ve never seen such a statement in a scientific journal, which as a rule aim to be apolitical. Not very convincing at this point.
“4. Congressional Research Service study titled: “Gun Control Legislation” came out in November of 2012. This one talks a lot about the history of gun control laws and gives a lot of data which inadvertently proves that these laws had either no effect or a negative affect on crime overall.”
That’s quite a claim. Have you done any analysis to back it up?
On a final note, science doesn’t claim to be able to prove anything. Conclusions are always open to revision based on new evidence. Proofs are restricted to mathematics.
Best,
Mike (but not Mikey Numbers)
You mentioned that you do a lot of statistics. Do you use it in your work or in some other capacity? Either way, it sounds like you found some different studies than the ones I found. Since this topic is getting old, I’ll take you at your word on your knowledge of statistics and suggest that you read John Lott’s books, “More Guns, Less Crime” in particular, the most recent edition where he clearly answers all of the challenges done against his original studies, adds more data for more years, and even shows that if he did take the suggestions of the challengers that the results would even tip more towards the pro-gun side in all but a few cases. In those few cases, he clearly shows the logical fallacies and shoddy data treatment that the challengers are suggesting he use in order to get the “right” answer. Remember that Lott started out with a different world view and has changed his world view a bit. If you look at an earlier edition of his main book and compare it to a later one, you can see the change. I’ll trust that you’ll read the book and for now we’ll agree to disagree. I’m done on this thread.
BluesMike, Please don’t feed the troll.
No mo’; I find myself REALLY wondering about the guy.
I’m kind of ashamed it took so long to figure out that he was only trolling.
I must say, he did exhibit considerable skill at it, for awhile.
Rationalmike is Mikey Numbers!
Unlikely. mikeb302000 is in Italy. This guy is not.
Okay. Still…. could he not be funneling it through someone stateside? Can you eliminate that possibility? Something awfully familiar….
I’m not following you down this rabbit hole. I told you what I know. What you do with it is up to you.
DONE, Matt. Things will reveal themselves. Or not.
The Constitution DOES guarantee Dick the right to state what he believes. However, it DOES NOT guarantee him the right to be heard. He can go stand on a street corner and shout his beliefs. He can self-publish his beliefs in a book. He can state his beliefs in a “LIBERAL RAG”, like the New York Times. But, the rest of us have no interest in what you have to say, Dick. So, stop whining. The very fact you continue to live in the “Peoples Republic of Illinois”, gives us some indication of the compromises that you are willing to make in your own life. The rest of us are not willing to give another inch. To quote Ben Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
And despite what has been said (and claimed incorrectly by others) NO ONE here, to my knowledge, ever said Dick “Dick” Metcalf should be denied his First Amendment rights. No one. If I’m wrong, show me.
Mr Metcalf is like a RINO of guns, a Jezebel in hiding so to speak, Basically another Blow hard that knows his Opinion matters more than everyone else s, sort of its okay if you make money at it but deep down a Judas playing the money game! Not committed to anything but the buck, I’d wager he starts working for Bloomberg !
‘I’ve Been Vanished’: Guns & Ammo Editor Who Wrote Column Suggesting Stricter Gun Laws Speaks
Months after former Guns & Ammo magazine columnist Dick Metcalf ignited a firestorm by advocating stricter gun control laws, he claims he has been blackballed from the industry.
“I’ve been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you don’t,” he said in a recent New York Times interview.
Former Guns and Ammo Writer Addresses Fallout Over Gun Control Article: Im a Pariah
Dick Metcalf (Image source: The Truth About Guns)
“Compromise is a bad word these days,” Metcalf, 67, added. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
Trouble began shortly after the writer published an editorial, titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” for Guns & Ammo magazine in November.
“Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” Metcalf wrote in the article. “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
“All U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms,” he added, “but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.”
Despite the fact that his editors approved and published the article, Metcalf was terminated after reader backlash proved too fierce. Guns & Ammo magazine top editor Jim Bequette was also forced to resign early as a result of the intense reaction to Metcalf’s editorial.
“I made a mistake by publishing the column,” he wrote in his letter of resignation. “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.”
Since parting ways with Guns & Ammo, Metcalf claims his fall from grace has been severe.
“Some topics you should never try and discuss too briefly because they can’t be dealt with like that,” Metcalf said in the Times interview.
.
Once a leader in his field, with a television show co-produced by Guns & Ammo, Metcalf said the editorial has turned him into a “pariah,” as the Times put it.
He “absolutely did not” deserve to be fired, said Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Shannon Watts.
“If he suggested a ban on all guns, then I would understand that reaction,” Watts said. “But to say a fair exchange of ideas on how to stem the deaths and murders in this country because of gun violence is an act of heresy just reeks of no tolerance
““I’ve been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you don’t,” he said in a recent New York Times interview.”
Dickie, can you hear this tiny fiddle I’m playing for you?
the problem with Metcalf is that he was 1. wrong. And 2. A statement(s) like that by a prominent member of the community just gives anti’s and opportunity to quote you out of context and misconstrue your meaning to achieve their own ends.
Compare “reasonable restrictions” of a specifically enumerated right with any discussion of “reasonable restrictions” on abortion….which is a totally fabricated right.
Any “reasonable restrictions” on a right were already mentioned in the enumeration of the right itself. If it isn’t there, it doesn’t exist. Look at the third amendment for an example. Looking to the first, we see that the limitations on it were upon Congress, or by extension, the federal government. States were still allowed to restrict speech or establish a religion, though this is likely only there because of the existence of state religions at the time of the penning of the amendment. This throws a wrench in the “incorporation” arguments as well. Now we see the states restricted from their ability to do these things, while the fed does so with impunity. Backwards as hell.
The fourth specifies quite well what exemptions there are, yet the courts see fit to further open these exemptions, absolutely contrary to the explicit words of the amendment.
One could go on, examining each of the amendments of the BOR, and see that any and all exceptions to the enumerated rights are established therein, and no others are legitimate. The problem is that the government has trampled these rights under foot, with the complicity of the supreme court, and we the people, and the states themselves, have allowed this to go on.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion in here, as evidenced by the posts here.
If we stop to think about the fact that most editorials are written in order to stimulate ones thought process, Mr Metcalf’s articles have always done so over the years and he achieved his goal. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and free to speak as we please, due to the rights that we were given by our founding fathers. It seems to me that his editorial has done well in the idea of making us all freely think and voice our approval or displeasure here and in other venues throughout the shooting world media. As one who has met the man and had occasion to debate things with him he is well versed and a great shooter. Does that mean I agree with everything he says, No, Did he agree with all my opinions and thoughts, No. We came to the conclusion and agreed to disagree, and both went away with a new perspective on subjects we spoke of, thereby expanding our minds and thoughts.
Realize that the magazine companies have total control as to what is published in articles and editorials. I know for a fact that media companies, can ask you to write an article on a certain thing then they will take things sometimes out of context, and then they twist things for their own beliefs or points they want to produce. I have yet to be able to see if this is the fact, but am planning to hopefully in the near future.
All I can say at this point is Thank You to all from Mr Metcalf and everyone else who has voiced their opinions here for stimulating my thinking.
Respectfully!
I want to say that Metcalf’s article did NOT stimulate my thinking! I read it, shook my head sadly, and mused, “pish-posh; the man’s gone over the wall!”. Paraphrasing, of course.
Seems no one learns the lesson of Jim Zumbo. Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. Seems Dick Metcalf didn’t learn that lesson. The Fudd’s (with their “sniper rifles”) would be much better off to align themselves with those of us sportsmen who collect and shoot “sporting rifles”. Once the antigunners finish with us who do you think they will turn on next?
I look at what happened to Mr. Metcalf through the lenses of kid (in my late 20’s but still not very wise lol) who got my degree in political science and has spent the last 7 years working in public relations. With that in mind I believe what has happened to Mr. Metcalf is a classic case of “partial blindness” that I have seen a thousand times in political debates.
When it comes to things like “RIGHTS” people are always very protective of their own rights, but too often willing to give up someone else’s rights. Metcalf represented the community of hunters that within the 2A community have sometimes been guilty of being willing to budge on the rights of any guns that aren’t important in the world of game hunting.
I myself was introduced to guns because of hunting with my dad, and as i grew up i myself often thought… we don’t need machine guns to hunt deer…so i don’t mind if they’re made illegal. Today I realize how wrong this type of thinking is…and it applies to all of our rights just as much…
All of our freedoms and liberties…our freedom to say what we believe, read and write what we think, and practice the religion of our choosing DEPEND on the basic tenet that in order for me to be free to do what i want and practice what i believe, i must also accept the rights of others to say what they want even if i do not agree with it…and furthermore I must be willing to defend the rights of those whose point of view I disagree with.
Those who are willing to give up half their rights in order to keep the other half will eventually learn that path is a slippery slope that will eventually LEAD to having ALL of our rights taken away. If the hunters and sportsmen allow the guns that seem too “tactical” and “military” to be taken away… their long guns will be next because the protectionists on the left will NOT STOP until our whole society is disarmed.
I’m glad that Dick got fired because it at shows that as a community we can police ourselves and it adds to our credibility in my opinion. As someone who attended more than a few TEA PARTY rallies here in California during a time when news stations like MSNBC and CNN were sending camera crews out to specifically find the ONE GUY holding an overtly racist sign or wearing the insane t-shirt and trying to make it look like that person represented the whole community. We had organizers make SURE that people who did not represent our views were asked to leave and pointed out people who did not represent our policies… we have to do that in the gun community too and it is a team effort. I am glad to read all the posts from people on this site giving their opinions because we truly need that.
Or maybe live and let live?
““I’ve been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you don’t,” he said in a recent New York Times interview.”
Oh, poor baby got a timeout?
TRUTHABOUTTHECIA.ORG ‘S OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
‘ Ironically, at this point in History: Our Gun Rights ‘have’ Morphed into a Debate based on Representation and location of the Gun Manufacturer. Not the the ‘True Meaning’ of the 2nd Amendment ‘or’ the Purpose of Enforcement within the Existing Laws regulating The Use and Ownership of Firearms. ‘
Keith Grant
TRUTHABOUTTHECIA.ORG
cc: Ms. Kelsi Hottie, Mrs. Happy, Amy Tate, JAX TATE, Colten Grant, Dillon Grant, Kelsi’s Lawyers
Wat.
I say, “Bravo”, Mr. Metcalf –for being a man of reason, while being someone who armed.
I don’t carry a weapon, and it is my right not to do so. I fully understand the reasons we need the 2nd Amendment, and I respect them and I support them. But I do not feel it is the gun industry’s right to sell their products to just anyone who can afford the permit. Their products are readily available, their products are concealable, and their products are potentially lethal.
As Mr. Medcalf tried to suggest, the goods and services of any industry where lies potentially adverse implications, are and should be, subject to regulation. Pharmaceuticals are not distributed without a doctor’s prescription –– but isn’t it our sovereign right to preserve and maintain our person health? Yes… until pharmacists produce a pill that cures if it is correctly administered and kills if it is misused. Seat belts have regulation assigned to them – why? because history/data tells us adults are safer when driving if they wear them and children of a certain size are not. Do I dare compare the law for child safety seats to magazine clip regulation?
Forgive me if it appears a weakness, but it’s comforting to know there are some die in the wool gun advocates out there, which Mr. Medcalf with no question is, who have a rational opinion about this country’s right to bear arms.
If you think “clip regulation” is a good idea, then you don’t know anything about guns or the 2nd Amendment.
Effing A.
“But I do not feel it is the gun industry’s right to sell their products to just anyone who can afford the permit.”
Then it must blow your mind to know there are places (many of them) where the only bar to ownership is the ability to afford the gun, because there’s no such thing as a permit to purchase or own a gun.
“Their products are readily available, their products are concealable, and their products are potentially lethal.”
So are ice picks, and pool acid, and kitchen knives, and any of a hundred other things I could name that fit all three of those criteria, and are both significantly cheaper than a gun, and also completely unregulated. You propose regulating all of them? You know that’s where the UK is headed, right? Having successfully gotten rid of all guns (except the ones in criminal hands, of course), they’re working on banning all pointy knives over about 4″ long.
“…the goods and services of any industry where lies potentially adverse implications, are and should be, subject to regulation.”
Any industry? Do you know how many things I could find in the average Home Depot to kill you with, many of them just as efficient (or nearly so) as a gun? Furthermore, there’s lots of stuff at Home Depot that lends itself not just to killing, but to killing on a widespread, indiscriminate scale. Stuff that burns, stuff that blows up, stuff that poisons… all of it sold to anyone with the cash and the interest to buy it. Are you going to regulate all of that, because all of it has potentially adverse uses?
“Do I dare compare the law for child safety seats to magazine clip regulation?”
Until you can explain to me just what the hell a “magazine clip” is, I’d stay away from using it for comparison. Your use of it tells me you’re ignorant on the subject (which is fine, education is the cure-all for ignorance), and are regurgitating a term you heard elsewhere without any real understanding of it. (Sidenote: Isn’t it interesting how the media, having gotten “clip” wrong for so long out of total and abject ignorance, have tried to fix it by turning it into a compound word, “magazine clip?” This has really only happened in the last 6-8 months. Go back a year ago, or two years ago, and you’d be hard-pressed to find the term “magazine clip” used anywhere, and now it’s in easily half the articles I read.)
You’re right, it does ‘blow my mind’, Mat, that a firearm can be purchased somewhere, legally, without a permit. If the days of the government kicking our doors is upon us, don’t you think we will have already taken it to the streets?
In the interim, it’s nice to know the authorities have some idea of who does and who does not have weapons in their household. My brother’s a cop…at very least, for his sake.
Ice picks are concealable, but you can’t injure someone with an ice pick from 100 yards.
If alluding to nail guns at the Home Depot, they have very good safety mechanisms built in –– and accidents STILL occur. You only reinforce the argument to remove guns from public hands with arguments like that one.
And you’re right again…. I am ignorant about guns. Though I am very clear about their function. And I also know very well that I am more likely to get out of the way of something being fed – in rapid succession – 10 rounds, rather than 100 rounds, of bullets, spitballs or water balloons from a magazine, a straw, or a hammock.
…sorry dude…but yours…or your brother’s “safety” doesn’t interest me…in relation to the theft, abuse and desecration of my inalienable right….your brother chose a difficult, corrupt profession to go into…he has probably committed various violations of his oath….The Constitution and the law…or he has witnessed others doing so and has refused to do his ‘due diligence” and step forward to identify and testify against such violations…therefore..he (they) have no sympathy from me…and my entire family were corrupt law enforcement…sorry..the sympathy angle just doesn’t work here…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
” If the days of the government kicking our doors is upon us, don’t you think we will have already taken it to the streets?”
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
“… it’s nice to know the authorities have some idea of who does and who does not have weapons in their household.”
Nice for whom? It’s not nice for me. I’ve got guns in the house (not that that’s any of their business), but that doesn’t mean I have any intention of using them against law enforcement. On the other hand, there are quite a few instances (lots, actually) of law enforcement “going in hot” when responding to an address where they know there are guns, and in many cases pets and people get shot as a result, even if they did nothing threatening. Think about it. If you know I have a handful of handguns and several rifles, and you for some reason need to make a “dynamic entry,” wouldn’t your finger ride a whole lot closer to the trigger, and wouldn’t you likely be quicker to react to any “furtive movements” or “sudden gestures” when you make your entry? Of course you would, it’s human nature.
I wasn’t just alluding to nail guns, I was alluding to, as I said, any of a hundred things in there that can be used to injure people. And I wasn’t talking about accidents, although that falls in there. You said that “the goods and services of any industry where lies potentially adverse implications, are and should be, subject to regulation.” I was giving you an example, hundreds of examples, of things that fit that bill and are not subject to regulation. I asked if you proposed regulating all of them, as you said. You didn’t answer me.
As far as “10 rounds vs 100 rounds,” while I realize that was hyperbole, I’d point out that civilian accessible weapons that hold 100 rounds are vanishingly rare. So bring down the number to 30, because that’s your standard “scary high capacity magazine clip,” right? Restrictions on 30 round magazines are strictly a feel-good measure. Anyone, with just a moderate amount of practice, can put 30 rounds downrange using three 10-round mags in about the same time as using one 30-rounder. It’s really not that hard.
If law enforcement went away, we would be subjected to something that resembled New York or Chicago in the ’20s and ’30s. The biggest, meanest, and probably most well armed, guy would rule. The system in place today is not perfect…one day us humans should come to terms with the fact that anything that depends of humans will have it’s inconsistencies and errors – but we have tried through the years to design the best possible solution to deal with it. Corruption does exist in law enforcement, though let’s face it, our system beats the hell out of law enforcement existing under dictatorship forms of government. And probably safe to say anything like what goes on in Egypt, Lybia, etc. will not happen overnight. Lighten up guys! All signs indicate your guns are not going anywhere.
But if I may use my brother as an example again, knowing him, I’d rather he go into a house – where guns are registered, with his gun drawn as a trained professional, rather than assume those who residence in the house where a complaint as made read the How To Handle Your Firearm Safety Guide that came in the box with gun.
And lastly, if one can easily reload ‘magazine clips’ with 10 rounds in them… I’ll let you guess what the next thing is I would like to say about that.
Who said anything about law enforcement going away? It certainly wasn’t me. You keep moving the goalposts on this conversation, without actually answering any of my points. It’s tiresome, and I’m about done. Poking at jello is no fun because it just keeps getting out of the way.
Using your brother as an example, going in with his gun drawn… odds are the cops are going to be doing that anyway. I’m concerned about the mental aspect. Knowing “this guy has a dozen guns in there” is going to make them act differently (and react differently), likely by being quicker on the trigger than they would otherwise. Similarly, if they know someone’s got a dozen guns, they’re automatically going to have different feelings than if they know someone’s got one (singular) gun. Again, that’s just human nature.
Furthermore, registration leads to confiscation. No, not every time, but eventually, and often enough that it’s not an anomaly. Ask the people in California that are having the cops come and take their guns because their name got flagged in the APPS system. Here’s a story of a guy in Bakersfield, California who had all of his guns taken away in early November because his name came up as a prohibited person from a pot possession arrest in 1970. The infraction he was charged with isn’t even on the books anymore, but by God they cleaned out his gun safe. Somehow he got flagged as being a felon, and so the cops showed up and took his guns. He got them back several weeks later when the cops figured out “Oops, we messed up,” and while that’s good, he never should have had them taken away to begin with. It’s is a right to keep and bear arms, not a privilege that can be taken away on a whim or a 40-year-old paperwork error. Anything that would serve to deprive someone of that right better be abso-friggin-lutely beyond reproach. And that guy is just one example of the hundreds of instances where guns were seized last year. He’s not the only one that was a mistake. And that’s why I’m not interested in registration schemes. No matter how good the intentions, no matter how stalwart the promises that it will never be used for confiscation, once the information is compiled, someone will eventually find a way to rationalize using it for purposes outside its intended scope.
“And lastly, if one can easily reload ‘magazine clips’ with 10 rounds in them… I’ll let you guess what the next thing is I would like to say about that.”
And there’s all kinds of moving goalpost, slippery slope observations that can be made about that attitude. That’s why we will (I will) fight tooth and nail for every. fucking. inch. that you people try to take. Because that inch is only the prelude to the next inch, and the next, and the next. Every single time our side has given up something to the civilian disarmament movement in the interests of “compromise” or “being reasonable” or “common sense” or whatever other bullshit term du jour is being used, it has, without fail, been followed eventually by a demand that we give up more. Every. single. time.
Oooh. LANGUAGE!
;D Just kidding. It was well-warranted.
You are missing something. Being the biggest and meanest is not synonymous with being the best armed. Also, being the biggest and meanest means very little if others are well-armed. Even that 95 pound librarian can fend off that big mean guy if she is armed.
Amazing how much armed defense has to offer, huh?
God couldn’t be everywhere to protect everyone, so She sent Mr. Colt. 😉
“If law enforcement went away, we would be subjected to something that resembled New York or Chicago in the ’20s and ’30s.”
Who told you this would be the case?
Or are you just making stuff up and presenting it as if it has any basis in reality?
You are out of your depth when it comes to the Bill of Rights, mister. And you will find yourself unwelcome here in very short order. The Second Amendment, ALL of the amendments, are far beyond your ken.
When you come to realize this, you will be taking an immense step forward. Listen and learn. OR NOT.
How about a thought exercise, shall we?
Let’s change the words “guns” or “arms” with “free speech”. Free speech can be dangerous, it can warp people’s minds over the airwaves/satellite/internet. It can get people churned up into a frenzy and the words can even be false! It can cause government’s to be overthrown, people thrown in prison, lives ruined/lost; all because of free speech. But, if we limit that speech to only authorized mouthpieces, surely we can stem the tide of any idiot blathering their nonsensical ramblings, in favor of only authorized “people” telling us what they want us to think.
The incredulity of the position to “authorize” someone free speech is just as incredulous as “authorizing” someone to have a permit to buy something to defend themselves. Tyranny, criminals, oppression; it’s all the same thing, a threat to liberty.
“You propose regulating all of them?”
In his personal Utopia, everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden.
Yeah, you can count on that.
“DYED in the wool.” Jesus H. Christ. Do Americans, and, in particular, bloggers, not give two sh*ts about their abuse of their native language. Where is the effing PRIDE, people? Is it not worth it to TRY and get it right?
As to your views on the Second Amendment, who will decide if I should get a “permit”, YOU? God help us. The RKBA is a GD RIGHT, not an effing, effete PRIVILEGE!
Hum effing BUG.
It should be “dyed in the wool”, as in the coloring in certain textile products.
Thanks, Paul. Duly noted.
” But I do not feel it is the gun industry’s right to sell their products to just anyone who can afford the permit. ”
That’s where you’re wrong and in opposition to the Constitution of the United States.
Here, for your convenience: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I fully understand the reasons we need the 2nd Amendment, and I respect them and I support them. But I do not feel…
No, you do not fully understand the reasons. Additionally, the ‘gun industry’ hasn’t any ‘rights’. There are privileges and there are rights. These things are not the same thing! The government cannot give rights. The People cannot give rights. Both can only confer privileges. Actual rights are inherent in living beings. Privileges can be revoke whereas rights cannot. Since you apparently don’t fully understand the basic nature of rights vs. privileges, I fail to appreciate how you could possibly “fully understand the reasons we need the Second Amendment” nor how you could possibly “fully support them.”
The only thing control freaks understand is control.
They don’t actually understand control, they merely want to take over the knob and crank it all the way to “Maximum.”
As in, proper gun control involves a sight picture, trigger discipline, and knowing your target and what’s behind it. 😉
“They don’t actually understand control, they merely want to take over the knob and crank it all the way to “Maximum.”
Yeah. I like your version better.
Chris,
Most everything that Dick Metcalf asserted in his recent writings was factually wrong and included many logical fallacies like your post does. If you like, I can go through one by one as I did in a response to Dick when he sent out a letter to members of his range. Dick has promised to get back to me. I’m confident that he will in fact admit he was wrong on at least some of the issues. He has made the same mistake that many lawyers make (shouldn’t they be experts too?) when reading the law and various recent court decisions correct his mistake. I could do the same for you but I’d rather offer to take you shooting sometime at either an indoor or outdoor range. We could go over gun safety. I could explain clearly why a law-abiding gun owner could potentially be the best friend of a LEO if they would understand that and not assume that legal law-abiding gun owners are criminals. I don’t expect to have you switch sides, only to have you understand a little more about people who have a different view than you and to understand a little more of the truth about guns. If you are going to argue for your anti-gun side, please learn all you can about the other side. It might help me to learn about how you think as well.
Dear Mr. Blues –
Thank you for drawing my conclusions. Before I read your input I wasn’t sure where I stood. I always believed I was in this gray area, somewhere between where the black and white of this matter merged. I clearly stated I understand and uphold the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. I don’t recall declaring to be on any one ‘side’.
One last point I would like to make on this: The only object of certainty in this debate is the gun. It is an inanimate object which just lays there and does nothing if it is left alone. Why regulate anything as docile as that?
The uncertain factor of our little discussion is; the opinion, the prejudice, the sense of justice, the interpretation of human law, human rights, human dignity, the morality of, the sense of religious entitlement of, the ego of –– and numerous other sociological and psychological concerns about whoever picks that inanimate object up — THAT is a concern. And NOBODY can give an accurate answer to that. That is the reason guns need to limited in their capacity, and, by the best of our ability, carefully distributed. Nobody is saying ANYTHING about taking away guns.
God forbid any of you lose a loved one to a bullet. You may just then discover the danger of opinions so black and white.
How do you know I haven’t lost a loved one to a bullet? The emotional argument doesn’t have a valid position here, or anywhere else. Some people decide to exercise their 2nd Amendment protected right and arm up as a direct result of someone else using a gun in the performance of their crime.
Here’s the problem, that you can’t seem to wrap your head around. “potentially lethal” means absolutely nothing. Your car is potentially lethal. Your baseball bat is potentially lethal. Your scissors in your drawer are potentially lethal. You talk of “interpretation of human law, human rights, human dignity, the morality of, the sense of religious entitlement of, the ego of –– and numerous other sociological and psychological concerns about whoever picks that inanimate object up”, but you fail to acknowledge that anyone can pick up any potentially lethal object and use it. You also fail to recognize that my rights stop where your rights begin. There is a punitive system in place for when people in a civilized society fail to accept/follow that.
Chris,
Let’s take this one paragraph at a time.
The paragraph ending with “I don’t recall declaring to be on any one ‘side’” has some inaccuracies. Other responses to yours have shown clearly why you are on one side and why you don’t “understand and uphold the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.” Claiming a grey area doesn’t make it true.
“Why regulate anything as docile as that?” My answer would be to ask the same question. We already have over 26,000 laws on guns, gun owners, and what you can do with guns. I’m all for the laws that protect the rights of myself and others. I’m for laws that prohibit murder, for instance.
In the next paragraph, you give the party line of the gun grabbers and confiscators. Then you add to it by capitalizing several words. All of those things are not any reason to limit guns in their capacity. Perhaps you could look up the studies that show clearly that magazine limit bans make no difference in the amount of mass murders committed or the number of people killed. I realize that there is also a study that says the opposite by a small percent. Please read both types of studies and compare the data handling, classifications, populations, numbers of incidents and statistical methods used. If you are interested in learning more, this would be a great way to do it.
This last sentence does bug me a little. “Nobody is saying ANYTHING about taking away guns.” Are you saying that the confiscations that are currently happening and the many that have happened before in states like California, New York, Connecticut and others are somehow not facts? The confiscations are already happening. Nobody has to say anything about taking away guns. It is happening now. Nobody has to say anything. What is your point?
“God forbid any of you lose a loved one to a bullet. You may just then discover the danger of opinions so black and white.” OK, you’ve delved into an emotional area for me. I’ve lost several people, one just recently, to a bullet. I know way too many who have been raped because they were in a place where they weren’t allowed to have guns. I myself was saved by another person with a gun a very long time ago. Strangely, I was scared of guns even after that incident for many years. You are right in this case. I have discovered the danger of opinions so black and white. The danger of opinions that you seem to hold. Gun control is murder and rape. Because of the facts I know and the losses I’ve had, I see people who support any form of gun control or limits on guns as friends of murderers and rapists, wanting to make the job of murderers and rapists easier, aiding and abeting so to speak. Let’s take an example of a woman. Your limits are applied to her and she can only have a gun with 7 rounds in her magazine. Did you know that gang rapes are a category that are on the rise? Did you know that hot burglaries with teams of 2 to 8 is a category on the rise. The woman is a good shot but self defense scenarios are messy. People are moving. The criminals trying to hurt her are breaking several laws already. The criminals will have a standard capacity magazine for the gun(s) they are carrying. That means they might have 8, 13, 17, 19, or possibly 20 in their box-stock guns, assuming they haven’t bought a 30-rounder. Why would you require this woman to be at such a disadvantage? What has this woman ever done to you? Why do you hate her so much? Why do you want to make the job of these criminals so much easier? This is where I get emotional. The idea of limiting the capacity of magazines has only one purpose, to kill more law-abiding innocents.
Mike
“of opinions so black and white.”
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms isn’t an opinion, it’s the Supreme Law of the Land.
God forbid any of you lose a loved one to a bullet. You may just then discover the danger of opinions so black and white.
I had a loved one die due to a gunshot wound. Ya know what? Neither my loss nor your emotional argument changes the fact that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. It is necessary to the security of a free state; NECESSARY. One, ten, or a thousand deaths due to gunshot wounds won’t change that fact one blessed iota! If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed then tyranny follows. More will die under tyranny than ever would due to gunshot wounds in a free state. Not only that but the quality of individual life sans Liberty is far poorer. Are you for slavery? Genocide? Because, that is exactly what you’re pitching for. Disarming the People is a fool’s endeavour. Don’t be a fool.
I lost a family member to a car accident once. My suburban community still takes a dim view of me riding around in my horse and carriage.
My petition to outlaw motor vehicles seems to not be getting very far.
😀
Did you lobby for the 100% safe car?
Robert Crumb tackled this problem by saying cars should be made out of meat.
No, but I did try to organize automobile buy-backs to get them off the streets.
The “well-regulated militia” matter is cleared up immediately by Amendment III: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
IOW, the RKBA is to keep the Militia “well-regulated.”
My inner metaphysicist claims that Anarchy is the secret to Eternal Life. We’ll probably know for sure one way or another within the next 20 or 30 years. 😉
The kind of people who would “run wild in the streets” would be Darwinized in fairly short order, and the rest of us could get on with the business of creating the Garden of Eden Plus Toys. 😉
Yeah. Because the utility and desirability of Mutual Aid would quickly be recognized as the obvious path for all but the most predatory Americans, and worldwide.
Mutual Aid is THE WAY.
And what is the best way to organize and implement mutual aid?
…by applying honor, integrity and ethics to the governmental workplace…replacing, charging, convicting and hanging those that break their oaths of office…and by certifying that those who desire power through common government positions…are not sociopaths …that would be a good place to start…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
First, cut the government down to Constitutional size, like 435 + 100 + 9 + 2. Is “secretary of state” kind of like “prime minister?”
When I’m elected, I’ll give everyone under the command of the executive branch 90 days’ severance pay, and send them home. I’ll end all of the wars and not enforce any laws. There aren’t supposed to be any federal laws that need enforcement, for heaven’s sakes! Everything that gets done gets done by a citizen of some community in some state somewhere, so who needs some bureaucrat peering into your business from the other side of the country? And there are already enough EPA and OSHA rules posted on factory and office walls that their job is done and they can get off our backs.
Anything beyond the Constitution is a cancer that must be excised, and. like cancer or warts, you have to get it all or it just grows back.
Luckily, we’ve got the RKBA, thank Goddess! so the Republic will survive and the new regime will follow the Constitution for another generation or three. 😉
Personally.
“Mutual Aid is THE WAY.”
Barring natural disasters, when everybody’s operating on a principle of Enlightened Self-Interest, the need for aid shouldn’t even arise, unless you’re, like, moving the piano.
Chris Higgins says: February 16, 2014 at 17:34
“And what is the best way to organize and implement mutual aid?”
Whichever way works best for those who are organizing and implementing it.
Next question?
No more questions.
Once again…a Constitutional Dead End…
“Pharmaceuticals are not distributed without a doctor’s prescription –– but isn’t it our sovereign right to preserve and maintain our person health? Yes… until pharmacists produce a pill that cures if it is correctly administered and kills if it is misused. Seat belts have regulation assigned to them – why? because history/data tells us adults are safer when driving if they wear them and children of a certain size are not. Do I dare compare the law for child safety seats to magazine clip regulation?”
…by what right does Congress “regulate” anything”…they truly have no right to regulate my consumption of pills, herbs, liquids…or anything else I desire…as long a I am not bringing harm to anyone else….show me in the Constitution where it gives the government the power to regulate anything consumer related? Hell..even their income-tax “laws” have been shown to be a fraud…(non-ratified 16th Amendment)…and are only adhered to out of fear of our own government and the perpetual fraud that they keep in place through fear…so…you, sonny boy…are putting the horse before the cart…my rights come first…as they are “inalienable”…the government’s needs come second..as they derive their powers from “we the people”…( or they should, instead of from the barrel of a gun and the idea of a prison cell)….so again..nice try…but…big-time-fail…..bzzzzzzz!
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
Plus a TRILLIONFOLD! If you can’t grok what is meant by “shall NOT be infringed”, you FAIL.
PERIOD. End of story.
Absolutely! People invented government as a way of securing their rights. Government has failed, so “we” heed to take matters into “our” own hands. (I dislike groupthink.)
As a crazy person, I have a pet theory that God wants to visit Earth in human form, but He wants to come incognito. So, in case God visits in the form of a peasant or working stiff, He wants to have the power to take care of himself and protect his Earthly body from harm. But while in human form, He can’t do miracles in the Biblical way any more than any of us can, so after all of these millennia of pondering and experimentation, He has finally figured out that the surest way to guarantee the safety of the life and limb of whoever it is God takes on the form of for his visit, even the lowliest peasant, is for said peasant to be armed.
Ergo, God wants everyone well-armed and trained. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that God’s will is Free Will. 🙂
Yep! 🙂 +1
Your car is potentially lethal. Your baseball bat is potentially lethal. Your scissors in your drawer are potentially lethal. You talk of “interpretation of human law, human rights, human dignity, the morality of, the sense of religious entitlement of, the ego of –– and numerous other sociological and psychological concerns about whoever picks that inanimate object up”, but you fail to acknowledge that anyone can pick up any potentially lethal object and use it. You also fail to recognize that my rights stop where your rights begin. There is a punitive system in place for when people in a civilized society fail to accept/follow that.
1) In order to drive a car, we need to pass a driver’s ed program, pass a licensing exam, follow a plethora of (because we share the road with so many other driver, pedestrians, driving safety hazards, and so on) It’s also required that we are insured.
2) Walking down the street with a baseball bat dressed in a three piece suit might draw some attention – and even make you the subject of a little questioning of an authority. Walking into a bar or party with a baseball bat will certainly get you some attention.
3) Scissors. Very likely the first really stern warning many of us received from our parents.
And John, the French came up with the one: my rights stop where your rights begin. One inherent problem with guns are, someone can aiming to violate your rights from a place so far away, the thought of defending yourself will have never even crossed your mind.
And Dear Mr. Mike – One paragraph at a time.
How can you insist that I have defined a side in this discussion –– are you saying a subject as complex as this has only two sides? I’d rather compare our discourse to a Rubik’s Cube, and plead for patience on everyone’s part while we work this very multi-sided puzzle out.
You say we already have 26,000 laws on guns, gun owners, and how we are allowed to handle guns. My numbers may be inaccurate in more ways than one –– but for the sake of making my point, I’ll risk inaccuracy: 26,000 laws divided into the three categories you mentioned = 8,666. If we divide those three categories by the 7 main gun categories (Hunting guns, Tank guns, Artillery guns, Auto-cannon guns, Handguns, Machine Guns, and Military Firearms), we get 1,238. Apparently, each of those seven main categories contain 17 types of guns (?) …… being lenient with you, I’ll divide 1,238 by seventeen once. That equals 72.8. …. I think you can see where I’m going with this. And, again, I know I am being lenient: http://goo.gl/UYdLpk.
I don’t know much about the confiscations. My guess it has to do with types of weapons, calibers and people’s backgrounds or present mental stability. I’ll have to take your word on that one.
And now your last paragraph. That one bugs me as well. Nobody is saying anything about taking away your guns. Look at the law which just passed in California –– and they are nothing but a bunch of Pinko Commies out there –– The right to arm ourselves is understood and generally respected. The caliber of which we arm ourselves is still debated. Shall we allow anti aircraft artillery to be planted in our front yards? Shall we begin walking down the streets shouldering M2s? Would you mind if law permitted your neighbor to build a silo for a nuclear missile, which, by the way is aimed at you……you do have guns, and he has the right to protect himself. What about our children. Should I pack a derringer in my nine year old’s lunch tomorrow?
From what I can determine the previous comment, according to everyone in this chat the answer is “yes”.
Chris,
Perhaps it isn’t a side but a philosophy. No, it is a side. You appear to be arguing for the government to make laws that violate the 2nd amendment. The side I’m arguing for is that the government should not be allowed to make laws that violate the 2nd amendment. Are you saying that you agree with my side as I’ve defined it?
The 26,000 number comes from several attempts at cataloging and combining all the federal and state laws. Unfortunately, it is very difficult because in many cases, guns are affected by a short clause in a law that was originally written about some other subject. This is likely why the number is so large. Either way, the point is that such a large number of laws is impossible to enforce and in many cases, laws on the books are not enforced. This causes a problem for law-abiding citizens because we’d like to know with certainty if a particular action will break a law or not. We suspect that this patchwork of unenforceable laws may be partially on purpose, to ensnare, or entrap law-abiding people, but have no specific proof. Finally, there isn’t one more magic law that suddenly makes criminals give up their guns. That approach has been tried since 1968 (some would argue earlier) over and over again and hasn’t worked. Therefore, we need to stop trying the same thing over again because it doesn’t work and it involves government making bad law (violating the constitution). Finally, the number doesn’t matter once it gets large. 500 laws would be too many for me to know for sure that I wasn’t violating one of them.
“I don’t know much about the confiscations. My guess it has to do with types of weapons, calibers and people’s backgrounds or present mental stability. I’ll have to take your word on that one.”
Your guesses are incorrect. They are cases where guns protected by the 2nd amendment were suddenly declared illegal by an illegal law that violates the 2nd amendment. Look at Connecticut.
“The caliber of which we arm ourselves is still debated. Shall we allow anti aircraft artillery to be planted in our front yards? Shall we begin walking down the streets shouldering M2s? Would you mind if law permitted your neighbor to build a silo for a nuclear missile, which, by the way is aimed at you……” “From what I can determine the previous comment, according to everyone in this chat the answer is “yes”.”
Earlier, you said that you aren’t on a specific side and then you pull out this tired victim-disarmament anti-gun standard. Because I don’t see anything in the 2nd amendment that talks about the caliber, I don’t really care about that and the government has no right to care about that either. There is nothing to debate. Entering into a debate in that area is saying that we are ignoring the 2nd amendment. Banning a gun because it looks scary even though the bullet it fires is ballisticaly inferior to many hunting rifles is nonsensical.
I always get a good laugh when somebody talks about anti-aircraft guns or nuclear missiles in my next door neighbor’s yard. I have a couple points on that one. First, if somebody goes through all the permitting and spends the money to put a nuclear missile in their yard pointed at me, I don’t care. There is a law against murder. That is a good law. Also, if they fire their missile, they will kill their whole family as well. I call Reductio ad absurdum on that one.
The other thing is that any discussion of “reasonable limits” assumes there is a commonly acceptable reasonable limit on something. Let’s take magazine limits. If you asked ten people what the limit should be, you would get ten answers. Ask 100 people and get 100 answers. In addition, the answer could change over time as the person’s knowledge or use of guns changes. In addition, the purpose might inform the limit. Let’s suppose it is self defense of the home. In that case, I see no reason for any limit whatsoever. Criminals will not obey laws (by definition) so it is perfectly reasonable to think they may adapt a 100-round drum to a Glock. So, I might be up against a team of three, each with multiple guns, and possibly each with 100 or more rounds. So, why do I need to be limited?
What if the purpose were gun sports. Some gun sports require fairly large numbers of rounds. If you look at USPSA, a pistol sport, there are various divisions. If I was in the single stack division, I might need only 8 or 10 rounds depending on whether I was shooting major or minor power factor. But if I shot open and didn’t have a “big stick” that carried 30 or more rounds, I might be at a disadvantage. In 3-gun, you need standard size magazines for your sporting rifle (likely an AR). Typically, you would see 30 rounds but it is not uncommon to see 100 round drums. Since we already know that magazine limits have no impact on crime, why does my sporting use need to be limited? If I gave you my reasonable limit, it wouldn’t be reasonable for somebody else and would potentially violate their rights.
Bottom line: The rights in the Bill of Rights are at the top of the hierarchy of laws. They restrict government, not the people. There is no needs argument that is factual for any limitations on the 2nd amendment. Even if a needs argument existed, it wouldn’t matter; the rights of the people would still stand above those needs.
Human action is far too dependent on emotions to put in its hand a device, so easily triggered, and potentially causing so conclusive a result, to not be concerned about those devices whereabouts, their capacities, and the knowledge and mental being of those who have them.
I believe that is all anyone is saying.
..”shall not be infringed”…I think that…. “says all that needs saying”…unless you’d like to get a Constitutional Convention going…and attempt to alter, repeal or reject the 2nd Amendment…good luck with that on the RKBA…Ha!…Ha!…Ha!
Constitutional Dead End…Constitutional Fail…zzzzzzzzzz……again…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
If they’re going to bother with a Constitutional Convention, they should first repeal the 16th!
Chris,
“Human action is far too dependent on emotions to put in its hand a device, so easily triggered, and potentially causing so conclusive a result, to not be concerned about those devices whereabouts, their capacities, and the knowledge and mental being of those who have them. ”
This is an interesting conversation for me. I’m trying to learn about this point of view but I’m having some difficulty. I have some questions about your statement.
1. Are you saying that no human should ever have a gun because humans will be human, make mistakes, get angry, and start shooting people? Do you understand that there is no chance of having that world where no guns exist? Since only law-abiding citizens obey laws, why would you enact laws making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect their own lives when criminals have those human moments and start shooting law-abiding citizens? Or, are you just day-dreaming about a perfect world? If so, that would still only be your perfect world and it would violate my civil rights. I happen to enjoy shooting sports. If we could have that supposedly perfect world (in your eyes), many people would suffer from not having access to the sport they love. Is there a sport or activity of any kind that you love? If so, imagine that somebody else’s perfect world outlaws your sport with heavy prison penalties or even the death penalty for enjoying your favorite sport. Can’t imagine it? Nor can I.
2. what does “to be concerned about” mean? Are you saying that somebody should know the whereabouts, capacities, and knowledge of the mental state of the owner of their own guns? OK. Are you saying it should be somebody other than the owner? Definitely not OK. who should be that arbiter of correctness? If the arbiter is government, you are advocating for tyranny.
3. If you think that nobody is stable enough to have a gun, how do you explain that so many gun owners are so law-abiding and peaceful (more law-abiding than society on the whole by a large margin)? Are you OK with the police having guns?
4. I’ve read and re-read your statement over and over again. I admit I’m having trouble understanding it. I think you are implying a lot of things that I’m not understanding as making sense. Can you come out and just say what you are trying to say in plain affirmative statements? Your arguments have wavered about and it’s hard to follow them. If I knew what you were advocating for, I could either agree or debate.
Mike
I think that Chris is saying that he can’t be trusted with firearms and is transferring his crazy self onto the rest of us.
“Should I pack a derringer in my nine year old’s lunch tomorrow? ”
I know you’re just playing the stupid card here, but I’ll play along. You should teach your nine-year-old proper safe usage of the Derringer before letting him carry it.
But I’m tired of hearing you try to weasel around the plain fact that The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
And John, the French came up with the one: my rights stop where your rights begin. One inherent problem with guns are, someone can aiming to violate your rights from a place so far away, the thought of defending yourself will have never even crossed your mind.
Your response counters nothing about what I posted. A freely armed society is necessary to a free state. Precisely how does what you responded with change that in the least?
Chris so much fail in one place….congratulations.
To begin, look into that whole driver’s license thing…you will find you are wrong. Once you assert such a thing wrongly, what else can we say? You have shown how little you really know.
Walking with a baseball bat? Come on now, even in a suit, you really see it as problematic? Ok, then how about an umbrella, or a cane, or any number of other objects?
You try too hard, you know your thoughts are not rational.
Bummer.
For those who think that the 2A is an unlimited right, you may want to look at case law regarding the 2nd Amendment. Here’s an example from DC v Heller:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
United States Supreme Court majority opinion, District of Columbia vs Heller, 2008.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There are some people in this conversation who are uneducated about the Second Amendment. They may not be who you might think.
The Second Amendment is, in my opinion, the most important amendment because it is the one that safeguards a free society. But we, as gun owners, would do well to be able to converse without vituperation and with good knowledge of the issues we are talking about.
You are wrong. That some are absolutists, and understand that the rights enumerated were absolute, may fly in the face of the rulings of those entrusted with the power of deciding, but it doesn’t make the absolutists wrong.
And now we see the truth of your respect for the Constitution.
This ruling I cited that you’re so up in arms about? It’s one of the landmark decisions that expanded gun rights, and set the precedent to prevent the ban of handguns, and also legitimized self-defense as a reason to lawfully own a handgun, far from the militia use that’s actually and specifically referenced by the letter of the law. It also holds states to the same standards as the Federal government relative to the 2A, thus allowing decisions like the recent one by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals striking down California’s concealed carry restrictions.
Yup, You’re right. That’s clearly a leftist, gun-grabbing decision.
It did those things in your opinion, but those rights were extant prior to said decision. What is elaborated by the right itself is clear, anything else distracts from simple absolute truth.
I do not recall using the words leftist or gun-grabbing. Do you always take it upon yourself to place words for people?
It depends upon who you are talking to. Some people are not worth more than the vituperation you mentioned. Others are.
Part of a winning campaign is learning which battles are worth fighting, and those that are unworthy of even a civil tongue.
Yes Nicholas, you are correct. There is indeed bad case law that incorrectly interprets the plain wording and ignores the only amendment that the founders felt was important enough to use words as strong as “shall not be infringed.” And I suppose it is possible that we might some day need another amendment to fix all the bad case law and get back to the original very absolute meaning intended by the writers as explained further in their other writings. I find it ironic that the part you quoted included “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” The writer there even admitted it was a historical tradition and not good case law. That paragraph you cited is the favorite of the tyrannical confiscators but it also includes the keys to unlock it and move to the true absolute meaning the founders intended. The confiscators don’t understand what he did there.
By the way, nice attempt at shaming there. Also, trying to in-group (yourself) and out-group (others writing here) at the same time is a cool trick but not good enough.
+100,000. Very nice indeed. Post of the Week waited until late Friday night to drop! It was worth the wait.
Well, since we’re making this personal… I find it funny you should say that the passage I referenced is bad case law. Because DC vs Heller is commonly held to be a victory for gun owners, having overturned the precedent set by US v Cruikshank in 1875 and Presser v Illinois in 1894, which said that states are not limited by the 2A. DC vs Heller is held to be a landmark case for gun rights, because it holds states to the same standards as the federal government, It also set the precedent for preventing the banning of classes of firearms in common use for the purpose of self-defense (in this case handguns). But I guess you think that’s bad case law, and that we shouldn’t be allowed to own handguns, and that states should be allowed to violate the 2A with impunity. I even provided the link so you could educate yourself, if you didn’t know anything about it (which clearly you didn’t). The writer you criticize, and call a confiscator? A United States Supreme Court Chief Justice, who had just delivered one of the greatest victories for gun rights in probably 50 years.
Seriously?! A little education on what you’re talking about would go a LONG ways. The Second Amendment is far from clear cut. It does NOT say that we have the right to own any weapon and bear it in any place at any time. In FACT, if we want to stick to the strict letter of the law, we would be restricted to keeping and bearing only those arms relevant to militia use.
The point is, we are ambassadors for gun owners everywhere. There are many people out there who remain unconvinced by either side. They could vote with us to enact legislation protecting gun rights for ourselves and for posterity, but if we look like ignorant and irrational fools, that can only help the cause of gun CONTROL.
If you want to claim the Constitution is as clear cut as you have thus far stated, it would help if you would actually know what you’re talking about. You should read, at the very least, the relevant Supreme Court opinions. By the stipulations of that same Constitution you claim to hold so dear, that “bad” case law is granted power (rendered formally in Marbury v Madison in 1803), not only by precedent dating back to the founding forefathers (see Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78), but also depends upon respect FOR the Constitution. To flout the decisions and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution is to flout the Constitution you claim to hold so dear (you know, Article III, for instance). You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to uphold any more than the “antis” you want to criticize. Gun control only gets a boost when we represent our case, wrongly, in context of absolutes, and drive the neutral firmly into the camp of the gun control advocates.
Gun owners claim to be law-abiding citizens, but some, in their arguments show clear willingness to flout the law whenever it doesn’t suit their purposes, and then wonder why people want to take their guns away.
“The Second Amendment is far from clear cut.”
EPIC FAIL. “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is as clear-cut as anything you will ever encounter.
Back to school for you.
” flout the law whenever it doesn’t suit their purposes”
You misunderstand. An unconstitutional law isn’t a law.
Nicholas,
Let me address each of your posts after my response which apparently made you a little angry. In the one that starts out talking about making it personal, you start with a misunderstanding of my whole post. I suppose sometimes we can use sarcasm and since you can’t see each other on this forum, you don’t see the clues that something is meant a certain way. The part I was referring to and sarcastically calling bad case law was the part that starts out with the phrase about casting doubt. I wasn’t certain when I answered if you were as educated as you claimed. I was trying to hint about what the writer was cleverly doing with the wording in that area, but I think you missed my point entirely. He was opening up the door to further clarification of which limitations were lawful and which weren’t. Lawful limitations were those that were already in place in the constitution. Enough said on that. I think your post then used a lot of energy to argue against some things that I didn’t say or at the very least didn’t mean. We might be closer in our understanding than you think but we come from a different philosophical approach and direction. Sorry about that.
In your second response starting with “One more further point,” I can’t ignore this sentence:
“Just as the right to free speech does not hold under circumstances such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, the exercise of the right to bear arms does not hold under circumstances not involving the lawful use of a firearm.”
Your analogy has a serious flaw. The right to free speech still exists. I can still yell “fire” in a crowded theater. However, if I cause injury by doing this and I likely should known that was a possibility, it is a negligent act at the very least and possibly more than that. It is the act of yelling “fire” with bad intent that is the issue. Your analogy has the flaw of comparing the bad act with a right. Bearing arms is not the bad act. The bad act to compare to would be shooting somebody who you were not defending yourself against. So, the proper comparison is shouting “fire” with bad intent compared to shooting somebody with bad intent. The rights are not affected either way. You make the mistake of the anti-gunners in that your philosophy appears to make the act of bearing the arm (the right) into the criminal act.
Here is another one: “However. When we’re at the range, and a drunk person shows up, and the range staff asks him to leave, do you consider that a violation of his right to bear arms?” Your story didn’t include a government person materializing and taking the gun away from the drunk person. The drunk person still walked out with their gun. They just weren’t welcome. Your whole series of examples about behavior at the range has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Are you thinking that they do? Seems like a red herring.
OK, when you talk about the rest of us conveniently ignoring the first part of the 2nd amendment, you have spoken incorrectly. We do understand the intended meaning, including the comma. This part appears to reveal that you believe in some of the old interpretations that ignore the comma or at least diminish far below the intention of the writers.
I’m enjoying the discussion and it is helping me to understand the whole subject better. Thank, Mike
I’m glad the opportunity to express what I felt during the course of this discussion has presented itself.
Mr. West-Niles makes a crucial point – one that should be thoughtfully considered. An inherent flaw dwells in the ‘absolutist’s’ debate, and that is the manner of his or her delivery.
An ill feeling was in my gut throughout the course of this discussion because of the palpable presence of an unmovable opinion…And that feeling certainly compounds by the thought my fellow debaters are armed. That tactlessness is merely enticing the core of the argument for those who wish to regulate arms. There is no room for extremism in a democracy.
It is a good thing that our United States is not a democracy. God save the republic from those who care not to learn the difference.
This!
Chris,
I’m very glad you are back. I was hoping you’d answer my four questions up above because I felt that the statement you made had a final ring to it. I wasn’t sure if that is good or bad. It certainly confused me. I’d still like to dig into that statement to understand it better. In your most recent reply here, you’ve used the term “absolutist” in what I assume is a negative way. I’d like to argue that there is room for an absolute interpretation of something when an absolute meaning was originally intended. You also criticize the delivery. Could you go into more detail on that so I can understand and either agree or defend? You also seemed to imply that fear was involved because of people being armed. I have to say that the armed people I know are extremely polite and so far I believe that to be true of the people on this forum. I’d have to say this is a pretty safe place from that point of view. You also use the word “extremism” and I’m not sure how you got to that point. Is it being an extremist to call somebody an extremist when they are debating? I’ll try to refrain from doing that and I hope you will too. I enjoy debate. Call me out specifically if I go overboard.
Mike
I was with the impression I did answer your questions once…forgive me, perhaps I neglected to click post.
Though, to answer your questions seems futile. When I remark: Because guns are easy to operate and have potentially devastating consequences, it is not unreasonable to be concerned about who has weapons in their possession …You retort: “Are you saying that no human should ever have a gun”. I said nothing close to that.
Your next question endeavors to open a sideshow debate about how I would define my use of the word ‘concerned’. I’m no lawyer, but I’m certain there exists a term that validates using the ‘essence’ of meaning while confabulating – unless, of course, I missed something and we are here deliberating law. And if that is the case….then I will dismiss myself from this Chat Room, because I have never received a degree or credential deeming me informed enough to be an authority on the subject. Nor have I been voted on to do so, nor appointed to so.
And that brings us to your third question; “who should be that arbiter of correctness?”. My answer is; those who our present system deem eligible to do so. I know that’s imperfect – although is allowing unregulated gun ownership any more perfect?
Then you ask, “am I ok with police having guns?”…with all the guns in circulation – hasn’t that become an inherent necessity? Really, what sort of question is that?
Here’s an interesting article about guns and crime in England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom.
And what about this one, Mike? You said, “Or, are you just day-dreaming about a perfect world? If so, that would still only be your perfect world and it would violate my civil rights. I happen to enjoy shooting sports.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but did our fore fathers actually take into consideration our sporting pleasures in the Constitution? Man, those guys were the bomb!
If you are in fact interested in what perfect world would look like –– there would be no guns. Everyone would be considerate toward one another and if a dispute did arise between one entity and another; a water balloon fight would take place, with regulation size water balloons so;
A) No one will get hurt.
and
B) No one will have an advantage over another.
In the perfect world you envision, why couldn’t everyone have guns, napalm, and even nukes? Nobody would need to use them, but everyone could have them. Just in case your imagination shattered one day. Besides, unless you can make everyone the exact same size, intelligence, and have the same ambition towards exercise and education, some will always have an advantage over others. I guess that shattered quickly.
The forefathers did want people to enjoy life.
Chris,
(I believe what you said about thinking you replied and it not showing up. I just now did a very long reply and I’m certain I hit Post Comment and it just disappeared. I’m thinking there is a size limit that just loses your reply if you go over it. Here below is a small part of my reply to yours. I’ll try to see if I can figure out a way to find the rest of it in my cache.)
You are right. Referring to your second paragraph where we talk about who should own guns, it looks like I exaggerated your position to make mine easier to argue. Let’s pull back see what your position is. You say: “I said nothing close to that.” You are correct. In that reply, you didn’t say that. I read too deeply into that statement that was confusing me. However, reading this latest reply, you say in response to the question about the perfect world that: “If you are in fact interested in what perfect world would look like –– there would be no guns. Everyone would be considerate toward one another and if a dispute did arise between one entity and another; a water balloon fight would take place…” So it sounds like while I read in too deeply on that first reply, I might have actually been very close to your true position. I realize that you know this is not a perfect world. (the rest hopefully to be found later)
Mike
There is no automatic filter that truncates comments beyond a certain length. I looked, and there are no comments for you pending in Spam or elsewhere. Sorry.
If you hit Post and the page recycles but your comment does not appear, look at the URL in the address bar. If it has something like “#comment-1583847” at the end, that means your comment is in the system, but probably got spam filtered. We’ll clear it when we see it. If you don’t see that at the end, hit your back button, and you will most likely return to the previous page to find the comment box already populated with the comment you just wrote, and you can hit Post again.
Also, if you have a really long comment that you put a lot of work into, it’s often a good idea to, before you hit Post, hit Ctrl-A (select all) and then Ctrl-C (to copy it to the clipboard). That way, if there’s a problem, you can just put your cursor in the comment box and hit Ctrl-V to paste it in and try again.
Chris,
I can see that I’m not going to be able to find my long reply. Here are a couple highlights from it that I can remember after the small answer I already gave about the perfect world comment.
1. You mention “unregulated gun ownership.” Currently, gun ownership is highly regulated with the number of combined state and federal laws in the mid 20,000’s. You exaggerated my argument just like I did yours.
2. On the arbiter of correctness, your answer is too vague to accept and in fact is the system we are under now. This is why gun owners are finally standing up. We’ve been compromising far too long with freedom grabbing laws that are proven to do nothing about crime but which encroach on our freedoms.
3. I had already read that particular article on the UK along with many others. I made a deep study of it. Rather than go into it here, I encourage you to do the same. Make a real study of it. Read the things that you agree with and the ones you don’t agree with. Delve into some raw data as I have and you will see an interesting picture there.
4. As far as the comment about sport shooting, I can see how my writing was misleading. I was thinking of a more general concept like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness rather than enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, in your perfect world, I would be dead. Many years ago, two people with weapons (not guns) attacked me and another person. A good guy with a gun stopped the attack and saved my life. I suspect that the adrenalin that comes up these 35 years later after that incident caused me to write too long a reply before. You talk about disputes being handled with guns. There are also legal uses of guns that are good. Saving lives is one of those. If you reject Kleck’s survey, hopefully you accept Hemmenway’s estimates which still show legal defensive uses of guns to far outweigh the illegal criminal uses of guns (even while he tries to argue for more gun control – he doesn’t realize he is arguing for more deaths of innocents).
I don’t think either of us will fully convince the other of our arguments. I hope you will continue to read and learn about this subject and I intend to do the same. For all the facts and stats I’ve gathered on both sides of the argument (and I keep both), none of that trumps my real life experience.
Mike
Mike – I’m sorry about what happened to you, I truly am. How unfortunate anyone has to experience something like that. And I’m glad the 2nd Amendment came to your rescue – that is what it has been designed to do.
Though, my regret in this debate has been your inability to digest that I am or your opinion about the 2nd Amendment. I have never said we should remove all guns from our society. But I do believe, as some others apparently do, that the 2nd Amendment is not limitless in scope.
To require gun owners to have training is not an infringement on your 2nd Amendment –– it’s a protection of the rights of others to live safely and without fear. If training becomes an obligation, spend your energy arguing that it should be reasonable, that it should free, that it should be a Federal Certification and valid throughout the country.
There is no rational argument if one opinion demands the need to build arsenals to defend themselves, their family, and their property against threats, whether those are imminent or presumed ––– while insisting others have no right to be concerned if those who possess weapons are able and qualified to be so. Remember their fears are also imminent or presumed ––– especially when their neighbors may possess weapons that are capable of mowing down the schoolyard where their children play.
Nobody is trying to infringe on anyone’s rights – our lawmakers are only tying to consider and protect the rights of ALL… Which is certainly no easy task.
“Nobody is trying to infringe on anyone’s rights – our lawmakers are only tying to consider and protect the rights of ALL…”
There is a right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, there is no right to not be concerned. There is no right to not have fear. In fact, a little fear is healthy. Your “concerns” are not my concern.
The Second Amendment says the right of the people shall not be infringed. It doesn’t even say we should “try really hard” to not scare people.
Charlie and Mat –
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
• insure domestic Tranquility
• secure the Blessings of Liberty
You open a whole new debate….and it is my opinion, you fail to comprehend the essential meaning of this document.
It seems you are the one who fails to comprehend. One will never be able to “insure domestic tranquility” by banning or attempting to control weaponry. Such fallacious reasoning has been disproven in real life enough times that one should be quite aware of the faultiness of that line of thought.
To the contrary, people who have the means to allay their own fears are likely to have the largest measure of domestic tranquility. Liberty cannot be secured without a means of securing it. To entrust one’s liberty to others, especially government forces, is sheer folly. Again, history disproves your own assertions in that regard.
