Posted on 11/07/2013 9:39:45 AM PST by jimbo123
Guns and Ammo Magazine, the “world’s most widely read firearms magazine,” has fired contributing editor Dick Metcalf after the publication received immense backlash for its December 2013 issue featuring his editorial advocating for gun control.
“Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” Metcalf wrote in the column titled “Let’s Talk Limits.” “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
“All U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms,” he added, “but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.”
The backlash was immense. Readers flocked to social media to decry the magazine’s editorial decision and threaten to cancel their subscriptions. All the attention resulted in the magazine’s editor Jim Bequette posting a letter online apologizing to readers and announcing that Guns & Ammo has fired the author.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Just like the Dixie Twits... he lacked a fundamental understanding and respect of his audiences’ values.
Kind of like when a judge tells a jury to disregard a previous statement. The bell has been rung.
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!
I suspect it was the voices of the paying advertisers that truly decided Metcalf's fate.
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.
It had a definite meaning when it was written - it meant “practiced”.
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.
The big question then is whether G & A fired Metcalf because he advocated regulation or because he didn’t advocate enough regulation.
The guy who allowed it to make it to print is still there.
This is merely CYA.
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.
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?
Hence the "reasonable man" standard.
This is not new ground.
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?
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?
Should be “without at least some minimal level of government regulation?”
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.
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.
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.