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 magazines homepage, Jim Bequette apologized to each and every reader of the magazine for Dick Metcalfs column that appeared in its December issue, which generated unprecedented controversy and left readers hopping mad in regards to the magazines commitment to the Second Amendment.
**********
In his column entitled Lets 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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Travis McGee
21
posted on
11/08/2013 7:06:01 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
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
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!)
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.)
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)
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!)
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
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.)
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
To: LyinLibs
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 :-)
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.)
To: servo1969
"When the ultimate goal ISto make the private ownership of any firearm or ammunition A FELONY.
And make no mistake, that IS the ultimate goal."
I agree. That IS ...
THEIR ... ultimated goal.
The question IS,when does REGULATION become INFRINGEMENT ?
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".
infringe v. About 1467 enfrangen violate a law, formed in English from en-, variant of in- + Latin frangere.
The later form infringe (1553) was influenced by, or perhaps borrowed from Latin infringere to damage, break (in- in + frangere to BREAK (see fraction).
The meaning of encroach upon, is first recorded in English in 1760-72.
--infringement n. 1593, contradiction or refutation;
later, violation (1628), and encroachment or intrusion (1673), formed from English infringe + -ment.
-ment suffix forming nouns, originally from French and representing Latin -mentum,which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action.French inserts an -e- between the verbal root and the suffix(e.g. commenc-e-ment from commenc-er);
with verbs in ir, -i- is inserted instead(e.g. sent-i-ment from sentir).
Used with English verb stems from 16c.(e.g. merriment, which also illustrates the habit of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).
I submit that
ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
IS AN ENCROACHMENT UPON OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
ANY LAW, OTHER THAN THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
IS INTENDED TO DAMAGE, BY CHIPPING AWAY AND EVENTUALLY BREAKING, OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
37
posted on
11/09/2013 12:21:30 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
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:
An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation's religious heritage and the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system.
Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author's exposition on hot topicssuch as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state.
A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes.
38
posted on
11/09/2013 1:02:29 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
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)
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?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 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