(Dick) Metcalf Responds (Guns & Ammo)

Oitdoor wire ^

[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

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the ping. It's been over five hours since I listened to that. Wayyy too long!

[Moonman62]

My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia.

And there is a Federalist paper which makes it clear that any regulation is to be done by the states, not the federal government.

[TigersEye]

This is true but I would like to reiterate; “well regulated” only refers to the militia and Metcalf is speaking as if it applies to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

[Moonman62]

The bottom line is the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be a deterrent to a tyrannical federal government.

[Tainan]

Bravo...well sad.

[Cboldt]

Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?

Aye, we should. The decisions are based on lies, and are illogical and irrational.

Nothing but a power grab by the power elite. The rank dishonesty in the SCOTUS and lower court decisions should be exposed and ridiculed, so as to risk the very legitimacy of the SCOTUS.

[Yosemitest]

I agree with Tainan from comment #45.

"Bravo...well said!"

You said:

"No, you are voluntarily entering into a “contract” with the government to allow THEIR rules to apply to YOU.
Again, Dick, a citizen cannot VIOLATE the Constitution,
because the Constitution is a set of prohibitions upon government, NOT the citizens.
In fact,
the Bill of Rights sets out FOR the government
a list of the God-given rights
that it shall NOT violate or infringe upon."

Let's examine the word "INFRINGEMENT" .

infringement (n.)
1590s, from infringe + -ment

My 1988 copy of THE BARNHART DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY has a bedtter description than the "ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY".

infringe v. About 1467 enfrangen violate a law,
formed in English from en-, variant of in- + Latin frangere.
The later form infringe (1553) was influenced by, or perhaps borrowed from Latin infringere to damage, break (in- in + frangere to BREAK (see fraction).
The meaning of encroach upon, is first recorded in English in 1760-72.

--infringement n. 1593, contradiction or refutation;
later, violation (1628), and encroachment or intrusion (1673), formed from English infringe + -ment.

-ment suffix forming nouns, originally from French and representing Latin -mentum,
which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action.
French inserts an -e- between the verbal root and the suffix
(e.g. commenc-e-ment from commenc-er);
with verbs in ir, -i- is inserted instead
(e.g. sent-i-ment from sentir).
Used with English verb stems from 16c.
(e.g. merriment, which also illustrates the habit of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).

---

I submit that :

ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
IS AN ENCROACHMENT UPON OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

ANY LAW, OTHER THAN THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
IS INTENDED TO DAMAGE, BY CHIPPING AWAY AND EVENTUALLY BREAKING, OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

---

Now let me add a comment from another thread from several months ago:

The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:
The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature...
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."




-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.

Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember:
The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed
until they TRY to take it.
Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .

[rodguy911]

Oh yeah I get the ramifications,just more destructiona of capitalism one stone at a time espeicallyguns—can’t take away the guns kill the ammo pretty slick.
Its obmacare allover again. Cant get single payer just kill all the insurance companies. Same shit different day. I just didn’t know if everyone already knew about all this.

[twister881]

Good! :))

[Chode]

i'll prolly hear it all day now in my head... 8^)

[LibLieSlayer]

I despise all of these communist animals and to the power of ten!!!