Dick Metcalf and Guns ans Ammo.

[Josh Beauchamp]

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.

That I guess is something I have been missing that. Thank you.
To your earlier question I would expect consequences as long as the punishment fit the crime. Also working Security in an Indian Casino a large portion of my job description could be seen a detrimental to the company's bottom line from a certain point of view (just ask all the people I have had involuntary banned and the couple I have had arrested).

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

I really need to learn to not start debates that last so dang late. I thank you all for your opinions and comments but 0630 comes early and I need sleep.

 

[LuckyDucky]

I really need to learn to not start debates that last so dang late. I thank you all for your opinions and comments but 0630 comes early and I need sleep.

I need to get up at 630 too :crazy:

 

[45recoil]

Add in that he had been with that magazine for a while; agreeing with their stand against gun control for all these years. Then writes a column about 'better' gun regulations? The hipocracy caused a large percentage of the 'outrage' I believe. If a new writer came in and wrote such things wed expect the same results with less attention brought to the writer. At least not like ut has been for metcalf.
As tony said, he was toting the company line, then wrote something that went against the flow of the magazine. Shitcanned would be the exact result id expect. It happens everyday, this guy just happened to work for a well known 2nd ammendment supporting magazine. Now many believe that the anti gunners can use this incident to their advantage, which is what we do not want. It does ultimately come down to business, jack with the readers aka the money and you willcease to work here.

Oh...and gun 'regulations' dont solve elephant dung. I have had a loaded gun sitting on my table all night...and ill be damned if it didnt kill anyone.

 

[grayokc]

I really need to learn to not start debates that last so dang late. I thank you all for your opinions and comments but 0630 comes early and I need sleep.

'If you like your gun, you can keep your gun' - think about it.

 

[Matt1911]

Oh...and gun 'regulations' dont solve elephant dung. I have had a loaded gun sitting on my table all night...and ill be damned if it didnt kill anyone.

weird. My gun thats been loaded for months now hasnt killed anyone either. I guess we got lucky and found a couple guns that are nicer than most.

 

[threegungeezer]

I thnk that there is a basic misunderstanding going on here. The constitiution does not grant any rights it only preserves those given to us by our creator. I will compromise my right to self defense to G-D and G-D only. Anything else is Man's overeach and nothing more.

 

[Bob Sanders]

You know, the first ammendment gets crapped on too. But IMO, it preserves the right to free speech not being infringed by our government, (tell that to a journalist that won't reveal sources), but it does not guarantee the right to be heard. A man cannot expect to talk crap, and face no reprecussion. I remember the Dixie Chicks crying first ammendment when they were censored by radio stations, but really no one wanted to hear their crap anymore.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Training is great. State mandated training is never what it's cracked up to be. We see that evident in many firearms arenas.

CLEET (or your State's version)... any time you have a required minimum- a precentage of people will aspire to stay at the minimum.
CWW ... I've had 4, the shooting test was minimal at best- a safety audit, maybe and the classroom parts could leave a person with more questions than answers to the law.

I recently did some research into the California Armed Guard Class... and as much as you would figure California's regulatated that kind of thing to "foolproof" status... well, Stevie Wonder could pass the range part.

A Libertarian (or schooled Consitutional Scholar) will tell you that it's an individual responsibilty to train to a responsible level... be it for a skilled trade or firearm. When a commitee writes a State mandated course and sets test standards you can rest assured that the people on that commitee have little practical knowlege of the tasks the wish to regulate.

If you intend to carry (or wire a house) make sure your skills are up to what your insurance company can bear. End of Story.

(I understood Metcalf ... but he's still a tool)

 

[technetium-99m]

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 would you like to compromise on? Any compromise or deal is going to end up with you losing something. So what would you like to give up? Seriously ask yourself that before you get the discussion you want.

I know I'm young but I don't know of any of these "discussions" we have had in the past that resulted in any huge positive gains for gun owners. FOPA I believe gives a traveler a bit of a shield from restrictive state laws as long as they are just passing through, but what else have gun owners "gotten" on a federal level? I guess we can carry in parks now, but it seems a poor trade for every standard capacity mag I have and asking for tax stamps for everything I own.

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

Truthfully me personally I would give up the fight on Constitutional Carry to get at least suppressors if not suppressors and SBRs de-listed as NFA items. But again that is a personal opinion.

 

[technetium-99m]

Suppressors off the NFA regs would be a good goal, I agree.

 

[dennishoddy]

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Somebody show me where the word compromise exists in that statement.

 

[Scott Hearn]

I thnk that there is a basic misunderstanding going on here. The constitiution does not grant any rights it only preserves those given to us by our creator. I will compromise my right to self defense to G-D and G-D only. Anything else is Man's overeach and nothing more.

And we have a winner!

Just to reiterate, the framers believed that they had no moral authority to take God given basic rights from anybody.

Also, the militia reference in the 2A pretty much tells me exactly what the 2A is all about. In that time there wasn't really any "depth" to firearms technology. The framers knew full well and good that a citizen with a rifle was equipped with just as much capability as a soldier. And that's exactly what they wanted! Any restriction on firearm type, ammunition type, ammunition capacity, training, skin color, sunspot activity, etc. is unconstitutional. Period. I don't care what court precedence has said over and over since adoption, they just got it wrong. They've done it many times.

Yep. They call me crazy...

 

[Josh Beauchamp]

Dennis if I could get suppressors of the NFA I would compromise on Constitutional Carry in a heart beat. Granted I also believe just because you can carry doesn't mean you should.