Posted on 11/03/2013 5:56:29 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama
Click here to download a pdf of Guns & Ammo‘s column Let’s Talk Limits. Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .
Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:
Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”
You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!
Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.
Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.
I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.
I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .
I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.
Equally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Wikipedia defines the term thusly:
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.
I have a major issue with the word “unwarranted” (wikipedia won’t let me delete it). But the point is made: Americans have a civil right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by . . . wait for it . . . the Constitution. Specifically, the Second Amendment. This despite the fact that . . .
Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
So civil means natural, and natural means inviolable. Except by people who support their violation. People like Dick Metcalf, who ends his pro-gun control polemic by asserting that Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”
“But that’s just me . . .” Metcalf closes. Yes it is. And I believe that anyone who supports a gun magazine that prints this kind of anti-gun agitprop is supporting the diminution and destruction of our gun rights. Or is that just me? [h/t b0b]
“...like a Ruger old-style Vaquero. The factory grips fit my hand like they were custom made for me.”
I had a Dan Wesson years ago that I thought was the cat’s meow. I still kick myself for getting rid of it.
It’s in the Dec issue on the newsstands now. You should have received it already or will in the next couple days.
Well, Mr. Megan won’t be happy when he sees this! Add G&A to the list of magazines we no longer subscribe to.
Re-read what I said carefully, and re-read all of it. If Guns and Ammo thinks the sands are shifting and believe that they'll attract more "moderate" gun owners (quotes added for emphasis) with their position backing what they believe are "reasonable gun controls" they won't care about the hardcore owners such as you and I who drop their magazine subscription.
Do I think they'll attract more readers? Likely not. But then, in adopting the position they are they likely don't give a damn' what you or I think.
Just read post 82 again, it already answered your post.
Gunbroker.com has over 100 ksg shotguns and over 100 pmr pistols listed for immediate sale. Vaporware it is not. Doesn’t change the fact the guns and ammo is a worthless magazine. I will grant you that.
Not at or below MSRP.
Not enough just to stop your subscription. Contact their advertisers and let them know why you will no longer be subscribing as well.
Wont take long for this ass hat to be shown the door.
Good Bye guns and ammo subscription...
Done!
The right to vote isn’t regulated. The dems think you shouldn’t be able to require ID for voting.
Actually, they do care, and evidently cancellations DO make a statement, because they didn't wait for you not to renew, the people who took action, got results.
"The end result is Mr. Metcalf is no longer with Guns&Ammo In addition The editor who published it, Mr. Jim Bequette is stepping down and his position will be taken over by Eric Poole."
http://d2444os31gbwts.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-06-at-6.07.55-PM.png
Still not going to renew though. Money's better spent elsewhere.
My guess is that they saw their past life flash before themselves, and are afraid that this could be fatal, or at the least, dangerously destructive.
I think clearly your guess is better than mine! You had it right from the beginning.
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.