Previous Post
Next Post

S.H. Blannelberry's Facebook profile pic (courtesy facebook.com)

“Why people are so butt-hurt by Metcalf’s editorial is puzzling to me. The gun owners I pal around with are the smartest, most thoughtful and responsible people I know. To have a significant faction of the community wig out over a column that makes a rather obvious and well-known point is shocking to me. Where are their heads at? . . . one cannot make a convincing argument that he’s wrong about placing limits on the Second Amendment. Truth be told, there are regulations that are not considered to be infringements.” –  Did Dick Metcalf deserve to be fired over Guns & Ammo column on 2A limitations? [via guns.com]

Previous Post
Next Post

231 COMMENTS

  1. It would seem Metcalfs article has served as a flare illuminating the turncoats and moles among us.

    Let us root them out and expose them for the gun control fans they are.Either you agree with the 2nd Amendments text -and thus, it’s uninfringeable status-or you cast your lot with the Brady’s and want everything besides a deactivated musket banned.

    You may think the below is a false choice fallacy.History disagrees.

    • There is a minority in this country who are for the complete disarmament of the population. There is another minority- including many here, I am sure- that believe in a reading of the 2nd Amendment as prohibiting any regulation or restriction on any ‘arms’, period.

      The majority of people are either uninformed, unsure, or believe that the practical solution lies somewhere in the middle. I support advocating the ‘unrestricted’ view, because I know that’s the best way to safeguard the most rights even if the eventual legal framework ends up somewhere else at the end. That said, I’m not sure how you think you are going to win anyone over to your position with your ‘with us (ME) completely or against us’ plan.

      Because if that’s the only choice offered, you will drive people against you. Your indignation over someone having a slightly different opinion may make you feel warm and fuzzy in gun club, but it will further marginalize gun supporters. This is something the the anti-gunners have right, tactically- they at least pay lip service to ‘compromise’ and ‘logic’, even if their end goal has nothing to do with either. Image is important, and you’re doing it wrong.

      • This isn’t a marketing exercise.The Law of the Land clearly and factually says the RKBA shall not be infringed.

        The facts are this.Either you support the uninfringed practice of the BoR in totality, including the 2nd Amendment, or you’re in favor of its dissolution.Appealing to the middle ground is impossible, because the middle ground doesnt exist.We want every law beyond the 2nd Amendment repealed ,and they want gun ownership abolished in totality.We may as well sit down Hamas and the Isreali PM to discuss peace talks.Compromise only works when BOTH sides deal in good faith.

        • “This isn’t a marketing exercise.”

          EVERYTHING in life is a marketing exercise.

          Anytime you are dealing with someone else, you are trying to sell them on some idea.

          Your comment here is a marketing exercise. Pulling a gun on a guy breaking into your house is a marketing exercise. Dealing with the cops afterward is a marketing exercise.

          Marketing is trying to convince someone else that your point of view is right and they need to change their point of view.

          As long as we insist we’re right, you’re wrong, and don’t at least listen to the other person, we’ll never make any headway.

          You’ll never change any mind by arguing the facts. No, not even yours.

          We need to appeal to emotion. We need to tell “the story”. We need to play the game. We need to be political, if we are ever going to gain any ground in the hearts and minds of the American public.

          Remember that most of the 300+ million Americans spend their time watching TV and surfing cat videos on YouTube. These are the people who vote.

          In a world where the Kardashians even exist, how do you expect to have sane laws about anything?

          I agree that any regulation is infringement, but how do we get from here to there?

          What are the practical tactics we need to get laws changed?

          Laws are political and need to be addressed politically.

        • “Appealing to the middle ground is impossible, because the middle ground doesn’t exist.”

          While I tend to agree with your comment, this particular quote troubles me. The sad fact of the matter is that in almost every important political question there is always a large middle ground populated by people who either don’t understand the issue completely or don’t give a damn about it. The fight is not necessarily against those you know oppose you, but to educate and win over to your side sufficient numbers of those wandering in the middle ground to create an unbeatable majority.

          While it is true that over-the-top rhetoric MAY turn some of those fence sitters to your opponents cause rather than yours, you may by your firm stance also convince many that your cause is just and worth fighting for. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms protected by the Second Amendment is and ABSOLUTE right not subject to control, regulation, repeal or INFRINGEMENT by any government agency or agent. It is simply not possible to say that you are in favor of that RKBA and in the same breath allow that maybe just a little government infringement might not be such a bad thing.

          At the exact moment that you agree that any government at any level has ANY authority to infringe on your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms you have surrendered your philosophical position and agreed that this is in fact a privilege granted to you by that government and subject to whatever limitations, licenses and controls they decide to impose.

          I have a Concealed Pistol License. It was a compromise, and it bothers me every time I think about it because of the message it sends to government. But they have a whole lot more people and guns than I do and an artificial carte blanche to use them against me if I oppose them in this situation. I would be of no use to the cause of Constitutional Carry if I am dead or in prison. It doesn’t mean that I will EVER give up the fight to repeal each and every one of those unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws and work to defeat, depose or otherwise discredit every politician or journalist who proposes or supports such laws.

        • A “misunderstanding” is not “middle ground”, just as ignorance is not “middle ground”; it has no relationship to the facts, the law, or to the Constitution. If it did, it wouldn’t be ignorance or misunderstanding.

        • They DO have a point about the middle wooing over voters, but we need to remember these words from a wise man:
          “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” -Samuel Adams

      • “The majority of people are either uninformed, unsure, or believe that the practical solution lies somewhere in the middle.”

        The fallacy/issue lies specifically within the EXTREME weasel word, “solution”. A “solution” is specifically what is NOT being proposed; what is being proposed is a PROPOSAL.

    • Good point. I would’ve said like turning on the kitchen light in the middle of the night and seeing the cockroaches scatter; but your analogy is better, and there’s really no need to bring my old college apartment into this.

    • Some people calling for him to be fire are extremists, the kind that couldn’t pass a mental evaluation & shouldn’t be carrying gins. heard of the First Amendment yeah. as far as training I took it 8 hours is way too little. I have a lot of previous experience but the novices in the conceal class struggled. Gun handling loading unloading cleaning storing should be 8 hours alone, not covered. By the way you need to keep your guns in a safe; you are idiots if you don’t. most mass shootings are crazy people who steal guns from people they now friends are family. some of the comments below are clearly by deranged. “Turncoat”? Give me a break. People who can’t stand to hear opinions opposing their own without acting like babies calling for retribution are immature fools. just because guns are your hobbies and you think the 2nd amendment is the most important part of the Constitution doesn’t mean that you are a patriot. this is not 1776 and we’re fighting the Redcoats with flintlocks. I have been shooting guns for almost 40 years, hold and exercise my concealed carry permit daily and hunt. that doesn’t make me better than people who don’t do those things.

      • Those novices you are ranting about deserve your help, not your scorn. Looking down on them due to their lack of experience is elitist at best. The reason they are so inexperienced is because a small section of society found a foot hold and drove guns out of our culture over decades. You seem very content with continuing this oppression by requiring expensive training and nanny state blessings as part of carry and ownership. You are right in your last sentence. Doing all of that does not make you better. Fighting to reverse the infringement on our rights would make you better, but alas, you are happy with a class based Iissuance of priveliges, because rights don’t seem to be in your vocabulary.

      • Wow Greg, is Oblivious your middle name?

        Here is one of the best blurbs I’ve read about the situation….

        Let me go a step farther than that…as I noted in my earlier post, we have been having a “dialog” about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I’ve been alive. IMHO, the “dialog” ended when the war began.

        Let me say this again…we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.

        http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/11/metcalfs-lame-response.html

        • The role of firearms? The role is this Mr. Complicated, I own guns for protection from whatever may come my way st whatever level that is, and I like them. If we Al. had them, then some ” nut” with one wouldn’t have much of a chance. Or would some Ideological nut running some Government wherever that my be…

      • No wonder the Bill of Rights are being systematically destroyed. We have a large group within the “shooting” community that can’t differentiate between a privilege and a right. The moment you allow government the ability to put conditions on a right, you make the right a privilege which can be denied. A right is inviolate; a privilege is conditional and can be refused on a whim from TPTB. Slaves seek permission to exercise a privilege; free men put into effect, as a matter of individualism, their rights.

      • Greg, I have CPL issued from the state of Washington. This is a “shall issue” state which means if they cannot come up with a very good (and carefully defined) reason NOT to give you a CPL, they MSUT give you a CPL. Washington is also (nominally) an Open Carry state. This means that in ALL of the non-restricted locations in the state, including the international airport terminals, a CPL holder can carry open or concealed with ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENT MANDATED TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

        While there are the occasional incidents, as there are in every other state, regardless of regulations, I fail to see any significant number of problems in Washington due to this lack of government required training. Do I think people who carry a pistol should get training, ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it is any business of the government to decide what training, how much, and at what expense or facility? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is our job, as citizens, to promote, and if necessary provide, the necessary training, to chastise and cajole, to assist and to enable adequate safety training. That, really, was the meaning behind the “well regulated militia” comment.

        I say again, if you allow any government agency the authority to demand a specific level of training or ability BEFORE you can exercise a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right it is by default now a privilege that the government can control, dictate, license, tax and deny, at will. You lose.

    • Absolutely agreed. They have already been met in the middle ground with the NFA, GCA68, machine gun freeze/”ban”, and on and on down to hundreds of state laws, And thousands locally. And it has lead to crime waves, gang violence, and police so scared that they now see anything that moves as the enemy. It is well past time to STOP compromising with evil, and to stand for something else! WE WANT SOMETHING ELSE! -Richard Prior
      And Metcalf is just another like guns.com. Its the corpocracy. It seems that anyone that does reviews on free gear and accepts ads from the manufacturers., are bought and paid for. They all have agendas.
      We need to root these out and see that their vested interests are exposed to the world.

  2. Duh. Most gun owners think there are limits and that gun rights should be regulated. Take a look on TTAG, most here believe in regulating the right. All internet gun forums believe the right should be regulated. Most “experts” believe the right may be regulated. Most litigators like clement, halbrook, volokh, gura and gottlieb think the right should be regulated. The supreme court and all state courts think the right should be regulated. many state constitutions specifically state the right may be regulated by the legislature.

    • Thanks Leonard for using your real name. I am an internet gun lurker who doesn’t think gun rights should be regulated. For example I believe that ex-felons should not be prohibited from owning firearms, because if they are still a danger to society they should still be in prison. Railing against “litigators” is a false errand on your part. They are working with the system we have to roll back restrictions systematically on the path to less restrictions. That I would argue is a more effective strategy than bitching about how everyone who will not be a abrasive open carrier is a traitor to arms rights. There are lots of legal things that are not good ideas, Metcalf’s editorial is an example. Being an ass to a cop while armed is another.

      • Just another example of someone who wants more regulation and infringement. People who say that cops must be allowed to inspect locked cases for a loaded firearm on a public street are incredibly naive. You people would eviscerate our 4th and 2nd amendment rights for a feeling of comfort. Unfortunately, “gun rights advocates” like you and gura, and gene hoffman, and others are out there speaking and those who do no research are cheering them on and losing their rights year after year.

        • Actually you should not speak for me. I am not in favor of restrictions on our rights. I oppose them. They are a reality currently even though they are wrong. Causing an armed confrontation is not the most effective means to roll back restrictions. Changing the law from injust/unconstitutional to just/constituional is effective.

        • I suspect you would be quite happy walking unarmed on a warm Summer night in the South Bronx. Quite a few of your rights would be limited or terminated there. In a highly-regulated environment.

        • Come on Leonard, don’t go all defeatist on us. You know most people on here are pro-rights and pro-second amendment. There are the occasional fudds that show up.

          Fudd (N)
          Slang term for a “casual” gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called “non sporting” firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

          Keep fighting the good fight and protest whatever way you see fit.

        • Leonard, Leonard, Leonard . . . we don’t want to restrict gun rights. We just want to restrain you.

    • Those people may think that the right should be regulated, but the people who wrote it down in the beginning, THE FOUNDING FATHERS, YOU ASSHAT, seemed to think otherwise. That’s why it says “…shall not be infringed.”

      And if you think most people here believe that RKBA should be infr- regulated, then you must have mistyped bradycampaign.org

    • Litigators, state courts, and the SCOTUS are agents of the government. Of course many in government want to infringe on the RKBA! That’s specifically why it was included in the BoR…to stop them!

    • “Does history record ANY case in which the majority was right?” – Robert Heinlein.

      Just because MOST people believe a thing does not mean that it is by that consensus true.

    • “look on TTAG, most here believe in regulating the right”
      REALLY????? Please give your definition of “most”, cause I don’t see anyone saying that but you.

  3. I suggest people go read that oped, which as a lot of good points about where we as a movement are going and the danger of demanding such purity that we exclude most people. Also, from a legal and historical perspective I have yet to see anyone explain how the 2 A can have NO regulation. Can a person currently incarcerated buy a gun? If not how is that not an infringement of the person’s right?
    What about a 5 year old? You say they have a guardian, but how isn’t that a violation of the 5 year old’s right? What about a non-resident alien in the US?

    All if this is to say that “the people” was never meant to mean “all people everywhere”. Metcalfe’s piece was arrogant and legally sloppy, but it should have been debated, not shouted down. Does anyone get the irony of Nick’s post about the strict anti-gun rights rules on Internet forums preceding these efforts to expunge all but the most “pure” from the cause? Should we write Scalia out as well? He acknowledges that some regulations are possible.

    Perhaps this post is best understood as TTAG trying to take out the competition.

    • I’m starting to smell some CSGV astroturfing in these post responses. I used to do this sort of thing for a living so I know how easy it is for one person to create 50 accounts and have a dialogue with themselves on an issue, eventually driving the point to where they want it to be.

      I think it is more than a little suspicious that the first few posts on this topic out of the gate are people who want to show up at the gun-control table with their list of things they are willing to compromise on printed on the front of their t-shirt.

      The anti-gunners are scumbags, lets’ not forget that. They gleefully use tragic events and broken people to push their agenda, they would not have any moral compunction about using deception here.

      Again, they lack statistical or scientific evidence, logic, and reason, all they have is the bloody shirt.

      • I’m happy to show you my lifetime NRA membership and the tons of money I have spent on protecting the 2A. There mere fact someone disagrees with you, or disagrees that people should lose their job for disagreeing is not a sign of AstroTurf.

        Dismissing everyone who holds a different opinion as “one of them” and therefore instantly wrong is the type of crap Moms against freedom does, and we rightly mock them for it. Let’s not follow down the same path.

        • The editor of G&A isn’t just some position filled by some guy; it’s a leadership position in our cause, and we hold our leaders to a higher standard. If the president of Planned Parenthood wrote an editorial about how the recent pro-life legislation that passed in Texas was reasonable, you better believer people would be screaming for his/her head. This is no different. Metcalf showed himself to be untrustworthy of a leadership position, and was rightly removed from it.

    • I was a non-resident alien for 9 years I had to show 90 days worth of bills in my name and hold a hunters license to purchas firearms. The hunters license was no longer required when I gained the green card, but the 90 day of bills were. I got an out of state CHL that allowed me to carry in my state of residents. My first amendment rights didn’t require any of these things, so were my second amendment rights being infringed? Yes damnit they were. Now I’m a US citizen and a one issue voter.

      • Ross, your 1A rights were infringed, though probably in ways you never came across, such as the inability to make political donations.

        Prohibiting non-resident aliens from buying guns is not necessarily a good policy, but it isn’t unconstitutional. A distinction that all too often gets lost.

        • All of the amendments are being infringed upon. The NRA and SAF approves of restrictions on the second amendment. In fact, gun rights groups have regularly given away our rights.

        • Brian,

          I have to disagree my friend, there are ways I can/could/did give money to affect political campaigns, such as donations to the NRA etc. I also exercised my 1A rights by emails and phone calls to Federal and State reps. my 3A, 4A & 5A rights were in place also and didn’t require me to submit documentation to exercise. All that being said yes I am a Second Amendment abolitionist i.e. I believe any restriction is a infringement and therefore un-contitutional.

        • Brian,

          No, I consider money to political campaigns money wasted, as previously stated I did excise my 1A rights in the form of letters/emails/calls and will continue to write letters and send emails, make calls (I always told the recipient my non-resident/resident status).

    • Simple. Until you are 18, you aren’t a citizen. You can’t vote, can’t sign legal documents, and are custody of a parent/legal guardian. You don’t have rights.

      As for people incarcerated? They aren’t citizens either until they are out. They believed that they were above society, so they are no longer citizens. Simple.

      Sell to non-resident aliens, if they can pass a background check. If they can’t, that sucks. Get it privately. Besides, our government is only supposed to protect the rights of its citizens, not the rights of the entire world. If they want to be American that bad, they can become legal citizens just like everyone else’s parents/grandparents/great-grandparents, or themselves did.

      At no point do any citizen’s rights get violated.

    • Incarcerated people have all kinds of restrictions and that’s quite consistent with the Constitution that allows only for depriving a person of their rights after due process. Regardless, the state must then protect them and provide for them.

      As for minors, they are legally incompetent. As a result the parent or the state, absent a parent, has a duty to act as a proxy for that child’s rights (e.g., protect that child from harm and tyranny).

      And a “non-resident alien” in the U.S. certainly should be able to keep and bear arms. It is a natural human right.

      See? This isn’t so hard if you think it through, Brian.

      • @Grasshopper, where in the 2A does it say “except for convicts, or children?” It says “The People” so either “the people” is not all people and some restriction on those who fall outside the definition are ok (my point) or you are violating the 2A.

        And for the record the the incarcerated are citizens and you can’t deprive someone of their citizenship for committing a crime (Afroyim v. Rusk).

        • Brian:
          Why do persist in your refusal to understand what due process is? Think about it for a while. When the founders stated that no one shall be deprived of their rights WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, what does it mean to you?
          Or, even simpler, what do you believe “due process” IS?
          And, if you pointedly ignore this simple question, then what choice does a thinking man have, other than that you are a shill, here to sucker the masses if you can?

    • What about a 5 year old? You say they have a guardian, but how isn’t that a violation of the 5 year old’s right? What about a non-resident alien in the US?

      Children and nonresident aliens — tourists — have limited rights.

      Legal resident aliens enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. For now, they can’t vote in Federal elections, although they may vote in state elections if state laws so provide.

      Children’s rights are limited because they are too immature to exercise them, but they, too, are entitled to many of the protections under the Bill of Rights. They are restricted from exercising some rights that require exercising critical judgment, which they lack.

    • Because when people are found to be a danger to society by a legal court and by a jury of their peers… but ONLY THEN, can they be deprived of their rights. And then, as a convicted felon, his rights are deemed forfeit for his felony. Read the Constitution and the statutes. This system is nothing new. Its been around in this country since the beginning. You really should have known…

    • Brian, you sound naïve. The things you speak of are not infringements or regulations of the second amendment, but restrictions on all rights of some persons. Prisoners, being wards of the state, have the practice of their rights delegated to the state. Children, similarly, have their rights delegated to their parents until they attain sufficient age. The prisoner has received due process of law and his rights really should be fully reinstated upon completion of his sentence. It is simple.

