Listen up Metcalf!
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Listen up Metcalf!

  1. #1

    Listen up Metcalf!

    "Metcalf wrote that “way too many” gun owners believe that any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Second Amendment.

    “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be,” Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberating shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater."

    Wrong Mr. Metcalf! You CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The issue is not what you say. The issue is the INTENT behind what you say. If the theater is truly on fire, your motives are pure. If you yell to incite panic and injury, you have just infringed on the rights of others by trying to take away their right to assemble peacefully. The fact is, since yelling "fire" can be a good thing, it can not and should not be regulated!

    The same thing can be applied to firearms. If you own an AR-15 and use it to shoot targets or to protect your family's life and liberty, your intent is pure. If you use it to shoot up a school yard, your have just violated someone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So you see, guns like speech, can be used for both good and evil.

    The act of yelling "fire" or owning a weapon is not what should be regulated. What IS (or should be) regulated is the INTENT and MOTIVATION behind the act. And intent and motivation is NOT regulated by our founding documents. These things are regulated by our individual moral code. You see, THAT is the problem we as Americans are dealing with today...a loss of morals. And quite frankly, in my view, those that want to regulate my rights (whether they be related to firearms, speech, healthcare choices, etc) suffer from a lack of understanding of what morals are in the first place!

    Shakeup at Guns & Ammo after gun control column backfires | Fox News
    “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” -Benjamin Franklin

  3. #2
    I can't say I was ever very interested in Metcalf's writings or opinions. Strange though, when you are a writer/editor for a major firearms magazine, that you suddenly develop a set of restrictive gun control sentiments. Firing him, since he was due to be replaced in January, seems to be more about appearance than substance.
    Last edited by JohnD13; 11-09-2013 at 10:11 AM. Reason: for some reason I can't put his first name in the post.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    north east Iowa
    Perhaps he should find a different job that is more in line with his opinions. Maybe he'd be happier writing propaganda for Bloomberg. Until then, don't buy Guns and Ammo Magazine!! Anyone on this forum, except for the trolls, shouldn't be supporting a publication that is hostile to the Second Amendment. I never liked the magazine anyway. They certainly don't qualify as experts on constitutional law or history.

    The founders knew something about the correct use of the English language and said exactly what they meant. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase, ".....shall not be infringed." I hate the oxymoron "common sense gun control." There isn't any such control that isn't a violation of the Constitution.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    SE FL and SE OH
    From the article
    Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, told that Metcalf “absolutely did not” deserve to lose his post.
    Says a liberal who demands Staples ban all guns in stores. Instead of that, maybe she should look at why there were 26 killed at Sandy Hook. GFZs do not stop people intent on crime.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts