the stockholders are gonna love him...
Posted on 11/03/2013 8:14:32 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
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!
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
I subscribe to G&A to get away from that.
You know after bunch of so called regulating you might just end up with no rights at all. just sayin......
Guy didn’t learn from Jim Zumbo apparently.
I was annoyed when I read the last page where the editorial was. Then I wrote a letter about it via email, and it bounced, and I was PISSED.
Now I am simply canceling my G&A.
They need to learn that their revenue stream is not guaranteed. Publish stupid stuff, face the consequences.
FYI
How do I end my subscription?
To cancel your subscription, please call 800-829-3340 or Send a Comment to our Customer Service Department through the Manage Your Account area of the Customer Service site. You may also write to us at Guns & Ammo, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235 .
For international orders please call 386-246-3326.
A refund will be issued for any un-served issues of your subscription.
These bozos have no idea what the words "well regulated" meant in the 1700s.
It had NOTHING to do with government regulations.
In the era when the Constitution was written and the early amendments were written, the term "well regulated" meant "well organized". IE the men were to be instructed in military drill (marching), military tactics, marksmanship, etc.
I encourage people who subscribe to cancel. There are other 2A magazines out there; these people should not assume their revenue stream is guaranteed.
Sadly, the list of no go places grows.
Dick’s Sporting Goods
Guns & Ammo
G&A ...See ya
In my early 20’s I started to view gun and car rags as a waste of my time.
Ted Nugent pulled Zumbo’s fat out of the fire with a “re-education” session. I think this guy is beyond that effort since his argument goes to the root of the 2A rather than an improper understanding of the uses of a piece of hardware.
Yes I can, and I should if it is in fact on fire. No one has taken away my ability to help my fellow moviegoers with a timely warning...
However, so called "gun-control" laws routinely seek to take away the ability to do the equivalent in defense of myself and my family. When I'm being attacked by multiple home invaders it is far too late to start filling out forms to apply for permission to have the equipment on hand to deal with them effectively.
One of the things he advocates for in the article is mandatory training classes for CCW holders.
This guy surely had hundreds of hours of training, and look at what it did for him. (but according to Metcalf, he is an “expert”)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU
This incrementalism is how the antis work at stripping us of our rights, and it must be fought tooth and nail.
Metcalf needs a new job
the stockholders are gonna love him...
I do see the possibility of some limitations to natural and civil rights. That is, limitations to life, liberty and property.
For instance, criminals can be deprived of their liberty as well as their life, in some limited circumstances. But this must be determined by both a grand jury of their peers and a jury of their peers. Not directly by the government.
A good argument can be made on restricting their civil rights after they have served their sentence, perhaps contingent on the crime they were convicted of. Likewise arguments about the mentally ill.
But the issue here is guns, and what, if any, restrictions are reasonable, and by who.
At the low level, restrictions on guns are not unreasonable in a machine shop with compressed gases, inflammable liquids, etc., where most anything metal that could cause a spark is banned.
Courts are traditionally apprehensive about guns except by the armed court employees, as they frequently have supporters and opponents of the participants filled with volatile emotions and a willingness to violently intervene.
Yet, all told, these are “local” restrictions for a very limited number of people, situations and places.
The problems begin with efforts to create restrictions based on hypothetical problems, for all people instead of a select, problematic few.
Typically, the state and federal division of authority makes sense. That is, the vast majority of gun laws, mostly about manufacturing, safe storage of ammo and explosives, proper disposal of toxic waste products from production, etc., are in the purview of the state.
But the federals do have authority when things cross state lines or international borders, or are on navigable waters; and possibly involving interstate air travel and communications, though these are cross jurisdictional.
As a group, however, the federal laws should only concern physical spaces within their unique authority, federal criminals, federal police and military personnel, and Indians, whose relations are determined by treaties.
The only real constitutional involvement by the federal government directly with the citizenry is with the census, the federal income tax, and the violation of federal criminal and civil laws, and to provide protection from abuse by the states. Other than that, the *absence* of direct involvement should act to prevent federal efforts to restrict natural and civil rights.
Thus, the assumption should be made that if the federal government is involving itself in our lives, they are doing so from an unconstitutional standpoint.
Precisely. We don't put muzzles on people entering theaters just to ensure that no one yells fire.
I've also see that term used in a Civil War newspaper article about some newly-formed companies in a midwestern regiment that were "well-regulated, being armed with the Sharp's breechloading rifle."
Maybe the phrase at that time was mutating to mean "well-armed" - still OK within the context, though.
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.