Posted on 11/08/2013 3:21:54 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
Outstanding pic in #16! ^5
I don’t follow gun threads often. I’m sure this has probably already been discussed here but it was new to me anyway here it is.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16881-epa-closure-of-last-lead-smelting-plant-to-impact-ammunition-production
Seems the last smelting plant in the U.S. is closing at the end of the year leaving the US depending on foreign countries for our lead including china.
More epa at work.
This guy was paid to write? What in pluperfect hell is the "organic fabric" of the Constitution? Metcalf apparently believes that these laws are part of the Constitution now. On the contrary, the Constitution is the standard and measure of these laws, and they fail that standard and hence ought to be disregarded and then discarded.
I have little patience for this Alice-In-Wonderland wordplay. It is, after all, what has so eroded the Constitution even now that we tolerate Hate Speech laws, no-knock raids and asset forfeiture despite their blatantly obvious contravention of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments respectively. Metcalf is seeing if they'll erode the Second. Time for some pushback. Hard.
Dewd! Like don’t you know the Constitution was written on hemp paper? It’s organic fabric, man!
Japanese B6N “Jill” torpedo bomber.
Thanks for the post.
just keep digging, dick.
just admit you’re wrong on the meaning of the word “regulation”. anything less is just digging the hole deeper.
He seems to truly believe that the same men who had to capture cannons and gun powder from their own government wrote an amendment which allows the government today to put us in the position of having to do the same thing.
Every single weapon or type of weapon used by the REBELS during our Revolutionary War is protected by the Second Amendment. To do otherwise is to suggest that there is no real meaning to the Amendment, which is the situation we have now. Our Founders discovered very quickly that the weapons permitted them by their government were insufficient to guarantee liberty. Thousands died to establish this truth.
Well, that does it — dropping my subscription to Guns & Ammo and switching to Chicks & Ammo.
Well-done!
Think car batteries alone!
You have it exactly right. It is the militia which is to be regulated, not guns. And "regulated" at the time of the adoption of the 2nd Amendment meant organized, trained, and disciplined. It didn't mean restricted or limited.
Or rights or the people.
Unless we're discussing the militia the definition of 'regulated,' then or now, is irrelevant. The only reference to the 'right of the people' is "shall not be infringed."
Just sent this to the editor at The Outdoor Wire:
To Dick Metcalf
>When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following “clarification and elaboration” on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all.<
You should probably learn and take to heart the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.
>Then, after Paul Erhardt’s column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday, IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.
How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?<
Apparently you’re hanging your hat on that First Amendment thingie... you know, Freedom of Speech- that you’ve got the right to write or say anything controversial you want without anyone being able to take you to task or there being any consequences for you. Number one, the Constitution affirms our God-given rights and enchains the GOVERNMENT from violating them. The First Amendment guarantees us that the government has not been granted the power to violate that right.
You can, of course, write or say anything you wish, however if you have any kind of mental faculties at all, you should realize that there can be consequences. While the First Amendment may try to keep the government from doing something because of what you wrote or said, all of the general public and businesses are not constrained by those limitations. If “two major firearms industry manufacturers” contacted your employer as a result of what you wrote, they have every right to do so. They can explain to your employer the amount of revenue and business your employer will lose from them if you are continued to be employed. Nothing about the First Amendment at all. Just common business practices. If I don’t like something a business or one of their employees does or says, and I contact that business, explaining that I will take MY business elsewhere, that is totally within my rights to do so. If that business fires the employee because of the loss of MY business, that again is totally within their rights to do so. It’s called survival in the business world and has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Freedom of Speech.
That’s apparently another simple concept from the Constitution that you just haven’t got a grasp on, in addition to the “well-regulated” thing.
>From its inception as “Cooper’s Corner” in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded—some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).<
Again, there you go with the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment. I doubt you’ll find anything anywhere in the Constitution or all of the Bill of Rights that has anything to do with “not inciting a riot”. And again you show that your abject ignorance of all of that with the phrase “illegal under the laws ***regulating*** the 1st Amendment”. Laws passed by Congress don’t REGULATE anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, i.e., the first ten amendments to it. The Constitution and the Amendments REGULATE all of the laws. You may have heard something (or not, apparently) about the U.S. Constitution being the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Maybe you should ponder on those words just a little bit before opening your mouth or pounding your fingers on the keyboard.
In the words of some old white guy from about 235 years ago:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
—Thomas Jefferson
>In today’s political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute “NO!” And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term “well-regulated,” and how they are used and misused.<
Dick, maybe you should try to grasp the concept that “rights” are not to be “regulated”. Rights that are regulated are “privileges” and no longer “rights”. And apparently you really ARE NOT aware of what “well-regulated” means. Maybe that and the concept of “rights” is where your basic misunderstandings spring from.
>I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?<
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
— Daniel Webster
Dick, Dick, Dick. Again with the “regulation of rights”. When will you get the concept of “rights” into your head? To reiterate again, the Constitution enumerates the God-given rights with which we are born and enjoins the government from abrogating, violating or revoking those God-given rights. And if you actually believe that owning or driving a vehicle is NOT a constitutional right, then I can give you quite a few legal citations that show that none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, and many lesser courts, have declared that it indeed IS a right. You do NOT need to have a government permit to “own” a vehicle, and you are not required to have a “license” to travel with your private automobile. Only when you do so for the purpose of commerce may the government “regulate” and require a “license”. Get some facts and get educated.
And don’t even bring up the ridiculous point of it being “illegal” to shout Fire! in a crowded theater. Again, read the words of the Amendments.
>Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.<
If you stopped right there, that would be recognized as stopping digging when you’re in a hole. But no, you’ve gotta continue digging.
>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.<
“But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
—George Washington, Farewell Address
Again, Dick, your abject ignorance is on display. And again, innumerable federal, state and local statutes DO NOT regulate the 2nd Amendment. They cannot. While they may violate the 2nd Amendment prohibitions against “shall not be infringed”, they CANNOT regulate that Amendment. Can’t you get this through your thick head? Apparently not, as you continue on with the same misapprehensions regarding “regulating”. Yes, many laws and court rulings DO infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, but they DO NOT regulate it. They attempt to regulate rights, actions and activities of U.S. citizens, not the Amendment itself. And even if the King, the Congress or whatever potentate there is establishes laws that violate the U.S. Constitution, those laws are at their inception, null and void. Look it up.
>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?<
“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.”
—Montesquieu, 1748
When some far off King in England made “laws” for the colonists in the New World, there were a few guys who looked at those laws and the violations of the God-given rights they engendered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in holding those laws as unjust... or as we may consider them today, unconstitutional, as they were then establishing our U.S. Constitution and writing the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should read some of those documents.
I’m sorry to relate this to you, Dick, but laws are not part of the “organic fabric of the Constitution”. All the laws enacted by Congress are subject to and under the Constitution. They do not constitute the fabric of it.
>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 pages, and many other firearms forums following the appearance of the December Backstop column).<
The states may have statutes regulating firearms, but they do not have constitutional provisions regulating them. The constitutions are proscriptions and inhibitions against the government, describing the constraints upon such government. Thus they confirm or assert the rights of the state citizens. While the federal and other governments may “require” state-issued “permits” or training requirements, that does not negate the basic Constitutionally affirmed rights of the citizens.
According to your logic, if the Congress makes a law that violates the Constitution, then the sheer fact of the existence of that “law” proves the lack of violation of the Constitution by it. Circular logic. Irrational.
Are all those laws infringements? YES. Should we oppose their existence? YES. Should we obtain licenses? If you want to bow down, go ahead. Are we violating the Constitution if we do? Again, Dick, a citizen cannot “violate” the Constitution. Again, the Constitution is a prohibition against government, not the citizens. Learn that while you’re researching the law of holes. Please.
You say, “On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ” and they may. But the Constitution and its wording of the 2nd Amendment does NOT differ; it remains unchanged since its origination. It states VERY PLAINLY that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t state, like the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law...” You may differ in your opinion with others, but the words are quite plain: “the right... shall not be infringed”. A permit by the government is an infringement. A law “regulating” the keeping and bearing of arms is an infringement, whether it requires a citizen to own or obtain an arm or proscribes against it and “requires” a permit.
>Myself, I would rather carry legally, than carry illegally and risk prison. Given the fact an Illinois concealed carry law now does exist, I have no problem spending 16 hours of my life under its training requirement. And I will. I am glad Illinois finally passed a concealed carry law. Do I believe training is a good thing? Of course I do. Do I believe the onerous fees and procedures imposed by Illinois’ anti-gun legislators to reduce the number of applicants are an “infringement?” Of course I do. I’m applying for a license anyway. But that’s just me.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams
Go ahead, Dick, and get that “permit”. Take that training. May your chains set lightly upon you.
>Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these 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?<
Strawman argument. Dick, I can’t for the life of me find any wording in the whole of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence that even intimates that the government has been given the power to prohibit ANYONE from keeping and bearing arms. Just the opposite. So the Federal government DOES NOT have that right or power delegated to it. May it usurp that power? Sure. That still doesn’t make it Constitutional nor the usurpations “legal”.
>2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?<
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Licenses, permits or government approvals ARE infringements on the 2nd Amendment and ARE, prima facie, unConstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the government given the power to establish concealed-carry licenses. If you can find that wording for me, please let me know.
>3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?<
I personally don’t. Had one many years ago before I understood what the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution provided me.
>4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?<
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.
>I would hope this discussion could continue.<
It probably will. But you should do some reading and research before opening your mouth again, because you only seem to be able to exhibit your own lack of education and understanding of how this country was setup and is supposed to operate.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
—Thomas Jefferson.
“The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
—Albert Gallatin (1789)
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves.”
James Madison,1778
And lastly, Dick, I’m really trying hard to determine which applies to you: “IGNORANCE CAN BE ELIMINATED WITH KNOWLEDGE, IT’S STUPIDITY THAT REMAINS FOREVER” So far, from reading what you’ve written, I’m tending toward the latter.
I've enjoyed it for years
That was a beautiful thing to behold. Bravo!
Some people just don’t know when to stop digging.
100%!!!
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.