      The founders originally thought long and hard about the Bill of Rights, and left it out. They decided that the Constitution enumerated every power of government, and what was not on that paper was not a power of government. They worried that by listing certain rights, others would be left out, and seen as non-existent, and that the rights enumerated would have targets painted on them for illicit restriction by government. This is why the limits of certain rights were spelled out in the Bill of Rights itself. It is also why “shall not be infringed” was included. An infringement is much less of a threshold than a regulation could ever be,

      That the scotus has ruled otherwise is expected, the power to control has always been run rampant in the halls of government, read a history book. The founders were well aware of this as well. Contrary to the popular description of Justice Holmes commentary, one CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theater, just not falsely. Indeed, in some cases one would hope you do. But to do so FALSELY is not about freedom of speech, free speech is about harsh truths, criticisms, and opinions. It is not a license to lie. Similarly, one shall not have their keeping or bearing of arms infringed, but if one violates legitimate laws, one is not being arrested for pursuing a right. We can have laws against slander, libel, false claims (especially prosecutable when shown to be an incitement to mass hysterics), murder, assault, battery, etc. You have a right to speak freely and be armed, but not to interfere in others day to day affairs in doing so (peacable assembly means that, not non-violent) nor to harm them through untruths or unwarranted physical armed confrontations.

      The Constitution was meant to be taken literally,

  4. Fascinating how many people seem to really really want to be fired from their positions. No other explanation as to why they are trying to curtail a right that is outside their (or anyone’s) authority to regulate.

  5. We can’t have a rational conversation about limitations on gun ownership. This is because the most visible and vocal proponents of gun control are hostile to all private gun ownership. They say they only want universal background checks etc. because this is what they think they can get at this time. But, if you scratch the surface, most of them are profoundly uncomfortable with the very idea of guns. In this environment, you can’t give an inch. Why would you?

    • It reminds me of ‘two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner’. We know what’s on the wolves’ minds so we’d be fools to even sit down at that table.

      • I understand and agree with your analogy, but couldn’t we find a better simile? I object to being classified with the sheep.

        How about “Two lions and a tiger decide to vote on what to have for dinner”?

  6. Someone once told me that “well regulated” really means “well armed,” as in “if you’re called up into the militia, don’t be showing up with shovels and revolvers. Get youself something GOOD, and learn how to use it.” The proof of this, as pointed out in Heller, is that no limitations on arms or ammuntion were imposed for over 130something years after the revolution, and there was certainly never any registration or confiscation. Even the old confederates were not disarmed, after WAGING OPEN WAR on the government. Now, we are told that “well regulated” really means “inadequately armed;” as few rounds as possible, less lethal/lower velocity rounds, etc. How general Washington could have ever prevailed under those conditions is now a concern only for military historians to debate in shamed silence.

      • So, “Well Regulated” means the ability to fight super powers in open warfare? Still doesn’t sound like restrictions to me.

        • The best example of how the term was intended is to watch a competent marching band at a half-time show that does intricate maneuvers while marching and playing their instruments. That is the basic definition of “well regulated.” And the government has nothing to do with it.

        • It really only means that the mod has come up with some system to appoint leaders, so that they are not an unruly mob, but can interact with other uniformed, paid, friendly troops that might be around. Its not even training as many militia did not drill or train in any way. A good example would be Mel Gibson’s “Ghosts” regiment in the movie “The Patriot”. Militia were volunteers that showed up and/or left at will. Naturally, these would have to equip themselves. No other system would even be possible.

    • Well-regulated really is not applicable to the people’s right to arms. The statement paraphrases to “because the well-regulated militia is a necessary evil, the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed”.
      Well-regulated means the same today as it did back then. A well-regulated pump delivers consistent flow. A well-regulated time piece keeps good time. Any old timer knows what it means to be “regular” in a different way. A regulated militia was created in the powers of Congress, you can find it in the Constitution under their powers. They coordinated that with the states as well. Regulated would relate to a number of things, similarity of uniform and equipment, training and procedures, a chain of command, etc. Regulated means controlled in a manner such as to keep things working in a regular manner.
      One thing immediately noticeable, a rag-tag group of people with uninfringed ability to carry all sorts of arms is NOT well-regulated. It is the antithesis of such a thing. That does not matter. The idea impressed in the second amendment was that since the government by necessity would have armed, trained militia at their control, the people ALSO have every right to arm themselves. The second amendment very much is a check on government force. Remember, the militia’s creation in the Constitution predated the addition of the Bill of Rights, the 2A doesn’t create that militia, it rebuts it.

  7. Can Freedom of Speech also be “regulated”?

    The way I understand the process, regulations are an aspect of the Executive branch of government….. they have to do with law enforcement. They are the guidelines for how the Executive branch CHOOSES to enforce a standing law. Any regulation that wasn’t very specifically delegated to the Executive branch by laws created by the Legislative branch of government, is an infringement on our rights. The Separation of Powers exists for a reason.

    The Executive branch cannot expand the mission, on it’s own, of any agency that was created by the legislature.

  8. Wow. I’m stunned by this tone-deaf response by guns.com. I guess I can delete that bookmark….

    When your rights are under attack, as the RKBA has been for decades, but most intensely this past year, the last thing we need to be doing is writing editorials about what rights we think we could live with dealing away.

    In the abortion debate, do you notice anything? Neither side gives an inch, ever. Because they know if they do, the foot is in the door and before you know it, they’ve given away far too much. (Note, let’s not start talking about which side is right here, does not matter, it is the tactics I want to highlight)

    Again, the folks (and really, I want to say ‘idiots’ here) over at guns.com have every right to get in bed with Dirty Dick and sell us all down the river, and give those pea-brains at MDA, MAIG and CSGV things to drop into their diatribes. Lord knows they won’t use statistics, facts, logic or common sense… so a little bit of this goes well with their knee-jerk bloody shirt waving histrionics.

    Guns and Ammo has a few years ahead of it to get to the point where I could give them another shot. Guns.com had plenty of time to think about the consequences of their post having seen the G&A firestorm, and did it anyway, which earns them the lifetime ban in my book.

    • Haha, we said pretty close to the exact same thing and posted at the same time XD

      I award you an internet good sir. It’s nice that on TTAG I can find people who agree with me.

      • Yes, Chiostian, it is nice to find people here who agree with us or with whom we can at least have adult discussions, but now what we need to do is go “out there” and convince as many other people as possible to agree with us as well.

  9. Even if I were to accept the premise that “some regulations” are lawful and necessary (and I don’t) you are still voluntarily taking the first step on the slippery slope. We will never be “sufficiently regulated” until the only people who can own weapons also happen to be agents of Government.

    In case anyone tries to argue the contrary, the slippery slope is the liberal way of life.
    The homosexual agenda went from “We just want the Government out of our bedroom” to “If you don’t allow me to dress in drag at work you’re infringing on my rights! Any opinion that says otherwise is hate speech!” No matter which side of the argument you’re on, the point remains that it became increasingly radical as concessions were made.

