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 ...
When the ultimate goal is to make the private ownership of any firearm or ammunition a felony. And make no mistake, that is the ultimate goal.
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.
Any power granted to government will be abused for tyranny.
This wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_&_Ammo
says that the magazine is published by InterMedia Outdoors.
Wiki on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterMedia_Outdoors
They must have gotten the message from their subscribers when the flood of unsubscribes started hitting them.
“Regulated” was not meant to equal regulations.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Amen!
I just returned from a trip, got my G&A and read the column.
That they would publish this tells me all I need to know, i.e., they are not fully supportive of the Second Amendment.
My letter cancelling my subscription goes out tomorrow.
Metcalf doesn’t seem to get “shall not be infringed” either. Unbelievable, enemies all around.
I was going to make a (very small) joke about being well regulated, but will let it pass. :o/
But all of that is beside the point here, that being that the part of the 2nd A. regarding the people's rights is not qualified by the word 'regulated.'
The only part of the 2nd A. that refers to rights or the people.
It is not necessary to write a letter. They have a toll free number. I called it wednesday and the guy I talked to was polite and said they would refund my subscription.
Ping!
Right.
And the following phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” also seems to me to promote state’s rights over the federal government.
I haven’t really thought this one through yet, or researched it...
“Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
Schenck vs. United States. It had nothing to do with a fire in a theater. This was a free speech case. Some guys opposed to WWI were arrested for distributing printed handbills opposing the draft. The court ruled that draft protesting was a “clear and present danger” akin to shouting fore in a crowded theater.
Wonder if Metcalf would support mandatory training classes for anyone who wants to write columns. To make sure they responsibly use their first amendment rights of course.
How many more does he want?
Thanks. I tend to write more than telephone but in this case, a call will suffice.
It's already illegal to shoot somebody for no reason. Don't need a special law for it.
The point is that he used a Wilson era free speech case, as justification for regulating guns. Would he accept the same “reasonable” restrictions on being a journalist? A training requirement? Some type of licensing? A cooling off period from the time he writes a story until it is published?
We all know the answer.
1780 well-regulated meant properly tuned up, ready, on time, functioning as designed like a good clock.
The idea of “government regulations” was not current then.
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.