leadchucker
Member
Just imagine how many subscription cancellations they have received since that article went public. That hits them where it hurts the worst, and the corporate boffins are very sensitive about their money.
BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo Responds to Metcalf article
- Thread starter sturmgewehr
- Start date
- Status
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
donato said:
A modest fee is not an infringement on the 2A. And the Supreme Court agrees that a small fee for a concealed permit is not an infringement. We have to take our victories where we can get them and right now that is using carry permits. Antis are quick to establish the "lawlessness" of permitless carry states. I saw it in VT with the hippies in Burlington, even though VT has the lowest murder rate in the nation. A permit is something they can begrudgingly accept for now. It says "this person is an acceptable person by the state to carry a weapon." Now is a permit to allow a right what I think the framers wanted? Of course not. Based on the current political climate I believe permits are necessary.
ngnrd
Member
Where are the parent's of the 15 year old? They should be responsible for monitoring and regulating the actions of their violent mentally ill child.
And, are you suggesting that a known international terrorist should be allowed to board a plane as long as he's not armed?
Neither of your examples provide sufficient reason to draw a line that infringes on the rights of others. If you believe that makes me an absolutist, then I wear the title with pride. I believe it's far better than being a concessionist.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Lets get something straight in regards to the Second Amendment.
1. It is the ultimate enforcement mechanism for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. In the Declaration of Independence the American Citizen is given the Responsibility for overthrowing the government when and if the situation gets to that point. Not only is the American Citizen given this responsibility its is their Right and Civic Duty to do so.
My proof:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security
Without the Second Amendment the American Citizen cannot exercise their Right as provided for in the Declaration of Independence nor can they fulfill their Civic Duty as the Declaration of Independence provides for.
And this is where the "shall not be infringed" gets its meaning.
If the Second Amendment is gutted there will be no Bill of Rights, there will be no Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence will be nothing more than a piece of old TP.
This is why I believe so many stand firm against any change to the RKBA.
BTW the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America WERE NOT WRITTEN FOR LAWYERS! These documents were written for the everyday person and not some lawyer to parse.
1. It is the ultimate enforcement mechanism for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. In the Declaration of Independence the American Citizen is given the Responsibility for overthrowing the government when and if the situation gets to that point. Not only is the American Citizen given this responsibility its is their Right and Civic Duty to do so.
My proof:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security
Without the Second Amendment the American Citizen cannot exercise their Right as provided for in the Declaration of Independence nor can they fulfill their Civic Duty as the Declaration of Independence provides for.
And this is where the "shall not be infringed" gets its meaning.
If the Second Amendment is gutted there will be no Bill of Rights, there will be no Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence will be nothing more than a piece of old TP.
This is why I believe so many stand firm against any change to the RKBA.
BTW the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America WERE NOT WRITTEN FOR LAWYERS! These documents were written for the everyday person and not some lawyer to parse.
1KPerDay
Member
People still read Guns & Ammo?
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,223
This is yet another reminder that even though one's business is guns/gun related, it doesn't make them one of us. It's still a business.
We learned that when Smith and Wesson caved in to the Clinton administration re the "lock."
We also learned it when Bill Ruger limited our access to factory magazines, Dicks pulled their ARs from the racks, etc.
These people are in business. They'll do or say whatever (they think) will maximize their profit margin.
Sometimes, like now, they misread the market.
CoRoMo
Member
Okay... wait.
Mr. Bequette,
Were you utterly asleep during the Zumbo debacle? Did you take a long vacation while the Harrisburg Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show kerfuffle happened? Have you never heard the backlash wrought upon the likes of Troy Industries or A.R.M.S. Inc? So on and so forth, Mr. Bequette.
I don't see this controversy as unprecedented. Rightly or wrongly, it sort of looked to be the run-of-the mill type of reaction that sticking one's foot in the mouth while poking the bear in the eye will get you.
Stay tuned Jim, there are certainly more to follow.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
I staunchly do not agree with the right to defense is "god given" (I'm Atheist) or that all people, regardless of any status, should have open legality to carry firearms. I won't start a theology discussion on here in regards to 2A so I won't go there. The Bill of Rights is an outline of Rights the people have that the government cannot reasonably take away. There are countries where self-defense is not allowed. In certain Muslim countries, if a woman is raped, it is she who is punished and not the rapist. If she tries to defend herself, she can possibly be put to death. And not everyone here in the US should carry firearms. Say for example Zimmerman was guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Would you want, after spending 20 years in prison for him to be handed his firearm back that he used to commit the crime? If Timothy McVeigh was not sentenced to death and spent 25 years in prison instead, would you be okay with him walking into his local Sheriff office or gun store so he can carry? Do you want an illegal alien who is a fugitive from Mexico coming to our country and legally being able to carry a firearm? I know I wouldn't
Most of you guys are missing the point completely. Guns and Ammo and several other gun publications are now owned by antis. You need to know your enemy.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/o...estroying-americas-top-pro-gun-media-outlets/
Please click through on the link and see that the problem goes far beyond Guns and Ammo. Vote with your dollars boys. Next we should be asking their advertisers what they're doing subsidizing the antis.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/o...estroying-americas-top-pro-gun-media-outlets/
Please click through on the link and see that the problem goes far beyond Guns and Ammo. Vote with your dollars boys. Next we should be asking their advertisers what they're doing subsidizing the antis.
Resist Evil
Member
Good riddance, Dick. I don't want HRM Barry Obama, neither Bill "The Stain" Clinton nor his harridan wife "Benghazi" Hillary, Bill Maher, or Whoopi Goldberg employed as columnists for Guns and Ammo magazine either as long as I am a paid subscriber.
Metcalf's column is but another piece of evidence that owning a gun does not one a supporter of American liberty make. He is on record as one more benighted soul who believes he has the superiority to tell the hoi polloi what's good for them, when he should just mind his own business.
Metcalf's column is but another piece of evidence that owning a gun does not one a supporter of American liberty make. He is on record as one more benighted soul who believes he has the superiority to tell the hoi polloi what's good for them, when he should just mind his own business.
Last edited:
Queen_of_Thunder
member
First let me say this. I don't care about other countries. My worries are for my Country.
Now as for your Zimmerman question. If one serves there time, repays society for their crime and completes all requirements upon and after their release then I see no reason to not return the full rights of citizenship to them and that means their Second Amendment Rights.
You cannot expect one to refrain from further criminal conduct if you treat them as some third class citizen after they have fulfilled all of the Court ordered requirements. Granted there will be some career criminals but the laws can be adapted to deal with them.
One also has to ask at what point does one lose the right to self defense and if there is such a point do you not think it will be expanded to the point where it will no longer exist?
As to your point of a " fugitive from Mexico coming to our country" is simply a red herring as it is presently illegal for someone who is an illegal alien fugitive or not to own a weapon legally.
I read (well, skimmed) the Metcalf article and found it intellectually lazy and poorly written.
20-something whack-jobs are nothing new. The problem with background checks is the potential for abuse, and the lack of demonstrable benefit in preventing crime. As far as the mentally ill, research indicates that low socio-economic status is a better predictor of violence than mental illness. It follows that depriving the poor of guns would be more effective at preventing violence than limiting the rights of the mentally ill. I don't suppose you would advocate that?
rcmodel said:
20-something whack-jobs are nothing new. The problem with background checks is the potential for abuse, and the lack of demonstrable benefit in preventing crime. As far as the mentally ill, research indicates that low socio-economic status is a better predictor of violence than mental illness. It follows that depriving the poor of guns would be more effective at preventing violence than limiting the rights of the mentally ill. I don't suppose you would advocate that?
I think the point is not that we all need to be in lock-step, but that the people with a big platform — and that includes me — need to understand the consequences of the things we say or write. Here are the consequences of Metcalf's column:
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/in...tcalf-the-new-darling-of-the-anti-gun-groups/
It gave aid and comfort to our enemies, and we will be reading it again for years and years and years.
I tend to be on the "uncompromising" side because I have (like Dick Metcalf) spent a lot of time on the front lines of RKBA. Because of my time on the front lines, I have no illusions about the end game. My post on the subject is here:
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/11/metcalf-canned.html
Michael B
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/in...tcalf-the-new-darling-of-the-anti-gun-groups/
It gave aid and comfort to our enemies, and we will be reading it again for years and years and years.
I tend to be on the "uncompromising" side because I have (like Dick Metcalf) spent a lot of time on the front lines of RKBA. Because of my time on the front lines, I have no illusions about the end game. My post on the subject is here:
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/11/metcalf-canned.html
Michael B
Of course, G&A firing Metcalf is now getting coverage, too. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...ders-for-publishing-pro-gun-control-editorial
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,223
We have been forced to that "side" because we've learned that the opposition's goal is to eliminate the private ownership of all firearms. Period. They have been moving to that goal all these years, incrementally.
I used to live in california. This is exactly what they're doing. They don't understand the concept of compromise. They see it as battle. We compromise. They win the battle. We see it as trying to be reasonable. They see it as ultimately winning the war, and the war they're fighting is to turn our guns into scrap metal.
Today, it's now, "You're either with us or against us." They've forced us into that position.
Metcalf says he was trying to stimulate honest discourse. The time for that is past. Our enemies will use our "honest discourse" to eradicate us.
Are we so naive as to think this is just about guns? If that's what you (in the general sense) believe, then you need to wake up to what government has become.
We liberated the Nazi concentration camps only about 70 years ago. It can happen again. It can happen here.
The time for "honest discourse" is past and I hope that magazine folds.
The only way we're going to survive this fight to keep our freedoms is if we become just as ruthless, manipulative and opportunistic as our enemy.
And it's not our fault. They have forced us into this position.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
So, apparently Guns and Ammo periodical is still relevant to some. 
Their advertisers thank you all.
"Hi there. I'm a famous gun guy, been around guns since, oh... for awhile I seem to recall, been hunting, shooting telling stories and collecting gins over the decades, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't as much as you think and here's the thing..."
"I support parts of the 2nd amendment. Other parts, when we're discussing the crazy idiots that make up this nation, well, some of them honestly need a little infringement here and there around the edges and You know it and I know it and we don't want to talk about it for some strange reasons. Politicians know it and those who want to get re-elected don't want to talk about it either for some not so strange reasons."
"The crazy people who both want and need some infringement here and there around the edges fall into 2 categories:
1. Those who don't know they're crazy yet and they won't tolerate it!
2. Those who want total infringement for everyone and they live for the day!"
"So, as an old and smart, not to mention famous gun guy, I say the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, crazy people are crazy or can snap into crazy in a heartbeat and some people should not own guns! Period."
Now, whose job is it to figure out how to do that? Because just saying that cost one old, smart, famous gun guy his career.
...and that's a truth!
Their advertisers thank you all.
"Hi there. I'm a famous gun guy, been around guns since, oh... for awhile I seem to recall, been hunting, shooting telling stories and collecting gins over the decades, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't as much as you think and here's the thing..."
"I support parts of the 2nd amendment. Other parts, when we're discussing the crazy idiots that make up this nation, well, some of them honestly need a little infringement here and there around the edges and You know it and I know it and we don't want to talk about it for some strange reasons. Politicians know it and those who want to get re-elected don't want to talk about it either for some not so strange reasons."
"The crazy people who both want and need some infringement here and there around the edges fall into 2 categories:
1. Those who don't know they're crazy yet and they won't tolerate it!
2. Those who want total infringement for everyone and they live for the day!"
"So, as an old and smart, not to mention famous gun guy, I say the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, crazy people are crazy or can snap into crazy in a heartbeat and some people should not own guns! Period."
Now, whose job is it to figure out how to do that? Because just saying that cost one old, smart, famous gun guy his career.
...and that's a truth!
Vern Humphrey
Member
Let him go wherever Jim Zumbo went and may they make each other happy.
Vern Humphrey
Member
In many states, one of the "requirements" is Civil Death -- that is, the felon loses his civil rights, including the right to vote and bear arms.
lobo9er
Member
Glad hes gone. Give an inch might not lead to a mile RC but you ain't ever getting that inch back not without bags full of money for lawyers. Our "bad" parts of town have the most control by the Gov'ment plan and simple. They didn't cause each individual bad decision by folks, but it sure did help along an environment for people to have a lack of responsibility and care. And thats only getting worse in all aspects with more laws, rules and regulations. If murder being illegal does not deter murder, a 7 round limit, or back ground check isn't either. The liberal media is using and will use this further this to drive a wedge in the gun community. Making us argue what is reasonable. How much or little we believe the Gov't should be here to protect us with laws.
Field Tester
Member
But Zimmerman wasn't guilty, he was found innocent by a jury of his peers therefore he is innocent. Removing Travon Martin from your sentence and saying if he committed actual murder, yes after he served his time I am ok with him having the ability to defend himself, home and family. If he cannot be trusted with a firearm then why is he free? Your issue here is with his mandatory minimum sentence, not the 2nd Amendment, and many agree with me.
McVeigh used fertilizer and a Ryder truck. I fail to see where on Earth you're going with this one. Why would he have ever been let out? He killed over 300 people.
An illegal alien is just that, ILLEGAL. Since they are not an American Citizen they are not subject to the 2nd Amendment. Also, they've obviously already broken the law twice being a fugitive in their own country and coming illegally to ours. Legal Immigrants are another matter and if they do the necessary paperwork or become Naturalized then I have no qualms with it. It's then guaranteed by the Constitution.
Your arguments are very weak and lacking and your true colors are showing.
Any other Straw-man arguments you want me to completely destroy?
BigLar
Member
Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Zumbo" in reference to?
jakk280rem
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked