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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonder if this will make the national media.
Click to expand...
It's also on the CNN, Fox, and CBS. A Google news search for "gun control" returns several hits at the very top.

If it hadn't been for the scope and vitriol of the backlash, I wonder if that would have happened?
 
I'd bet getting fired did that. Is this a bad thing?

It might give pause to politicians who think they might pander to gun control if they weren't an anti already.

As I said, until we get reasonable acknowledgment of 2nd Amend rights from people negative to all aspects of guns, discussing compromise among ourselves seems to produce little game.

A long time ago in Oregon (and I don't remember the details :confused:) when the CCW bill came up, it passed along with some mild anti measure that had no real impact. It made the antis happy. Some purists said no and local GOA opposed the bill as the Constitution made carry legal, etc. But it passed and the state had concealed carry before TX.

Does such middle ground exist now? I don't see it.
 
RX-79G said:
The problem is that you can't base every decision on doing the opposite of what your opponents want. It is okay to sometimes agree about some things. That isn't weakness.

Never agreeing isn't strength. It's failure in the making.
Click to expand...
It is okay to disagree, but in order to have a reasoned discussion (which is what the editor claims he was hoping for) there has to be some basis for the discussion -- a starting point. Metcalf's starting point was so far off the mark, factually, legally, AND historically, that it could not possibly have served as a starting point for a reasoned discussion. The only reasoned discussions that can possibly grow out of it are like this one -- not a debate over whether his position was right or wrong, but just a debate over exactly HOW wrong he really was.

Further, after skewering the language of the Second Amendment by totally misconstruing the meaning of "regulated," he then segued into defending Illinois' training requirement, and even went further by saying that he didn't think 16 hours of training was unreasonable, but that it had to be "good" training. As I posted above, using Texas and Pennsylvania as examples, there simply are no statistics to support the hypothesis that 16 hours of training as a prerequisite to issuance of a carry license (a la Texas) makes the world any safer than just taking the applicant's fingerprints and running a background check.

In short, Metcalf was indulging in editorial elitism. There is no provision for elitism in the Second Amendment.
 
Aguila,

I have read here more than a few times that you feel that any regulation is an illegal infringement.

I think it is disingenuous for you to say now that Metcalf's argument was merely poorly made - you aren't going to agree with any sort of firearms regulation, no matter how well crafted the argument.

Same with probably 90% of those who had him fired - it wasn't what he said; it was that he said anything at all in that vein.
 
Does such middle ground exist now? I don't see it.
Click to expand...
That's what worries me. Let's say we have a situation similar to the one you mentioned in Colorado. Say...reforming the NFA.

A proposal comes along that says we're repealing most of the thing, but you do still have to send in a registration certificate to let the Feds know you have it. Will the hardcore take-no-prisoners crowd pillory me for supporting it even though we have a net gain?

If so, we're allowing a situation in which nobody wants to advocate for incremental gains in fear of being called a sellout by the true believers.

Metcalf screwed up. No doubt about it. But does the punishment really fit the perceived crime?
 
RX-79G said:
I think it is disingenuous for you to say now that Metcalf's argument was merely poorly made - you aren't going to agree with any sort of firearms regulation, no matter how well crafted the argument.
Click to expand...
Why is it "disingenuous" to point out an obvious fact? Frank Ettin, a moderator here and a respected attorney, doesn't agree with me on this, and I don't agree with him -- but we nonetheless understand the other's position and we can debate it civilly (as we have done, on more than one occasion).

Metcalf didn't HAVE an argument. He proposed an unpopular idea, tried to back it up with misinformation (if it wasn't disinformation), and then demonstrated his essential Fudd by advocating that the strictest pre-licensure training requirement in the entire country (I believe that's correct -- hasn't Texas finally dropped it to just one day?) might be sufficient training -- but only IF it's "good" training. That's just another way of saying, "I support your right to carry arms, but I don't trust you to do so until you're as good as I am."

There is nothing disingenuous about my position. Merriam-Webster On-line defines disingenuous as ": lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness." There is nothing about my position that is lacking in candor. I state my position, I explain it as clearly and plainly as I can, and there it sits. Others are free to agree with me or not (as Frank does not). I'm not trying to con anybody with my statements.

As for my agreeing "with" any sort of firearms regulation, you can't possibly know or predict with what I might agree or disagree unless and until it has been proposed and I have responded. My point is simply that I do not believe the Second Amendment allows for ANY regulation of possession or carry of "arms." Period. That's simple, and it's based purely on the language of the Second Amendment itself, read in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment, in which the Founders demonstrated clearly that where they wished to allow for "reasonable regulation" they were fully capable of saying so.

I have also acknowledged the reality that we have regulation of the RKBA, and that we probably always will. The fact that we have it does not require that I (or anyone) believe this is correct and proper, but we must accept reality. Then the question becomes one of how much regulation is "reasonable," and whether or not any particular regulation succeeds in accomplishing its purported purpose while being the least intrusive on the exercise of the RKBA as possible. That is open to debate, and I am willing to debate it.

