Since you seem to be confused on the issue of “freedom of speech” I’ll make it a little easier for you, Dick. “Freedom of speech” does not mean “Freedom from consequences.” Your freedom of speech exercised in the column that got you fired was fine, and you now you get the reap the consequences of exercising your freedom without thinking it through.
Meanwhile, thousands of Guns and Ammo’s customers exercised their freedom of speech calling for your head, and then Guns and Ammo exercised its rights as your employer and fired you because you upset the people whose advertising dollars and magazine subscriptions pay your salary.
Ain’t America grand?
Clearly Metcalf misjudged the mood of the Gun Nation !!
Well, since he doesn’t grasp the Second Amendment very well, why would he understand the First Amendment.
I also like how he tried to backpedal from his previous column, where his basic message seemed to be “regulations are awesome, and you people are too stupid to get that we need more of them” by going with a more mellow “I don’t completely like them, but they beat guns being banned” line of reasoning.
Mr. Metcalf is a famous person but being famous is a lousy shield as he has no doubt found out by now.The lesson here is old…’Don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining’.
What Dick meant was, requiring 16 hours of training benefits his range and training facility.
Is training the law???
Does that make it right?
Actually Metcalf’s comments were 100% correct. We’re talking about the law and the constitution and he was exactly right about that. People who are ignorant about this issue treat the 2nd A like it was some religious text. Most people have not even read the whole constitution. Even Scalia, a very, very strict conservative “constitutional originalist” judge says so: “Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia, told Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday back in July 2012. What the limitations are “will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation” when the Constitution was written according to his “dead document” theory of the constitution.
Does the constitution give Americans the right to keep and bare arms? Sure it does. Does it say what those arms are? No. Nuclear missiles and bombs are arms but no one in his right mind would think that we can have them. There are limitations on what it means to keep and bare arms, we just have to have a rational discussion about what those limitations are. Dick Metcalf was trying to point that out and got unfairly excoriated for it by people reacting by emotion and fear rather than intellect.
It’s both hilarious and depressing that you can use “excoriate” in your comment but couldn’t figure out the correct form of bear/bare to use. Here’s a hint it wasn’t bare.
2/10, please try again.
I thank you for your correction but I wouldnt really call it “depressing”. Do I get a 10/10 now?
No, because you’re still wrong.
I dont think so. Declaring it doesnt make it so.
“Does the constitution give Americans the right to keep and bare (sic) arms?” Actually no, it doesn’t. It affirms existing natural rights for the express purpose of preventing government infringement. A right either exists or it doesn’t, it can’t be given because anything given can be taken away. Our government does not give us any rights, on the contrary, our government was formed for the express purpose of defending our rights.
I understand what you are saying and I like the idea and thrust of your argument but your logic is rather muddled and confused. The constitution does give Americans the right to bear arms because American wrote it. We gave these rights to ourselves.
To clear it up further we would have to get into a discussion of your idea of natural rights and other political philosophies which is probably wasted in this particular forum.
You noted earlier that you thought many people had not actually read all of the Constitution. You reveal here that you may not be entirely familiar with the text yourself as the preamble is explicit in stating that these rights are “enumerated” not granted under the Constitution. The document does not grant the right to self-defense; it merely identifies that the right exists.
I’m not sure what you mean. “Enumerated” means there is a collection of items that is a complete, ordered listing, as in a “number” of items.
At any rate, the preamble to the Bill of Rights does not use that term and the text of the constitution only mentions it in terms of counting representatives and stuff. Perhaps you were thinking of another word? I’m not sure of the distinction you are trying to make between “enumerated” and “granted” in this context.
The Constitution is actually a higher form of law than a religious text. It is “the supreme law of the land” – and actually affirms that there are “inherent rights of man” which include, but are not limited to, the rights of exercise of religion (e.g. the ability to decide whether to follow or *reject* any particular “religious text”), the right to exercise free speech (but, as the header notes, not “consequence free” speech), and the right to be able to keep and bear arms. The Constitution specifically states that the text of itself is intended to *limit* the power of the government, and not to allow anyone to arbitrarily decide that there should be “limits” to the natural rights endowed to us “by our creator”.
Just because the business of the government has apparently become to progressively erode our rights away does not affirm the correctness of the process nor the purpose of doing so – and “what society decides is a reasonable limitation” is really just a fallacious idea about giving the majority unlimited power over the minority.
Follow the document, as written, and 90% of our problems would go away.
Your argument is circular in many ways. The only way your argument could be correct is if someone in the world, presumably you in this case, knows everything and knows what’s right for everyone and has all the answers.
I am not seeing how the Supreme Law of the Land, and following it to the letter, makes a circular argument. Ad hominem and strawman right there on your part however.
Love watching this cat fight, but two points worth considering.
The Constitution was written recognizing that Religion is the supreme ruler and that e Bil of Rights would ensure that.
Nope, you’re wrong on all 3 points, there was no ad hominem nor strawman arguments. As for having a supreme law of the land and “following it to the letter” you seem to think that it’s just a simple matter of everyone agreeing to what that is and means. It’s childishly simple (I guess that would be ad hominem) to think that “gosh darn it, if we would all just obey what the constitution says we wouldnt have all these problems”. It’s always more complicated than that and there is always, always, always differing ways of interpreting texts and meaning etc. That’s where there are 9 supreme court judges because if it as simple as you seem to think we could just have one all-knowing super judge who could glance at the constitution each time there was a problem. The constitution is a guide, a best effort at helping us fumble our way along with some reasonable and rational governance. It is not some religion document written from on high. We should respect the heck out of it but not worship it.
And #Safegunowner, no, religion is not the supreme ruler, that’s for places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, not a secular democracy. Religion can be for the home for those who believe it, not the state.
You have so much to teach us.
Please illuminate us more.
If you prefer to live life worshipping man-made law (despite your stating conflicting views) then so be it.
But our nation was founded by people seeking freedom, including freedom to worship as they please.
The Laws are the result of that.
I don’t think your arguments are circular. I think it’s just muddled and idyllic thinking.
Non nobis solum
I dont want to *worship* any laws, man made or religiously inspired (again, this is America, not some Middle Eastern theocracy). But you’re right; our nation was founded by people seeking freedom, including freedom to worship as they please. Please remember that before you try to impose your own religious beliefs onto our secular government.
non nobis solum nati sumus ortusque nostri partem patria vindicat, partem amici
Sis vir eruditus.
Leges ab hominibus.
Religio a Deo.
Gratiae tuae blanditiae,
Ego autem, Deo non credunt.
gratias tibi amice.
tempore vero difficilis.
sustinebant opus bonum.
Training isn’t the law everywhere.
Daniel…his article referenced his home state of Illinois.
He has a range there.
Obviously laws differ by state.
actually ‘arms’ are pretty well defined as what can reasonably be used by one man and separated from tactical weapons like missiles and artillery and bombs.
and it’s ‘bear arms’ as in carry, not ‘bare arms’ as in summertime.
Sian if that is so,then please explain how and why some Americans legally own fully operational Tanks complete with machine gun and canon and ammo for such .
Name one person who owns such, please, and we’ll give you an answer.
Try you tube~~~Private Tank Ownership: Do You Have What it Takes?
Thomas I am shocked , here it is 5 days later and not a word from you hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
I read the article and wondered if Mr. Metcalf was having a senior moment, as it was a little convoluted and somewhat rambling. When he mentions we can not escape the reality that we are dealing with “..reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban” it sounds just like the mass gun ban hysteria that has been bantered by the anti-gunners for years. I cringe whenever I hear “reasonable regulations” or “good sense regulation reform”.
Additionally when he states that requiring 16 hours of training for a concealed carry license is not “infringement in and of itself” is ridiculous. The limited availability of 16 hours of training and the time and expense are in fact infringements for most people. Every gun owner needs to become proficient in the safe handling of their firearms, but that is not a two day and $100 lesson.
Speaking of lessons, one that Mercalf should have learned by now is to never bite the hand that feeds you !!!
Dick owns a training facility and range.
He loves Illinois for this!
because it’s all perfectly legal if you have the right paperwork? What does that have to do with the definition of ‘arms’?
gratias tibi amice.
tempore vero difficilis.
sustinebant opus bonum.
This is nothing new for Metcalf, he has always been a loose cannon to put it as nice as possible. I could never forgive him for screwing shooters at a big event he was running at his range one year, he announced at the shooters meeting the night before competition started that you couldn’t use your own rifle unless it happened to be an M1A. No discussion, no questions taken, that’s the way it is like it or not and he exited like Jay Carney after a press announcement. Most had spent months preparing their rifles (99% AR15’s) according to the rules previously set not to mention the expensive of getting them to the match only to be told the night before that the rules where changed and they couldn’t be used, only M1a’s would be allowed but hey some were available to be borrowed. Metcalf caved to a sponsor and screwed a lot of shooters, well except those team members sponsored by the company that offered cash if the rules where changed.. JMHO but that’s just one of many incidents that reveal his character and what evidently motivates him.
Comments are closed.