Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Times Laments Gun Companies Ending Freebies for Pro-Gun Control Authors
Breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ^ | 1-5-2014 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on 01/06/2014 12:23:38 AM PST by 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.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; US: New York
KEYWORDS: banglist; billdeblasio; guncontrol; memebuilding; metcalf; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills
Gee, that's a shame.
1 posted on 01/06/2014 12:23:38 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969
From the Way-back machine...



2 posted on 01/06/2014 12:27:21 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?
3 posted on 01/06/2014 12:34:46 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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


4 posted on 01/06/2014 12:50:37 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Have fun with your new friends!


5 posted on 01/06/2014 12:53:14 AM PST by Darteaus94025 (Can't have a Liberal without a Lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.
6 posted on 01/06/2014 12:55:12 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
...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.

7 posted on 01/06/2014 12:56:58 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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.


8 posted on 01/06/2014 1:12:06 AM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormhill
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."

9 posted on 01/06/2014 2:39:20 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

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


10 posted on 01/06/2014 2:50:29 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

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


11 posted on 01/06/2014 2:52:21 AM PST by wastedyears (The Ender's Game movie was a stupendous, colossal, galactic failure to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I look forward to his obituary also.


12 posted on 01/06/2014 4:27:35 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

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


13 posted on 01/06/2014 4:30:10 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

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.


14 posted on 01/06/2014 4:41:22 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

George Soros will fly him around. Watch.


15 posted on 01/06/2014 5:37:46 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

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

Let the sum-bitch rot.


16 posted on 01/06/2014 5:49:23 AM PST by FAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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.


17 posted on 01/06/2014 5:51:52 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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”.


18 posted on 01/06/2014 5:57:56 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Vote Democrat. Once you're OK with killing babies the rest is easy. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

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.


19 posted on 01/06/2014 5:59:38 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

“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.


20 posted on 01/06/2014 6:10:12 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Vote Democrat. Once you're OK with killing babies the rest is easy. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The fundamental error in using the "shout 'fire' in a theater" argument in regards to 2nd Amendment infringements is this... Sure, I should not shout "fire" in a theater and potentially cause harm to others... However, if the theater really is on fire I can still shout fire and warn them.

However, once the government has infringed upon my ability to own firearms I'm done. If I need a firearm I will not have time to obtain permission from the government to get one.

In other words, in order to have the right I must, well, have the right. I do not have the right if I must go obtain it from some other entity. I must be responsible for if, when, where, and how I exercise it. If some other entity is determining that, then I no-longer have it.

21 posted on 01/06/2014 6:14:26 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Metcalf and his buddies were always babbling that “modern sporting rifles” line.


22 posted on 01/06/2014 6:18:46 AM PST by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: junta
...“modern sporting rifles”...

I hate that term!

A rifle is a rifle, no matter what it looks like.

I know a couple of people who use AR type rifles for hunting but most folks I know use a more traditional style weapon. This does not mean I think they should be used for that purpose, is is the fact that we have allowed the left to make a distinction just by the looks of the gun.

I can purchase 10-round mags for my Remington 742 30-06 and make someone's day a lot more miserable than with a 5.56 NATO round. If that is the case then what is the difference between that more traditional looking rifle then one of my ARs?

23 posted on 01/06/2014 6:56:00 AM PST by OldMissileer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Personally, I wish that gun companies would be more outgoing with their customers, mostly because they have a truly friendly customer base. This is not to say that they are in any way discourteous or unfriendly, but in effect, that they have “fans”, just like celebrities, who really appreciate it when they take the time to say “Hi!” and wave.

An excellent example is the annual SHOT show in Las Vegas, not open to the public. Granted, with just industry people there, they have crowds in excess of 50,000, but with the public allowed, just to look if not buy, since there are no sales at the show, the crowds would be ginormous, and hot new guns could get thousands of pre-orders, to give manufacturers a heads-up for production.

They would likely need to subdivide it into regional shows, but even then the crowds would likely be very large.


24 posted on 01/06/2014 9:49:09 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks servo1969.

Thank a Liberal for America’s Gun Ownership
Townhall.com | 1-6-2013 | Michael Schaus
Posted on 1/6/2014 12:43:06 AM by servo1969
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3108776/posts


25 posted on 01/06/2014 10:46:42 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

ping


26 posted on 01/06/2014 10:58:53 AM PST by GOPJ ("Remember who the real enemy is... ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

On November 7th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf had been fired by G&A.

I have a dream. That one day we live in a world where the outcry is just as loud nationwide, against those who attack any of our inalienable rights, just as with the G&A readers that one day in November. I have a dream.

27 posted on 01/08/2014 7:06:48 AM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormhill
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.

To anyone who suggests any relation at all between gun control and shouting "Fire" in a theater, I'd propose that the way to make them really equivalent is to require that duct-tape be put on the mouth of anyone who enters a theater. (If that doesn't bother them, perhaps cutting everyone's vocal cords would cross the line for them.)

28 posted on 01/08/2014 7:31:11 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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