Posted on 01/05/2014 4:33:04 PM PST by driftdiver
The ex-Guns & Ammo Magazine writer fired after penning a column in favor of limited gun control is speaking out, bitterly saying, “I’ve been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you don’t.”
“Compromise is a bad word these days,” Dick Metcalf, 67, told The New York Times of what he believes is the unyielding, give-no-ground ethos adopted by Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. today. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
Metcalf, a longtime writer on firearms and U.S. gun culture, saw his association with Guns & Ammo terminated in November -- he also had a T.V. show co-produced by the magazine -- after he wrote a column titled, “Let’s Talk Limits: Do certain firearm regulations really constitute infringement?”
“The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
- Dick Metcalf
Metcalf, a former history professor at both Yale and Cornell, argued in the piece that, “way too many” gun owners believe any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Funny how the guy who is trying to “disappear” stuff like the word “inalienable” when it comes to rights complains about being “disappeared” when he’s evidently out there with the media giving him a soapbox.
All rights have limits but Metcalf’s argument was for infringement.
No one says you should be able to pull your gun and point it at someone for the fun of it.
What Metcalf supported was clearly an attack on the right to keep and bear arms not some reasonable regulation.
Go figure...
“If you only cut off my foot, it’s not like you cut off my leg.” Chip, chip, chip. Glad they chunked his dumbazz.
"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Their reasonable regulation is always a one way dead end street.
That's the point right there, and that's why this is different from the Phil Robertson controversy. Robertson wasn't advocating the scaling back of any "right." But Metcalf was.
Like my grandfather told me, “boy, you don’t poop where you eat.”
it is true, but he did not say poop.
Yep, a compromise is when both sides give up something.
Unfortunately too many times the gun owner’s representatives think compromise is giving them less than they ask for. All they have to do is demand even more the next time, then take less again. They never give up anything, just take less each time until they get it all.
True!
No negotiating with the Constitution, buddy.
I can compromise on preferences. If I compromise on principles, they were never principles, but also preferences.
And that's a good thing.
Too bad, so sad.
This is the second story on this today. I don’t recall the source of the first, e.g, if it was FoxNews, but this is a two month old story. Bottom line is simple ... the bill of rights were written to protect the people from the Federal government, not the government from the people and not from people from each other. If you lose track of that while you are writing to a constitutionally informed audience, they will turn on you. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did he not understand? F him.
Dick!
Clearly does not understand that rights are not granted us by the Constitution. How this doofus ever got to be a writer for a conservative publication is beyond me. He obviously doesn't grasp the basics of conservatism, let alone the right to keep and bear arms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.