Posted on 11/08/2013 3:21:54 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.
Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?
All 50 states now have individual statutes or constitutional provisions regulating concealed firearms carry. The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence? Should we obtain concealed-carry licenses anyway? Are we violating the Constitution ourselves if we do? On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ (although you wouldn't know it from what erupted on the Guns & Ammo website, G&A Facebook pa
(Excerpt) Read more at theoutdoorwire.com ...
Effing ahole.
After all, I am only following orders.
This guy writes about how ‘we ignore laws at our peril?’
Who wrote this, Valerie Jarrett on her way down the hall to hand Obamatollah another ‘waiver’ announcement?
feh... 
Too radical an idea, I suppose.
Y’know, when you find yourself face down in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
Re: The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence?
Yes. These laws should be done away with. All he needs to do is read Emily Miller’s “Emily Gets Her Gun”. In DC, people need to travel many miles just to take classes to own a gun and pay hundreds of dollars. What about the disabled? What about the elderly? What about those who do not own cars? What about those who may have been threatened and need a gun NOW?
This guy is so clueless it is painful.
The right of the people...to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed...
Okay, Dick, I’ll answer your questions.
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
Violent repeat offenders are a product of a failed judicial system and an indicator of a weak society. They should either be behind bars for life or they should be sentenced to death if they are not able to walk among us peaceably. Yes, a punishment cannot be eternal, once a sentence has been completed, fundamental rights ought to be restored. Disenfranchising permanently those convicted of non violent crimes is unconscionable. If a violent crime is committed, then swift and sure punishment ought to follow; carry anything should be impossible...think death penalty for crimes that warrant it. Other crimes; (felonies we are talking about), I suppose, as they result in GCA of 68 prohibition- gosh, from 1789 until 1968 at the federal level, felons could possess firearms, why the big deal after 68? Hmmm, it is about control, felons are controlled, make more felons, control more people.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
What part of infringed don’t you understand? Can the government require me to register my faith, my conscience? Why my ability to pursue life and liberty? Is not that one of the fundamental rights described by the Declaration of Independence as a reason why the colonies revolted? If it was adequate justification for the people of 1776, why not us in 2013?
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Yes, and I cannot justify my inadequacy in principle. However, I will exercise my right to keep and bear arms in every lawful way possible, CCW permit or not.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
No, only the government can violate the constitution, we can only violate laws written by the process outlined by the document, and if anyone thinks the bazillion laws of the US Code are constitutional by mere existence, they have not learned much about liberty and freedom. The Constitution is the format by which we implicitly or explicitly give/gave power to the government, but does not relinquish inalienable rights from any citizen.
Best;
Hey DICK-head... FU!
“Congress shall make no law...” But this guy seems cool with the Judiciary making laws for him, nevermind that that is not their purpose.
Great post!
Amendment IIA 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.
My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia.
Great post. Concise, thorough.
Really. Thank you for posting.
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
A: Yes. Let them purchase a gun and try to use it in the commission of a felony. The rest of us will take care of the problem with dispatch and save the taxpayers a lot of time and money. Sorry about the brains on the floor; we’ll be back tomorrow to clean it up.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
A: Can you read the Bill of Rights? Do you understand the English language?
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
A: Nope. Did the guys at Lexington and Concord have one?
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
Nope. Dick, two suggestions: Read the Bill of Rights and the writings surrounding its adoption; and change your first name. (No insult to Richards out there; but in this case, it fits.)
Don't miss Gun Talk this Sunday.
His rant reminds me of something Mark Twain once said: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
In Mr. Metcalf's case if there ever was any doubt, he has well removed it. He should have just ridden off into the sunset. Maybe opened a small sporting goods store somewhere, selling fishing tackle and camping gear.
It’s bad enough we have to read agit-prop like this in the Slimes from terds like Shumer, Obama and Fineswine without getting it from a ‘gunwriter’ in a gun magazine.
If you subscribe to Guns and Propaganda, switch to plain `Guns’.
Dan Codrea won’t spoon out lefty pablum, he pleads the 2nd, straight!
Perfect!
From here on out known as the Dick Metcalf song.
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.