- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Guns &Ammo editorial supports gun control
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:40 am to Yat27
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:40 am to Yat27
quote:
It's funny that the Brady Campaign has already jumped on Metcalf's comments to justify more regulation.
This is why G&A took such swift action to get rid of him.
The magazine is political. It may seem like they just do gun reviews, but when you look on the cover and see a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, you realize it is still political.
Most of the writers are staunch 2A supporters, as they should be.
If you give the left one small concession like this, they jump on it like rabid dogs to try to divide our community. Some of the asinine comments I've read on the interwebz makes me believe they are succeeding.
If you read The Bang Switch blog post they made about it, you'll see that the Brady campaign has already hopped on those comments. They were extremely detrimental to the fight for 2A and G&A made the right decision.
2
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:52 am to bapple
quote:
The magazine is political. It may seem like they just do gun reviews, but when you look on the cover and see a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, you realize it is still political.
This article would not have been published without a green light from the entire editorial staff, but only the writer loses his job. Management made a boneheaded business decision in failing to account for the cost of being wrong on reader reaction, especially considering the precedents set by the other writers mentioned in your link.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:53 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
quote:
Management made a boneheaded business decision in failing to account for the cost of being wrong on reader reaction, especially considering the precedents set by the other writers mentioned in your link.
I'm not doubting that management did an extremely poor job of not monitoring what they set to publish.
I think at this point it's more damage control than anything. G&A not firing him would have been more detrimental than them letting him go.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:58 am to Yat27
quote:
Guns and Ammo threw old Dick under the bus.
They didn't throw anybody under the bus. Their job is to continue to sell magazines. His editorial has created quite a backlash that is making their job to continue to sell magazines more difficult. So to stop the bleeding, they fired the guy that wrote the inflammatory opinion piece. The guy had to know that when he penned that piece and it was actually published that his opinion was not going to be popular amongst their readers.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:00 am to weagle99
quote:
His 1st Amendment rights aren't even in play here. 1st Amendment doesn't free you from consequences of your words in the non-government arena.
Exactly. He knew (or should have known) the potential implications of his article. If he didn't appreciate it, then he really is an idiot.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:04 am to LSUnowhas2
He didn't publish this piece without full knowledge of senior management, but he will fall on the sword alone.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:05 am to LSUnowhas2
quote:
They didn't throw anybody under the bus. Their job is to continue to sell magazines. His editorial has created quite a backlash that is making their job to continue to sell magazines more difficult. So to stop the bleeding, they fired the guy that wrote the inflammatory opinion piece. The guy had to know that when he penned that piece and it was actually published that his opinion was not going to be popular amongst their readers.
All of this is true. However, I feel pretty confident that higher ups at G&A knew what they were printing, but did it anyway. Dick is probably the only one whose head will roll. Hence, the comment about throwing him under the bus.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:07 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
quote:
He didn't publish this piece without full knowledge of senior management, but he will fall on the sword alone.
And they probably told him that was a possibility. Actions have consequences and his writing that piece cost him his job and has made him a pariah in the gun community.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:36 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
Wow, what a misleading title to this thread. He doesn't call for any level of gun control, he simply says its not an infringement on the second amendment to have any kind of regulation. He never says what he thinks is an appropriate level of control other than to say that a 16 hour class is not inappropriate.
There is a degree to which guns should be regulated. I do not want a violent criminal able to walk into a store and buy a gun. I want well trained and responsible people to be able to carry in public open or concealed WITH A PERMIT. Two examples of regulation.
Too bad they threw him under the bus!
There is a degree to which guns should be regulated. I do not want a violent criminal able to walk into a store and buy a gun. I want well trained and responsible people to be able to carry in public open or concealed WITH A PERMIT. Two examples of regulation.
Too bad they threw him under the bus!
Posted on 11/7/13 at 8:55 am to Lpmann3
quote:
There is a degree to which guns should be regulated.
Sorry, there really isn't. All forms of regulation eventually point to confiscation. See the recent law passed in San Fran. They are confiscating any magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals.
quote:
I do not want a violent criminal able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
Cant happen now due to background checks. Beside criminal will never get their guns from a gun store. They buy them on the black market (which there is no way to prevent or eliminate.
A citizen should not need a permit to have a gun in their own home.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 10:39 am to Lpmann3
quote:
He doesn't call for any level of gun control, he simply says its not an infringement on the second amendment to have any kind of regulation. He never says what he thinks is an appropriate level of control other than to say that a 16 hour class is not inappropriate.
Webster's dictionary defines an infringement as, "an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege." Regulations on the second amendment are infringements, period. You acknowledge so much when you attempt to justify "degree[s] to which guns should be regulated." But there are really good reasons to infringe right?
quote:
I want well trained and responsible people to be able to carry in public open or concealed WITH A PERMIT.
Interesting to know that you believe your personal feelings on the matter should dictate the fundamental rights of other citizens of this nation. Your logic puts you in good standing with many dictators, monarchs, and politicians that all know what is better for simple peasants.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 10:47 am to 10MTNTiger
quote:
Interesting to know that you believe your personal feelings on the matter should dictate the fundamental rights of other citizens of this nation. Your logic puts you in good standing with many dictators, monarchs, and politicians that all know what is better for simple peasants.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 10:53 am to bapple
quote:
If you give the left one small concession like this, they jump on it like rabid dogs to try to divide our community. Some of the asinine comments I've read on the interwebz makes me believe they are succeeding.
Agree 100%, but the blame lies at least somewhat with those who are too stupid to realize it and carrying pitchforks.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 11:04 am to 10MTNTiger
quote:
Interesting to know that you believe your personal feelings on the matter should dictate the fundamental rights of other citizens of this nation. Your logic puts you in good standing with many dictators, monarchs, and politicians that all know what is better for simple peasants.
I get what you're saying but this is something I struggle with. I think you SHOULD be trained at least a little bit MORE to get a carry license. EVERYONE should have a gun but not everyone should be carrying. Just my opinion based on what I've seen at gun ranges, etc.
To give you an example, when I went to my CCW course, I couldn't help but notice how many people in the class couldn't put a round into a target 5 yards away with a 22. A 5 inch barrel 22 (Ruger Mark III). Think about that for a second...
It's a little frightening to think that person would be carrying and could be potentially firing rounds in public.
With that said, I know that most situations where a gun is used, it's used within a few feet so maybe that's a moot point.
No license to own, definitely a license (or at least SOME training) to carry. Which is the way it is now anyways.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:20 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
I think you SHOULD be trained at least a little bit MORE to get a carry license.
The issue I have here is that these supposed problems have not shown up in constitutional carry states. I would agree with you if statistics backed it up.
quote:
I couldn't help but notice how many people in the class couldn't put a round into a target 5 yards away with a 22. A 5 inch barrel 22 (Ruger Mark III). Think about that for a second...
They may not be a great shooter and it's refreshing that you brought up that point of close distance fights.
As an instructor, I will not fail someone for being a bad shot. I would hate to be the person who says, "Well, you can't shoot well enough so you don't get a permit to potentially save your life." That is not my position to make that decision.
Now, I will fail someone for being blatantly unsafe. As long as you are 100% safe, you can be as terrible of a shot as all hell and I still think you have the right to protect yourself.
EDIT: I personally believe your decision-making skills are more important than how well you shoot if you carry concealed. Call me crazy, but your thought process before that gun leaves the holster is the most important thing.
This post was edited on 11/7/13 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:50 pm to bapple
Jesus, people. The position many of you take is absurd. You want insane people, violent criminals, and convicted felons to be packing concealed weapons. You want kids to be packing concealed weapons. No regulations at all. When the kids play cowboys and indians, they should be able to go to the corner, pick up some Sprite and some live ammo for their games. No regulations at all. When a known felon is stopped by the police and he has a pistol in his belt he should be congratulated for exercising his fundamental rights and given a lift or something. No restrictions at all. That a pretty farked up world you want.
The rational discussion is what are society's minimum rules when it comes to instruments of deadly force. The writer of the article thinks a little training is ok. I'm sure most people agree. But to take the position that there should be no restrictions, no regulations, no limitations is beyond reckless.
Notice that I have not advocated gun control.
The rational discussion is what are society's minimum rules when it comes to instruments of deadly force. The writer of the article thinks a little training is ok. I'm sure most people agree. But to take the position that there should be no restrictions, no regulations, no limitations is beyond reckless.
Notice that I have not advocated gun control.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:54 pm to TBoy
I never stated my opinion on regulations at all. I just said if someone takes my class, they don't have to be a sharp shot to pass, as long as they are safe.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 2:02 pm to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
quote:
Guns &Ammo editorial supports gun control
say it ain't so
Posted on 11/7/13 at 2:06 pm to TBoy
quote:
Jesus, people. The position many of you take is absurd. You want insane people, violent criminals, and convicted felons to be packing concealed weapons. You want kids to be packing concealed weapons. No regulations at all. When the kids play cowboys and indians, they should be able to go to the corner, pick up some Sprite and some live ammo for their games. No regulations at all. When a known felon is stopped by the police and he has a pistol in his belt he should be congratulated for exercising his fundamental rights and given a lift or something. No restrictions at all. That a pretty farked up world you want.
I haven't seen anyone say anything of the sort that you are now saying. My position is that we already have enough gun laws. We don't need anymore. Especially when the gun laws we have on the books right now largely go unenforced i.e. prosecuting people that lie on the Form 4473 when purchasing a gun through an FFL dealer.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 2:33 pm to TBoy
put down the crack pipe...
We already have background checks to weed out known felons and such and we also have an age restriction...no one here said anything about common sense rules...but anything else that would infringe or make harder for a law abiding citizen to obtain or carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise is actually a violation of our 2A Rights...
We already have background checks to weed out known felons and such and we also have an age restriction...no one here said anything about common sense rules...but anything else that would infringe or make harder for a law abiding citizen to obtain or carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise is actually a violation of our 2A Rights...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News