    It doesn’t really matter what the left is talking about – the answer is ALWAYS to move further left. Doing it increments just makes it easier to vilify anyone who disagrees. If we allow them to disarm us, we’re simply hastening the day when they say that anyone who doesn’t agree with their beloved leader is clearly suffering from sluggish schizophrenia.

      • Even then, they might have a different type of battle to deal with… such as the succession of several states.

        • Well if history has taught us anything, it’s that US soldiers won’t hesitate to murder anyone who wants to leave an oppressive state.

      • The rights enumerated in the BoR cannot be taken away. Even if repealed, they are natural rights, inherent by our very existence. You cannot repeal that short of killing everyone with this knowledge.

        • I agree with what you wrote. However, short of killing everyone with knowledge of natural rights, another method has been deployed against our free people. The indoctrination of our youth is at the core in the war against natural rights. As each generation dies off, the next is less free than the one preceding it. Government wages long term incremental war that spans generations. Each generation has within its power to stop the corrosion and push for as much restoration as is possible. In fact, it is the duty of every generation of free citizens to do so.

    • The liberal left isn’t there fighting for our safety, or anything to help us. They just want to fight. Did the third reich stop when they got to Poland? Did they stop when they got to France? Would they have stopped on the west coast of Europe? No. They kept fighting because there was more to be had. Europe just let them have Poland, and tried to appease Hitler until England was about the only thing left outside of his control in Western Europe. If they had fought him in the beginning like they should have, It would have been a much different story.

      TLDR; They are fighting us and we can’t give them anything, its not like it would slow them down.

  10. “The gun owners I pal around with are the smartest, most thoughtful and responsible people I know.”…
    because they all think and act just like me!
    Maybe if Blannelberry thoughtfully examined the arguments that so offend him, he could get a bit smarter.

  11. The bum deserved to be fired.

    Every regulation is infringement and we live in a society so infringed upon it is unrecognizable to those that have enjoyed true freedom. Just cross the border from Vermont to kommunist New York after you’ve disarmed yourself.

  12. Hey guys, let’s regulate the 4th and 5th amendments while we’re at it! Do you want a criminal to have due process or the right to not self incriminate? OF COURSE NOT!

    That was my sarcasm voice.

  13. Ah, yes the Neville Chamberlain approach. If we would just compromise a LITTLE more, they would quit trying to take away our rights. We are at war for the very survival of our nation.No room for fence sitters. The Charles Lindberghs among us are NOT helping the cause. Being “reasonable” is what got us in the sorry place we find ourselves. The continued chipping away at ALL our rights. Just because all those regulations exist does NOT mean they are Constitutional. Communism was unable to defeat us from without, but it’s doing a damn good job from within.

    • Its not actually too bad of a website, I used it before learning of TTAG. However, some of the writing on there has been great like Jeffery Denning (personal opinions) and some has been shoddy at best. Im curious to see how they respond.

  14. What bothers me most about regulating and limiting is not regulations and limits in and of themselves but the fact that current and proposed limits and regulations dont accomplish any of the stated goals that mask limits and regulations as “reasonable” or “common sense.”

    So then what am I putting up with these limits and regulations for if they dont accomplish what they are alleged to accomplish?

    It’s like I’m being forced to let some retard have his way simply for the sake of making that retard feel better.

    Sorry, but that’s not a good enough reason to put chains on my ankles.

    Prove to me without any doubt whatsoever that any one of these current or proposed limitations will have the affect promised and I’ll sit at the table. Maybe. Until you can do that all the promises, unicorns and rainbows in the world wont make me happy about chopping my foot off just to make some self-righteous paranoid freak feel better.

    • We must not oppose regulations just because they do not work. Law books are filled with laws and regulations that do not work.

      WE MUST OPPOSE ANY REGULATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION!

      • And one of the reasons that infringement is specifically forbidden in the 2A is because it wouldn’t be much of a deterrent to government over-reach otherwise. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as the militia being well regulated is necessary to the security of a free state. So much infringement has already occurred that the deterrent value of the 2A has been severely diminished. This has enabled government to usurp power by infringing on other rights with greater impunity. IMHO, we allow further infringement (called ‘regulations’ in modern terminology) and don’t turn back existing ones, we leave only the other implied value of the 2A and that is a horrible thought to many. An insistence for ‘shall not be infringed’ is actually the only hope of our free nation remaining as it was founded; free.

        • That’s why America needs the Burke Amendment. Which specifies that, in order to pass any bill into law, two other laws must be repealed and wiped off the books first.

          Or three.

        • John, we will make much better and faster progress on this front if you will kindly refrain from using H inside you IMHO. Thank you.

        • Good one (or two) Mr. Burke. I have included in a piece of fiction I was working on the premise that the legislature must be constrained by their constitution to a maximum number of carefully worded laws of maximum length and written in common terminology. As part of that constitutional requirement the addition of ANY new law that exceeded that number had to be provided for by deleting a law already on the books.

          In your honor I will now label that the Burke Provision.

        • Very nice. I think the only way to reduce the logjam of Laws that Nobody Knows About is to make them repeal at a faster rate than they can pass them.

          I like your specifications. This thing has potential, I tell you!

  15. “Follow the dollar”, as they say. Over the last few decades there have been more than a few individuals and businesses willing to cave on 2A rights. I can only assume they wrongly conclude concessions will avoid an outright ban and, as a result, the loss of their livelihood. They should know better but obviously don’t.

  16. Me thinks someone at Guns.com isn’t as conservative as he thinks he is. Note the tactic he used in his writing: Insult – slight recognition – personal offense over disagreement – bullshit. If it had continued it would have been followed by a large rant.

  17. I agree with guns.com on a few points. One, we do have a right to say what we want. And two, there are reasonable restrictions to the 2nd. I don’t think anyone here is going to put up a reasonable argument as to why felons should be able to own guns, or why free speech should be curtailed. The issue here with G&A, for me at least, is that optics matter. Dick Metcalf doesn’t speak for me (neither does G&A), but he does sit behind a very influential national microphone. That article gives fuel to the anti gun movement, in that they now have a quote from none other than an editor of a gun magazine, saying restrictions are reasonable. Doesn’t matter that he’s right (in a very limited sense), all that matters is the visual of “even the gun nuts agree with us”. Imagine the head of Planned Parenthood saying that sometimes, abortion is murder. Dick Metcalf should have known better than to say it. G&A should have known better than to publish it.

    • “I don’t think anyone here is going to put up a reasonable argument as to why felons should be able to own guns.”

      How many felons are non-violent offenders convicted of a victim-less crime due to the oh-so-successful “War on Drugs”? Do you honestly think they have forever and ever lost their god given right to self defense?

      Maybe you don’t realize what a wide net that word felon casts. Perhaps you don’t realize how many felonies you have probably committed in your lifetime without even realizing it. We have such a labyrinth of laws and regulations in this country today, it is almost impossible NOT to break a law sometime.

      When I was a cop, I would have been able to arrest almost anyone, anytime if I set my mind to it. Hope I never abused that, but the power of the state is terrifying.

      • To answer all of the replies about felons and weapons. I wasn’t trying to get into a discussion about what should constitute a felony, or how broken our justice system is. I’ve been through the justice department as a victim of a violent crime, and no one knows better than I do how screwed up our legal system is.

        But I will say this. The constitution talks about varying severity of crimes, in that some crimes are more serious than others. As an example, what is required to impeach the president, or a supreme court justice. “High crimes and misdemeanors..” This says that the framers had an understanding that some crimes were more reprehensible than others, and could/should be punished more severely. I would take the same view with losing your RKBA. Crimes of violence, crimes against children, etc.. Would anyone argue that a child molester has ever, ever completely paid their debt to society?

        I’m not a constitutional scholar, but this makes sense to me.

        • A child molester’s “debt to society” is so far-reaching, in all its implications, that it cannot possibly ever be repaid; that is why we must make sure that the child molester does not have an opportunity to extend his reign of terror and darkness.

        • There are not varying degrees of “free men” in our society. We do not have a peerage. If you wish a man to not have rights, he must be also found to be unworthy of freedom. Keep him off the streets or allow him the rights granted him by his Creator.

    • Imagine that you got convicted of money laundering through a shell company…serve your time…and now your RKBA is lost.. Haven’t you paid your debt to society?

      Murderers…if they are out, and we are worried about them, why are they out? There are other means by which people use to dispose of other people without brass and lead…that are also readily available to anyone.

      • Ralph must have gone to bed, or we’d have heard from him about this by now. Ralph argues, quite well, against the legal notion of “debt to society”, and it’s true that jurisprudence doesn’t seem to address the concept. But I reply that “debt to society” is a SOCIETAL concept, not a legal one. SEE? It even has “society” in it!!

        I had a second point, but I can’t find your post to refresh my memory. Ah well.

    • Felon includes a wide variety of convicted person. Should all be prohibited? Some states permit pardons and expungements of felonies after completing prison time, other states don’t. Minor misdemeanor crimes with possible jail time of over 1 year can be prohibited. Touching or pushing a domestic partner could be a crime and cause retroactive prohibition of the right.

    • Some might say that felons, after having done their time and being found to be safe enough to release from prison, are a population that most need access to guns. Given that they often cannot afford to live in low crime neighborhoods, should we consider that banning them from being able to protect themselves and their families for the rest of their lives is ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to both the felon and their family? If you can’t trust an ex-con with a gun in his own house, why is he out of prison?

      • I would and have said that before. When government deprives an individual of arms, the government has an obligation to protect that individual. As ‘to serve and protect’ is merely a slogan and not a mandate, government has no legitimate authority to bar an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Government can only legitimately deprive one of arms when that individual is in legitimate, lawful custody. Such custody covers arrest, imprisonment, incompetency due to age, incompetency due to infirmity after being afforded legitimate due process, and a criminal defendant during his actual trial in the courtroom. Anything beyond these situations are infringement and specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment. As regulation of the natural right of self defense is not enumerated in the Constitution, regulation of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

        • “When government deprives an individual of arms, the government has an obligation to protect that individual.”

          Yes, how did that work out for the Indians?

          By the way, the supreme fallacy of supposed gun-free zones” can be observed in each and every prison. The government has deprived these individuals of arms (and yet they still manage to manufacture some pretty effective arms). In theory they are under 24/7 protection by armed security. And yet how safe are they, day to day, from criminal acts perpetrated by those they are forced to live with. How much protection do the guards provide against beat-downs, knifings, homosexual rape, and even murder? The horror stories are well known and documented. Even under the most ideal of conditions (for them) the government CANNOT protect you.

          That is exactly why the government has no authority to deprive you of arms.

          Should prisoners have weapons? Well, I certainly don’t think we should issue them, but how effective are we at actually preventing them from making their own? And the 2A does not say firearms, just arms.

          Violent criminals and non-violent criminals should be housed separately. What violent criminals do to each other, even in prison, I really don’t care. What the government will do to you and me out here if we relinquish our RKBA I shudder to think about, and that I do care about.

        • Oh, I agree with you, Cliff H, and that was the point. Government cannot protect us so they couldn’t possibly, even remotely, justify barring us the use of arms. It’s insanity.

    • Mostly agree with this post, except that those of us in NY now are committing felonies left and right for what are normal 2A rights in every other state with the exception of CA, CT, and MD…. when you see more and more of us getting busted for refusing to register AR15’s or carrying 8 rounds, we may well have some convicted ‘felons’ who really do deserve 2A rights.

      Maybe we need to use the term Violent Felons? Either way, I don’t think it is absolute, it would be good to have it reviewable by the courts for those handfuls of people who really did just get screwed by the system.

      Other than that, spot on. When we are trying to put out a fire, having our ‘friends’ lob 5 gallon cans of gas into the mix just hurts us all. You want to talk about it privately? Go for it!

      Dirty Dick wants to post it on his personal blog? Eh… not excited about it, but ok…

      G&A wants to take us out at the knees by posting his crap? Not ok. And for all those who scream ‘censorship’ because he was fired, you are idiots. It is not censorship, it is a business. Sort of like the guy who sued Hooters because he could not be a waitress there… businesses exist to make sales, and things that harm sales are detrimental to the existence of the business. No one in the world has has Tricky Dick can’t stand on the street on a box and jibber jabber all he wants…

      • “…when you see more and more of us getting busted for refusing to register AR15′s or carrying 8 rounds, we may well have some convicted ‘felons’ who really do deserve 2A rights.”

        And there you have it. If you allow that the government has the authority to regulate the Second Amendment, even a little bit, they will simply pass laws that make you a criminal for doing what they do not want you to do. They may not be able to repeal the 2A, not for want of trying, but they can sure as Hell regulate it to death!

    • It seems to me that we are getting into some very deep waters here with the whole felon rights thing. Ralph, what’s your take via case law?

      • Case law may reflect past rulings, but when it has been already established that the courts have unduly infringed people’s rights regularly, what help is it really?

