No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

That is a problem. The fact that a lot of what he said was consistent with SCOTUS rulings is virtually cancelled out by the fact that he supports his comments with a clearly fallacious basis.

"Well regulated" in the context of the amendment had nothing to do with regulation in the legal sense, making his use of regulated to support regulation an equivocation fallacy. On top of that, "well regulated" in the amendment clearly refers to the militia, not explicitly to the possession or use of firearms which means that even without the equivocation fallacy, there's still a problem with his reasoning.

Well said! Very important distinctions.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And what does endangering others have to do with the RKBA? The 2A is a right to "keep" and to "bear" arms. It is not a right to use arms to abuse other people, and it was never intended to be.

The right to "keep" and "bear" arms includes the implied right to use those arms. And the right to use arms is necessarily limited when it endangers others. Indeed, endangering others could arguably be the litmus test for determining whether laws infringe on the RKBA.

[zx9rt1]

Career suicide. What a shame.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IIRC, I watch Metcalf on the G and A TV show try to differentiate an semi M4 ish carbine from a military full auto M4. The former was a modern sporting rifle and the latter was a weapon of war.

I thought the piece was totally ineffective and he didn't understand the issue.

In fact, his piece was convincing to ban all of them - if I was an antigun person.

[chiefr]

I had to re read my G&A magazine to see what all the controvery was about. I have never been a Metcalf fan thus, I pass on most of his articles.

When I did read the last page, I was surprised G&A allowed it to go to print. I do not think I can say or add anything that had not been posted other than I will call G&A and cancel my subscription. As long as Metcalf is an employee there I an done.

[Mike Irwin]

The most important thing here, to me, is that Mr. Metcalf broke ranks in a very public way.

The same way Jim Zumbo did.

The same way Smith & Wesson did.

And he's paying the same price.

The anti-gunners WANT a schism, a deep one, a public one, in the ranks of the gunowning public.

They want to be able to divide and conquor. Why do you think the Bradyites posted a big smoochy kissy thank you to Metcalf?

Because he gave them exactly what they wanted - the crack into which they can hopefully jump to start splintering us into smaller, more easily defeated groups.

We all know that finding unity in such a diverse group is very difficult. Unity, or at least the projected perception of unity, is crucial.

We don't need our own breaking that shell of unity, thus making it easier for the anti-gunners do what they want to do.

For his crime of breaking ranks in a very public and dangerous fashion, Mr. Metcalf has proven to be a cancer to the movement and must be, and has been, excised.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by gc70

The right to "keep" and "bear" arms includes the implied right to use those arms. And the right to use arms is necessarily limited when it endangers others. Indeed, endangering others could arguably be the litmus test for determining whether laws infringe on the RKBA.

Although I agree with your basic premise, I would point out that lawful armed self-defense involves endangering others by its very definition.

I believe that many gun control proponents view self-defense by individual armed citizens as either morally unjustifiable, or not valuable enough to offset the perceived trade-offs of increased crime, accidental deaths, and social disorder. Therefore, justifying the RKBA in terms of not endangering others can be a shaky proposition.

I prefer to put it this way.

The individual RKBA was granted primarily to ensure that citizens may keep and bear arms for lawful self-defense, defense of the home, and sporting purposes. Additionally, in extreme cases, a lawfully armed citizenry may be necessary to maintain general public order, or to defend against tyranny.

If infringements on that right are necessary, they must serve a clear and demonstrable public good, in the most fair and least cumbersome manner as is practical.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Chiefr - Metcalf is done at G&A. Whether cancels is another matter.

I don't subscribe, so I don't have to worry about it. I found them pretty repetitive.

[Tom Servo]

I don't subscribe, so I don't have to worry about it. I found them pretty repetitive.

Same here. What I wonder is how many of the "I hope you get eaten by fire ants and cancel my subscription" folks yelling on Facebook were actually subscribers in the first place.

I'm guessing a small fraction.

[carguychris]

+1 Glenn and Tom; I got bored with G&A and let my subscription lapse several years ago. Also, I was getting tired of the constant junk mail!

To take this discussion in another direction... the general-interest gun-mag field is rather crowded in my estimation, and several of the mags have VERY similar (and often borderline banal!) editorial content.

I'm confident that Metcalf's speedy sacking was prompted by the publishers' perception that subscribers will rapidly jump ship to a competing magazine if nothing was done to mitigate the situation.

[chiefr]

Glenn E. Meyer
Chiefr - Metcalf is done at G&A. Whether cancels is another matter.

I don't subscribe, so I don't have to worry about it. I found them pretty repetitive.
Today 03:43 PM

Glenn
I am not sure what you mean by done. Am I missing something?
I did cancel my subscription today. They asked me why and I said the Metcalf article and that was it.



I want to point out Mike Irwins post #56 this thread sums up my feelings exactly in only a few sentences.
Well said Mike.

[Al Norris]

Chiefr, if you would read the entire thread (yeah, I know it's getting long), you would have discovered that Metcalf has been fired. The head editor, who was going to retire in January, as an apology for letting this editorial get past him, has retired early. Like now.

All of this, before you made your first post in this thread.

[Tom Servo]

It's sobering in a way.

Back in January, I was talking to a customer about rifles. He was looking for something to hunt with, and he mentioned that the prices on AK-47's were ridiculous at the gun shows. My response was that he could get a much better rifle and much cheaper. Better? Yeah, as in something with a decent trigger that doesn't have a canted front sight and cost three times what it was worth.

Another guy was standing at the counter, and he caught some part of that. He blew up on me, claiming I was a "Fudd" who just wanted black rifles banned because I don't support the 2nd Amendment. After all, that's why I didn't have AR-15's on the shelf. In January. After Sandy Hook.

Yeesh. I'm sure he told all his friends on Facebook about me.

My point? Let's all hope none of us makes a gaffe or gets misinterpreted, since it's apparently open season.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My local gun club (now defunct because of internal bickering) had monthly meetings. The President (and friend) asked me to talk about my assault rifle research. One old fatty had a tantrum that I was a gun banning UN joining zombie loving whatever.

He couldn't get the point of the risk factor I was trying to make and that it wasn't anti-AR or AK. One member - a Federal officer - and the president tried to talk him through this and he still was flipped out.

However, I haven't had respect for Metcalf after his stupid modern sporting piece on G and A tv. As I said before, he was clueless on the issue.

I do agree with Mike that some internal debates are better left out of mainstream gun media. Is that censorship or smart tactics? Oh, well -

[Slamfire]

Guys, the second amendment is a bunch of words written on a piece of paper. Given an artist brush and enough white out, the words can go away.

Anti gunners know that if they create enough fear in society, society will vote to make firearms go away.

For the time you have the right to keep and bear arms, you must do it responsibly, you must take into account how your actions will have on greater society’s impression of firearms and firearm owners.

As for Dick Metcalf supporting more obstacles to gun ownership, I don't think his opinion is productive in the greater scheme of things, but it may turn out to be an eventuality for reasons outside our control.

[RX-79G]

Where is it that gun owners can have a frank discussion about tactics and politics???

If we are supposed to be conducting an internal debate, where's the inside?


This isn't an us-or-them thing. Pro-gun people and potential pro-gun people are in every part of society, in every political party and every social, racial and economic group.

The this idea that the pro-gun movement is a distinct group that must have certain preset beliefs is absurd. The only way to become strong politically is to become more populist, not declare that the only "true believers" are this crazy core group that only hold one idea of what gun laws should be like. That's extremism, and pointless.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by gc70

The right to "keep" and "bear" arms includes the implied right to use those arms. And the right to use arms is necessarily limited when it endangers others. Indeed, endangering others could arguably be the litmus test for determining whether laws infringe on the RKBA.

But the 2A does not prohibit the enactment of laws punishing the irresponsible and/or dangerous use of firearms. There is a HUGE difference between having a tool available to use, and actually using it.

This is perhaps the appropriate time to trot out the loosely-related example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There is no law that says one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. In fact, if there were a fire and you were to yell "FIRE!" with the result that everyone was able to exit safely, you might be lauded as a hero. Conversely, if there is no fire and you yell "FIRE!" with possible resultant injuries due to ensuing panic, you face charges relating to inciting panic. In other words, the charges are related to the irresponsible misuse of the right to freedom of expression, not to the fact that you spoke a certain word.

The same is true, IMHO, regarding the 2A. We can agree that the intent of the 2A is to have "arms" available for (among other purposes) the purpose of self-defense. It is my position that -- insofar as the keeping and bearing part -- the 2A does not permit any regulation/infringement. The 2A is silent on the use of the arms we are allowed to keep and bear. Ergo, regulations should not be on the keeping and bearing, which boils down to prior restraint, but on the irresponsible, dangerous, and/or felonious use of the arms.

In my state, there is a law pertaining to personal body armor. It is NOT illegal for me to purchase, own, or wear personal body armor. It IS illegal for me to wear personal body armor in the commission of a felony.

That's the way it should be with guns.

[chiefr]

Al Norris posted
chiefr, if you would read the entire thread (yeah, I know it's getting long), you would have discovered that Metcalf has been fired. The head editor, who was going to retire in January, as an apology for letting this editorial get past him, has retired early. Like now.

All of this, before you made your first post in this thread.
Today 04:49 PM



Thanks AL.
Thread was in fact far too long.
Now I understand what Mike mean't when he said the cancer was excised.