I am NOT willing to enter a debate that has a profound misreading of the Second Amendment as its starting point, and an elitist statement as its ending point.
 
Last edited:
Way too many "moderates" get upset when people on their side disagree with them and then resort to name calling and overly patronising remarks. That is what most of the gun owning, yet gun control supporting persons are doing. Metcalf like many others starts off with an insulting patronising tone, and the insults just keep coming. Then afterward they talk about how mean everyone is based on the worst few examples, and often go into a long drawn out "whoa is me for being the only reasonable person around" speech. All the while being very light on any actual debate and not responding to their opponents arguments, or ignoring most of it (such as disagreements with the premise or setup) and constantly dragging in red herrings and straw men.

There is also a heavy amount of "I am sure I will get in trouble for saying this, but..." false bit of martyrdom going around.

If people have something to say they can just say it without the insults and drama.

Metcalf was rude, among other faults, and now he is whining as if his opinion is (only) what got him into trouble.
 
Aguila,

I'm not insulting you, but I do think it 'lacks candor' when you make it sound the problem is the argument, when no argument would ever sway you.

It's like telling a chef you don't like his steaks, but you're actually a vegetarian.
 
RX-79G said:
I'm not insulting you, but I do think it 'lacks candor' when you make it sound the problem is the argument, when no argument would ever sway you.
Click to expand...
The fact that I am not likely to concede that the language of the Second Amendment admits of any regulation does not in any way change the fact that Dick Metcalf badly misstated both what the Second Amendment says and what the courts have said with respect to same, and then went on to magnanimously proclaim that 16 hours of training "might" be sufficient, IF ...

The fact that I am not likely to concede that the language of the Second Amendment admits of any regulation doesn't mean that I am unwilling to engage in a meaningful debate regarding what a "reasonable" degree of regulation should or could be ("if" it were countenanced by the Second Amendment). I accept that we have to live with a Supreme Court ruling that has held that the 2A IS subject to "reasonable" regulation. But the SCOTUS expressly declined to tell us what the threshold of "reasonable regulation" is, so in order to live under Heller and McDonald we MUST have that debate. I won't stay aloof from the debate just because I don't personally believe we should be having it.

However, for Mr. Metcalf to write that the militia clause of the Second Amendment means modern day gun regulations was just plain silly. For him to argue that to "regulate" is NOT the same as to "infringe" is even sillier. Regulation IS "by definition" infringement. And for him to magnanimously proclaim that 16 hours of training is enough, IF it's "good" (meaning, of course, "What I consider to be good") training is downright insulting. The NRA "Basic Pistol" class (which I am certified to teach, and which is accepted or required by a great many states requiring safety training as a prerequisite to issuing a carry license) is only eight hours. According to Mr. Metcalf, then, the NRA's course is chopped liver because it's not twice as long as many states think is necessary.

It's simply not possible to engage in a debate with someone whose views are as muddled as Dick Metcalf's apparently are. That's not being disingenuous -- that's being as candid as I know how to be.

By the way: I don't think one can be "disingenuous" by accident. "Lacking in candor" is politically correct speech for "liar." And when someone calls me a liar, I do feel insulted.
 
Last edited:
Metcalf's response asks if 2A supporters still believe in the 1A. Yes, Dick we do. No one asked for a law to ban stupid editorials. However, the 1A says nothing about people having to like what you spout off about, or even listen to it. Sometimes you have to have real stones to exercise your right in the public square, meaning doing that is more important to you than being liked.

Your comments reflect just as much muddled thinking on the 1A as you fid on the 2A.

BTW, since we have compromised and been rewarded with 20,000+ gun laws, what was your point anyway? Why did you not lament the gun grabbers' unwillingness to acknowledge some fundamental aspect of gun ownership in the 2A?
 
NWPilgrim said:
...BTW, since we have compromised and been rewarded with 20,000+ gun laws, what was your point anyway?...
Click to expand...
We keep seeing this perspective on compromise. It's as if some people believe for some reason that all we would have had to have done is say "no", and none of these laws would have been enacted.

Such a view is fantasy. Sometimes we've been able to completely block some bad laws. Sometimes we simply don't have the political clout to do so.
 
I keep hearing that we "have to have a seat at the table." Over and over. Was it wringing our hands for a seat that got more CCW laws passed? Or stand your ground or castle doctrine laws? Are the gun grabbers scared to try even more anti gun laws because we are at the table with them, or because they lose elections?

The only time I hear gun grabbers ask us to sit with them to discuss the matter is when they need more pro gun politicians to support more anti gun laws. I fail to see what "the table" accomplishes versus voting the bums out.

The fantasy is believing our opponents want reasonable regulation, and thinking we just need to sit down with them and work it out. Ha!
 
NWPilgrim said:
I keep hearing that we "have to have a seat at the table." Over and over. Was it wringing our hands for a seat that got more CCW laws passed? Or stand your ground or castle doctrine laws? ...
Click to expand...
Actually, yes. There were compromises leading to "shall issue" laws. How it worked out depended on the politics in the particular State, but sometimes is was a matter of training requirements, or background checks, or cost, or prohibited areas, or permitting business to post "no guns", etc. These were features necessary in some places, but not necessarily everywhere to get such laws enacted. In each State it was a matter of making the best deals we could.

Same goes for Castle Doctrine and other laws. There will be opposition, and what might be necessary to overcome that opposition will depend on our political strength and the political strength of the opposition.

NWPilgrim said:
...voting the bums out...
Click to expand...
That's nice when you can. You can't always count on doing so, however.
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is going to be some sort of meeting of the minds with the antis.

But those aren't the people who need to hear something useful from our side. Our behavior does not get those in the middle off the fence and it embarrasses sport gun people into silence because the threat to their hunting rifles is not great enough to side with people who insist that anyone over 18 can carry an Uzi to a bar.

Control the public debate by participating in a meaningful way. Bring the undecided onto our side by not being extremists.
 
NWPilgrim said:
Metcalf's response asks if 2A supporters still believe in the 1A.
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard or seen that Metcalf made any response. Where was (is) this? Is there a link to an on-line version?

{EDIT}Found it: http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/228229

Metcalf said:
Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?
Click to expand...
Certainly, Dick. You were free to write what you wrote, and your publisher was free to publish it. Neither you not editor Bequette was arrested, charged, fined, or otherwise acted upon by the government -- and the Constitution is, after all, a set of rules for the conduct of the government. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not require that private citizens suffer the ravings of a lunatic in silence.

Metcalf said:
Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues?
Click to expand...
When those different opinions can and will be (and already have been) used as ammunition by our enemies, you bet I fear them.

Metcalf said:
Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?
Click to expand...
In a word, "Yes." Those voices from cyberspace are (were) your customers, Dick. Didn't you ever hear the expression, "The customer is always right"?

Metcalf said:
And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term "well-regulated," and how they are used and misused.
Click to expand...
Then why did you misuse the term yourself?

Metcalf said:
I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions.
Click to expand...
Which completely ducks the question of whether, given the different grammatical construction and the clear statement in the 2A that the RKBA "shall not be infringed," it is proper that the RKBA has historically been regulated. Isn't THAT part of the "debate"?

Metcalf said:
I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?
Click to expand...
Dick, if you "clearly" understand that one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other state granted privilege -- how can you even ASK if we should be discussing them in the same sentence? This is not even comparing apples to oranges -- this is comparing apples to turnips.

Metcalf said:
Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...
Wrong. McDonald and Moore both built on Heller. Heller did NOT hold that other firearms laws and regulations pass constitutional muster. Heller, in fact, explicitly and expressly declined to address them. Heller referred to them as "presumptively" constitutional, which basically means "We know they are there but we're not here to talk about them today, so they can stand until they get challenged and struck down." And we now have cases in progress all over the country challenging those "presumptively" constitutional laws and regulations. In fact, Moore is one of those challenges.

Metcalf's questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
Click to expand...
Yes. If a convict can't be trusted to have the means for self-defense when he is released (and his parole is finished), then he shouldn't be released.

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
No. Laws regulating concealed carry are consistent with the Constitution if the state allows unlicensed, unregulated open carry -- such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and a number of others.

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Click to expand...
Yes.

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
Click to expand...
How? My state's carry laws have not (yet) been ruled unconstitutional, therefore I am legally constrained to follow them. How is obeying a "presumptively" valid law in any way a violation of the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
I just read the Runner's World ban guns column (discussed elsewhere). The writer wants to ban everything except some hunting guns.

That ties into part of the Metcalf world view. I mentioned before that he did a show on the modern sporting rifle idiocy on G&A TV and then they had another examining the restrictions on ARs in different states. Look at the nutty ones in California. Metcalf and crew go on to discuss how the restrictions don't impact the guns' utility for sport. Like shooting Bambis - what grain bullet to use.

I think that folks like that fail to realize that they have bought into the guns as sporting instruments and that they can be restricted if they are for sports. Joe Scarborough ( a 'conservative') said he didn't need a gun with a hicap clip holding 30 cop killer bullets to take his son hunting.

So Metcalf and crew bought into the idea that an AR is just a hunting semi and restricting it in some ways was no big deal.

That negates the purpose of the 2nd Amend. The Runners World dude is the same class of danger to the RKBA.

I support his right to say anything - but a marketplace evaluation by the customers of such prose is quite proper.

Metcalf isn't as bad as an absolute banner but he missed the point that he gave support to pushing gun bans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top