“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.” – S.H. Blannelberry, Did Dick Metcalf deserve to be fired over Guns & Ammo column on 2A limitations? [via guns.com]
Home Gun Control Guns.com Backs Metcalf: Regulations are Not Infringements
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.
We REALLY need you to speak to the DC City Council.
“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.
It worked for bush you anti-gunner.
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.
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…
Aww… please. Could you stop doing that?
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.
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.
infringe. verb. to limit or restrict.
No… we don’t?
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.
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.
Rye ergot, perhaps….
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 NRA may be the worst offender. They are definitely in it for the money and are less concerned about the regulating of the right.
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 get the Parliamentary channel now…)
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.
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.
Leonard, I challenge you to provide examples of your claims.
@Ross, did you donate to a political candidate while you were a non-resident alien?
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).
Incorrect, while incarcerated you are property of the state. You are not a citizen
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?
Spot on! That’s a concise and an accurate summary.
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,
EXCELLENT response, Paul.
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.
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”?
Huh? You’ve disappeared the point.
Okay, two tigers and a lion. I just hate being classified as a sheep.
No one said you couldn’t be a wolf. Or that you had to be a sheep. You merely approached it from that angle. No one made you do that; you did that to yourself.
Apparently Blannelberry is a homophobe too. ” Butt-hurt”? Sounds like a pejorative to me.
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.
Well regulated means this and nothing more:
So, “Well Regulated” means the ability to fight super powers in open warfare? Still doesn’t sound like restrictions to me.
It means trained
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.
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.
Remember the freedom pens?
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.
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.
Government can regulate firearms all they like AFTER THEY REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Guns.com. Never heard of them and after this I won’t darken their doorway, so to speak.
I only wish I had gone there often before, to drop their numbers even more today.
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.
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.
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!
I like it, William Burke. We need it!
“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.
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.
It suppose that it’s time to stop surfing guns.com. I really didn’t care for their April Fools’ edition either: http://www.guns.com/2013/04/01/
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.
@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:)
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.
…and you will need to have to be finger printed and need a background check every time you renew your license to vote.
…just to be sure you haven’t committed any crimes that would terminate your eligibility to vote.
…or died, except in Chicago.
And IIRC, the Constitution does NOT state that everyone has a “right to vote,” anyway.
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!
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.
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.
“Regulations that are not considered to be infringements.”
Too bad there’s no way to move this post all the way to the top of the comments section!
I would, if I could.
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.
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..
I had not realized Benedict Arnold has so many relatives….
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.
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”.
My point is simply this: you can’t cherry-pick from these decisions to suit your point.
It is my firm belief that women in America are allowed to vote by “settled law”. You’re trying to argue two opposite viewpoints at once. There are plenty of other forums that you will find yourself welcomed into, specifically for that reason.
I must not have made my point clearly enough, because you have totally misconstrued my meaning. At one point in our history it was “settled law” that slavery was the law law of the land and women were not allowed to vote. We corrected both those transgressions against a higher law. Saying that the current infringements on our rights are “settled law” does not dispose of the question forever. We need to roll back some of the “settled laws” that are assaults on our freedom.
In no way did I suggest that infringements on our rights are “settled law”. Ever. Anywhere.
And nowhere did I suggest you did. Ever. Anywhere.
Maybe if you read the original post I was replying to you might be able to keep up.
You jumped on me for suggesting that women’s right to vote be rescinded, inviting me to post elsewhere. In no way did I express such an opinion Ever. Anywhere.Thought maybe you misunderstood my post.
Now this little non sequitur. Do you need a little help with the big words?
How on Earth did I “jump” you? Please explain. No need to be hypersensitive. I get challenged here all the GD time, and I get it; it goes with the territory.
We deal with volatile issues here; some volatility is completely to be expected. If I was out of line, I apologize.
Countries and nations all around the world and all through history have been governed by “settled law”, including Soviet Russia, Red China, Nazi Germany and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
The American colonies were governed by “settled law”, before we decided not to settle for it.
There is no such thing as “settled law”, it is just a term used so that lawyers know where to find something that has been adjudicated before and attempt to base their current argument on that precedent.
And finally, the writers of The Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights, THOUGHT they were writing “settled law”. It seems that lawyers and courts have been working ever since to “unsettle” it.
Just because something has been settled does not mean that it is right and must never be examined again. Lawyers, courts, judges, even the Supreme Court, have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. The Supreme Court is wrong on this issue and it is imperative that we not just shrug our shoulders, say, “settled law”, and walk away whistling.
If any court, even the Supreme Court, looks at the term “…shall not be infringed.” and returns a decision that says, in effect, “…except for just a little bit, sometimes, for these particular people, under these conditions set by the government…” then they are WRONG. And we MUST continue to fight.
Thank you. Exactly what I was attempting to say, but you managed to state much more eloquently.
“Settled law”? Like Obamacare? Scotus has been wrong often enough, and changed its mind plenty of times.
It’s amazing how many anti-constitution people who enjoy guns as a hobby are desperate to get fired. At least we know who not to trust now.
I see ANOTHER magazine that isnt in my reading list…
Let me go on record stating that I believe “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed” and that regulations ARE infringements. Notwithstanding that default setting and my reading of the amendment’s text, it is no inconsistency to hold that some specific individuals shouldn’t have certain, or even any, firearms. The Second Amendment does indeed guarantee our pre-existing, God-given right to keep and bear arms. However, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property without due process of law.
Crimes should carry punishments; often including fines (property) and incarceration (liberty.) The difference for me, relative to the “regulations are not infringements” crowd, is the difference between a priori (before the fact) and a posteriori (after the fact) deprivations. If you are legitimately convicted of a major crime, then you should well expect to lose some property and/or liberty; very likely including your right to keep and bear arms for a while or maybe permanently. If you’re a legitimately adjudicated insane person without grasp of right from wrong and the consequences of your actions, then similar story.
But all of that is with due process, after-the-fact, and directed against you individually while affording you opportunity to defend yourself. None of that course of events, however, driven with the rigor of due process, at all comports with the anti-gunners’ anti-Constitutional, before-the-fact, crusade to strip everyone everywhere wholesale of their God-given right to keep and bear arms. That’s why I reject the argument that regulations are not infringements.
Great now it’s made the UK news.
“The pro-gun control column has been removed from the magazine’s site, but is archived on various other webpages.”
So what? Let the whole world know and see what happens to a long standing career when you change sides and bite the hand that feeds you. The more that know that, the better. IMO, ofc.
So S.H. – Let me get this straight… You trust Feinstein and Co enough to compromise with them on anything??? Because that’s exactly what you’re saying here. That’s exactly what you are opening the door to with your stupid little ‘in theory’ conversation about ‘some regulation is just fine with me’ crap.
You think they wouldn’t use a ‘mandatory training program’ as a new mechanism to infringe upon our rights? Really? And you think they wouldn’t come back later and take another step towards eroding our rights??? And then another step… and another step… Have you been paying the freak attention at all you dumbass? These people openly lie with a smirk and a wink, because the feel justified to use any means necessary, including lies and deception, to accomplish their ideological goal of having “Mr and Mrs America turn em all in”. These anti-gun people are virulently frothing at the mouth to disarm all of us and YOU want to strike up a deal with them for a brand new ‘regulation’?
And when there is all of a sudden a 6 year wait list to get into that ‘mandatory training program’, do you think they are going to care?? Or do you think they are going to be laughing? And when the ‘trainer’ position becomes a political appointee that decides to only hold one training session a year, do you think they are going to care? Oh, maybe they can just set up a nice healthcaredotGov style website for us all to sign up for this required training!
And do you think I’m being paranoid? Did you read the freaking Bill they proposed? They damn near wanted to take us back to the 1800’s with lever action rifles and revolvers and wanted march all of us rifle owners in to be fingerprinted and mug-shotted like common criminals and pay exorbitant ‘taxes’ (fines) to register every firearm we own, and never permit us to sell our assets or even allow our children to inherit them! That was their proposed compromise! They imposed freaking 7 round mag limits in NYC for cripes sake. 7 rounds! These are the people you TRUST to ‘regulate’ your gun rights? You think they’re not going to come back crying after the next time one person out of 300 million does something illegal with a gun and propose a new ‘compromise’? Where the hell have you been? Did you see what just happened in San Fran, where now they just rescinded their previous ‘compromise’ for folks who were grandfathered in to be allowed to keep their standard capacity mags – and now they will all be instant criminals if they don’t forfeit their assets to the State? These are the people you want to give a brand new mechanism to, so they can further infringe on our rights??
OH, and I can GUARANTEE you that you would never say ‘oh, why are you so butt-hurt’ to my face. So the fact that you just said that to a large portion of your readership frankly amuses me. I hope your writing career crashes and burns in flames along with Guns.com, because I for one will never visit your stinking Feinstein-collaborating website again.
1. The words “well regulated” mean something different today than they did when the constitution was written. Today we understand the word regulated to mean restricted or controlled. Back when the constitution was written the word regulate meant “uniformly equipped” or “well equipped”. The British soldiers were call regulars back in the 1700’s. That is where the world “regulate” or “regulated” came from. Today that word like many has changed in common usage and meaning. Go back to an old version of Blacks Law Dictionary and you can understand the constitution as it was meant to be interpreted.
2. This point is my opinion. The only time a person should loose the right to own, buy or posses a firearm is if they have been convicted of a crime and are incarcerated, and that goes for all of your constitutional right. If you are convicted in a court of law for a crime and sentenced to prison, then you loose all rights until you are leased. If you have served you punishment, they ALL your constitutional rights need to be fully restored. If you are serving a life sentence, you loose ALL constitutional rights for life. If you are convicted of something deserving of death, then that is your just punishment. Part of the problem we have today is that we are too soft on true criminals and they are let out of prison where they belong. We need to do away with victimless crimes that make a person prohibited for life.
“If you are convicted in a court of law for a crime and sentenced to prison, then you loose all rights until you are [sic] leased.”
The government has no authority at any level to take away your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You do not lose your First Amendment rights when you are convicted, in fact in some cases they will give you a free Koran and a prayer rug. You can still speak freely, send letters to the press or try to get media interviews, peaceably assemble (when you are not in your cell) and petition your government. They cannot quarter soldiers in your cell with you unless they are also convicts. You remain secure against unreasonable searches of your person, effects and your legal papers, although obviously the definition of unreasonable changes when you are a convicted criminal. All of your Fifth Amendment rights remain intact, as do those of the Sixth and Seventh and Eighth.
While you are incarcerated the government can and does, of course, place impediments in your way as to how and when and how much you may exercise those rights, but they do not and cannot take them away because they did not give them to you. They are yours the day you are born and will be yours until the day you die. You may not have access to a gun store or the ability to purchase weapons or carry them for your own defense, but can they prevent you from manufacturing your own weapons or carrying those weapons concealed? They cannot. Can they require that you not use whatever means you can devise to defend yourself should the need arise (and it will)? Can they demand that you put up no defense of any kind against any attack? You retain your natural and civil right to keep and bear arms even when the government would prefer you do not exercise it and works hard to prevent that exercise.
Ever heard of a bar of soap or a can of soda in a wool sock? Pretty effective weapons.
