Dick Metcalf and Guns ans Ammo.

[Wall]

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.

The people didn't fire him, his boss did.....on the grounds that his views contradicted the subscribers' (revenue) views.
After all it is a business.

Nobody ever said he couldn't voice his opinion, they just said they weren't going to pay for it.
His employers apparently had a greater appreciation for revenue than they did for his opinion.

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

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.

Okay. But let me ask this. It appears that the universal response on here probably falls somewhere between flat wrong and batshit crazy. Now with that being said if one of the Admins comes in and sees my opinion as bad for business and decides to ban me from Boomer Shooter would that be justified and would you support that?

 

[technetium-99m]

I would expect to be banned for being a huge PITA yes. If I cause more trouble than I contribute the Admin guys could certainly decide to give me the ax.

Also, I think Tony, Dennis, and I have been pretty open to discussing our opinions about this, I don't see a lot of batshit crazy in this thread.

 

[LuckyDucky]

Okay. But let me ask this. It appears that the universal response on here probably falls somewhere between flat wrong and batshit crazy. Now with that being said if one of the Admins comes in and sees my opinion as bad for business and decides to ban me from Boomer Shooter would that be justified and would you support that?

It would certainly be legal. However, I wouldn't support it precisely because forums are THE place for discussion. They are the modern day marketplace of ideas. I don't visit a forum solely to read 100% like-minded posts. I certainly fit in with and enjoy talking to like-minded people more so than non-like-minded people, but I can benefit from dissent too. I can certainly choose to stop visiting this web site if you are banned.

If someone came to these forums and discussed knitting all day, I would probably be glad if that person were banned. These forums are not in existence for the purpose of discussing knitting.

I would expect to be banned for being a huge PITA yes. If I cause more trouble than I contribute the Admin guys could certainly decide to give me the ax.

Also, I think Tony, Dennis, _____, and I have been pretty open to discussing our opinions about this, I don't see a lot any of batshit crazy in this thread.

Way to imply that I'm batshit crazy. :jester:

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

And yes I have read Heller and I celebrated the decision as a victory as I am sure you all did.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54â€"56.

That is a direct quote from the majority opinion of Heller. Even the Supreme Court has stated that certain regulation does not constitute infringement.

 

[Wall]

Okay. But let me ask this. It appears that the universal response on here probably falls somewhere between flat wrong and batshit crazy. Now with that being said if one of the Admins comes in and sees my opinion as bad for business and decides to ban me from Boomer Shooter would that be justified and would you support that?

Not sure what you mean with the "wrong and batshit crazy" comment.

You don't have a constitutional right to post on boomershooter, it's a privately owned forum with rules.

So far, I've not seen any rules being broken in this thread.

 

[technetium-99m]

It would certainly be legal. However, I wouldn't support it precisely because forums are THE place for discussion. They are the modern day marketplace of ideas. I don't visit a forum solely to read 100% like-minded posts. I certainly fit in and enjoy talking to like-minded people, but I can benefit from dissent too. I can certainly choose to stop visiting this web site if you are banned.


Way to imply that I'm batshit crazy. :jester:

LOL, I'm just not on a first name basis with you, no offense intended.

 

[LuckyDucky]

And yes I have read Heller and I celebrated the decision as a victory as I am sure you all did.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54â€"56.

That is a direct quote from the majority opinion of Heller. Even the Supreme Court has stated that certain regulation does not constitute infringement.

And that passage was likely added to the opinion to win over Justice Kennedy so that the Conservatives could win the case.

It is dicta, and it is not even close to essential to the holding. (The common use part is important for the holding, but the common use test is horribly flawed anyways... )

After Heller, lower courts have held onto that rock so hard, they've made diamonds.

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

Wall if you felt any disrespect at that comment I truly apologize as that was not my intent. I simply tried to use some humor to highlight that I am clearly a dissenting opinion and appear to failed.

Yes I do not have a constitutional right to post here. But I don't see discussion on a public forum as greatly different than an opinion piece in a monthly column that has been used to the best of my knowledge to discuss controversial topics since its inception.

 

[LuckyDucky]

Wall if you felt any disrespect at that comment I truly apologize as that was not my intent. I simply tried to use some humor to highlight that I am clearly a dissenting opinion and appear to failed.

Yes I do not have a constitutional right to post here. But I don't see discussion on a public forum as greatly different than an opinion piece in a monthly column that has been used to the best of my knowledge to discuss controversial topics since its inception.

Discussion on an internet forum IS different than a column in a magazine.

Content of magazines are created by the editors and staff. Even if there is an editorial or opinion piece, the decision to publish is still up to the editors.

Here, I can publish whatever I want, unedited by the Admin (but Admin reserve the right to take it down).

The difference is that there is more control as to what content to publish in a magazine than on an internet forum.

Magazine = propaganda piece (reflects views of owner/editors)

Internet forum = more like marketplace of ideas (reflects views of participants)

 

[Wall]

Wall if you felt any disrespect at that comment I truly apologize as that was not my intent. I simply tried to use some humor to highlight that I am clearly a dissenting opinion and appear to failed.

Yes I do not have a constitutional right to post here. But I don't see discussion on a public forum as greatly different than an opinion piece in a monthly column that has been used to the best of my knowledge to discuss controversial topics since its inception.

not at all, I just meant that I'm not sure if you mean we're all batshit crazy or you are.

