No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I "third" the book recommendation: Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, Adam Winkler, W. W. Norton & Company (2013).
 
Trying to remember Winkler...it's been a while since I read him -- was he was all hot-n-bothered about the restrictions the Founders allowed, but totally swept under the rug what they did allow & want?
 
was he was all hot-n-bothered about the restrictions the Founders allowed, but totally swept under the rug what they did allow & want?
Click to expand...
No. His accounts are very balanced, but the harsh light of history doesn't always illuminate everything in our favor. The idea that the Founders didn't want any restrictions on the RKBA has become popular the last couple of decades, but it's untrue.
 
His accounts are very balanced,
Click to expand...

I'm only just starting Chapter 2, but so far 'balanced' isn't a word I'd use to describe Mr. Winkler's book. So far the NRA is either ineffective or fanatical, gun rights advocates are extremists and he implies they [we?] are in part responsible for McVeigh's actions in Oklahoma City.

Right now, I'm regretting financing Mr. Winkler by having purchased his book.
 
i've read the Metcalf article several times and see nothing to complain about. Nothing in that article rises to the level of Zumbo's support for an "assault weapons" ban.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment says what SCOTUS says it says. Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55

Opinion of the Court
arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
——————
Click to expand...
 
Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights:
Click to expand...
True, and that's something Glenn and Blanca have argued well.

However, it won't do for us to claim that the Founders meant for there to be no restrictions on the exercise of the right whatsoever. That's a popular view around the blogosphere and the rallies, but history just doesn't back it up. Nor do we do our cause any good by claiming as much.

That said, Metcalf made a poor case.
 
Tom Servo said:
However, it won't do for us to claim that the Founders meant for there to be no restrictions on the exercise of the right whatsoever. That's a popular view around the blogosphere and the rallies, but history just doesn't back it up. Nor do we do our cause any good by claiming as much.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I understand and I accept that the 2A says what nine people in black robes agree (not necessarily unanimously) to say it means. But to say that arguing that "shall not be infringed" really means "shall not be infringed" does not strike me as hurting our cause.

Let's consider LawDog's cake, and the erosion of our 2A gun rights as a result of successive waves of "compromise" under which our side gained nothing in return for having lost much. My view is that it's time to push back with this "compromise" schtick. You want a compromise, Mr. Anti-gunner? Here's a compromise for ya -- we'll stop arguing for NO regulations (based on the plain language of the 2A, irrespective of legal precedent) when you stop trying to curtail all private ownership of firearms, and let things get back to a reasonable facsimile of the way the world operated prior to [1968] [1934] [arbitrary date of your choice].

That, to me, is the point of continuing to argue that the 2A does not allow for ANY regulation, because "regulation" is synonymous with "infringement." The more we can push the anti's back on their heels and make them WORK to justify what they've already got, the less time, energy and money they'll be able to expend on still further "infringements."
 
I don't see what that "compromise" offers. You're already arguing, and they still manage to pass more infringements. What is it you think you're offering with that?:confused:
 
THR has a thread that Metcalf is gone from GA and the editor apologizes. Also, the editor speeded up his own retirement. Should be easy to find. I have to work. Bye

Glenn
 
This unfortunate episode is, perhaps, the logical consequence of a publishing industry in which "editor" has become a misnomer, in that basically the magazines no longer do ANY "editing." They don't seem to proof what their author's contribute, and they don't seem to even read it to see if it fits in with the magazine's overall editorial stance or perceived reader base. In trying to "do more with less," the magazines have reduced (or held the line on) the cost of publication by eliminating real editors (defined -- by me -- as people who actually perform editing), taking whatever their authors send in electronically, and pushing it directly to layout ... with NO critical overview.

Small wonder the print magazines are so full of garbage. And the publishers wonder why they're losing subscribers ...
 
bradymetcalf.jpg
 
Tom Servo said:
...Personally, I don't get the witch hunt. Are we as a culture so thin-skinned that we can't afford some debate from time to time?
Click to expand...
I agree. Let's reflect on the fact that essentially the gun community's excoriation of Metcalf is its own form of political correctness.

And we still need to accept the notion that there will be some level of gun control. That is a political reality. And we need to be at the table to protect our interests in the political arena. That means we need to be able to make deals. If we are not at the table "it" will be done to us.

However, I continue to urge that we be cautious about discussing strategic matters in public. We don't want to bid against ourselves.
 
Metcalf said:
I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself.

But that's just me ... .
Click to expand...

Metcalf claims to have taught constitutional law. So does Obama. 'Nuf said.

Metcalf actually pooh-poohs the idea that regulation is "by definition" infringement. I disagree. I have stated innumerable times that regulation is by definition infringement, and I stand by that statement. One need only look up the definitions of the two words to see that.

Definitions:

Oxford English Dictionary said:
regulate
Syllabification: (reg·u·late)
Pronunciation: /ˈregyəˌlāt/

verb
[with object]

  • control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly:a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function
  • control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations:the organization that regulates fishing in the region
  • set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.
Click to expand...

Oxford English Dictionary said:
infringe
Syllabification: (in·fringe)
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/

verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

  • actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
  • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:his legal rights were being infringed [no object]:I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy.
Click to expand...

Surely, if one has a "right" that "shall not be infringed," one should be entitled to the free and full exercise of that right. If regulations do not limit or encroach on the exercise of that right, how else could one describe what regulations do?

16 hours of training might be a good standard, but only if it's "good" training? And that's not an infringement? Texas has required 16 hours of training for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires zero. Do statistics support a proposition that holders of concealed carry licenses in PA are significantly less safe than those in TX? Frankly, IMHO Metcalf is showing elitist tendencies. And where does that get us?

"I'm the only person in this room who's qualified to handle this Glock fowtay." BANG!
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
I agree. Let's reflect on the fact that essentially the gun community's excoriation of Metcalf is its own form of political correctness.
Click to expand...
This might be so ... if Metcalf had put forth a cogent argument based on a somewhat correct reading of the Second Amendment. However, he misstates and misinterprets the language of the 2A so pervasively, not working in even a remote correlation either with the writings of the Founders (such as The Federalist papers) OR the contemporary interpretation as reflected int he Heller and McDonald decisions, that his whingings cannot possibly be accepted as a starting point for reasoned debate, because you can't start a reasoned debate on a fundamentally flawed base premise.

Political correctness is, essentially, saying, "We don't like what you're saying, so goodbye." This isn't that. This is an almost pure case of "You're such an idiot you don't even know what you're talking about."

Was it Mark Twain, Will Rogers, or Groucho Marx who advocated "Never interrupt someone while he's in the process of proving that he's an idiot"?
 
Political correctness is, essentially, saying, "We don't like what you're saying, so goodbye."
Click to expand...
Which is, in the simplest analysis exactly what happened.

People didn't like what he was saying so he got fired--that's the bottom line. Whether or not he knows what he is talking about is a topic for debate and given that SCOTUS generally agrees with him on the subject, it will be fairly difficult to demonstrate that he's clueless.
 
Was it Mark Twain, Will Rogers, or Groucho Marx who advocated "Never interrupt someone while he's in the process of proving that he's an idiot"?
Click to expand...

I don't know that one but Ben Franklin said something like, when those about you think your a fool, you shouldn't open your mouth and remove all doubt.
 
Sorry but political correctness comes from Communist policy and it refers to State control of what is acceptable. The free market saying we don't like your product us not political correctness. Not one person here yammered for govt regulation on what Metcalf or anyone else has to say.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Metcalf claims to have taught constitutional law. So does Obama. 'Nuf said.

Metcalf actually pooh-poohs the idea that regulation is "by definition" infringement. I disagree. I have stated innumerable times that regulation is by definition infringement, and I stand by that statement. One need only look up the definitions of the two words to see that.

Definitions:





Surely, if one has a "right" that "shall not be infringed," one should be entitled to the free and full exercise of that right. If regulations do not limit or encroach on the exercise of that right, how else could one describe what regulations do?

16 hours of training might be a good standard, but only if it's "good" training? And that's not an infringement? Texas has required 16 hours of training for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires zero. Do statistics support a proposition that holders of concealed carry licenses in PA are significantly less safe than those in TX? Frankly, IMHO Metcalf is showing elitist tendencies. And where does that get us?

"I'm the only person in this room who's qualified to handle this Glock fowtay." BANG!
Click to expand...

The real chicken bone is that Metcalf makes his statements in an environment overwhelmed with regulation. Maybe if he landed on planet Zicone where there is no regulation it might make sense to open debate on whether gun regulation is acceptable and how much.

Unfortunately, Metcalf is stuck on planet earth in the USA and we don't need gun writers bleating about the need for regulation. I have more than enough heaped on my head already, thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top