New York Times Laments Gun Companies Ending Freebies for Pro-Gun Control Authors

Breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ^ | 1-5-2014 | AWR Hawkins

[servo1969]

On November 5th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf used his G&A column to argue that all constitutional rights have and need regulation, including 2nd Amendment rights. The outcry against Metcalf was immediate and his firing swift. On November 7th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf had been fired by G&A.

According to NYT, Metcalf's life changed completely thereafter – his television show was ended, "gun companies... stopped flying him around the world," and they've also stopped sending him samples of the newest guns to review.

[servo1969]

Gee, that's a shame.

[servo1969]

From the Way-back machine...

[servo1969]

What does it say about your views when the New York Times is upset that you're no longer influential in the gun culture?

Let me put it another way...

If a bunch of Communists are upset that you can no longer do your job - what exactly was your job?

[Candor7]

Don’t let the door hit your A$$ on the way out, Metcalf.

[Darteaus94025]

Have fun with your new friends!

[servo1969]

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/dick-metcalf-gun-control-editorial.html

"To be well regulated, the militia (which was comprised of all able-bodied males) required the availability of and access to the weapons they would need in order to maintain their proficiency. That’s why the Amendment was written: to maintain access to personal defensive arms for the people so that they could protect themselves and, by extension, their country."

"Metcalf’s article buys into the idea that regulated means legislated, and then — inexplicably for someone who calls himself an expert on Constitutional law — uses his misunderstanding to say, in essence, that all legislated infringements are perfectly acceptable because they’re just the regulations that the Amendment allows."

********

Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.edu)

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

[stormhill]

...all constitutional rights have and need regulation

Didn't read the column but guessing here that he used the standard argument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
One major problem is that if a right is regulated, it's important to see who's doing the regulating or it will quickly become throttling.

Interesting how it's always the Right's issues that need regulation or control, never the Left's. Just talk about reducing spending, welfare or abortions and out come the pictures of the oppressed masses crying rivers of anguish and despair.

[Starstruck]

Let the left take care of you. We don’t want to hear your tale of woe. I think this dude thought he would be a leftist superstar.

[Timber Rattler]

Didn't read the column but guessing here that he used the standard argument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Yep, he sure did, as well as "driving is a privilege."

[tbpiper]

If a right can be regulated, is it a right at all?

[wastedyears]

No, then it becomes an allowance. As in, we’re allowed to say what we want, as long as it’s within certain bounds.

[LibLieSlayer]

I look forward to his obituary also.

[LibLieSlayer]

Remind me of one thing... which right in the BILL OF RIGHTS has a clause that states clearly, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?

[ThunderSleeps]

That’s the problem I have with this mentality. Regulation of the rights implies government control over them, their extent, when and where and how they can be exercised. That is complete BS. The very reason these rights were spelled out in the Bill Of Rights was to prevent exactly that kind of government control. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple, even the NYT ought to be able to figure that one out. Well maybe with a little help.

[SC_Pete]

George Soros will fly him around. Watch.

[FAA]

“Don’t let the door hit your A$$ on the way out, Metcalf.”

Let the sum-bitch rot.

[redgolum]

It was a test case.

To be honest, I think the reaction surprised them. The elite figured that the proles would be for gun confiscation by now.

[Blue Collar Christian]

From the article:
“His only regret is that the article “was too short” to capture the full nuances of his beliefs.”

This is why he will stay disappeared. His regret ought to be that he wrote an article about the way he “feels” on the back page of a gun magazine. And this “nuances” stuff is purely an oft used leftist word.

Next thing you know he will be “outed”.

[DaveA37]

Never cared for Metcalf’s column nor his TV show, in fact I would turn the channel when his show aired. Stopped reading his column long before G&A dumped him. Personally I will not miss him. He will probably surface somewhere else after the heat dies down, perhaps in some college once again. He can preach all he wants there.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“Didn’t read the column but guessing here that he used the standard argument about yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.”

In his damning column metcalf did use the “fire” in a theater argument.

Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is abuse of one’s right to free speech to cause a safety issue. That is criminal. Abusing one’s right to bear arms to cause a safety issue is also a crime. No regulation of either right is needed to prosecute the crimes that are committed by the abuser of those rights.

VERY LAME argument indeed. The use of that argument alone as an example of regulation is ignorant and should get him booted just because of his lack of understanding the language.