jr_watkins
Member
tag line
Tirod...sort of the point of my tag line.
Tirod...sort of the point of my tag line.
This isn't a 20/80% issue though. It's not like I disagreed with him on which 1911 is better, which method of preferred carry of CCW, which .22 rimfire is best, etc... You get the point.One of the gun rags, might be Shotgun news but I could be mistaken on that, did an editorial on the metcalf situation and invoked Ronald Regan who said somethign like, 'What do you call a person who agrees with you 80% of the time? An ALLY, not a 20% traitor!"
Suggesting of course that Mr. Metcalf shoudl not have been so soundly shunned by the firearm community.
I thought about that for awhile and I find myself thinking:
That Regan quote may be true in and of itself, and might have applied to the gun freedom/control debate in the beginning (like in the 1960's). but getting in bed with the 20% traitors is what got us to he point of 'no more compromise' we are currently facing. We have reached the limit of tolenrance to encroachment on our freedoms, in this and other topics, and now view any further disagreement RIGHTFULLY as treason to the cause.
My thoughts anyway.
C-
P.s. edited: the source was an article and interview featuring Sen. Cornyn from Texas. But the point is the same.
JRH6856 said:A requirement that an applicant demonstrate adequate proficiency with a handgun is not onerous. Defining proficiency as firing 50 shots into a 1" goup at 50 yards would be onerous and a clearly intended infringement. I think something like this may be what Metcalf wishes he had had the room to say.
Exactly, once you set a restriction, another hoop to jump through to exercise your Right it is an infringement, and it makes it easier to tighten that restriction down the road. We can't give up any more ground or one day it WILL be 50 rounds in a 1" hole at 50 yards.And aside from that, it puts us back in the area of citizens applying to the state for permission to exercise a right. If you have to do that, it's no longer a right. It's a privilege. It's like requiring a literacy test to vote. Once you impose a "test" you put it within the power of the state to deny a right.
Even when it seems reasonable I just can't get on board with that.
Ryanxia said:The Constitution doesn't GIVE us our Rights it only GUARANTEES what we already had. As to the 80/20 comment, if a traitor during war time only leaked 20% of the information would you still consider him an ally? I say this columnist got what he deserved.
Secondly, he has an absolute right to express his opinions.
However, the NY Times is a noted antigun publication and does not respect the basic right to own anything. Thus, choosing to discuss the issue in that outlet was just feeding the antigunners. He can discuss it in many progun forums. If it was picked up by antis - that's life. But putting in the Times was unwise to say the least.
Hi Denis,Targetshooter,
How, exactly, do you think it could possibly work if writers had to buy everything they write about?
Denis