Posted on 11/08/2013 6:06:15 PM PST by servo1969
The top editor of Guns & Ammo became the second employee of the venerable firearms magazine to lose his job after a column advocating gun control backfired, prompting rifle-toting readers to unload on the publication.
In a statement posted Wednesday on the InterMedia Outdoors-owned magazine’s homepage, Jim Bequette apologized to “each and every reader” of the magazine for Dick Metcalf’s column that appeared in its December issue, which generated “unprecedented” controversy and left readers “hopping mad” in regards to the magazine’s commitment to the Second Amendment.
**********
In his column entitled “Let’s Talk Limits: Do certain firearm regulations really constitute infringement?,” Metcalf wrote that “way too many” gun owners believe that any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Second Amendment.
“The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be,” Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated.”
Metcalf continued: “The question is, when does regulation become infringement?”
The firestorm that following was intense and swift, with some readers indicating they would immediately end their subscription to the magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Maybe I was a bit tight. But there are two different impressions of the 2nd Amendment, depending on how one reads the placement of commas.
What the second amendment really means
This has been a thorn in my side for a long time: What does the second amendment really mean. So many times I have heard it misinterpreted. It was bad enough to hear people deliberately spread misinformation, but to see a writer that I respected show how poorly he understood the meaning has forced me to speak out.
First of all let’s start with the understanding that the framers of the constitution were far better educated in the English language and were more eloquent speakers than any person I know today. If you have ever read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or any of the letters of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams you would know that these men had a grasp of the English language that is severely lacking in today’s society. The second amendment is one sentence clearly stated. It says exactly what they meant to say. One problem with reading this today is not knowing they were speaking from.
I am not claiming here to be the final word on understanding the constitution, but I do have a slight advantage or some. I went to a Catholic School in the 60’s and there was one thing we learned that public schools were not teaching at the time and that was how to diagram a sentence. That is how to take apart a sentence and understand what it means. So allow me to diagram this sentence and share some knowledge I have gained from reading many books about Early America.
But first bear in mind that the Bill of Rights was meant as a guarantee of the limitation of power of the federal government only. It was not meant to create restrictions on citizens.
Let’s start with our sentence as ratified by Jefferson as Secretary of State:1
A 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.
Diagraming a sentence involves breaking it down into its component parts. A coherent compound sentence should have (at least) a statement and a qualifier. We have that here. Let’s find the statement, a portion of the sentence that can stand on its own as a sentence. I will take you right to it.
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is a complete sentence. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. It is easy to understand. Yes there are qualifying phrases, but we will get to them shortly.
Why did this need to be said? Because most subjects of the British Empire were not allowed to have guns. People in the colonies could own guns for hunting, but most of the guns in the colonies were in armories, locked away from the people and only passed out when necessary to members of the local militia to defend your community from attack. The phrase “to keep” simply meant exactly that we should to be able to keep our arms, and not have them stored in the public armories. The phrase “to bear” assured that you can carry on your person arms. (Once again this was a limitation on federal powers and nothing else. The discussion of State vs. federal powers is food for another discussion, but this statement quite clearly means that the federal government cannot restrict our right to keep and bear arms. Court rulings may “interpret” differently. But they are defying the original meaning of the set forth by the Founders.
Let’s go on to the rest of the sentence. The qualifier. A qualifier limits, expands upon or defines the parameters of the statement. Here is the qualifier.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
So what did they mean by this? Well they are not saying well regulated people or regulated possession of guns. They are saying well regulated militia. What is that and why did they feel the need to say it? There was no standing army at this time. Washington had an army of volunteers that disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. The founders believed that a standing army would be a tool of tyrants. Even the British Empire understood this when they established their bill of rights 2 taking control of the standing army away from the king. Since there was to be no standing army in America (yet), Militias were considered the best alternative, but when trouble would come they did not want a disorganized mob of men with guns to defend their communities. The proven method of defending your home, your community, you state was an organized, well trained militia that followed rules and “regulations”. Militia members were expected to attend regular drill sessions and to provide their own arms and ammunition. They were required to have at any time a certain weight of powder and bullets. Hence, the qualifying phrase: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” becomes clear. The reason we need to be able to keep and bear arms is to secure our free State, but to do that requires an organized trained force. This qualifier is not then a limitation on the right of the people but the reason that this right must be maintained.
Things have changed. We do now have a stand army whose leadership we entrust to the President. We entrust the judiciary to make impartial decisions based on the constitution and find time and again that those decisions are not impartial or based on the constitution. We live in the most powerful country in the world, safe from invasion and harm and it is easy to imagine that we have no use for guns in our peaceful gated communities and quiet homes, but we have to remember that it is the freedom that every citizen can own a gun that keeps us the most powerful country in the world. The General Yamamoto during World War II said that he would never invade America because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. That may one day no longer be the case if we allow this to continue. An endless struggle ensues to slowly whittle away at the rights we were guaranteed. It is important that each one of us understands why we must protect the 2nd amendment not just for today but for the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
No one is advocating removal of vocal cords yet!! The crap about yelling fire isn’t a valid analogy!
That argument is a bunch of crap anyway. One CAN yell fire in a crowded theater — one just canNOT claim immunity under the first amendment for the consequences that will befall them.
Agree with you — I *hate* that lame argument.
There are a lot of people running around with defective wiring, they just can’t grasp that much of what they think and say is pure BS.
I only know of one.
Thanks for posting that. I’ve read it before and it’s excellent.
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.