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

[Aguila Blanca]

Poor choice of links on my part. This might be a better source of references to official, state-sanctioned militias: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security

The ones with which I am familiar function as a sort of "junior varsity National Guard," which is to say that they supplement the NG, but since they are not the NG they cannot be federalized and called up in the same manner that the NG can. However, the Constitution does give the President the right to call up the militia, so it's probably a good thing our "constitutional scholar" president doesn't seem to be aware that there is a militia act, or that there are genuine militias in 23 states.

Here's one, is this official enough for you? http://www.ct.gov/mil/cwp/view.asp?a=1348&Q=257236&milNav=|

How about this one? http://www.vermontstateguard.org/

 

[Al Norris]

I just deleted 10 posts for being off topic.

All of them dealt with a very peripheral issue, the militia. Metcalf's opinion piece was not about the militia, per se. While it did reference the militia, it was not the context of his article.

Let. It. Go.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry Al for being off topic,

Back to Mr. Cunningham which you graciously posted I wanted to go back to a question I asked earlier which no one (I think) answered.

Compromise occurs when two entities have incompatible positions, and agree to modify their positions in order to reach a mutually desired goal.

Would we call it true compromise to agree to universal background checks in exchange for national CCW reciprocity?

Magazine limits of 30 rounds in exchange for the repeal of the Hughes Amendment?

One gun a month in exchange for Constitutional Carry?

Would using such a tactic be in line with the "pragmatism" of Mr. Grant's Constitutional framework and get us past the net zero problem?

 

[zukiphile]

Let. It. Go.

The Metcalf piece argued that "well regulated" cannot be disregarded in interpreting the described right simply because the phrase "shall not be infringed" appears later in the amendment.

If what is ideally "well regulated" is a population the existence of which does not narrow or define the right described, noting that it does not narrow or define the right described would appear to be on topic. I do not note that to be gratuitously argumentative; I do not understand how that is not directly responsive to Metcalf's rationale.


As was noted above, we do have laws that pertain to our rights, so the right need not be unlimited or absolute. We have laws about how and when we vote, and who may vote; that does not suggest that we have infringed the right to vote.

However, Metcalf's in for a penny in for a pound surrender to the concept of regulation in the modern sense is what does, and what should, raise our civil rights hackles. While we have laws that pertain to voting, we would not stand for a law that allowed voting only if a fellow were wearing a blue tie on the basis that once we have laws regulating voting, an objection to the concept of regulating voting is baseless. We would object to that law as a substantial interference with one's right to vote.

Similarly, the objection to Metcalf's conceptual surrender is that it retains no bright line protection against substantial interference with the right. Why is that a conceptual surrender? Because something that can be exercised only when it has the kind of widespread social acceptance that permits it to be exercised in the shadow of balancing tests and political consensus is no real right at all.

 

[zukiphile]

Out of all the online rants, I saw very few attempts at rebuttal, and even fewer at argument. This whole situation shows a very disturbing facet to the gun culture. Rather than open a debate, we stormed the town square and demanded he be burned at the stake for articulating an unorthodox viewpoint.

The gun culture has become a dogmatic mob. Yay for us.

I would say that there is a lot of overlap between "the gun culture" and a group you might describe as "firearms consumers and hobbyists". Metcalf appears to have alienated the consumers of the magazine for which he works.

We might see a similar reaction if a writer for Town&Country were to extol the virtues of rap music, or if a columnist for Car&Driver were to admonish the drivers of gasoline powered vehicles for killing the planet. People do not purchase enthusiast magazines to be chided about their enthusiasm.

 

[Tom Servo]

I would say that there is a lot of overlap between "the gun culture" and a group you might describe as "firearms consumers and hobbyists".

Perhaps so, but that's a trap we all too often miss. The general public doesn't see the difference; they just see the gun culture.

Metcalf appears to have alienated the consumers of the magazine for which he works.

It's not just the consumers of the magazine. I'm willing to bet actual subscribers made up only a small percentage of the people flaming G&A's Facebook page and the various forums.

He hacked off the entire gun culture, and that's who called for his head on a pike.

 

[Al Norris]

The Metcalf piece argued that "well regulated" cannot be disregarded in interpreting the described right simply because the phrase "shall not be infringed" appears later in the amendment.

Correct. Yet the thrust of his argument was that the term "well regulated" meant what we today consider what regulated means. That is a direct anti-gun sentiment. Hell, it was argued in the Heller briefs by DC and her friends! The majority didn't buy it.

AAR, his entire argument was that regulation was a valid act of the Government, but in the case of the 2A, it was that way from the beginning, because of the preambles use of "well regulated." That is demonstrably false.

As I said, Dick Metcalf started with a false premise right out of the gate. It didn't get any better by adding more paragraphs.

Out of all the online rants, I saw very few attempts at rebuttal, and even fewer at argument. This whole situation shows a very disturbing facet to the gun culture. Rather than open a debate, we stormed the town square and demanded he be burned at the stake for articulating an unorthodox viewpoint.

First and foremost, it wasn't just an "unorthodox viewpoint." It was a page torn directly out of the VPC handbook. Quite frankly, I didn't want him burned at the stake. I wanted his head on a pike! (Don't ya just love that dazed and confused look on his face? and the way his tongue just sorta rolls around?)

As for a rebuttal? I think Grant Cunningham did that.

The gun culture has become a dogmatic mob. Yay for us.

I don't think so much a mob, Tom, as a very reactive group. A group determined to route out those whom it considers traitors. Prior examples should have been enough to warm Mr. Metcalf from his folly.

• Smith & Wesson.
• Jim Zumbo.
• Recoil Magazine.

Now we can add,

• Dick Metcalf.

Also consider the time spam span between the events. It's gotten a whole lot shorter than when it started with S&W. G&A Magazine survived, only because they paid attention and made the appropriate responses (human sacrifices to the gods of the 2A) much, much quicker than those before them (Recoil Mag is just really coming back, and its been over a year - Sept. 2012).

 

[Tom Servo]

I don't think so much a mob, Tom, as a very reactive group. A group determined to route out those whom it considers traitors.

I worry that many get ahead of themselves in a rush to judgment and punishment.

Of course, there are false flags. AHSA and the American Rifle & Pistol Association spring to mind. There are folks who turn against us or who lie about being our supporters in the first place. My gaze falls on Manchin and Toomey, as well as folks like Mark Kelly. Those people actively try to hurt us.

Metcalf's crime was being boneheaded and a little out of touch. He deserved some sort of censure, sure. But a traitor? That's a big, nasty, sometimes fatal word we reserve for truly horrendous and dishonest human beings.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let us not forget that Benedict Arnold was a staunch patriot before he became a loyalist. Perhaps Metcalf just wasn't careful in his phrasing ... perhaps Metcalf's perspective is more skewed than he or we can appreciate due to the fact that he lives in Illinois ... or perhaps he really believes that the most draconian training requirement in the country isn't an infringement. If the latter, I'd be of the opinion that he has either "flipped" to the opposition, or he has become senile.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

perhaps Metcalf's perspective is more skewed than he or we can appreciate due to the fact that he lives in Illinois ... or perhaps he really believes that the most draconian training requirement in the country isn't an infringement. If the latter, I'd be of the opinion that he has either "flipped" to the opposition, or he has become senile.

I think it's neither. I think (speculate) that Mr. Metcalf has had similar experiences like I had when I took my CCW class.

There were some real bozos in that class (at least they talked like they were) plus I have read posts on this forum that makes me wonder whether that individual should even be allowed to own a gun. I remember one wag in the CCW class constantly asking the instructor when he could "smoke" someone. Finally, the instructor started telling him about prison and what life was like there but it didn't seem to matter to this one. I remember thinking, "and this fool is going to carry?!"

However, I personally have reconciled it with the idea that even stone cold idiots have rights and that their rights are just as important as mine.

True, it is difficult for me to stomach. Nevertheless, the right of someone to keep and bear is more important than my elitist superior feelings that maybe they should not.

Now with cars? That's another story.

 

[doofus47]

tom servo

Metcalf's crime was being boneheaded and a little out of touch.

the question that occurs to me is "isn't there an editorial staff over there?"
I would think that SOMEONE would have looked at his submission before print time and said, with all the tone and seriousness of a good high school English teacher, "Please re-write this for clarity."

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It comes to me that this is similar to voting - we have the right to vote, given you are a citizen and of age.

However, you can be an ignoramus. We see politicians who are scientific ignoramuses running all the time. Must we require the voter to take science class to be able to evaluate the ignoramus politician?

Hey - that's a good idea.

The disastrous nature of electing an ignoramus (no commentary on your favorite ignoramus) may be more devastating to society as a wild shot from an untrained CCW type.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

the question that occurs to me is "isn't there an editorial staff over there?"
I would think that SOMEONE would have looked at his submission before print time and said, with all the tone and seriousness of a good high school English teacher, "Please re-write this for clarity."

And the answer is, "Essentially, no."

ALL print publications (magazines and newspapers) are losing readership to the Internet and television, and with loss of readership comes loss of advertising, which means loss of revenue. So they are doing everything they can to reduce production costs. Part of the reduction is to eliminate real editors and proof readers. Basically, all an editor does these days is assign stories to writers, and then harass them to get the story in by the deadline. The only "editing" that gets done is generally copy editing, to fit the story to the space available. They rely on word processing spell checkers to do what proof readers used to do -- sometimes with disastrous/hilarious results. Punctuation? Forget it.

I've had pieces published that I know I checked, double-checked, and triple-checked. Even then, I know nobody else ever looked at it because I read the final copy when it hits the streets and I'm horrified to see stupid, basic goofs (typographical errors, mostly -- I'm a horrible, 2-finger typist) that made it past the [non-existent] editing process.

 

[zukiphile]

The handwringing about a mob-like reaction illustrating a form of "political correctness" seems overwrought.

Metcalf got to have his say, and others got to have their say as well. That is the way it is supposed to work.

The notion of "political correctness" does not merely pertain to the politically offensive. "Political correctness" is not something that is correct but that offends someone's sensibility; that would just be correctness. The "political" in "political correctness" stands in contrast to "historical" and "actual". Accordingly, a notion may be "politically correct" in light of a political ideology (historically Marxism), but not historically or actually correct.

Accordingly, readers [correctly] reacting to errors in Metcalf's analysis cannot be an example of "political" correctness.

I do gather from some of the posts above that the popular reaction to Metcalf's piece was not entirely polite or on point. To some degree, that is a cultural issue, one not limited to the gun culture.

 

[RX-79G]

Zuk,

I called it PC because the reaction of many folks (if not most) was that no gun person should ever defend any sort of gun control under any circumstances.

For those people there was no possible argument or approach that wouldn't have been treason to the cause.

Just as in a typical PC scenario it would be forbidden to discuss racial differences in a negative light, gun culture makes gun control a forbidden topic.

And I would liken that attitude to people who make moral objections to sex education even though teen pregnancy and STDs are on the rise.

Metcalf got fired for breaking a taboo. How he broke it is relatively unimportant in comparison.

 

[Chaz88]

I understand why everyone has reacted the way they have and asked for his head on a platter.

But I think an alternative way to look at an anti gun message in a pro gun magazine is that it can be a good thing.

First, look at all the discussion this has started. Hopefully it goes past TFL.

If all some of the pro gun people pick up and read is a magazine that caters to their interests they might never know just what the arguments from the other side are or how prevalent they are.

It might have prompted some of the "I can not make a difference" people to say "if this can happen in my gun magazine maybe it is time for me to get involved".

Now a guest writer, that can take the heat, might be a better way to do it. But I do not think exposure to the other side is necessarily a bad thing. Unless you start buying into all of it and decide to melt down your guns. If that is the case you probably were not very committed to the pro gun side in the first place.

 

[zukiphile]

Metcalf got fired for breaking a taboo. How he broke it is relatively unimportant in comparison.

I don't think there was any taboo involved. Far from being prohibited, the specific argument he makes is common, one we hear and tolerate frequently; the problem I see is that the position itself is both dubious and disliked amongst his readership. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no assurance that each idea will be equally appreciated. Indeed, there should not be an assurance like that, since we would like poor ideas to be offered less frequently than good ones.

Is some of the reaction to Metcalf hyperbolic, personal and wide of the mark? I do not mind taking your word for it on that point. I believe there are many similarities between the group of automobile enthusiasts and firearm enthusiasts. Automobile enthusiasts on the whole regard Ralph Nader with no more warmth than most people here might regard Michael Moore. People are enthusiasts over these things and that enthusiasm is often shown with strong emotional reactions, both positive and negative.

That firearm enthusiasts would react to Metcalf's argument emotionally and ardently is easily explained in terms of that enthusiasm. Casting it in a more sinister light, as an attempt to stifle conversation or eliminate dissent, is a bit dramatic.

Chaz, do we really think it is plausible that many G&A readers had not heard Metcalf's analysis previously?

 

[RX-79G]

I was not "casting it in a sinister light". The popular reaction was emotional and understandable.

The only sinister part is that the reaction is based on two falsehoods that have been stated as true for so long that they prevent any reason:

1. That any limits on who or where a gun can be possessed is unconstitutional. (Even though every gun person does have at least one exception to this they do favor.)

2. That refusing to allow any (conscious) compromise is a viable strategy in securing our rights.

Those two pervasive memes are pretty much the same as wishing the problem away. It is as if we have embraced denial as a methodology.

Repeating a falsehood until you believe it is a losing strategy. It's the reason that empires fall. No rights movement in history has succeeded without broadening its popular appeal and making compromises to work within the existing system.

 

[Tom Servo]

It might have prompted some of the "I can not make a difference" people to say "if this can happen in my gun magazine maybe it is time for me to get involved".

If they aren't involved at this point, is an article in a gun magazine going to do it? I think not.

Furthermore, yelling about something on Facebook is not "getting involved." We do ourselves a disservice by allowing that illusion to continue.

 

[zukiphile]

If they aren't involved at this point, is an article in a gun magazine going to do it? I think not.

I don't know if it is just people I know, but the culture seems pretty familiar with at least the broad outline of the arguments usually made.

The only sinister part is that the reaction is based on two falsehoods that have been stated as true for so long that they prevent any reason:

1. That any limits on who or where a gun can be possessed is unconstitutional. (Even though every gun person does have at least one exception to this they do favor.)

2. That refusing to allow any (conscious) compromise is a viable strategy in securing our rights.

If a population enjoys a civil right, is an individual entitled to negotiate away a portion of that civil right on everyone's behalf?

I will freely admit that constitutional doctrine on virtually any point is more complex than the general understanding of the pertinent doctrine. However, I do not believe that a reaction to Metcalfe's article is based on the assertions as you have stated them.

While some limitation and regulation of the right described in the Second Amendment may pass correct constitutional scrutiny, how the limitation or regulation arises and to whom it applies are important parts of that analysis.

As to your second enumerated point, it is not obvious to me that the flip side of your assertion is true; that compromise of our rights is a viable strategy for securing our rights. On the contrary, as a strategic matter compromise seems a losing proposition; it guarantees that the rights at issue will be compromised, which is exactly what one would not like to have happen.

Holding a position ardently is pretty easily distinguishable from adopting denial is a methodology and repetition of a falsehood. If one ardently believes that a bare minimum of federal regulation pertaining to firearms is more genuinely consistent with "shall not be infringed", it does not strike me as an unreasonable denial to withhold consent for any further regulation.