[servo1969]

“The question is, when does regulation become infringement?”

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.

[TigersEye]

Amendment II

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.

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

[Navy Patriot]

Any power granted to government will be abused for tyranny.

[Jack Hydrazine]

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.

[OldPossum]

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.

[Yo-Yo]

Dick Metcalf Responds: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3089192/posts

[basil]

Ping!

[DesertRhino]

“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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I guess Dick is unaware of the fact that we already have 30,000 gun control laws in this country?

How many more does he want?

[DBrow]

I remember a (former) NRA boardmember who thought that firearm capacity limited to three rounds would be OK.

[LyinLibs]

No magazine would ever bow to pressure from Obamatollah to disarm Americans while arming al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

Or to glorify/normalize moslems slaughtering humans.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

No one is advocating removal of vocal cords yet!! The crap about yelling fire isn’t a valid analogy!

[sargon]

Metcalf tried to conflate the phrase "well regulated" in the Second Amendment with the concept of federal or state regulation as understood in the modern day. Anybody who knows the history of the Bill of Rights knows such a conflation is utterly farcical.

Such a stunt is patently disingenuous, and fallacious in addition to that.

Metcalf's reasoning throughout the article is rather flimsy, to say the least, and it's not surprising that G & A readers were outraged at the clumsy propaganda which was exhibited.

[fortheDeclaration]

These guys talk like there aren’t thousands of gun laws on the books already!

[fortheDeclaration]

One thing is sure, guns are a ‘hot button issue’!

[Yosemitest]

"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."

I agree. That IS ... THEIR ... ultimated goal.

“ The question IS,
when does REGULATION become INFRINGEMENT ? ”

GOOD QUESTION!
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.

[Yosemitest]

I wished someone would give an extended excerpt on "INFRINGED" from Original Intent: The Courts the Constitution & Religion by David Barton.
It's decription is:

An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation's religious heritage and the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system.
Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author's exposition on hot topics
such as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state.
A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes.

[jazv]

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