Dick Metcalf and Guns ans Ammo.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 13, 2013

I want some opinions on this. I was shocked when I heard Guns & Ammo fired Dick Metcalf for his "anti-gun" article so I sought out the article and read it. After reading it my shock turned to outrage that they fired him. The article was in no way anti gun and merely said that you can regulate the 2nd Amendmemt without infringing on it just like the other 26. I have been attacked repeatedly and even called a liberal swine on other sites for defending Mr. Metcalf. After the venomous reaction I recieved I figured I might be missing something. Since everyone on here seems to be fairly level headed and able to disagree politely I figured I'd ask my fellow Boomer Shooters. So am I missing something or is this as ridiculous as it appears to me?

LuckyDucky · Nov 14, 2013

He makes several hasty generalizations in his short article that reflect his abysmal lack of knowledge on the subject.

He's a fudd.

ETA: Also, it did not merely say regulations are not always infringement. It specifically said that a 16 hour training course is just peachy as a requirement to exercise your right to bear arms. That's quite burdensome... The elitist hack/range nazi thinks he's better than everyone else.

Wall · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
The article was in no way anti gun and merely said that you can regulate the 2nd Amendmemt without infringing on it

short answer.......
Regulation=infringement

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

Are the laws that keep felons from owning firearms infringement? Better yet what about the Self Defense Act here in Oklahoma it allows but regulates carry in Oklahoma does that regulation count as infringement? This is what has me confused. I doubt any of us have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of felons even though that is regulating and therefore by Tony's definition infringing the 2nd Amendment.

LuckyDucky · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
Are the laws that keep felons from owning firearms infringement? Better yet what about the Self Defense Act here in Oklahoma it allows but regulates carry in Oklahoma does that regulation count as infringement? This is what has me confused. I doubt any of us have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of felons even though that is regulating and therefore by Tony's definition infringing the 2nd Amendment.

Yes and yes.

If a felon made it through parole/supervised release, there's no reason why he shouldn't have full rights restored again.

As for restrictions on carry, that should not be permitted either because the presence of a firearm itself does not harm anyone. There is no rational reason to eliminate the most effective means of self-defense just so we can feel better about ourselves.

Wall · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
Are the laws that keep felons from owning firearms infringement? Better yet what about the Self Defense Act here in Oklahoma it allows but regulates carry in Oklahoma does that regulation count as infringement? This is what has me confused. I doubt any of us have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of felons even though that is regulating and therefore by Tony's definition infringing the 2nd Amendment.

felons don't have those rights any longer & you can't lump law abiding citizens in with them.

The SDA law IS an infringement upon our rights by forcing us to "register" to exercise our constitutional right.
IF we are not felons we are supposed to have the right by default, not after applying for permission.

Do I believe every law abiding American citizen SHOULD have a gun.......NO (there are alot of dumbasses out there).
Do I believe they have the right..........ABSOLUTELY

dennishoddy · Nov 14, 2013

Constitutional carry is the answer.

Every attempt by the government to regulate the ownership of firearms, AKA CC license, etc is an infringement on the 2nd ammendmemt to the constitution.

I know several "felons" that made a stupid mistake like driving too fast, that would make great gun owners

Laws across the country keep putting minor offenses into felonys so the courts get more money, county's/City's get more revenue.

My mom spent 23 years as a city clerk over traffic. Every month, the COP would wander through and ask how tax returns were.

If the report wasn't good, he would schedule a series of "safety checks"

That's bullshit.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

I guess I am missing something then. I personally agree with what Mr. Metcalf wrote. I have no issues with requiring training before someone is allowed to carry but I am also unfortunate enough to have come with a few inches of being shot do to an negligent discharge on a range so my opinion on that particular issue is different that most people for that reason. That being said I don't necessarily disagree with any opinion stated here. Also my outrage has nothing to do with the response to the article but the reaction to the response. To me Mr. Metcalf's termination is no different than the left's attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

LuckyDucky · Nov 14, 2013

Attacking Mr. Metcalf's opinion is no different than the left's attacks on the 2nd?

What kind of twisted logic is that?

technetium-99m · Nov 14, 2013

Illinois has a habit of putting ridiculous hurdles in the way of anyone who wants to exercise a constitutional right. He in a round about way states that he is okay with that. He also writes for a magazine that needs to stay afloat and when subscribers/advertisers jump ship his actions are contrary to the interests of his employers.

And lets be honest, there is no reason under the sun for a 2 day concealed carry class.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

I said his being fired was. I never said it was wrong to attack his opinion. The ability to disagree is a foundation of this country.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

Like I said I have no issue with the training requirements but damn near being shot because some idiot had there finger on a trigger when bit shouldn't have been skews my opinion.

LuckyDucky · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
I said his being fired was. I never said it was wrong to attack his opinion. The ability to disagree is a foundation of this country.

Ok, so how is his being fired for his opinion the same as the left's attacks on the 2A?

dennishoddy · Nov 14, 2013

No where in the 2nd amendment do I see training.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

Him being fired IMO was unjustified and a massive overreaction the same as New York's SAFE Act was unjustified and a massive overreaction to Sandy Hook. I furthermore believe it can be seen as a 1st Amendment issue.

Josh Beauchamp · Nov 14, 2013

I do see the words "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

Wall · Nov 14, 2013

Josh,
I'm not sure your comparison of an idiot on a range who is there for the specific purpose of shooting his gun & has it out fondling it is anywhere near the same as a citizenry with holstered weapons going about their day.

See my earlier post, about "should" have a gun vs right to have a gun.

LuckyDucky · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
Him being fired IMO was unjustified and a massive overreaction the same as New York's SAFE Act was unjustified and a massive overreaction to Sandy Hook. I furthermore believe it can be seen as a 1st Amendment issue.

Besides the fact that the 1A doesn't apply to Guns & Ammo, the spirit of the 1A freedom of speech doesn't go against there being consequences for speaking your mind.

The 1A freedom of speech is about free expression, marketplace of ideas, etc. But that doesn't mean you are free to speak your mind without consequence from others. The Westboro Baptist Church can be idiots all they want, and I can choose not to associate myself with them (oh hey, look, 1A freedom of association). Guns & Ammo did not silence Dick Metcalf. They parted ways because, as technetium-99m said, their interests and the interests of their readership, as revealed by the "unjustified and massive overreaction", are not the same as Mr. Metcalf's.

Also, "well regulated" doesn't mean "16 hour training requirement"

Have you read DC v Heller?

dennishoddy · Nov 14, 2013

I do see the words "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

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.

technetium-99m · Nov 14, 2013

Josh Beauchamp said:
Like I said I have no issue with the training requirements but damn near being shot because some idiot had there finger on a trigger when bit shouldn't have been skews my opinion.

A 2 day class wont help this. Proficiency comes with a lot of gunhandling and a willingness to improve.

What a boatload of training requirements/licenses/record keeping does achieve is keeping people without the time or resources from legally owning firearms. Its the method places like Chicago, D.C., and NYC adopted to basically ban firearms.