[RX-79G]

The same is true, IMHO, regarding the 2A. We can agree that the intent of the 2A is to have "arms" available for (among other purposes) the purpose of self-defense. It is my position that -- insofar as the keeping and bearing part -- the 2A does not permit any regulation/infringement. The 2A is silent on the use of the arms we are allowed to keep and bear. Ergo, regulations should not be on the keeping and bearing, which boils down to prior restraint, but on the irresponsible, dangerous, and/or felonious use of the arms.

The only problem with this is when you have a class of people no one wants to have guns. People in prison haven't forfeited all BoR protections, but we take their guns away upon arrest.

If the world worked like you postulate, a accused murderer would stay armed in court and jail, and if he killed his guards or the judge we'd just try him for more murders.

While we could certainly have a system like that, do you believe that was the intent of the people who wrote the BoR?

Please don't poo-poo this example. Accused people in jail have a right to vote, free speech, everything else. They are a perfect test model for examining if 2A can ever be infringed.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And what does endangering others have to do with the RKBA?

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

But the 2A does not prohibit the enactment of laws punishing the irresponsible and/or dangerous use of firearms.

You have answered the troubling question you previously posed and we are in agreement. The only proper "restriction" on the RKBA is to punish its misue.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

The only problem with this is when you have a class of people no one wants to have guns. People in prison haven't forfeited all BoR protections, but we take their guns away upon arrest.

If the world worked like you postulate, a accused murderer would stay armed in court and jail, and if he killed his guards or the judge we'd just try him for more murders.

People who have been arrested or are in prison temporarily forfeit some Constitutional rights such as free association, not to mention the broadest and most fundamental right of liberty. Temporary forfeiture of the RKBA was clearly practiced by the Founders.

[jimbob86]

If the world worked like you postulate, a accused murderer would stay armed in court and jail, and if he killed his guards or the judge we'd just try him for more murders.

But what the Other Side is suggesting is that people who have not been convicted, or indicted or even arrested lose their 2A rights, in the interest of Public Safety..... they aim to destroy the 2nd, and have only people picked by the experts in Government allowed to have weapons ..... and fail to see that concentrates power ..... and leaves no redress to tyranny on any scale, big or small.

[Eghad]

Mr. Metcalf made his mistake as mentioned in other posts here when he tried to mix the well regulated militia argument into the individual right to own a firearm.
Apples and Oranges. The founding fathers did not like the government having a standing Army. They disbanded the Continental Army in favor of the milita.

Anybody who has been in the military will understand what well regulated means. It means that there are standards, rules and regulations to maintain military discipline, standards for equipment and supplies. this is what is meant by well regulated and the militia.

The Supreme Court ruled that we have a individual right to defend ourselves and that owning a firearm to do so is a legitimate individual right.

My argument for the AR15 would be that it is the weapon our military uses and it is in use in police departments nationwide for defense of citizens and officers. If it is good for this purpose then it should be able to be owned by law abiding citizens...end of story

The Constitution, "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

The founding fathers intended the militias to be as well armed as any invader and to be able execute the laws of the nation. The AR15 or other modern military rifles would fit that purpose.

Folks probably believe he veered into the assault weapon lane and was arguing that it would be reasonable for the government to do away with them. Speculation on my part.

Mr. Metcalf worked for company that sells a product to the public. Those buyers have every right to express dissatisfaction with the company. If enough of them demand a change in order to continue purchasing the product thats reality.

[RX-79G]

Jimbo,

The problem is that you can't base every decision on doing the opposite of what your opponents want. It is okay to sometimes agree about some things. That isn't weakness.

Never agreeing isn't strength. It's failure in the making.

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by gc70

The right to "keep" and "bear" arms includes the implied right to use those arms. And the right to use arms is necessarily limited when it endangers others. Indeed, endangering others could arguably be the litmus test for determining whether laws infringe on the RKBA.

Totally agree on this distinction. Regulation of rights should be in the context of endangering others. Never in context of peaceful ownership, carrying or use or it becomes infringement. Should not regulate how, when or where I carry, or ownership whether near a school or other public building. But should regulate not shooting toward houses within range, reckless shooting, brandishing to threaten without need for defense, etc.

[jimbob86]

The problem is that you can't base every decision on doing the opposite of what your opponents want. It is okay to sometimes agree about some things. That isn't weakness.

Never agreeing isn't strength. It's failure in the making.

RG, we have compromised. It will never be enough.

If you have not read Lawdog's Cake, you should take a few moments, and do so. He articulated it so much better than I could. The Cake Analogy is toward the end, but Read The Whole Thing. It's worth the time.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

I'm done being agreeable, and so much so that folks that are not with me, and are OK with further restrictions, which is a death by 1000 cuts, can go fly a kite.