Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shakeup at Guns & Ammo after gun control column backfires
FoxNews.com ^ | 11-8-2013 | Joshua Rhett Miller

Posted on 11/08/2013 6:06:15 PM PST by servo1969

The top editor of Guns & Ammo became the second employee of the venerable firearms magazine to lose his job after a column advocating gun control backfired, prompting rifle-toting readers to unload on the publication.

In a statement posted Wednesday on the InterMedia Outdoors-owned magazine’s homepage, Jim Bequette apologized to “each and every reader” of the magazine for Dick Metcalf’s column that appeared in its December issue, which generated “unprecedented” controversy and left readers “hopping mad” in regards to the magazine’s commitment to the Second Amendment.

**********

In his column entitled “Let’s Talk Limits: Do certain firearm regulations really constitute infringement?,” Metcalf wrote that “way too many” gun owners believe that any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Second Amendment.

“The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be,” Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated.”

Metcalf continued: “The question is, when does regulation become infringement?”

The firestorm that following was intense and swift, with some readers indicating they would immediately end their subscription to the magazine.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; History; Hobbies; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous; Outdoors; Society; Sports
KEYWORDS: ammo; banglist; bequette; dickmetcalf; fire; guncontrol; guns; gunsandammo; intermedia; magazine; metcalf; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; teaparty; traitor; tyranny
“The question is, when does regulation become infringement?”

When the ultimate goal is to make the private ownership of any firearm or ammunition a felony. And make no mistake, that is the ultimate goal.

1 posted on 11/08/2013 6:06:15 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia.


2 posted on 11/08/2013 6:09:48 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Any power granted to government will be abused for tyranny.


3 posted on 11/08/2013 6:09:57 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_&_Ammo

says that the magazine is published by InterMedia Outdoors.

Wiki on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterMedia_Outdoors

They must have gotten the message from their subscribers when the flood of unsubscribes started hitting them.


4 posted on 11/08/2013 6:14:08 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I'm a Conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“Regulated” was not meant to equal regulations.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

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.


5 posted on 11/08/2013 6:15:24 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Amen!


6 posted on 11/08/2013 6:16:39 PM PST by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I just returned from a trip, got my G&A and read the column.

That they would publish this tells me all I need to know, i.e., they are not fully supportive of the Second Amendment.

My letter cancelling my subscription goes out tomorrow.


7 posted on 11/08/2013 6:22:12 PM PST by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about its implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Dick Metcalf Responds: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3089192/posts
8 posted on 11/08/2013 6:22:32 PM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Metcalf doesn’t seem to get “shall not be infringed” either. Unbelievable, enemies all around.

I was going to make a (very small) joke about being well regulated, but will let it pass. :o/


9 posted on 11/08/2013 6:24:44 PM PST by cyn (Benghazi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
That may be but all of the early militias were authorized by government. First the local authorities and on up. The Feds even provided funding for arms, gunpowder and lead.

But all of that is beside the point here, that being that the part of the 2nd A. regarding the people's rights is not qualified by the word 'regulated.'

10 posted on 11/08/2013 6:29:06 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cyn
“shall not be infringed”

The only part of the 2nd A. that refers to rights or the people.

11 posted on 11/08/2013 6:30:45 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

It is not necessary to write a letter. They have a toll free number. I called it wednesday and the guy I talked to was polite and said they would refund my subscription.


12 posted on 11/08/2013 6:37:58 PM PST by yarddog (Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Ping!


13 posted on 11/08/2013 6:41:03 PM PST by basil (2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Right.

And the following phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” also seems to me to promote state’s rights over the federal government.

I haven’t really thought this one through yet, or researched it...


14 posted on 11/08/2013 6:42:31 PM PST by FatherFig1o155 ("Most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

“Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

Schenck vs. United States. It had nothing to do with a fire in a theater. This was a free speech case. Some guys opposed to WWI were arrested for distributing printed handbills opposing the draft. The court ruled that draft protesting was a “clear and present danger” akin to shouting fore in a crowded theater.

Wonder if Metcalf would support mandatory training classes for anyone who wants to write columns. To make sure they responsibly use their first amendment rights of course.


15 posted on 11/08/2013 6:51:17 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
I guess Dick is unaware of the fact that we already have 30,000 gun control laws in this country?

How many more does he want?

16 posted on 11/08/2013 6:52:41 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Thanks. I tend to write more than telephone but in this case, a call will suffice.


17 posted on 11/08/2013 6:53:18 PM PST by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about its implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
“Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

It's already illegal to shoot somebody for no reason. Don't need a special law for it.

18 posted on 11/08/2013 6:53:55 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The point is that he used a Wilson era free speech case, as justification for regulating guns. Would he accept the same “reasonable” restrictions on being a journalist? A training requirement? Some type of licensing? A cooling off period from the time he writes a story until it is published?