    • The Second Amendment refers to “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” not firearms. It was written to preserve a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to defense of self and community. It does not give any limitation or definition of who “the people” are who have and must be allowed to exercise that right. For very good reason. As mentioned in the previous comment, do you even know how many things are considered felonies? Do you have any idea how many of those laws you may have broken without even knowing they existed? If you give any government at any level the authority to limit your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by simply saying that conviction of a felony permanently denies you that right then two things happen: 1) the government simply passes laws tat it calls felonies, convicts its political opponents of these crimes, and removes their 2A “rights”, and 2) Acquiescing to the concept that the government MAY determine, by creating even a short list of people who may not exercise a right immediately and irrevocably turns that from a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to a privilege allowed under license from the government.

      The Second Amendment is absolute and applies to everybody equally. No government agency has the authority to modify or restrict it. I the exercise of that right by ANY person, regardless of their history or mental state, makes you uncomfortable, you have the right to arm and protect yourself. Your discomfort does NOT trump my or anyone else’s right under the 2A.

      Besides, exactly how many felons who are proscribed from owning firearms actually give a damn about those laws? If they want a gun they will get a gun. If they want a to carry concealed they will carry concealed. Giving away our Second Amendment rights will NEVER change that dynamic.

  18. @brian…my grandfather bought a gun when he was a kid…no restrictions on the purchase and there were very few, if any, school shootings. He even brought it to school. The funny thing is that our government and societal structure is causing a shift from parental responsibility to state responsibility…with that comes a one size fits all, medicated approach to problems and a lack of supervision by parents who are “too busy” to raise their children. Morality is also lacking…

    Inmates obviously can’t go to the gun store…without a permission slip anyway:)

  19. So Metcalf suggested that a 16 hr training requirement is not an unreasonable infringement on our 2A rights. Putting aside the discussion about whether any infringement (“reasonable” or not) is ok (it isn’t), let’s apply this thinking to our voting rights:

    Because our elected officials sometimes have to make really tough decisions, decisions that sometimes cost people their very lives, it is deemed necessary to place reasonable restrictions on who can vote in our elections. Henceforth, a 16 hr voter education class is required to obtain your certified voter card. The class will cost between $75 and $250 depending on the administering state. At the end of the class will be a test. Failure to pass the test will require successful completion of another voter education class at a later date. The classes will be offered at limited times that may not work out well with everyone’s work schedule. Further, class size is limited so be sure to sign up early before they fill up. Recertification is required every 4 years.

  20. Wow. Good job chopping up the “Quote of the Day” TTAG. Agenda much?

    If you actually read the EDITORIAL (which is a writer’s stance, not a publication’s stance so I don’t see how Guns.com is backing Metcalf) you can see Blannelberry is just stating a bunch of stuff already established by the Supreme court like “shall issue” CCWs and training hours. He’s not taking a philosophical stand he’s just pointing out the reality we live in.

    TTAG on the other hand is just taking quotes out of context and pretending that it’s news. So who’s got the agenda?

    • Here is the written reality we live in; “…shall not be infringed”

      Infringed means “as to limit or undermine”

    • “Plus, as gun owners, I thought we valued intelligent discourse and fact-based dialogue. I thought we believed in the Hume tradition, “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” I thought we were open to hearing from moderate voices because, after all, there are 100 million gun owners in this country, not all of who are NRA disciples (for the record, I heart the NRA but I’m also not so presumptuous as to assume that every other gun owner does). I don’t know. I guess I greatly overestimated our capacity to tolerate differing perspectives within our own community.”

      There is internal discourse, amongst ourselves, and then their is putting out articles in prominent national publications which are instantly touted by anti-gun advocates as a huge win for them.

      If you, Dirty Dick, and Brickleberry can’t grasp the difference, to quote Flava Flav: “I can’t do nutin’ for ya, man.”

      • Please explain to me how a god given right, simply affirmed by the bill of rights…not given as a privilege by the state…is subject to discourse on regulations to that god given right.

        I am not religious at all, but I do recognize that without a god given right…all rights are given by the state…

        Doesn’t everyone have the basic right against any form of theft against the person? Everything that may occur to an individual boils down to this(loss of life, property, even in regards to forced sexual activities).

        • I agree. If you come to my house and tell me that you want to take my stuff, there is no discussion, compromise, or hearing of voices of moderation to be tolerated. It is mine, not yours.
          MY rights are similar ground. They are not open for discussion or compromise, They are not yours to take.

      • “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” If that is our tradition, I’m an unbeliever.

        Truth can never spring from argument and can only possibly spring from honest discussion. Truth comes from unbiased inquiry into the facts.

        The winner of an argument may in fact just be the guy with the bigger gun and/or faster draw. Does that make his position truth?

    • In business, the employee’s reflect, represent, and support the interests of their company… or they are fired.

      Metcalf wrote articles for “guns and ammo.” Mkay. Guns … and … ammo. NOT… Parents against gun violence, or moms demand action, or mayors against illegal guns. Blannelberry writes articles for “guns.com” If Blannelberry is a supporter of gun control and gun regulation, then it is FACT that Guns.com hires people that support gun control and gun regulation.

      He’s not taking a philosophical stand he’s just pointing out the reality we live in.”

      Yeah he actually not making either of those points. He is pointing out his opinion that Metcalf shouldn’t be forced to resign for his actions. Also, by taking this position, He is also inadvertently pointing out that Metcalf’s employment is of greater value than publishing factual articles about the 2nd amendment.

    • WE’VE got the agenda!

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The only thing the writers of this amendment got wrong is that it should have ended with and exclamation point!

  21. I believe that regulation is an infringement, what is a ‘right’ that’s available only through ‘permission’. In fact, as some on the left would say about abortion or birth control, a right that is not available to all due to cost is a right denied, so it is with firearms, thus, I want government to subsidize my purchase. Considering a previous post here from Nick about how squirrely the anti 2nd amendment types are about differing opinions on their forums, I find it surprising how many support banning Metcalf for essentially doing the same thing. Oh well.

    • I have not read much that says he should be banned from anything, save a few overly hot posts. If he wants to come on TTAG and defend himself and spout off and lay down on our couch and cry about his mammy, I’m sure we’d be fine with that. This is that bullcorn ‘censorship’ chestnut again. No one is censoring the man….

      We’re just all sort of telling him how much we’d appreciate it if he would go pound sand. That’s all.

    • “Considering a previous post here from Nick about how squirrely the anti 2nd amendment types are about differing opinions on their forums, I find it surprising how many support banning Metcalf for essentially doing the same thing.”

      If by support banning you mean not wanting him to be employed in a writing capacity for what should be a pro-2A publication that sounds correct but his blatant misdirection is not the same thing as a differing opinion. If you are talking about any kind of abuse of his 1A you are not understanding that this is more than people being locked inside an echo chamber.

      The majority of the people that did not like his article do not want his 1A rights to be compromised and they haven’t been. He is still just as free to write as well as be employed by people that want him. G&A was completely free to take any direction they wanted including continuing to print his work.

      • The First Amendment guarantees Mr. Metcalf’s freedom of speech. It does not guarantee that he can force anyone to publish it or that any of us have to read it or agree with it. He exercised his First Amendment right. Guns & Ammo published it. Readers responded via their First Amendment right. G&A does not OWE Mr. Metcalf their forum, nor a job. No rights were violated here and Metcalf can go and write anything he damn pleases and may even find someone to publish it.

        • I find it highly disturbing that people can believe otherwise; believe that TTAG and/or its members have “deprived” Mr. Metcalf of ANYTHING.

  22. Lets get out STs ol’ Reality Checkbook again.

    Felons comitted to a criminal lifestyle dont give a frak about gun laws.Felons genuinely interested in becoming members of society are forever barred their civil rights, which only serves as more motivation to go back to a life of crime.If a felon is a deadly threat to society, why are they loose on the streets?

    So yes , released criminals should enjoy their gun rights.Goodness knows the law won’t stop them anyways, if Chicago’s stats are an indication.

    Point two:any discussion on regulations is a pathway to prohibition.Like it or not,Obama will not be the last gun grabber to run the Executive Branch.Nor is he the only one in America with that mandate.There is a committed section of politicians in this country who strictly regulate guns in their home districts, and will stop at nothing to make sure their Enlightened Gun Laws (tm.) are applied to every state in the Union.That, in fact is the stated goal of our opposition , since states rights are secondary to the concept of “national gun regulation”.

    The only way to halt that kind of incrementalism is to check it at the jump.This isn’t about reasonable regulation or stopping bad guys from getting guns.This is about keeping the needle in the middle at worst, or far on the side of “uninfringed”.The other side of the scale is “Total Infringement”.

    • “If a felon is a deadly threat to society, why are they loose on the streets?”

      I’ve seen this question many, many times here lately. Let me offer an answer.

      Deadly felons are out on the streets because there is no room in the jails. Period. Plea bargaining reduces the length of time spent inside, but also creates a “revolving door” for each deal made, because the punishment is reduced.

      In addition, the prison industry and law enforcement lobby is incentivized to make more felons. CCI and Prison Industries are prime examples of the former, and every police chief who points with pride the number of arrests [NOTE: NOT convictions] is an example of the latter.

      That’s my take on why.

      • (This isn’t directed at you. It’s being cast out there as a follow up.)

        So that begs the question, “Why is my right to keep and bear arms infringed?” Obviously, our government is criminalizing intentions and private behaviors that are unmanageable even in the most imprisoned nation on the planet (no cite, just read many places that we are)? Again, it seems like government usurpation of power created more problems that are then being used as justification for more infringement. It’s time to stop the insanity; shall not be infringed, yo!

      • Nope. deadly felons are on the streets to make room for nonviolent drug offenders. And, since they are unable to wreak violent havoc on society from behind bars, they are put back on the street for the express purpose of wreaking violent havoc on the public, so that the public will demand more stringent laws for the violent felon to ignore.

        The intended fallout from this policy is the predictable shriek for more stringent gun control laws.

        And that’s the name of the game.

    • When you cut me off on the road, you are infringing on my lane and my ability to travel. When you make a law giving you the right to cut me off, that is a regulation. Infringement includes the root word “fringe”, the outer edges, a peripheral area. The idea is quite clear, the slightest attempt to intrude even upon the periphery of a subject, not even needing to relate to the core subject, is an infringement. A regulation is much more intrusive. If one cannot infringe, one cannot regulate.

  23. WOW. How are these people this ignorant. I wasn’t this ignorant and foolish when I was 20 as it relates to politics, freedom, guns, etc. Is there some kind of conspiracy?

    • The majority of the American people are at their lowest overall levels of intelligence ever.
      Just talk to a 20 something about politics.
      It will make your head spin.
      Or if you can stand it for more then 20 seconds, Jay Walking segments on Jay Lenos show.
      Same thing on Bill Oreilly’s show when the 20 something commentator asks the man on the street questions.
      Ignorance of every day issues is so twisted.
      Its just my opinion here but the public is so dumbed down these days on most issues its sickening to me.

    • There sure is, its called the “public education system”, and “No(every) child left behind”! And the “Common Core” will only make the problem worse, as all government “solutions” always have..

    • Actually, even that is a yet another of today’s misnomers. Benedict Arnold was quite a hero. He was singularly responsible for the victory at Saratoga by violating orders to stay put, but instead moving the forces under his command to where they needed to be to create a victory.
      He not only created the victory, but was charging to completely rout the British when he was relieved of his command! He was disciplined for that, and grew bitter as he was removed from combat duty and placed in charge of garrisons instead. Probably so he would stop creating victories. This sorry state of affairs led to his turning the garrison over to the British in return for money, one of his weaknesses. Even that failed, as the evidence shows that the powers that be were expecting him to change sides, and did everything they could to entice him into doing so. The real traitors were the generals in charge at Saratoga. IMHO, ofc.

  24. As this website has itself pointed out on several occasions, this particular point is a matter of settled law. The Heller decision indicates that 1) The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and 2) that right is not unlimited in that you cannot “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. It’s a bit hypocritical to point to Heller as settled law when referencing point 1, but not point 2.

    • I read Metcalf’s article. Metcalf’s error, at least in my evaluation, was that in advocating restrictions on the right that he would assert fall under the second Heller statement you identify, he read out of the case the first Heller holding you identify. He plainly asserted a false basis of the right, brushing aside the ‘individual right’ for ‘self-defense’ and peddled the right as only flowing from the well-regulated militia phrase. The article was, in other words, incompetent, and only superficially less astounding than many of the answers given to Jay Leno’s man-in-the-street questions.

    • It is amazing to me how many keep trotting out this “settled law” canard. At one point slavery was “settled law”. That did NOT make it right. Should women NOT be allowed the vote? Nine individuals DO NOT get to say what is right forever and ever, amen. If we believe them to be wrong, which many of us do, we need to change the “settled law”.

      The Illinois General Assembly cranked out over 600 new laws this last session. (I cite that, cause I been watching them closely.) How many of those new laws do you suppose gave us greater freedom? Very, very few would be my uninformed guess. This is how you “fundamentally transform” a free nation to the sorry remnant which remains of our counrty. Somebody cries, “There oughta be a law!” And, BAM, there goes another little bit of your freedom. We need desperately to roll back “settled law”.