Skip to comments.
Guns & Ammo Fires Editor After Publishing Editorial Calling for Gun Control
Mediaite ^
| 11/7/13
| Andrew Kirell
Posted on 11/07/2013 9:39:45 AM PST by jimbo123
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: jimbo123
Just like the Dixie Twits... he lacked a fundamental understanding and respect of his audiences’ values.
To: Paine in the Neck
Kind of like when a judge tells a jury to disregard a previous statement. The bell has been rung.
To: driftdiver
Isnt that what the existing criminal laws are for? Hes talking pre-crime controls.Exactly!
In fact, what he is saying is he believes "government" has the authority to PREVENT citizens from using them "irresponsibly." All the while, government gets to define "irresponsibly" as whatever the majority female voting public will accept!
63
posted on
11/07/2013 11:30:12 AM PST
by
papertyger
("refusing to draw an inescapable conclusion does not qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'")
To: jimbo123
64
posted on
11/07/2013 11:31:14 AM PST
by
LyinLibs
(If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
To: 556x45
I strongly suspect if there hadnt been so many threats to cancel Dick would still have a job. G&A cares nothing about your rights or Constitution. All they care about is making $$$. Any right thinking gun rag would have never entertained much less publish such trash. I suspect it was the voices of the paying advertisers that truly decided Metcalf's fate.
65
posted on
11/07/2013 11:32:54 AM PST
by
Charles Martel
(Endeavor to persevere...)
To: AzSteven
What is NOT clear is the motivation - were they fired because the management was genuinely opposed to what had been published in their names, or were they fired because management was displeased with the negative publicity?Simply another attempt to peel "brown" rifle supporters away from "black" rifle supporters, and acquisition of all the resultant accolades and benefits that would come showering down from the left should anyone with pro-gun bona fides accomplish it.
66
posted on
11/07/2013 11:35:45 AM PST
by
papertyger
("refusing to draw an inescapable conclusion does not qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'")
To: jimbo123
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.
67
posted on
11/07/2013 11:35:58 AM PST
by
LyinLibs
(If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
To: LyinLibs
68
posted on
11/07/2013 11:37:14 AM PST
by
LyinLibs
(If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
To: Reynoldo
It had a definite meaning when it was written - it meant “practiced”.
69
posted on
11/07/2013 11:38:38 AM PST
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: Pollster1
Laws restricting our God-given right to keep and bear arms by definition infringe on that right. Such laws are thus inherently and unavoidably unconstitutional. Its not a hard concept to understand, and no legitimate government would try to work around the protections of our basic human rights.Try explaining that to a cop who doesn't see any contradiction between "presumption of innocence" and their efficacious tactic of lying to a suspect to obtain incriminating evidence.
70
posted on
11/07/2013 11:45:47 AM PST
by
papertyger
("refusing to draw an inescapable conclusion does not qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'")
To: CodeToad
The big question then is whether G & A fired Metcalf because he advocated regulation or because he didn’t advocate enough regulation.
To: ealgeone; All
The guy who allowed it to make it to print is still there.
This is merely CYA.
72
posted on
11/07/2013 11:52:38 AM PST
by
Red in Blue PA
(When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
To: Reynoldo
Indeed it has. If you look at the state constitutions in effect at the time our constitution was written many of them defined it as “every able bodied man between ages of 18 and 50.” Militia service was very popular, in part because in many states, NY in particular, it allowed an exemption to the property qualification to be able to vote. Maybe they didn’t feel the need to define it because everyone was assumed to know what it meant.
To: aomagrat
I have never understood how a gun owner could support compromise gun control. There is no such thing. Gun owners always loose something and never gain anything. Any gun owner who supports even just a little restriction on guns is doing so hoping they will take his guns last.Allow me to play devil's advocate: Like abortion, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits young children, the mentally incompetent, the criminally insane, and persons convicted of violent felonies from possessing a firearm. Is it our position as the protectors and advocates the 2nd Amendment that government lacks the constitutional authority to prohibit anyone from owning a firearm? Or are we saying that government lacks the constitional authority to regulate the use and posssion of firearms by law abiding, adult citizens?
To: Labyrinthos
Or are we saying that government lacks the constitional authority to regulate the use and posssion of firearms by law abiding, adult citizens? Hence the "reasonable man" standard.
This is not new ground.
75
posted on
11/07/2013 12:21:10 PM PST
by
papertyger
("refusing to draw an inescapable conclusion does not qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'")
To: areukiddingme1
RE peeing on an electric fence. Did he not see what happened to Zumbo when he peed that fence? How stupid do you have to be to repeat that mistake?
76
posted on
11/07/2013 12:32:22 PM PST
by
Brooklyn Attitude
(Things are only going to get worse.)
To: papertyger
Hence the "reasonable man" standard. This is not new ground. But what's the answer? I agree that government has no right under the Constitution to regulate the use and possession of firearms by law abiding, competent adults any more that it has the right to require a person to obtain a permit and pass a journalism course as a prerequisite to publishing a newspaper. But if we contend that psychopaths, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, and three year olds have the right to own a forearm, then we lose the argument to common sense; and if we concede that these classes of people do not enjoy 2nd Amendment rights, then how do we keep firearms out of their hands with at least some minimal level of government regulation?
To: papertyger
Should be “without at least some minimal level of government regulation?”
To: papertyger
Try explaining that to a cop who doesn't see any contradiction between "presumption of innocence" and their efficacious tactic of lying to a suspect to obtain incriminating evidence. I'd be careful what I tried to explain to a cop on the warpath. I might end up with a $6k bill for an intrusive search, and I'd just as soon not go through that.
79
posted on
11/07/2013 1:04:59 PM PST
by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
To: Labyrinthos
But if we contend that psychopaths, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, and three year olds have the right to own a forearm, then we lose the argument to common sense; and if we concede that these classes of people do not enjoy 2nd Amendment rights, then how do we keep firearms out of their hands with at least some minimal level of government regulation? I would argue that those under 18 are generally recognized as not holding the same constitutional rights as adults. As for criminals, if they're safe enough to release, they should have their rights restored. And crazies? It should take an individual court order to remove a constitutional right - a court should adjudicate an individual dangerously insane (or some incomprehensible phrase chosen to hide that meaning) before removing the right to keep and bear arms.
80
posted on
11/07/2013 1:09:32 PM PST
by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson