|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 5, 2013, 04:21 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
i've read the Metcalf article several times and see nothing to complain about. Nothing in that article rises to the level of Zumbo's support for an "assault weapons" ban.
Like it or not, the Second Amendment says what SCOTUS says it says. Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights: Quote:
|
|
November 5, 2013, 04:42 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
However, it won't do for us to claim that the Founders meant for there to be no restrictions on the exercise of the right whatsoever. That's a popular view around the blogosphere and the rallies, but history just doesn't back it up. Nor do we do our cause any good by claiming as much. That said, Metcalf made a poor case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 5, 2013, 07:54 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I understand and I accept that the 2A says what nine people in black robes agree (not necessarily unanimously) to say it means. But to say that arguing that "shall not be infringed" really means "shall not be infringed" does not strike me as hurting our cause. Let's consider LawDog's cake, and the erosion of our 2A gun rights as a result of successive waves of "compromise" under which our side gained nothing in return for having lost much. My view is that it's time to push back with this "compromise" schtick. You want a compromise, Mr. Anti-gunner? Here's a compromise for ya -- we'll stop arguing for NO regulations (based on the plain language of the 2A, irrespective of legal precedent) when you stop trying to curtail all private ownership of firearms, and let things get back to a reasonable facsimile of the way the world operated prior to [1968] [1934] [arbitrary date of your choice]. That, to me, is the point of continuing to argue that the 2A does not allow for ANY regulation, because "regulation" is synonymous with "infringement." The more we can push the anti's back on their heels and make them WORK to justify what they've already got, the less time, energy and money they'll be able to expend on still further "infringements." |
|
November 5, 2013, 08:11 PM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
I don't see what that "compromise" offers. You're already arguing, and they still manage to pass more infringements. What is it you think you're offering with that?
|
November 6, 2013, 07:46 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
THR has a thread that Metcalf is gone from GA and the editor apologizes. Also, the editor speeded up his own retirement. Should be easy to find. I have to work. Bye
Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 6, 2013, 08:07 PM | #31 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
This unfortunate episode is, perhaps, the logical consequence of a publishing industry in which "editor" has become a misnomer, in that basically the magazines no longer do ANY "editing." They don't seem to proof what their author's contribute, and they don't seem to even read it to see if it fits in with the magazine's overall editorial stance or perceived reader base. In trying to "do more with less," the magazines have reduced (or held the line on) the cost of publication by eliminating real editors (defined -- by me -- as people who actually perform editing), taking whatever their authors send in electronically, and pushing it directly to layout ... with NO critical overview.
Small wonder the print magazines are so full of garbage. And the publishers wonder why they're losing subscribers ... |
November 6, 2013, 09:21 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 1999
Location: Exiled, Fetid Swamp, DC
Posts: 7,548
|
|
November 6, 2013, 10:08 PM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Here's a direct link to the announcement.
Metcalf is out immediately, and Editor Bequette will be leaving early. Personally, I don't get the witch hunt. Are we as a culture so thin-skinned that we can't afford some debate from time to time?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 6, 2013, 10:23 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And we still need to accept the notion that there will be some level of gun control. That is a political reality. And we need to be at the table to protect our interests in the political arena. That means we need to be able to make deals. If we are not at the table "it" will be done to us. However, I continue to urge that we be cautious about discussing strategic matters in public. We don't want to bid against ourselves.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 6, 2013, 10:54 PM | #35 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Metcalf actually pooh-poohs the idea that regulation is "by definition" infringement. I disagree. I have stated innumerable times that regulation is by definition infringement, and I stand by that statement. One need only look up the definitions of the two words to see that. Definitions: Quote:
Quote:
16 hours of training might be a good standard, but only if it's "good" training? And that's not an infringement? Texas has required 16 hours of training for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires zero. Do statistics support a proposition that holders of concealed carry licenses in PA are significantly less safe than those in TX? Frankly, IMHO Metcalf is showing elitist tendencies. And where does that get us? "I'm the only person in this room who's qualified to handle this Glock fowtay." BANG! Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 6, 2013 at 11:09 PM. |
|||
November 6, 2013, 11:03 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Political correctness is, essentially, saying, "We don't like what you're saying, so goodbye." This isn't that. This is an almost pure case of "You're such an idiot you don't even know what you're talking about." Was it Mark Twain, Will Rogers, or Groucho Marx who advocated "Never interrupt someone while he's in the process of proving that he's an idiot"? |
|
November 6, 2013, 11:08 PM | #37 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
People didn't like what he was saying so he got fired--that's the bottom line. Whether or not he knows what he is talking about is a topic for debate and given that SCOTUS generally agrees with him on the subject, it will be fairly difficult to demonstrate that he's clueless.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
November 6, 2013, 11:09 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Quote:
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
|
November 6, 2013, 11:21 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?
Sorry but political correctness comes from Communist policy and it refers to State control of what is acceptable. The free market saying we don't like your product us not political correctness. Not one person here yammered for govt regulation on what Metcalf or anyone else has to say.
|
November 6, 2013, 11:27 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?
Quote:
Unfortunately, Metcalf is stuck on planet earth in the USA and we don't need gun writers bleating about the need for regulation. I have more than enough heaped on my head already, thank you. |
|
November 6, 2013, 11:59 PM | #41 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Politically correct: Quite obviously what Metcalf wrote offended the political sensibilities of many in the gun community. And the reaction was to stifle rational discussion of some important social, political and legal issues.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 7, 2013, 12:13 AM | #42 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Does anyone seriously expect us to take what they have to say as a valid opinion, when they start their opinion off with a totally false premise?
There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot. After quoting the 2A, Metcalf then writes: Quote:
Sorry. Whatever else might have merited a read, Metcalf did something naughty with the pooch. And right from the gate! The fact that Jim Bequette, in order to save G&A from a RECOIL fiasco, responded so quickly (even to owning up on passing the Op-Ed by retiring early), shows several things. Not the least of which is Metcalf was out and out wrong headed in the way he tried to present necessary regulation. Sounding like an uneducated anti-gunner with his first two paragraphs, was not the way to do that (the second paragraph with the "Fire!" canard - and yes, I'm well aware of what Justice Holmes was referring to). One cannot have rational discussion, when the discussion was predicated upon falsehoods to begin with. I therefore disagree with those of you that are calling for anything other than Metcalf's proverbial head. We now have that. Good riddence. |
|
November 7, 2013, 12:24 AM | #43 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Much of the reaction to Metcalf has been a knee jerk response to perceive heresy. A more reasonable reaction would have been to rationally call him out on his specious reasoning. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 7, 2013, 12:31 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?
Quote:
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness "Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly in terms of attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely to try to make older ones taboo. " |
|
November 7, 2013, 12:53 AM | #45 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 7, 2013, 01:11 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
"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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
November 7, 2013, 01:34 AM | #47 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Metcalf said the unthinkable and gets crucified.
Most of you seem to be saying it was the quality of his argument, but the average gun person is neither a Constitutional scholar nor even reads these articles. Even if Metcalf or some author had perfectly made the point that you can't control a conversation that you refuse to have, the howling masses would have still been calling for blood. It is a lot like the way Communists lie to themselves. This whole thing reminds me of parents who is think their kids wont get AIDS or pregnant if they keep them out of health class. We've just seen proof that gun people aren't adult enough to admit that EVERYTHING is regulated. So the decisions about how guns are regulated will be made by people who don't have their heads in the sand. |
November 7, 2013, 01:45 AM | #48 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
What he said wasn't that unthinkable at all, in my opinion. It was probably ill-advised and his reasoning wasn't sound even if a lot of what he said was true. Not unthinkable--it just made some very vocal people angry and they were able to mobilize an effective attack.
Nothing he said warranted firing him in my opinion. And I'm not even a Dick Metcalf fan. Furthermore, in my opinion, he wasn't fired for what he wrote. He was fired because G&A didn't think it could weather the fallout of standing behind him. Maybe that's a fine distinction to some, but it's an important one from my perspective. What I'm saying is that I don't really believe G&A was outraged at what he said and got rid of him because of their outrage/indignation/whatever. They threw him under the bus to save themselves when the fallout from the article turned out to be much worse than they anticipated.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
November 7, 2013, 01:56 AM | #49 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Does it matter what GA owners think? The point is that an article like this isn't going to be tolerated. Whether one guy gets fired or one magazine goes under, the thought police are going to shut up pundit from our side that doesn't deify 2a.
This is the same reason the GOP is killing itself. It's a suicide pact. |
November 7, 2013, 02:06 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?
Quote:
Getting back on topic... Metcalf is the one who brought up gun regulation and used terrible examples and explanations to make his point. It was a disservice to gun owners and is already being used by the antis in their public statements. We have a ton of regulations already, and Dick implied we need more. He was not trying to have a discussion. He talked disparagingly of other gun owners as unsafe rubes and held himself up as a Constitutional scholar. That carries responsibility. Metcalf set the stage himself, it is not the responsibility of those he insulted to try to make lemonade of it for him. If he had been respectful, used good references and explored ideas I think we would have read his article differently. I can't for the life of me think of one more regulation we need about guns. Can you? |
|
|
|