Besides this obvious false reasoning, there is plenty more you likely misunderstand as well. It seems the longer you opine, the more that becomes apparent.
I don’t concur CK….the 2nd Amendment, according to our forefathers, was with an organized militia in mind. A combined effort of civilians to protect against foreign invasion. And that’s not my opinion…that is stated in the ‘Liberty Teeth’ speech of George Washington. To arm up against our government, a government put into place by popular vote, risks being classified an enemy of this government. The accommodation to preserve Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (let’s not forget the real origin of our debate) was defined according to the circumstance of the day. Much has changed, and they could not have foreseen what was to come.
I would be right on par with your opinion if ‘history’ didn’t reveal we are the most armed population with the most gun related incidence of death in the world (CBS News-Sept. 19, 2013). I guess those bad guys don’t fear the good guy being armed enough. Or might some them arm up – the same as good guys do – because their victims might be armed. And with 88 out of 100 Americans owning a firearm…any run of the mill burglar easily becomes an armed one while performing even the most routine house burglary. Onward and upward, right? That’s very American…”The country we need to arm ourselves against to trust”.
Sadly, now you turn to lies to make your case. The “liberty’s teeth” speech is fraudulent. The militia is not provided for by the 2A, Congress was empowered to create a well-regulated militia even before the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.
You also did make allusion to the Constitution in the securing of liberty. In it you will find those enumerated rights. Enumerated for a reason. Not laid out as good ideas, or concepts, but as specified, enumerated rights. Especially in the case of the 2A, not to be limited, or infringed. That is a very specific statement, most definitely by design.
You seem to imply that you know what the Founding Fathers could or could not envision. Pat yourself on the back for your brilliance and insight. However, I still think they were far more insightful than you will ever be.
“Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of perserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.”
Chapter 3 & 4 of the speech Washington made to the second session of the U. S. Congress.
I re-hatch the clause because it precedes the drafting of the 2nd Amendment. If these words were uttered by anyone other than our country’s founding father, I would forgo the effort.
But they were conceived by our most illustrious leader, therefore likely to have influenced those who followed. He clearly states the necessity to bare arms, as does the 2nd Amendment, except here he clearly defines the proportions of the theory. The distinction between arming oneself as a means of self defense, and the government allowing its citizens to always remained armed and ready for conflict, is a nuance of difference, though an important one to say the least.
You jump to the conclusion that his remarks upon discipline and arms should be taken as a requisite, not a recommendation. How well you know the man, almost as if you think for him.
I gather no such conclusions, especially since he is rallying for manufacture of arms in country, and it seems also rallying support for the militia which Congress was empowered to arm.
The Bill of RIghts had not been ratified at the time of that speech, but was in process, and the second amendment was already established in writing. Perhaps you were unaware of that.
Paul – If you have a more insightful knowledge of what he meant by this recommendation, please share.
I obviously am not so brilliant as you, I cannot insinuate myself into his thoughts, maybe we should contact the Long Island Medium? I for one am more than satisfied to rely on a simple reading of the amendments, I do not really need it explained. I guess my simpleton’s mind feels more secure with simple answers. Of course, I also would not imply limitations where they clearly are insinuated against.
The fact he divulges details like the need to secure all manufacturing, especially military, in order to guarantee independence, tells me he’s making more than a recommendation.
And you’re right about how insightful these men were; he was well aware about the sensitivity enveloped into this topic, when he begins, “Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention…” But why shouldn’t he be aware of that… Warfare has never been a stranger to mankind – though Freedom was, and still is I guess, an experiment which the solution remained/s unknown.
When you speak to that medium, will you ask what the next winning lottery number might be. I’ll split it with ya.
Peace Brother.
Wow. You have done what Washington could not: define/delineate his own thoughts for him.
You got NOTHING. You have “supported” you case with NOTHING. “Nothing” seems to be your default setting. A Constitutional scholar you are not.
I am sure that Washington was speaking about bringing manufacturing to the USA to avoid foreign entanglements. Avoid further foreign debt. Buy American, so to speak. Anything else is speculation. There is no mention of the country of origin being limited at all in the 2A anyways. It is amazing how you find ways to tie together unrelated points.
I don’t follow the work of mediums, but I did figure you would be interested.
Kind of funny how you abandoned mention of “liberty’s teeth” once it was pointed out that it was a fraudulent speech, a well-researched person would have known and never mentioned it as a point of argument. Live and learn.
The “Liberty Teeth” Quote is someone’s attempt to bend the past to their advantage. The “Liberty Teeth” Speech was Washington’s address to Congress on January 8, 1790……the former an alteration of the latter.
There’s several references to that, but this one’s as good as any other:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
There is no such thing as the “Liberty’s Teeth” speech. Washington never made such a statement, nor named a speech such a thing. Just so you understand. Your google-fu is not strong. The quote has been falsely attributed to many speeches.
Thanks you for so eloquently refuting your own case. And it’s “re-hash”, not “re-hatch”.
Thanks you, WB.
Sorry, Chris, wrong again. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the state-sanctioned militia.
Maybe you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.
He seems a bit of a plant to me.
You’re overthinking it. Not everything is a conspiracy. Some people are just wrong.
Matt, I’ve never said everything was a conspiracy. I don’t even believe that. Just so we understand one another. Are you a coincidence theorist? Tell me about Watergate.
It’s a hotel. Stuff happened there that brought down a presidency. That’s all I know, or care to.
Then history is an abstraction to you, unworthy of scrutiny? It’s fine with me, but I have the feeling you don’t believe that. You just wanted to blow me off.
Whatever, Matt. No conspiracy. You’re with the Senate Select Committee, I talk it, who found no conspiracy in Watergate?
No, really. It happened before I was born, and as I don’t really see it as a piece of “doomed to repeat it” history, it has no impact on my life, and I don’t see any reason for me to investigate it further.
If you don’t want to understand the importance of it, you never will. My point is that it was a conspiracy. The real world is chock-a-block with them, but you won’t understand that which you don’t believe in.
You could have just said, “my mind is closed”. Which seems to be a fact.
“You could have just said, “my mind is closed”. Which seems to be a fact.”
Everything is so black and white with you, and you are so quick to condemn. I think I pretty well demonstrate just about every day that my mind isn’t closed. But that doesn’t really matter in this case. You’re confusing my “don’t give a damn” for lack of belief. I don’t care enough to disbelieve. Yes, Watergate probably was a conspiracy. But I don’t care.
That’s like saying – no, it IS saying – “I don’t give a damn about history.”
Somehow, I hadn’t figured you were like that. It IS important. It’s HISTORY.
Tell me precisely how Watergate has any impact on my life today. Specifically, how it’s necessary for me to know the details of Watergate, and how not doing so is somehow a detriment to my existence.
Never mind. I’m truly sorry I brought it up.
…okay…I’ll take a stab at this….the effect of Watergate…and the manner in which it was handled or managed may have been a linchpin of defeat for the American experiment referred to as a Democratic Republic ?
There are many people …and more than enough information regarding the level of coincidence that shadows the whole event. If you take the viewpoint of an observer of the NWO and it’s actions from prior to WWI…through WWII and from the assassination of JFK…on through RFK, MLK..etc….it is believed that Watergate was about retrieving evidence and documents related directly to the shooting of JFK…LBJ’s knowledge and participation in the event..and managing The Warren Commission, public inquiry and outcry…a lot of those same people connect GHW Bush to Dallas on the day of JFK’s assassination…and his placement on the ticket after Carter repaired some of the image of the office. This put Bush in a position for 12 years to arrange the next 20-30 years in The White House (GW Bush/Clinton/Obama/Clinton,etc.)…so there is a lot of coincidental documentation that says that Watergate was part of the clean-up or cover up of those activities and plans…and if you look back at the historic record of violent false flag (unconstitutional) operations and events… as well as the financial bubbles…(S&L Rape) (School Loan Rape) (16 Trillion Dollar Derivative Rape) ( 2008 Mortgage/Bank Rape)…you can see where the gangsters that run our country were simply cleaning up financially…gaining ground in their NWO Agenda…and raping us of our Grandparent’s and Parent’s…as well as our own family built fortunes….so yes,…I think Watergate was Nixon stepping aside in order to shut down the inquiry…
…and now look where we are…eh?
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
That’s about it. I simply threw up my hands when Matt said this vital piece of history had no relevance. And I shouldn’t have. It was late, and I gave up.
But you nailed it, RJ. On the White House Tapes, Nixon even alludes to “not letting that Cuban thing get out”. This does seem, to a number of scholars, to be a veiled reference to the JFK Assassination. I agree.
I am reading Joachim Joesten’s excellent THE DARK SIDE OF LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON. To those who would deem LBJ incapable of ordering JFK’s murder, know this: he ordered the murder of his own sister,
The USA is not a democratic republic. We are a constitutional republic. There is a difference. The word democratic is nowhere to be found in any of our founding documents, nor in any state constitutions, for a reason.
…yep…you are correct…I was trying to focus on the “Republic ” part…and erred on Constitutional part… my focus on trying to eliminate the “Democracy” part…got me confused…thanks…
RJ
Ooook. This is me backing slowly away. You lost me at NWO, and it got weirder from there.
No need to be afraid, Matt… knowledge is power. Ignorance is weakness.
….Matt in Florida…it is disappointing that you would be so dismissive…if you read about each of these elements within the NWO…you would have a hard time finding it all just a coincidence…to be so demeaning and dismissive of various POV’s is beneath you…
RJ
I think the point was, the Watergate was just another scandal, mumble-mumble years ago, which in comparison to what’s going on today is kinda ho-hum. Does it have to do with the parallels between Nixon and Barry Soweto?
No.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stuipdity.”
enumerated
rightspowers.Fixed that for you. 🙂
It’s the people who have rights. The government only has those powers explicitly delegated to it.
No fix was needed…..
“You also did make allusion to the Constitution in the securing of liberty. In it you will find those enumerated rights. Enumerated for a reason. Not laid out as good ideas, or concepts, but as specified, enumerated rights. Especially in the case of the 2A, not to be limited, or infringed. That is a very specific statement, most definitely by design.”
