Shakeup at Guns & Ammo Magazine

[John Canuck]

The top editor [Dick Metcalf] of Guns & Ammo became the second employee of the venerable firearms magazine to lose his job after a column advocating gun control backfired, prompting rifle-toting readers to unload on the publication.

In his column entitled ?Let?s Talk Limits: Do certain firearm regulations really constitute infringement?,? Metcalf wrote that ?way too many? gun owners believe that any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Second Amendment.

?The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be,? Metcalf wrote. ?Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ?Fire!? in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated.?

How does a numbskull like this get a job at a gun magazine? Nothing stops a person from screaming, at the top of their lungs, "fire" in a theater. If a riot ensues and people are trampled, the person will be charged according to whatever law prevents one from causing a riot. If a church, or anyone else for that matter, practices a human sacrifice, they will be charged under the appropriate murder statute. It's asinine to equate these situations, but, that's the game they play.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/09/sh ... backfires/

 

[Tigerstripe]

"all constitutional rights are regulated"?

i dont think so. that may be the goal.

i doubt there was even an age limit on owning a weapon when the 2nd amendment was written.

 

[sc1911cwp]

Well, apparently speech is regulated. :lol:

 

[John Canuck]

Well, apparently speech is regulated. :lol:

Other than the obvious laws regarding slander and liable which hold one responsible for their speech, how so?

 

[John Canuck]

Apparently Dick is getting his knickers in a twist over being forced to resign.

A response from Metcalf was posted on the website The Outdoor Wire:

"If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and Internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause.

"Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?"

Yes, I think most of us do. When the government shows up to regulate your speech, I'll stand beside you in opposition. I support the right of your former employer to disagree with your speech and request you GTFO.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... 6694.story

 

[armaborealis]

Well, apparently speech is regulated. :lol:

Yes, because Dick Metcalfe's Journalist Permit was revoked by the may-issue state licensing board which certifies Authorized Free Speech Writers. :roll:

The Bill of Rights exists to limit the government's powers, not the people's (or a magazine's). There is zero problem with a private company elephant dung-canning a writer for expressing a viewpoint that costs them readers or advertisers.

I would love for the 2A to be regulated in the way the 1A is. Constitutional Law usually protects speech, especially political speech, with strict scrutiny. Prior restraint is typically forbidden. 1A style "restrictions" would be great with regard to our 2A freedoms.

 

[mcdaniel]

Well, apparently speech is regulated. :lol:

Yes, because Dick Metcalfe's Journalist Permit was revoked by the may-issue state licensing board which certifies Authorized Free Speech Writers. :roll:

The Bill of Rights exists to limit the government's powers, not the people's (or a magazine's). There is zero problem with a private company elephant dung-canning a writer for expressing a viewpoint that costs them readers or advertisers.

I would love for the 2A to be regulated in the way the 1A is. Constitutional Law usually protects speech, especially political speech, with strict scrutiny. Prior restraint is typically forbidden. 1A style "restrictions" would be great with regard to our 2A freedoms.

yeah, this.

 

[jfeenin]

You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after a similar gaffe by Outdoor Life author Jim Zumbo several years ago.

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

Most gun owners, like most employees of gun-oriented magazines and companies, are not Civil Rights advocates.

Most gun owners, in fact, find that they personally support a great many anti-gun laws.

Civil Rights absolutists, like me, are so rare as to be classified as insane by even fringe elements of political zealotry.

All weapons should be unregulated and unrestricted at all times to all free men. If you can afford to purchase and maintain a TOPOL-M ICBM with half a dozen nuclear MIRV warheads then go for it.

 

[bigfutz]

To paraphrase Tom Gresham of Guntalk Radio...

You can yell "fire" in a theater. Legally if there's actually a fire, with possible consequences otherwise. Equating this to gun laws would be like putting duct tape on your mouth so you can't yell fire.