We all know the answer.


19 posted on 11/08/2013 6:59:03 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

1780 well-regulated meant properly tuned up, ready, on time, functioning as designed like a good clock.

The idea of “government regulations” was not current then.


20 posted on 11/08/2013 7:03:22 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
That's not entirely true.
21 posted on 11/08/2013 7:06:01 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I remember a (former) NRA boardmember who thought that firearm capacity limited to three rounds would be OK.


22 posted on 11/08/2013 7:19:19 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“...akin to shouting fore in a crowded theater.”

I don’t know which would be worse - a fire, or some nut swinging a golf club.


23 posted on 11/08/2013 7:19:46 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
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.


24 posted on 11/08/2013 7:45:09 PM PST by LyinLibs (If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

No one is advocating removal of vocal cords yet!! The crap about yelling fire isn’t a valid analogy!


25 posted on 11/08/2013 7:50:15 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Metcalf tried to conflate the phrase "well regulated" in the Second Amendment with the concept of federal or state regulation as understood in the modern day. Anybody who knows the history of the Bill of Rights knows such a conflation is utterly farcical.

Such a stunt is patently disingenuous, and fallacious in addition to that.

Metcalf's reasoning throughout the article is rather flimsy, to say the least, and it's not surprising that G & A readers were outraged at the clumsy propaganda which was exhibited.

26 posted on 11/08/2013 7:54:41 PM PST by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
How do you know? I rather read as since a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state that is why the state must accede to Divine Will. For if these rights did not originate of God, of what value are they ultimately?
27 posted on 11/08/2013 8:09:34 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I have no idea what you are saying or what it might have to do with what I pointed out.


28 posted on 11/08/2013 8:24:19 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cyn

No no no, we have to read it backwards... the right to have a militia shall not be infringed, it is. Let the dogs of government


29 posted on 11/08/2013 10:01:21 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LyinLibs

Tsarnaev Trayvon.


30 posted on 11/08/2013 10:02:43 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

These guys talk like there aren’t thousands of gun laws on the books already!


31 posted on 11/08/2013 10:39:37 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Exactly! It had to do with discipline, not regulating firearms!


32 posted on 11/08/2013 10:40:47 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

The “you’d have to be standing there” situation falls into this mess.

In the 1760-era...with the British troops part of the American scene, there wasn’t a clear rule on personal firearms in the home. So a commander could arrive with a hundred of his troops....see way too many locals with hunting guns....deem it a problem....and open a armory where you’d have to check the gun out for the day, then return it. That was the only way that the British commander felt the situation was safe for himself, the troops, and the locals.

For a military commander, this way of thinking has various reasons to enforce gun control. You didn’t have idiots running off to start some Indian conflict over a rumor which was false. And with the amount of alcohol that flowed in those days...most guys were generally a bit drunk on occasion.

The militia angle made perfect sense after the Revolutionary War and locals felt they were now in control of their guns, and could continue to run the armory business if they desired, or discontinue it if they desired.


33 posted on 11/08/2013 10:45:09 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

One thing is sure, guns are a ‘hot button issue’!


34 posted on 11/08/2013 10:45:29 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

!


35 posted on 11/08/2013 10:47:31 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,$pend it all today;who can take your income & tax it all away..0'Blowfly can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I would like gun control laws like the ones I understand were once in effect in Switzerland, requiring members of the militia to keep their fully automatic weapon at home, with a sufficient supply of ammunition ready to hand.

Oh, and add females between the age of 17 and 45 to the militia.


36 posted on 11/08/2013 11:29:12 PM PST by donmeaker (The lessons of Weimar will soon be repeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
I agree. That IS ... THEIR ... ultimated goal.
GOOD QUESTION!
Let's examine the word "INFRINGEMENT" .
My 1988 copy of THE BARNHART DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY has a bedtter description than the "ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY".





I submit that
37 posted on 11/09/2013 12:21:30 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
I wished someone would give an extended excerpt on "INFRINGED" from Original Intent: The Courts the Constitution & Religion by David Barton.
It's decription is:
38 posted on 11/09/2013 1:02:29 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Soon there will be that many laws on the 1st Amendment.


39 posted on 11/09/2013 3:29:08 AM PST by Yorlik803 ( Church/Caboose in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
The point is that he used a Wilson era free speech case, as justification for regulating guns. Would he accept the same “reasonable” restrictions on being a journalist? A training requirement? Some type of licensing? A cooling off period from the time he writes a story until it is published? We all know the answer.

I believe he'd accept it. He appears to have a religious faith in government.

40 posted on 11/09/2013 6:52:13 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Maybe I was a bit tight. But there are two different impressions of the 2nd Amendment, depending on how one reads the placement of commas.


