Guns &Ammo editorial supports gun control

The guy fails Constitutional Law, History, and theory

Show me one place where he supports gun control. Not once does he call for additional regulation- not one time.

Seems to me he's supporting Illinois' 16 hour CC rule. We have an 8 hr. rule here- does that mean Bobby Jindal supports gun control?

Misleading thread title is misleading.

And LOL at the ignorance being spewed on their Facebook page. One of the most senior and respected gunwriters in the history of firearms writes an editorial about existing CC training laws and he's being burned at the stake.

There was nothing offensive about that column. Firing that guy and publishing an apology shows a level of gutless fear which is shameful.

A similar thing happened to the Recoil editor when he mentioned in an article that civilians didn't need to have access to military grade hardware. I thought it was ridiculous.

quote:

---

Show me one place where he supports gun control. Not once does he call for additional regulation- not one time.

---

"And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility for bearing arms."

I understand the point you are making but the simple fact is he does call for additional regulation and attempts to justify it by citing to the language of the Second Amendment. His entire article is a slippery slope argument, who decides what is "adequate training and preparation"? What he asks is for the government to oversee and give us permission to use the Bill of Rights once we have demonstrated we are responsible enough to have them. This is not a right, but a privilege, exactly like a driver's license - which he references.

The article also fundamentally misunderstands the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They were drafted to place constraints upon the government, not the individual. He simply misunderstands that in our system of government we have three separate but equal branches, and the fact that the judiciary has, through case law over the last 200 years, established limits on constitutional protections does not mean that the founders intended for the rights to be so limited.

It boils down to one simple idea: your fundamental rights come from God, or your fundamental rights come from your government. Mr. Metcalf believes that they come from government and argues accordingly.

quote:

---

What's sad is that all of these so called defenders of the 2nd got the guy fired because of his belief in the 1st.

Ironic, isn't it?

---

Did the government punish him for saying anything?

No?

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.

He says that we need to get a drivers license to drive and that is a reason to require law abiding citizens to get a license to own a firearm!

In my book that is supporting gun control!!!

I think the thread title is right on. Calling for a requirement to get a license to own a firearm is without a doubt GUN CONTROL!

You are right. Opps I should of read the article again. Trying to remember what he wrote after reading it this weekend didn't work to well.

quote:

---

What he asks is for the government to oversee and give us permission to use the Bill of Rights once we have demonstrated we are responsible enough to have them. This is not a right, but a privilege, exactly like a driver's license - which he references.

The article also fundamentally misunderstands the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They were drafted to place constraints upon the government, not the individual.

---

Nail on the head!

quote:

---

It boils down to one simple idea: your fundamental rights come from God, or your fundamental rights come from your government. Mr. Metcalf believes that they come from government and argues accordingly.

---

Amen!

maybe the moderates here can understand that...

the way I see it...whoever want to subject themselves to new regulations and have their God Given Rights become just a privilege, should just sign a paper allowing the government to do so for "THEM ONLY"

fools give up their freedoms/rights for a false sense of security...they deserve neither!

quote:

---

To be fair, I believe he is specifically talking about the training required to carry concealed.

---

Concealed carry by the letter of the second amendment should not be considered a privelege, but an extension of their 2A right...that's how much the liberals have pounded this into some peoples heads...to believe otherwise is just wrong...