The difference between here & a magazine is that this is an open discussion.....back & forth & free.
A magazine is a business that has to answer to the subscribers (revenue).
If they want more revenue, they print what their target market wants to read.

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

I could be wrong but as I have witnessed this is an divisive issue within the firearms community when we are in a time when we need to present a unified and strong front to the anti gun community. Could Dick Metcalf have chosen better words? Yes. Could he have chosen a less controversial topic? Yes. Could he have chosen a better time to publish the article? Most definitely. But the discussion he meant to create is needed more than ever. This is a discussion that needs to be had. As much as I hate to say it the firearms community is going to have to compromise. But you know, the anti gunners have to compromise also. Nothing is going to get better when both sides dig in and start lobbing legislative artillery across political no man's land. And that is going to suck fot most of us who live in that no man's b land.

 

[LuckyDucky]

I could be wrong but as I have witnessed this is an divisive issue within the firearms community when we are in a time when we need to present a unified and strong front to the anti gun community. Could Dick Metcalf have chosen better words? Yes. Could he have chosen a less controversial topic? Yes. Could he have chosen a better time to publish the article? Most definitely. But the discussion he meant to create is needed more than ever. This is a discussion that needs to be had. As much as I hate to say it the firearms community is going to have to compromise. But you know, the anti gunners have to compromise also. Nothing is going to get better when both sides dig in and start lobbing legislative artillery across political no man's land. And that is going to suck fot most of us who live in that no man's b land.

The firearms community has been having this discussion for DECADES. Many of the current restrictions come from compromises which began in the early 1900s.

You're parroting the liberal claptrap of "let's have a discussion and then compromise to my side"

You know what the compromise is? Permitted carry. It's time to compromise again, now that we've seen no blood running in the streets, and go for Constitutional Carry. And once we see that the world isn't batshit crazy, we'll compromise again and get rid of sensitive places restrictions. And then we'll compromise again and get rid of the NFA. And so on.

All the restrictions currently in place were borne of compromise.

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

The difference between here & a magazine is that this is an open discussion.....back & forth & free.
A magazine is a business that has to answer to the subscribers (revenue).
If they want more revenue, they print what their target market wants to read.

I guess I just like to stick up for the under dog. I don't have to agree with what he said but I will fight to the death his right to say it without fear.

 

[LuckyDucky]

I guess I just like to stick up for the under dog. I don't have to agree with what he said but I will fight to the death his right to say it without fear.

Without fear from what? Losing a position at a gun rag whose ideology you don't support?

 

[Wall]

I guess I just like to stick up for the under dog. I don't have to agree with what he said but I will fight to the death his right to say it without fear.

If you do something at work that is contradictory to your company's bottom line, do you expect there to be no consequences?

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

The firearms community has been having this discussion for DECADES.

Your parroting the liberal claptrap of "let's have a discussion and then compromise to my side"

You know what the compromise is? Permitted carry. It's time to compromise again, now that we've seen no blood running in the streets, and go for Constitutional Carry. And once we see that the world isn't batshit crazy, we'll compromise again and get rid of sensitive places restrictions. And then we'll compromise again and get rid of the NFA. And so on.

All the restrictions currently in place were borne of compromise.

While I don't disagree with constitutional carry I just have a bad taste in my mouth for it over then multitude of cop ambush constitutional carry video all over the internet (there are other less controversial ways to get your point across without making an already hard job more so). And I certainly hope we can get concessions on parts of the NFA. It shouldn't be that hard to get suppressors and SBRs but I don't necessarily have the issue on full auto/burst guns and destructive devises.

 

[Wall]

I could be wrong but as I have witnessed this is an divisive issue within the firearms community when we are in a time when we need to present a unified and strong front to the anti gun community. Could Dick Metcalf have chosen better words? Yes. Could he have chosen a less controversial topic? Yes. Could he have chosen a better time to publish the article? Most definitely. But the discussion he meant to create is needed more than ever. This is a discussion that needs to be had. As much as I hate to say it the firearms community is going to have to compromise. But you know, the anti gunners have to compromise also. Nothing is going to get better when both sides dig in and start lobbing legislative artillery across political no man's land. And that is going to suck fot most of us who live in that no man's b land.

what you seem to be missing (your opening question) is that as much as you believe this discussion needs to take place, many believe it took place the only time it needed to, when 2a was added to the constitution.

 

[Wall]

While I don't disagree with constitutional carry I just have a bad taste in my mouth for it over then multitude of cop ambush constitutional carry video all over the internet (there are other less controversial ways to get your point across without making an already hard job more so).

that's not constitutional carry, that's a few d-bags wanting attention.

 

[LuckyDucky]

what you seem to be missing (your opening question) is that as much as you believe this discussion needs to take place, many believe it took place the only time it needed to, when 2a was added to the constitution.

And it's taken place a gazillion times since then.

Edited to add: Here's some quotes for you OP:

The Supreme Court recognized in the First Amendment context that “[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”[1] So too has the Court recognized in the Second Amendment context that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmentâ€"even the Third Branch of Governmentâ€"the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”[2]


[1] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).


[2] Heller, 554 U.S. at 634.