Posted on 11/03/2013 5:56:29 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama
Click here to download a pdf of Guns & Ammo‘s column Let’s Talk Limits. Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .
Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:
Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”
You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!
Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.
Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.
I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.
I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .
I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.
Equally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Wikipedia defines the term thusly:
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.
I have a major issue with the word “unwarranted” (wikipedia won’t let me delete it). But the point is made: Americans have a civil right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by . . . wait for it . . . the Constitution. Specifically, the Second Amendment. This despite the fact that . . .
Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
So civil means natural, and natural means inviolable. Except by people who support their violation. People like Dick Metcalf, who ends his pro-gun control polemic by asserting that Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”
“But that’s just me . . .” Metcalf closes. Yes it is. And I believe that anyone who supports a gun magazine that prints this kind of anti-gun agitprop is supporting the diminution and destruction of our gun rights. Or is that just me? [h/t b0b]
Wow much did you get to write this Dick Metcalf? What was your price?
“former faculty member of the history departments at Yale and Cornell Universities.” .........Need we know ANYTHING else?
I thought it was a sucky rag mag a few years ago. I got upset about their postulation, presumption and precocious position about the price and availability of ammunition. I think my last straw was something about (stamping I think) federal laws requiring manufacturers to have each gun leave a unique stamped impression on the primer/casing that it fires? They thought this was brilliant! I used to get the magazine through my kids school fund raising campaign.
I already quit them.
Disclaimer - I'm 87% sure it was Guns and Ammo.
Monday morning will be sending a gold painted brick to Guns and Ammo. I would hope they get a few thousand bricks so they can see the wall between us and them.
This just brings a whole new meaning to “Shoot Yourself In The Foot”.
...dumber than a pile of wet rocks.
“You can’t yell FIRE! in a theater.”
-
What if there is a fire?
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=kel-tec+ksg
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=kel-tec+PMR-30
BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any regulation infringes on whatever it seeks to control. By definition, and by example of our existing myriad of “gun control laws”
Note that the Founder of our Republic knew this very well, and this is why they expressly provided that our right to bear arms “....SHALL NOT be infringed.” No broader, more protective language is possible.
I did not renew my scripts for Guns and Ammo and Shooting Times....this I knew many months ago....
Robert E. Petersen must be doing right hand twist 360s in his grave...
Obama donor Leo Hindery Jr. is buying up pro-gun media outlets to gut and destroy them - See more at:
And you can carry the word fire with you all the time until needed.
Excellent find. We simply create new magazines, then.
I only buy those magazines that have articles by Massad Ayoob; I do like his information about self defense.
As for your VAPORWARE comment..LOL How true. It took us 3 years to find one PMR-30, and got that only because I walked in right behind the UPS guy. The only other ones we have seen have been at gun shows for about $750. Sorry, while a nice pistol, it ain’t that damn good!!!
Evidence on the internet suggests that he may be corruptible. In 2008, 5 year ago, www.thehighroad.org has a post that begins "Can this guy be trusted for legitimate reviews on Taurus firearms or is he is a shill for the compnay?" (sic)
one wonders if he may now be a shill for someone else - and what's in it for him.
Yell out Conflagration! instead.
I support gun control, for the F***ing Feds.
this had a life here at FR almost a year ago. lots of people are ignoring it in droves. I even contacted my state organization (that is the NRA in NY). they said they felt that Leo Hindery Jr was just a venture capitalist out to make a buck. REALLY!!! cant these people see the writing on the wall???
They have enough money to let some of it dry up to advance an agenda.
Magazines written by supposed experts should be read with a large supply of salt handy. It must have been at least 35 years ago I read a page in an automotive magazine where someone was asking what worked best in snow and ice, a rear wheel drive car or a front wheel drive car. As one who has driven both I cannot imagine anyone who has experience with both saying anything other than PICK THE FRONT WHEEL DRIVE FOR THOSE CONDITIONS. The so-called expert trying to answer the question didn’t actually answer it, he went through a lot of gyrations written as if he were writing a thesis for an engineering degree and never came to any kind of conclusion. It reminded me of a saying I used to hear, “Ask him for the time of day and he will tell you how to build a watch.”
What the reader had wanted was a real world answer and what he got was gobbledygook that left him more confused than before.
“Exothermic Reactions! Exothermic Reactions! Combustive Exothermic Reactions in the Theater!!”
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.