41 posted on 11/09/2013 8:13:37 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

What the second amendment really means
This has been a thorn in my side for a long time: What does the second amendment really mean. So many times I have heard it misinterpreted. It was bad enough to hear people deliberately spread misinformation, but to see a writer that I respected show how poorly he understood the meaning has forced me to speak out.
First of all let’s start with the understanding that the framers of the constitution were far better educated in the English language and were more eloquent speakers than any person I know today. If you have ever read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or any of the letters of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams you would know that these men had a grasp of the English language that is severely lacking in today’s society. The second amendment is one sentence clearly stated. It says exactly what they meant to say. One problem with reading this today is not knowing they were speaking from.
I am not claiming here to be the final word on understanding the constitution, but I do have a slight advantage or some. I went to a Catholic School in the 60’s and there was one thing we learned that public schools were not teaching at the time and that was how to diagram a sentence. That is how to take apart a sentence and understand what it means. So allow me to diagram this sentence and share some knowledge I have gained from reading many books about Early America.
But first bear in mind that the Bill of Rights was meant as a guarantee of the limitation of power of the federal government only. It was not meant to create restrictions on citizens.
Let’s start with our sentence as ratified by Jefferson as Secretary of State:1
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Diagraming a sentence involves breaking it down into its component parts. A coherent compound sentence should have (at least) a statement and a qualifier. We have that here. Let’s find the statement, a portion of the sentence that can stand on its own as a sentence. I will take you right to it.
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is a complete sentence. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. It is easy to understand. Yes there are qualifying phrases, but we will get to them shortly.
Why did this need to be said? Because most subjects of the British Empire were not allowed to have guns. People in the colonies could own guns for hunting, but most of the guns in the colonies were in armories, locked away from the people and only passed out when necessary to members of the local militia to defend your community from attack. The phrase “to keep” simply meant exactly that we should to be able to keep our arms, and not have them stored in the public armories. The phrase “to bear” assured that you can carry on your person arms. (Once again this was a limitation on federal powers and nothing else. The discussion of State vs. federal powers is food for another discussion, but this statement quite clearly means that the federal government cannot restrict our right to keep and bear arms. Court rulings may “interpret” differently. But they are defying the original meaning of the set forth by the Founders.
Let’s go on to the rest of the sentence. The qualifier. A qualifier limits, expands upon or defines the parameters of the statement. Here is the qualifier.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
So what did they mean by this? Well they are not saying well regulated people or regulated possession of guns. They are saying well regulated militia. What is that and why did they feel the need to say it? There was no standing army at this time. Washington had an army of volunteers that disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. The founders believed that a standing army would be a tool of tyrants. Even the British Empire understood this when they established their bill of rights 2 taking control of the standing army away from the king. Since there was to be no standing army in America (yet), Militias were considered the best alternative, but when trouble would come they did not want a disorganized mob of men with guns to defend their communities. The proven method of defending your home, your community, you state was an organized, well trained militia that followed rules and “regulations”. Militia members were expected to attend regular drill sessions and to provide their own arms and ammunition. They were required to have at any time a certain weight of powder and bullets. Hence, the qualifying phrase: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” becomes clear. The reason we need to be able to keep and bear arms is to secure our free State, but to do that requires an organized trained force. This qualifier is not then a limitation on the right of the people but the reason that this right must be maintained.
Things have changed. We do now have a stand army whose leadership we entrust to the President. We entrust the judiciary to make impartial decisions based on the constitution and find time and again that those decisions are not impartial or based on the constitution. We live in the most powerful country in the world, safe from invasion and harm and it is easy to imagine that we have no use for guns in our peaceful gated communities and quiet homes, but we have to remember that it is the freedom that every citizen can own a gun that keeps us the most powerful country in the world. The General Yamamoto during World War II said that he would never invade America because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. That may one day no longer be the case if we allow this to continue. An endless struggle ensues to slowly whittle away at the rights we were guaranteed. It is important that each one of us understands why we must protect the 2nd amendment not just for today but for the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689


42 posted on 11/09/2013 8:27:14 AM PST by jazv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia

-------------------------------------------------------

Some info (worth the read):

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

43 posted on 11/09/2013 9:22:56 AM PST by Peet (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

No one is advocating removal of vocal cords yet!! The crap about yelling fire isn’t a valid analogy!


That argument is a bunch of crap anyway. One CAN yell fire in a crowded theater — one just canNOT claim immunity under the first amendment for the consequences that will befall them.

Agree with you — I *hate* that lame argument.


44 posted on 11/09/2013 9:30:42 AM PST by Peet (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Peet

There are a lot of people running around with defective wiring, they just can’t grasp that much of what they think and say is pure BS.


45 posted on 11/09/2013 10:08:09 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I only know of one.


46 posted on 11/09/2013 10:35:47 AM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Peet

Thanks for posting that. I’ve read it before and it’s excellent.


47 posted on 11/09/2013 10:36:58 AM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson