Zumbo, Take 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Truth be told, he'd probably be for an assault weapons ban, too; he just won't state it because they'd throw him off the magazine.

Typical 'Fudd' mentality...


Larry
 
The specific example he uses is training & licenses for concealed carry which we've had long discussions about here.

The way he states it can easily be taken out of context and if that is all he believes with this sentence he better clarify quickly.
"And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."
(the sentence preceding the quote was a drivers license analogy)
Click to expand...


That article can easily be read as supporting required training, licensing, safety certificates, yearly fees, etc. to simply own a firearm.
 
I received my December issue of Guns & Ammo this week. I read Metcalf's article and thought ***? The issue also came with a renewal notice, "This Is Your Last Issue!" How prophetic.

When it comes to gun control, gun owners need to hang together or hang separately. Metcalf has chosen to hang separately.
 
He also seems to have issues with reading comprehension. The Second Amendment doesn't say the right should be regulated, it refers to a "well regulated militia"- regulated in that instance being defined as "well trained".
 
JN01 said:
He also seems to have issues with reading comprehension. The Second Amendment doesn't say the right should be regulated, it refers to a "well regulated militia"- regulated in that instance being defined as "well trained".
Click to expand...

That is exactly his overall point with that article. Training can (should) be a required prerequisite to your ability to exercise 2A rights. He uses concealed carry as the example but is not careful to qualify his statements so may mean them more broadly.
 
His lead-in, "LET'S TALK LIMITS" sounds more like an anti-gun person telling us, "Let's be reasonable". It reads like this is his personal interpretation of the Second Amendment. He goes on to write in his article:

"I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly. And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."

Funny but I don't remember anything other than a "well regulated militia" as indicating anything else close to meaning something like a requirement of mandatory firearms training. Sounds more like he's saying that as gun owners we just can't be trusted to act responsibly so our lawmakers have to enact legislation and regulations, to protect us from our reckless selves. He goes on to talk about the need for adequate training (would it be mandatory and who would devise/oversee it?), and preparation (whatever that means?); presumably before anyone could buy (or own?), a gun.

I could see all of this good intentions nonsense eventually leading to licensing and registration, along with massive amounts of useless and intrusive bureaucracy. And what happens if someone doesn't jump through all the hoops perfectly or otherwise falls short of the "requirements" of owning a gun? Do they get to start over to prove their worthiness or are they denied their Second Amendment right.

Methinks Mr. Metcalf has been living in Illinois too long and has become way too immersed in their anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment climate. Someone at Guns and Ammo needs to write a rebuttal to this article and maybe title it "LET'S TALK FREEDOMS".
 
what is with these people. they pull the pin on a grenade then just sit on it.
 
The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated
Click to expand...

And that's the problem, isn't it?


But actually, no, I don't remember reading any regulations on the third amendment. Maybe I'm wrong though.
 
Regarding the Second Amendment, in the first part, referring to the militia, not arms - it calls for the militia to be "well regulated." meaning well trained.

However since militia members were required to provide their own arms, it goes on to prohibit any infringement of the right of the people to "bear (meaning obtain and keep) arms."

Google up, Unorganized Militia of the United States

You may even discover you are a member. ;)

All of which may be a moot point. In District of Columbia vs. Heller The U.S. Supreme Court found that the "right to keep and bear arms" was an individual civil right that did not require a militia association. But it doesn't hurt to show that they're is one when some folks demand that AR15 rifles be banned.
 
While Heller allows for reasonable restrictions, who in their right mind would ever call a 16 hour course, "reasonable"?
 
sig228 said:
...He seems to think that the regulation of firearms is an ok thing....
Click to expand...
Well, whether or not one thinks it's a good thing, it will always be the reality.

There is a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom lines are that (1) legislatures will continue to enact gun control laws; and (2) we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts. We will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.

We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Let's make the most of those opportunities.
 
guys, i am not in favor of any significant restrictions or impediments to firearm ownership, but we do need to keep things in context. There are almost as many people living in Brooklyn today as there were in the whole 13 colonies when the Declaration was signed.

All I'm saying is, as we try to reach out to people on the fence, we would do well to realize that people can believe a few hours of training is 'reasonable' without needing professional psychological help.


If 'compromise' meant give and take, I would in a heartbeat take a requirement for 16 hours of training in exchange for getting rid of some totally nonsensical gun laws, like 15" barrel length needing a $200 stamp, or restrictions that both sides agree are totally cosmetic.

As long as 'compromise' means all give and no take, I agree we hold the line.
 
taliv said:
...we do need to keep things in context. There are almost as many people living in Brooklyn today as there were in the whole 13 colonies when the Declaration was signed.

All I'm saying is, as we try to reach out to people on the fence, we would do well to realize that people can believe a few hours of training is 'reasonable' without needing professional psychological help....
Click to expand...

While it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

So we can't forget that it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough enough people don't like guns, don't trust the rest of us with guns, and are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.
 
guys, i am not in favor of any significant restrictions or impediments to firearm ownership, but we do need to keep things in context. There are almost as many people living in Brooklyn today as there were in the whole 13 colonies when the Declaration was signed.
Click to expand...
Funny. AZ has at least as many citizens as the 13 colonies and we seem to get along just fine with "Constitutional Carry". Does anyone really think the bad guys are going to bother to take any training classes? They generally get all the training they need from Hollyweird, don't they?

It all comes down to how much the government (local or otherwise) trusts its citizens. As far as I can tell, most governments don't trust us very much, do they?

Poper
 
The point about not having the right to use them irresponsibly is both true and false. If using the right irresponsibly causes no harm to others, then sure - have at. But all too often, someone else is harmed in some way (property damage or worse), and in that case, we have other laws for dealing with specific individuals who abuse others' rights. You don't need to curtail freedom in general to protect rights.

Also, I would just say that your government is about control in general. Name the last time a person who had no interest in controlling anybody else's stuff ran for office. Betcha can't.
 
taliv said:
guys, i am not in favor of any significant restrictions or impediments to firearm ownership, but we do need to keep things in context. There are almost as many people living in Brooklyn today as there were in the whole 13 colonies when the Declaration was signed.

All I'm saying is, as we try to reach out to people on the fence, we would do well to realize that people can believe a few hours of training is 'reasonable' without needing professional psychological help.


If 'compromise' meant give and take, I would in a heartbeat take a requirement for 16 hours of training in exchange for getting rid of some totally nonsensical gun laws, like 15" barrel length needing a $200 stamp, or restrictions that both sides agree are totally cosmetic.

As long as 'compromise' means all give and no take, I agree we hold the line.
Click to expand...

16 hours of training for what?
 
Warp -the 16 hours of training is what Illinois requires for CC.
Previous law enforcement or military experience counts for half the course. A "hunter safety certificate" gets to bypass 4 hours.
 
huntsman said:
The hot market now is CC, if we had a nationwide OC/constitutional carry there'd be less demand for CC products.
Click to expand...

I don't follow at all. You said the industry benefits from the current gun control laws.

If we take a look at the laws, open carry is more legal than concealed carry, on the whole.

The hot market is concealed carry primarily because that is what people choose.

And even if the "hot market" was open carry...instead of concealed carry...how would that hurt 'the industry'? :confused:

JTHunter said:
Warp -the 16 hours of training is what Illinois requires for CC.
Previous law enforcement or military experience counts for half the course. A "hunter safety certificate" gets to bypass 4 hours.
Click to expand...

I don't see the correlation between a state law regarding handgun carry and the National Firearms Act.

How would a training requirement for a state's carry license have an impact on the NFA?

Besides, carry and mere possession are quite a bit difference. How could we get rid of a law that regulates SBR's by requiring training for a state carry license?

Even if that could be done...why would we want to? There are literally millions of people who are licensed to carry in states that do not require training. Why should they have to get training before exercising their Right to bear arms? And that's not to mention that states that don't even require a license.
 
I'm fine with 16 QUALITY hours; I think it might deter some of the knuckleheads I've seen demonstrating the absolute worst gun-handling skills on the planet. Heck, some of the Somali pirates are safer than these idiots.
Frank in a way mentioned that winning over members of the non gun-owning public is critical; that is something that I believe many of you are missing here. The gun owning folks are not the ones we need to impress; it is the non gun-owners who we had better start to do considerably more with. They are the ones who have the voting power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Jan Morgan (2A advocate): "Time to cancel your subscription to Guns & Ammo magazine".
Replies
3
Views
646
Al Thompson
A
O
  • Locked
An interesting read...
Replies
5
Views
740
Coyote3855
Coyote3855
B
  • Locked
PA Bill to expedite carry permits for victims of domestic violence
Replies
19
Views
1K
Autolycus
A
danez71
  • Locked
Gun violence drops "dramtically" according to US DOJ
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
22-rimfire
2
B
  • Locked
Yes, they do want to take your guns
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
6K
Midwest
M
Back
Top