Natural rights MAY be suppressed, they cannot be regulated, removed or rescinded. To try is feel good folly.
About the changing meanings of words;
“How much worse than a murderer or a rapist, is the man who perverts the plain meaning of words?” -Confucius-
An infringement is a limit. Get handcuffed, behind your back, go for a swim and tell me that wasn’t an infringement or a limit. Well hey, you got to keep your arms, no biggie, right?
“to wrongly limit or restrict”
It sure sounds to me like all limits and restrictions ARE potential infringements on our second amendment rights. Are there situations where it may be appropriate to place some limits and restrictions on the second amendment? Possibly. But this should NEVER be taken lightly. We shouldn’t jump at the chance to limit and restrict the rights of millions of law abiding citizens just because of the actions of a few irresponsible and mentally deranged people.
“Are there situations where it may be appropriate to place some limits and restrictions on the second amendment?”
The question is always down to “Who will determine the restrictions, by what authority and to what extent?”
The government (at any level) has no authority to place restrictions on the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed.
The people established the government and placed THAT restriction upon their government, the government has no authority to wipe that restriction away.
Therefore, “Who will determine the restrictions, by what authority and to what extent?” The PEOPLE must determine those restrictions and the mechanism is the Second Amendment itself. When anyone violates the rights of others, especially by the use of any deadly weapon, an armed citizen has the ability and the right based on the Second Amendment to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the perpetrator, preferably by two to center mass. That was the intent and purpose of the 2A.
What Metcalf and Guns.com fail to realize is that there is a time and a place for everything. They especially couldn’t have picked a worse time for this. Not that I don’t disagree with better firearm safety education but I know what the antis are really after and I know where this will lead us down the road. Believe me there is a lot of “common sense” gun laws I WOULD support but again I know how the antis will use it against RKBA inch by inch till they have technically stripped away the 2A and shooting sports. Believe me they will not just stop with “training”.
Now I don’t care for a lot of the extremists or hard liners on our side either (LaPierre and Nugent) but part of the reason they exist is some of us have our head in the clouds regarding the on going RKBA infringements. As it turns out they do most of the heavy lifting and are why we still have a 2A. I would almost hope serious anti-gun legislation gets passed so some of you ostrich gun owners would see what we’ve been saying all along. I’m kidding ofc but maybe that’s the wake up call some of you need.
There’s that damned “common sense gun laws” thing again!
Try this on…criminals don’t give a fvck about your laws, common sense or not. You can devise so-called common sense gun laws as thick as the Obamacare joke book (Affordable Care Act) and unless you take that 2,000 pages of crap and drop it on their toe the criminals will totally ignore it.
All you get are “common sense anti-Second Amendment” laws and the only people who will even consider paying attention to them are people who are not and have no intention of ever being either criminals or a danger to anyone who is not trying to harm them, their family, some innocent person, or our Constitution.
Common sense is to understand and support the Bill of Rights exactly as it was written and intended. It is not subject to revision by the very government it was written to hold in check.
Before you label people extremists, hard-liners, and such, I would highly recommend reading this article;
What do you think of Kitty Werthtmann’s testimony? See any parallels to today’s USA in there? Think she’s a hard line radical?
Be very careful about labeling people, it usually turns out to be an error. Can’t you just say “I disagree with (whoever)”, WITHOUT using loaded media insults? And if not, WHY not?
I’m in the virtually no limits in the 2A crowd – shall issue, no mag cap limits, no ATF, no tax stamps, silencers ok, eliminate 3/4 of federal LEOs, no barrel length limits, no caliber limits, etc.
I’m not for child molestors and 5 year olds packing heat without some sort of supervision. I think some folks who are of the absolutely no limits / regulations whatsoever crowd need to unite with the “everything cops can have John Q. Public can have” crowd. I’m ok with the rights of felons being restored given some sort of factual belief that recidivism is not eminent. We’re essentially saying the same thing – we want 2A rights to be expanded consistent with the intent of the framers of the constitution. I’m fine with Metcalf being fired, and I’m fine with healthy discussion based upon facts and reality.
I’m fully aware of the civilian disarmament complex, and continue to oppose their efforts. Part of the anger here is surely due to the massive amount of infringements already put in place in IL, NJ, DC, CA, NY, MD, etc. Further, the signing of the Arms Trade Treaty could have potential for massive additional infringements and price increases. Our priority should be in expanding rights, not the complete vilification of people who might support some sort of regulation because they don’t have the wisdom to know better.
For God’s sake, let us not eliminate dissent in the same manner that the anti’s do.
I would argue that “shall issue” is an infringement. If you’re relying on a permit, even one that “shall” be issued, you’re enjoying a privilege, not a right. The Constitution should be the permit.
You’re right – my thinking was temporarily stuck in “may issue” CA.
“Shall Issue” is an infringement. Criminalize improper behavior, not the legitimate exercise of a right.
“I’m not for child molesters and 5 year olds packing heat without some sort of supervision…”
If child molesters pack heat, then for sure 5 years olds should be armed to protect themselves. (Just kidding.)
Obviously children before the age of majority are frequently denied their full Constitutional rights due to the assumption that they do not have the emotional maturity to make appropriate decisions in that regard. Five year olds should be restricted from access to deadly weapons for their own and other people’s protection, but that restriction must come from their adult supervision, not from the government.
As for child molesters, the justice system seems all but powerless to find, apprehend and convict these monsters, much less keep them locked up, or properly supervised after their release. It is widely, and I believe correctly, believed in the legal, judicial and mental health communities that these people CANNOT be rehabilitated and that they WILL re-offend at some point given the slightest opportunity, as will most persons who commit sexual offenses, as they are gripped by an OBSSESSION to commit these acts. As they are already walking around our society carrying that sort of concealed threat, what hope do we have of preventing them from carrying a concealed weapon?
The Second Amendment is the cure, not the problem. Armed citizens willing and able to protect their family, especially their children, would be a more effective (and often more permanent) solution to the problem of child molesters than all the anti-child molesting (I believe that’s already illegal) laws or all the anti-Second Amendment laws you could imagine or devise.
Too many of these arguments keep coming back to the “let the government do it” position, even when you are talking about “giving up an essential liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety.” Man up, arm up, protect yourself and your family. It is not the government’s job and they have historically been VERY bad at it when given the power.
“As for child molesters, the justice system seems all but powerless to find, apprehend and convict these monsters, much less keep them locked up, or properly supervised after their release.”
It is not a matter of “powerless”, really. The reason really is that government and its ancillary agencies is up to its neck in stinking pedophiles! It’s a NETWORK, man, and believe you me, PEDOPHILES KNOW HOW TO NETWORK.
Case in point, Great Britain. Watch in the coming months as the fallout from the Jimmy Savile scandal continues to unravel. Parts of that nation’s pedophile network will unravel, but only to an extent. Members of Parliament may get arrested, but the Royal Family is absolutely protected. The late Jimmy Savile was very, VERY close friends with Prince Charles.
It was an open secret in D.C. for decades that Barney Frank held pedophile parties at his home regularly. Where better to network with other pedophiles than in DC in general, and Congress in particular, along with the Pentagon, etc.?
Illustrated guide to gun control. We keep giving, they keep taking….where does it end.
well, there goes one more ‘pro-2A’ site, that I will never visit again.
This is actually good: it filters out the astroturf assholes from the real deal.
Are you suggesting anal sex?
This for all of you who believe that a constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to ‘reasonable regulation’. If that is true, then ALL other constitutionally protected RIGHTS are subject to the same ‘reasonable regulation’. Therefore, I turn your focus to the 1st Amendment and I propose that history has proved the following statement to be true: The pen is mightier than the sword. This being the case, it is logical that rights under the 1st Amendment should clearly be subject to reasonable regulation that is AT A MINIMUM as stringent as the various restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Let’s begin (I’ll make this quick because I am in a hurry at the moment, but we can flesh it out completely later):
1) All publishers must be licensed by the federal government to distribute newspapers, magazines, publish websites, etc. It is a felony to publish any material without a federal license.
2) You must be 21 to either publish or read a licensed publication.
3) No convicted felons may publish or read any publication. No person convicted of domestic violence may publish or read any publication.
4) You may only publish or read one publication per month.
5) Your publication may not exceed XX pages. Any articles contained therein may not exceed XX words. If you can’t make your point within the limits, you shouldn’t be writing. There is no legitimate purpose for unlimited pages or words. Unlimited words pose an undue danger to the public.
6) You must take and pass a reading class to purchase publications.
7) You must take and pass a writing class to publish anything.
8) Offensive “assault language” in a publication is banned and it’s use constitutes a felony. Words that APPEAR to resemble assault language will be considered assault language. Assault language published before the passage of the law may be retained in a library if the publication is registered with the government. Otherwise the publication must be destroyed. A list of outlawed assault words will be provided.
9) Reading or writing a publication in public is prohibited. Your right to read or write publications is limited to your home only. Brandishing a publication is a crime and a breech of the peace.
10) Publishers must keep a record of each publication purchase including the name and address of each buyer.
Every one of you that believes the 2nd Amendment is subject to ‘reasonable regulation’ can go screw yourself. Either you support the RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution 100% or you don’t support them at all. A RIGHT means it can’t be regulated. If it can be regulated, it’s a PRIVILEGE. Wise up before it’s too late.
That is spot-on, tex. Brilliant analogy. I hope to see this referenced again.
No. Change item 2 to 18 years of age, the standard age of consent, and you’ve got a winner!
If you can join the military at 18 and go to war then there is absolutely no reason to limit anything else until age 21.
Even the 13th amendment (ending slavery) included in its text the exceptions (punishment for a crime). To think that a “little more latitude” needs to be available to regulate the ending of slavery would be greeted with an outcry. It clearly illustrates that the Constitution is meant to be taken literally. The government cannot assume powers not delegated to it, period. The courts are wrong.
So, the way to make an infringement ok is to call it “Regulation”?
I can hear it already… “Even Guns.com, a prominent website for gun advocacy, believes that (additional) regulations are absolutely constitutional…. and we here at (HuffPo, MAIG, etc) believe with these recent incidents that now is the time to enact these additional regulations! So what is stopping this from going forward? The hardcore Gun-lobby and extremist NRA who are protecting the gun manufacturers”
..yadda yadda yadda.
Great job, Guns.com. What’s next? Maybe some pics with yourselves posing behind an NVA AA gun?
The reality is that your little theoretical discussion about regulations – basically supporting Metcalf’s ‘proposal’ for new a ‘mandatory training’ regulation – will be used against us. And if you were paying attention AT ALL, you would know by now that anyone who would TRUST the rabid, frothing anti-gun crowd enough to make any deal with them, give them ANY NEW MECHANISM by which they can further infringe on our RKBA, is a naive FOOL, as it would soon be augmented and twisted and manipulated used as their new tool to restrict gun ownership to the point of practical disarmament.
What Metcalf and Dingleberry (or whatever his name is) are saying is that it’s not sex if you just put the head in.
Nobody was buying that when I was seventeen, and nobody is buying it now, except a couple of concern tr0lls who show up here from time to time.
A pretty graphic representation and analogy, but effectively yes.
You now what the Commies always say;Divide and conquer.
As we’ve learned in California time and time again: beware of fudds.
The regulations prohibiting the use of firearms in crime are sufficient.
We already have laws that define what is a crime. What is the point of adding more laws saying that if you commit the crime anyway there are certain tools we demand that you do not use?
In the context of his statements, I cannot agree with Metcalf.
But in principle, it is true that not every law or regulation is an infringement.
E.g., a law requiring that guns made for sale meet certain manufacturing standards, say of metal quality, lest they become hazardous in use. While such a law would have an indirect effect on the availability of guns, and therefore the “keep”, it would not be an infringement.
Or other similar cases. I suppose you could say that reasonable regulation of somethings (labor laws, safety, quality) that could indirectly impact the exercise of certain rights is a far cry from laws directly concerning those rights. That is, perhaps, where Metcalf gets his reasoning wrong. A law requiring permits and fees to have a public protest would be justified only because, say, a public street would be closed and/or services provided by the government (such as police during parade/march duty). Whereas a law requiring permit/fees for any protest whatsoever would be unconstitutional.
I think that same logic applies here. You cannot legislatively restrict the “keeping and bearing” but you can have regulations/fees/permits when the particular exercise of these rights, involves public cost (like in the protest example).
As far as regulating the arms that we can keep and bear. Seems to me we measure them by the end of the right
1. Nuclear/chemical/WMDs are unjust even in war (save, maybe, certain very rare hypotheticals), not usable in self defense, nor by an individual.
2. Other arms are conventional in war, but not usable in self-defense, nor by the individual soldier/militiaman. Think tomahawk missiles.
3. Some arms are not reasonable means of personal self-defense, but are usable by an individual soldier/militiaman in war (A SMAW, an actual (shoulder-launched multipurpose) assault weapon)
4. Some arms are both reasonable for self defense and in war (think M-16).
5. Some are reasonable self defense instruments, but not very useful in war (a subcompact hangun)
6. Other arms that are increasingly less effective/obsolete for these purposes (bow and arrows, muzzle loaders, etc)
The right to self-defense would protect 4,5,6, and the duty/right to defend country and homeland (against enemies foreign and domestic) would cover 3. Therefore banning 1 and 2 from civilian ownership is not an infringement.
1. Manufacturing Standards. If you allow the government the authority to determine manufacturing standards for firearms they will inevitably make those standards sufficiently draconian to price all firearms out of the reach of the average American. Capitalism can and will determine manufacturing standards, and to a much greater extent than government regulations could. Consumers of these products, especially with Internet access, will quickly discredit any firearm that is not safe, reliable or is hazardous to use. We see this every day.
2. Other similar cases? There are none. Yes, the government has a certain limited responsibility to regulate social activities, The fact that they so frequently overstep and over-regulate should be a warning to us all! But the fact of the matter is that in the case of the Bill of Rights it was specifically intended to list those particular rights which the government was prohibited from re-writing, rescinding, repealing or regulating in any way. This was a listing of those specific rights that belonged to the people and were not the province of the government under any circumstances.
3. Nuclear Weapons, chemicals. WMDs. Really? Could you afford to buy a nuke, even if they were legal and available? Where would you store the thing? How would you use it? It may be cutting legal hairs, but I doubt a nuclear weapons or chemicals could be considered “arms” in the strict sense of the word. As for prohibition, how safe would you be from your Constitutional Carry neighbors if it was known that you possessed a nuclear weapon or a stockpile of chemical weapons? You would be isolated, ostracized and vilified. You would be lucky to find someone to deliver milk to your front door, much less toilet paper. You would be so thoroughly feared that you would not be safe stepping out of the confines of your bunker. The only thing you could effectively do with that nuke is use it to commit suicide.
4. Other arms. In the times the Constitution was written the most powerful weapon in the world was a Man-o-War. Do you see any prohibition anywhere to prevent a civilian from owning such a vessel? Nope. Would any reasonable person want a multi-million dollar Tomahawk missile? What the hell for? You can’t even use them against zombies. This and nukes, etc., are the very essence of “Straw Man” arguments. The point is, if everyone had the same access to the same weapons then any community could get together and buy a bigger, stronger, faster tank or more accurate howitzer and blow your ass away if you caused trouble. Problem solved.
As for your final statement, the Second Amendment is very clear and concise, 27 words:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
So, I would be hard-pressed to argue that a well regulated militia, the intent of which is to provide a means to fight against a tyrannical government, could be denied by that very government access to the arms sufficient to that purpose.
Any long gun, of any style or caliber, including fully automatic, must not be infringed. Any pistol, from a .50 S&W to a .22 Baretta, must not be infringed. Any other personal weapon, archaic or obsolete or otherwise, from a stone ax to a Kentucky rifle, a longbow to a crossbow, must not be infringed. Machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, mines, artillery, suitable for use in a civilian militia, must not be infringed from the possession of civilians. Same for tanks and APCs. I fear the government that fears my weapons.
The community itself, by acclamation, must control those misanthropes who feel they need nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and it is without doubt that the community would do so. I would certainly join any civilian movement to deal with a neighbor who thought it wise to store a nuclear or chemical weapon in my neighborhood. Starve the SOB out, what’s he gonna do, threaten to nuke us if we don’t send groceries? Cut of his water and power and access to fuel. As if it would ever really become necessary. You think that George Soros or Bloomberg don’t have enough money to get just about any weapon they want, even a nuke, right now, regardless of the laws? Yeah, they could buy the thing, but they would play hell moving it into their basement.
And the same goes for missiles. Any community would reasonably band together to protect themselves from anyone obviously insane enough to believe they needed missiles for self-defense. They would be considered totally inappropriate, but not a violation of the Second Amendment. What if he was a philanthropist and wanted to purchase these for donation to the local militia? The Second Amendment cannot and does not prohibit this. In fact, the 2A encourages it and calls it “necessary”.
These sorts of “arms” may present concerns and problems that need to be addressed on the community level, but as uncomfortable as such unlikely scenarios may make you, they are not prohibited by the Second Amendment, nor is there ANY provision for the government to regulate any of them or infringe on the right of the people to keep or bear them. Sorry, those are the facts and your discomfort does not trump our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights. If this makes you uncomfortable, work to either repeal the Second Amendment or introduce a new amendment to alter or revise the Second Amendment. Aside from revolution you really have no other legal recourse.
“The only thing you could effectively do with that nuke is use it to commit suicide”
Well, to be honest, that and get even with the neighbors at the same time.
Cold comfort. (Or in this scenario, VERY HOT comfort.)
I am not a crazy libertarian as you must be. By your argument, any legal standards for product safety would be wrong.
While the Federal government under our constitution might not be the body that has the authority to make those determinations, no one who is not insane would say that such does not belong to government in some measure.
I am not a Stoic fatalist, like Adam Smith was. I believe in rational agents with free will. So save your invisible hand claptrap. That belongs to the realm of witches and unicorns.
Abusus non tollit usus. That is an old legal principle, abuse does not take away use. That the government may abuse a power, does not mean it doesn’t have that power. Just as the fact that parents may abuse their children doesn’t mean there aren’t parental rights. Remember, “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. Not a real argument.
Note, I recognized very limited regulations. And none of which infringed on the ability of self-defense, which is the very rational of an natural, let alone civil, right of bearing arms. The fact is the very existence of government makes complete and absolute “subjective rights” somewhat incoherent. Locke, Jefferson, Madison…see what they say about the exercise of religion. They will all say you must accept the punishment of the State for violation of laws made for the general good, even if your religious convictions make you dissent. How is that for not infringing free exercise? If the bill of rights were as you claim, NO LAW would be possible.
Any coherent account of rights must take into account the ontological basis of those rights. I could care less what a piece of paper says, in itself. I don’t even care what the founders said (I don’t agree with liberalism or their ideology), though I do know they would not see their work in your radical anarchism. They didn’t view rights as you do. That is clear, e.g., from the Memoranda of Madison. Nor does the history of Constitutional law. I ask what man is, what are his natural goods, and what is just (right) for obtain those ends. Hence self-defense, hence rights to its means. Very simple. Your argument rests on positivism.
I made no strawmen. As I did not even attempt to represent, let alone misrepresent, others’ arguments. I actually stated a rational reason why most types of arms are not the same thing.
Frankly, if someone even so much as obtained radiological materials, in your anarchistic land, I would support arresting him, use of deadly force, and disposal of the materials. The common good would demand it. I can see no rational basis for you to say I could not just assassinate him, since you obviously believe in no government (that at least is the logical consequent of your beliefs in the almighty Market as regulator of everything). If you are not an anarchist, and I have misunderstood you, then pray tell, what coherent theory of government do you hold? Not that of the Founding Fathers. That is for sure.
While I am not of the same ideology as the founding fathers, being somewhat anti-Enlightenment, I do implore you to go read the Federalist. It might give you a better understanding of what was actually intended by our Constitution. Then you could stop trying to force your own mythos about as if it were fact.
“I am not a crazy libertarian as you must be.”
Oh. My. God. Do you really imagine no one sees what you did there?
@William Burke: I prepared a comment earlier based upon that line and another but decided not to submit it. No matter how coherent his argument might have been, his introduction sucked and likely tuned a whole lot of people out.
“I am not a crazy libertarian as you must be.” & “no one who is not insane would say that such does not”
Oh yeah, everybody’s just going to line up to hear what he has to say after insulting some of them.
Just because you know how to google big words that you dont understand, that doesn’t automatically give you creditability. A “right” is something that cannot be “infringed”. I doubt that you will look that up so i’ll do it for you.
It means; “To restrict or limit”.
Now if one has to jump through some mandated hoop, no matter how minor, that is a restriction, yes? And what if one does NOT jump through whatever hoop? Why then the “right”, is denied, yes? But if PERMISSION can be denied, then said thing becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT, correct?
See how easy this is when one uses simple 3rd grade logic? Or would you understand this better if I translated it into Latin for you?
Now, if you had the capability of understanding the simple logic of that last post about what a ‘right” IS, then attempt to add this simple concept to that.
No right shall be infringed, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!
Do you need to have due process defined for you as well, or are you capable of learning that for yourself? I appears that you are(or at least were) not, per your post. Lets take this as just one example, of the many fallacies in just that one post
EXAMPLE; “They will all say you must accept the punishment of the State for violation of laws made for the general good, even if your religious convictions make you dissent. How is that for not infringing free exercise?”
Because If you are accused of violating the LAW OF THE LAND(for philosophical, religious, or whatever reason YOU might hold to be valid) then you are subject to DUE PROCESS, and if found to be guilty by a jury of your peers, punishment. Whether or not YOU happen to think you were justified. YOUR opinion has been found wanting by your jury, and now AFTER DUE PROCESS, ALL of your rights are suspended. Including your right to free movement. You will be put into a cell and have that right removed as well.
I can translate DUE PROCESS into Latin for you, too, if that will help you to understand.
Here issue if gun looks evil we must ban becuase looks evil never worked in counrtys that have try that. Not work well in places in USA have try that. Than on top this puting your trust in goverment knowing what guns people should owen what guns they should owen. Forgetting goverment just pass out health bill did not read explain to people well you well like becuase we did not read but good for you any way. So would really want same group people tell what gun you can or can not owen?? Next goverment well be tell what car you can owen drive what kind food you can eat wait there trying do that right now to. I move from state Ca to Az over fact that state Ca does think people who live there have right pick chose firearms they want owen so provide them with list firarms state allows them owen as tell them how many they can owen explain them that privilege they allow them owen guns there buying not there right have them. So those think Metcalf right move Ca it perfect state for you they well happly tell what guns can owen how many guns you can owen explain you have no right complain about there right take your gun rights away from you any time they want to.
Bigfoot not like gun also.
To me, it’s the same thing as ‘Universal Health Care’ (or the ACA)….
Sure, in theory, wouldn’t it be great for every single American to be able to have access to affordable, quality health care – without it costing anything to taxpayers – and anyone who wants to keep their existing health care policy can absolutely do so? Yeah, sure… ok.
In reality, it’s not turning out that way though, huh?
The liberal’s theoretical notions don’t seem to work when they meet reality, because it’s not logic or fact that drives them. It’s blind ideology. It’s emotion. It’s low-information, group-think. It’s feel-good, in-a-perfect-world, wouldn’t-it-be-nice, stuff of dreams. It’s what CNN and their friendly corporate media masters ever-so-subtly told them… without actually telling them of course, because that would be too overt. But they got the message none-the-less.
Just for the Government to actually implement (let alone successfully manage) such a ‘program’ is quite a different thing from the wonderful little notion it seemed in theory, isn’t it?
In reality, it turns out you can’t actually keep your insurance policy if they decide to cancel it. (oh, sorry… what we actually said was uhhh…we owe you an apology…ooops )
In reality, it won’t end up ‘affordable’ for the working class/middle class who will shoulder the burden (ooops, we better delay that employer mandate for a year to get through mid-term elections.. heehee)
In reality, the quality of service is going to decrease for everyone, except the rich. Give it some time.
In reality, even if it works out as well as the promoters could possibly hope, it will still leave 30 million+ people without healthcare.
In reality, it has already cost the tax payers billions of dollars. And who knows how much more that cost will grow to… Hell, $600 million didn’t even launch a working website.
Now try applying that little dose of reality to old one-eyed Dick’s ‘mandatory training program’ or old trader Joe’s ‘universal background checks’…
Can you imagine the complete LACK of Media outrage when the ‘UniversalBackgroundCheck.GOV’ website launches and no one can sign up and nothing works?
Oh, I think I can hear the crickets.
The Media might have a Trayvon update to cover that day. After all, he’d still be alive if it weren’t for stand your ground law! (well, of course not really, but we just want to use that to further our agenda a little, that’s all… snicker snicker wink wink).
I’m guessing we probably wouldn’t be holding our breath waiting for an ‘apology’ from the President either, huh?
Can you imagine the wall to wall media coverage when the waiting list makes means it takes 3 years to get booked for a ‘training session’? – OH, and you have to re-certify every year too! (what – but it takes 3 years to get booked? well we’re working on that, Miss. We are very sorry for the inconvenience. For those 2 off years you can always spit at your attacker. Or urinate or defecate. That’ll scare ‘em off)
Can you imagine the media outrage when the ‘training coordinator’ ends up a political appointee and decides in which order to accept (or not accept) ‘applications’ to sign up for the ‘training course’? Think it would even get as much press as the IRS auditing people/companies based on their (opposing) political affiliation?
Can you see the headlines light up when the ‘training budget manager’ decides that they can’t pay the trainers unless the fee goes up to $400/training session …or $600 or $800?
How about when the next psycho steals someone’s gun and takes it into an airport or a mall to get his/her media-guaranteed wall-to-wall coverage for being a pyscho criminal murderer scumbag?
Think Feinstein might have a pre-packaged bill that would adjust the parameters of WHO exactly should be ‘eligible’ to ‘apply’ for a ‘mandatory training program’ – oh, and for which TYPE firearms too? (Mr. and Mrs. America of course do not need rifles, 7-round max capacity handguns are the only permits they need to be able to apply for …but former law enforcement can still apply for a rifle training class! so we’re not taking anything away from anyone!)
And where does all that data live too? In a database, right? Think Obama would be up in arms when the first liberal rag decided to start publishing ‘trained firearm-owning killer’ locational maps? Or how about when the data was pillaged for identity theft?
Oh, and mind you, that National Gun Registry database will come in real handy when people don’t manage to renew their ‘mandatory training certifications’ on time and they start sending out the DHS teams to confiscate…
And when ALL of that fails to prevent yet another psycho loser kid from stealing someone’s firearm and killing innocent people, because ALL of these laws only really apply to LAW ABIDING people like you and me that aren’t going to break the law, then what? What’s next? No guns at all? (well, the British don’t need guns, why do we?)
So when people like Dick or ‘S.H’ want to start having open theoretical discussions about what ‘regulations’ they think are totally fine and dandy – and float such ‘reasonable theoretical ideas’ like a NEW ‘mandatory training program’ regulation… yeah – I get a little bit pissed off and I don’t want to promote their dangerous naivety by purchasing their product or visiting their website anymore.
We don’t live in a theoretical world, DICK. This is reality. And reality is that there is a full-blown, well-funded, liberal media-supported campaign from a crowd of rabid, frothing, anti-gun nuts that tell bold-faced lies with a smirk and a wink in order to accomplish their ideological mission of disarming the populace by any means necessary (because it would make them ‘FEEL’ a little safer)
Anyone who would TRUST the rabid, frothing anti-gun crowd enough to make any deal with them – to give them ANY NEW MECHANISM by which they can further infringe on our RKBA – is a naive FOOL, as it would soon be augmented and twisted and manipulated and used as their new tool to restrict gun ownership to the point of practical disarmament.
“…and that’s all I have to say about that” – F.Gump.
“The application of a social theory in the real world and with a real population would seem to be a great deal more complex than when we worked it out on the coffee shop napkin.” – Vladamir Ilych Lenin, 1920.
The ACA has one specific problem….. someone somewhere confused Health Insurance for Health Care.
If such a simple thing can be missed so entirely by a group of people who should know better how are we evers supposed to trust them with something so incredibly important as our Rights?
The same people who confused treatment and cure?
The reason people got “butt-hurt” over Metcalf’s proposal is that his article was:
1) Very arrogant in its tone
2) Very ignorant (“well-regulated” does not refer to government regulation)
3) Stupid (Metcalf can’t recognize that requiring training to exercise a right makes it a right in name only and that a training requirement could be abused in any number of ways to restrict said right?)
Actually, “well-regulated”, as it turns out, does NOT refer to government regulation in the Second Amendment, but Metcalf was wrong for a totally wrong reason.
Yes it does, but it refers to the well-regulated militia that is created in the Constitution under the powers of Congress, not to the people’s arms being well-regulated. From the Constitution:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
THAT is the well-regulated militia that is necessary to a free state. It is that militia which poses a threat to the populace. No other amendment is about creating something to secure the state, the second amendment is no different. It is about the rights of the people to maintain their own freedom. The well-regulated militia needs no permission to be armed. Governments without armed populations grant the privilege of arms to its militia, be they regular or reserve or even civil defense. But the existence of such units is a threat to the people. The founders experienced first-hand the use of soldiers against the people, and were aware that all governments tend to the same ends. Unconstitutional laws to be rebelled against, enforced by the militia.
The people’s right of arms was to be unrestricted in that they needed to be able to face down government aggression. The militia themselves also are suitably reminded that the people have that right, and calls to disarm those people should be disobeyed as a violation of their commitment to the constitution, not to the government.
I just quit reading stuff on guns.com a week ago. They had something or other that seemed subtly anti-2A to me so they were deleted from my favorites list and I closed the tab that was always open to them. Good luck getting adverts guns.com. It looks like a bunch of idiots will learn the hard way that you shouldn’t let your mouth overload your ass and that you shouldn’t bite the hands that feed you!
Here’s what John Hancock had to say about a “well-regulated militia”. (Line 10)
He uses the word interchangeably with “well-disciplined” in his Boston Massacre Oration March 5th 1774.
Stirring stuff. Read the whole speech here:
“….But since standing armies are so hurtful to a State, perhaps my countrymen may demand some substitute, some other means of rendering us secure against the incursions of a foreign enemy. But can you be one moment at a loss? Will not a well-disciplined militia afford you ample security against foreign foes? We want not courage; it is discipline alone in which we are exceeded by the most formidable troops that ever trod the earth. Surely our hearts flutter no more at the sound of war than did those of the immortal band of Persia, the Macedonian phalanx, the invincible Roman legions, the Turkish janissaries, the gens d’armes of France, or the well-known grenadiers of Britain. A well-disciplined militia is a safe, an honorable guard to a community like this, whose inhabitants are by nature brave, and are laudably tenacious of that freedom in which they were born. From a well-regulated militia we have nothing to fear; their interest is the same with that of the State. When a country is invaded, the militia are ready to appear in its defense; they march into the field with that fortitude which a consciousness of the justice of their cause inspires; they do not jeopard their lives for a master who considers them only as the instruments of his ambition, and whom they regard only as the daily dispenser of the scanty pittance of bread and water. No; they fight for their houses, their lands, for their wives, their children; for all who claim the tenderest names, and are held dearest in their hearts; they fight pro aris et focis, for their liberty, and for themselves, and for their God. And let it not offend if I say that no militia ever appeared in more flourishing condition than that of this province now cloth; and pardon me if I say, of this town in particular. I mean not to boast; I would not excite envy, but manly emulation. We have all one common cause; let it, therefore, be our only contest, who shall most contribute to the security of the liberties of America. And may the same kind Providence which has watched over this country from her infant state still enable us to defeat our enemies!…
[snip] …Surely you never will tamely suffer this country to be a den of thieves. Remember, my friends, from whom you sprang. “
Gun regulations have a way of starting out to be reasonable, but evolving in fairly short order into infringements. Anyone familiar with gun laws and their history across various jurisdictions knows that.
The slow steady erosion of rights, like the river wearing into the bedrock. The Grand Canyon was created by nothing but water flowing relentlessly.
Consider NICS checks. They were allowed originally as non-infringing since they don’t regulate the buyer, they restrict the sales capabilities of federally licensed sellers of arms. They just disallowed the FFL from selling to certain people. Now, however, after people have a few decades of inuring to the NICS existence, some in gov see them as an “answer”, and wanted to enforce them upon all sales, thus now infringing upon the buyer. Sure, they were always a de facto infringement, but they wanted it to become a bona fide one. They will try again, be certain of that. The ignorance of the people is the sustenance of the government.
Hear, Hear! Well said. Short, sweet, logical, and to the point. Exactly the kind of comment the libtards love to hate.
I just tell anti-gunners that there are too many regulations anyway. They tactically frame the argument as that there are NO regulations. Clever, evil, libtards (democrats). NO MORE. In fact, there should be far less regulations on firearms.
Interesting juxtaposition: “clever” and “-tard”, wouldn’t you say?
“Librard”: so clever! Not the least bit cliched!!!
We sure showed them! YEEHAW!!
Don’t forget all the republican libtards, there are a lot of them, too! Or perhaps conservetards would be better. Ether way, if you think the letter after a guys name makes a difference, you haven’t been paying attention to DC for, ohhh… at least a few decades now…