I was talking about enumerated rights. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
Government’s powers are enumerated. Our rights are not:
Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Did you just read what you quoted….
Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”?
Notice, that is an enumerated right, all by itself. Maybe you have heard of the enumerated rights….they call it the Bill of Rights.
OK, you win that point, but just because that right is enumerated does NOT mean that that is all of the rights that we have. Not all of our rights are “enumerated,” because it is physically impossible to enumerate them. Do you have a right to watch Captain Kangaroo on your neighbor’s TV if his curtains are open?
I never said the enumerated rights were our only rights. I was commenting on an enumerated right. Pretty simple.
I guess it plucked a nerve in me because when I hear the term “enumerated rights,” it sounds like it’s coming from someone who believes that government is some unlimited authority and the Bill of Rights is a list of ten things that they can’t do, when essentially the opposite is true, i.e., the government is nothing at all until the states drafted the Constitution, which granted 18 specific enumerated powers to the government, and that was all the government there was supposed to be. But apparently our Founding Fathers were wiser than I am ( and the vast majority of Americans are ), and they knew that when anyone is given power, they lust for more and that every government ever has always expanded to the point of tyranny, and they wanted to put in strong protection against that, hence the Bill of Rights.
<lecture>
The government was put there to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”
But now that Messrs. Colt, Smith & Wesson, Winchester, et al have brought the power to see to one’s own safety and security to a personal level, government as a concept has outlived its usefulness and should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with buggy whips and clay tablets.
</lecture>
HUH? That’s what he wrote. Have you been tippling?
Go back and read again kemosabe, no one tipping anything. I won’t speak for you, of course.
Where did I say anything about tipping?
““A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” – Richard Henry Lee, anti-Federalist author, Virginia Senator and Congressman, 1788
SPIN THAT, if you can.
“according to our forefathers, was with an organized militia in mind”
So, now you’re a time-traveling mind reader? If you read the Federalist Papers, it’s quite clear that the reason they wrote in explicit protection for our unalienable God-given right to keep and bear arms was so that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,” we will have the wherewithal “to throw off such Government.”
— excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
YOU are the one who failed to comprehend. And you have not – I suspect you CANNOT – support your claims with scholarly research on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. R-I-G-H-T-S.
Because you realize your position is untenable, you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.
If the Second Amendment says something it in fact does not say, the burden of proof is on you.
And you have no proof. None.
You clueless FLAME DELETED. You have expressed changed ideas here of late. Who is paying you?
“But I do believe, as some others apparently do, that the 2nd Amendment is not limitless in scope. ”
That is where you’re wrong, and no amount of rhetorical gymnastics will make you right.
There is no “limitation of scope” in Shall Not Be Infringed.
For Higgins, it’s “shill not be infringed”.
Matt,
Thanks, I started doing the copy/paste thing today but I only copied out the smaller part before I posted. It is also possible that your filter caught my email because I listed a few web sites where I collect information about legal defensive gun uses. Perhaps a long list of web sites might trip the filter.
Thanks,
Mike
Three or more links in one comment sends it to moderation, but in that case you’ll get a message that your comment is being held for moderation. Sorry your other one got lost.
Chris Higgins,
Let’s cover some of your points from your post this morning. First, there is no “right to be free from fear”. There is no “right to live safely”. If you could show me where it those rights are enumerated, I would be happy to entertain such a notion. However, absent any substantiation, allow me to continue with my riposte. What would such a right look like or feel like, to live safely or free from fear? I fear your words, I shouldn’t have to hear or read them, ought not we have a limitation on that “speech”? I fear living destitute or without a nice car or house, ought not the government provide for that “safety” and squash that fear by providing me with the luxury car of my choice and an enormous mansion on property? Your argument further falls on shaky ground when you use “protection of the rights of others to live safely and without fear”, but then use “rational argument” to vilify those that wish to procure firearms, presumably to combat the fear of their government. Isn’t the fear of one’s government just as valid as the fear of some anti-gunner? If not, why not? And finally, I fear that you will drive too fast, endangering my life and the life of my friends, family, and children; perhaps you shouldn’t have a car that goes over 25mph. Clearly that fear is justified, since vehicles cause considerably more deaths than firearms a year and just about everyone gets a driving ticket for violating driving laws. But alas, that isn’t the reality of the situation, nor is your argument any more valid simply because you say it is.
Chris,
Lots of activity on this thread lately. Here are some quotes from one of your most recent replies to mine and a few thoughts.
“But I do believe, as some others apparently do, that the 2nd Amendment is not limitless in scope. ”
It is certainly OK for you to believe whatever you want. However, believing something hard enough doesn’t make it true if it is already false. That’s the nice thing about facts and truth. They stay constant whether I understand or believe in them or not. People have corrected you plenty on this one. I would encourage you to study what the term “amendment” means, how they are used in contract law, the similarities between the constitution and a contract and why the amendments weren’t set up as addendums. Of course, studying why the 2nd amendment was the one that was considered important enough to use the phrase “shall not be infringed” would be useful and while many have correctly focused on the word “infringed,” I would also suggest looking at the word “shall” and understanding why other possible words were not used in its place. It is “shall not” rather than “should not.”
“To require gun owners to have training is not an infringement on your 2nd Amendment –– it’s a protection of the rights of others to live safely and without fear.”
You’ve already been corrected on the right to live without fear. However, let’s assume for a moment that these new rights you are mentioning are covered by the 9th amendment. Courts have determined that these non-enumerated rights cannot be used to trump or abridge enumerated rights. I have mentioned in other writings that I would be willing to go a little liberal here and allow the government to use a very small portion of my tax money to “advertise” that they “recommend” training as a piece of a constitutional carry law. However, if exercising my right requires training mandated either by the state or federal government, then of course, it infringes and violates the constitution, and is in fact, illegal. That’s pretty basic.
The paragraph that starts with: “There is no rational argument if one opinion demands the need to build arsenals…” moves back to the emotion based arguments with key emotion words like arsenal and “mowing down the schoolyard,” using various logical fallacies. I will try not to answer these anymore and will also try myself not to write them. Please correct me if I do.
I hope you will continue studying. This seems to be a great place to hone your arguments and get some constructive criticism. One of the things I’ve learned is how incredibly effective the slow brainwashing has been over the last 50 years. People honestly believe the words in the constitution mean things other than what they mean, and they’ve been taught to fear guns in a way that is astounding to me. In my life the anti-gun training started when they put Vietnam on TV every night. When did it start for you?
“unmovable opinion”
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, isn’t an “opinion,” it’s the Supreme Law of the Land.
Being less than an ‘absolutist’ is what leads to this:
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/gun-free-zone.png
+100,000
“An ill feeling was in my gut throughout the course of this discussion because of the palpable presence of an unmovable opinion”
Good! Move with that. Endeavor to discern what exactly the message of that “ill feeling” is. In other words, what is your gut trying to tell you about what your mind refuses to see?
“For those who think that the 2A is an unlimited right,”
I don’t “think” the right is unlimited, I know. In fact, it says so right in the Constitution: “…The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” And yes, that includes rocket-propelled grenades, cruise missiles, and atomic bombs, if you can get them.
“Shall Not Be Infringed.” is kinda the opposite of a limitation.
But is is a hard and fast rule that government is supposed to obey.
“For the love of government is the root of all evil.”
[Applause]
http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
One more further point.
When I talk about rights not being unlimited, I want to be very clear that I do NOT mean that we should accept statutory limitations on what we can carry, for instance. I do, however, mean to say that there are legitimate circumstances under which a right cannot be exercised. Just as the right to free speech does not hold under circumstances such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, the exercise of the right to bear arms does not hold under circumstances not involving the lawful use of a firearm.
I find this opinion to be most similar to my own:
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
The problem with talk of a right being unlimited is that it can be construed to mean far more than we might consider. There are always limits to rights, and the absolute talk does nothing to advance our cause. The original intent of the 2A was to ensure that the citizenry remained on military parity with any standing army, thus ensuring a last check on governmental abuses. Thus, the current talk about how military-style weapons should be banned etc, does strike me as being counter to the purpose of the amendment.
However. When we’re at the range, and a drunk person shows up, and the range staff asks him to leave, do you consider that a violation of his right to bear arms? What about the new member who does not obey safety rules, and fires when people are front of the line, or continues to point a loaded gun in unsafe directions. Do you feel that requiring people to lay down their firearms when the range is cold is a violation of their right to bear arms? Of course not. These are all circumstances delineating the problems that absolute right talk yields. You may mean to say that the Constitution permits no statutory limitations upon what firearms may be carried (and if it weren’t for the FIRST part of the 2A, that you all seem to conveniently ignore), I’d agree. In fact, I still agree, I just don’t think it’s as clear cut as you claim. But the presentation of the argument as such has implications beyond what you may have considered, that may prove relevant when arguing the case for gun rights.
The “shouting fire” analogy was wrong from the day it was penned. Even if it were valid it cannot support prior restraint. If I make a false allegation I can be held responsible. No violation or restriction of speech involved. Try again?
Exactly. The “shouting fire” phrase simply said that you can’t claim the privilege of the First Amendment to protect you from prosecution when you falsely shout fire and thereby cause injury. It doesn’t say you can’t shout fire.
What the civilian disarmament movement wants to do with guns (take them all away, or at the very least take away the ability to carry them) is the equivalent of duct-taping the mouth of every person who goes into the theatre just in case they decide to shout fire.
Wow, Matt… that’s inspiring. I read it four times.
Thanks. I freely admit that I stole the duct tape analogy from someone here several months ago. I cannot recall who it was.
No matter. As was noted decades ago, “It’s the Singer, not the Song”.
Range rules do not disarm people, and most ranges are private property. Somehow you seem to be mixing up the RKBA with discharging a weapon at will.
You have a right to keep it and carry it – ‘bear’ means carry. But you don’t have a right to shoot people other than in self-defense, and then only enough to neutralize the threat.
Speaking of ranges:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/4x4god/Forum/avitar/lester.jpg
NOT a violation of his rights. That’s why Mr. Foamy and I shoot in the great outdoors, when the opportunity presents itself.