- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
Guns &Ammo editorial supports gun control
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:24 am
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:24 am
LINK
I saw that this was creating quite an uproar online and on Guns & Ammo Facebook page. What are the OB's thoughts?
I saw that this was creating quite an uproar online and on Guns & Ammo Facebook page. What are the OB's thoughts?
This post was edited on 11/7/13 at 1:27 am
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:38 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
The guy fails Constitutional Law, History, and theory
Posted on 11/7/13 at 1:47 am to Libertyabides71
quote:
The guy fails Constitutional Law, History, and theory
You can add selling magazines to that list.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 3:40 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
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.
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.
This post was edited on 11/7/13 at 3:56 am
Posted on 11/7/13 at 4:36 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
Posted on 11/7/13 at 5:21 am to Yat27
There was nothing offensive about that column. Firing that guy and publishing an apology shows a level of gutless fear which is shameful.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 5:48 am to TBoy
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?
It's disgusting that we can't have an intelligent conversation in this country any more without people spewing profanity and taking an extreme stance either right or left.
Ironic, isn't it?
It's disgusting that we can't have an intelligent conversation in this country any more without people spewing profanity and taking an extreme stance either right or left.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:13 am to subMOA
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.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:18 am to TBoy
quote:
There was nothing offensive about that column
I didn't think so either.
quote:
military grade hardware
What does this mean? This could be helicopter gunships or AR-15s/AK-47s.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:22 am to subMOA
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.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:29 am to subMOA
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.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:34 am to jmarto1
quote:
A similar thing happened to the Recoil editor
I looked the Recoil article up. While I wouldn't advocate firing the guy, Jerry Tsai should have worded this differently. Of course, he crawfished after the backlash.
quote:
T]he MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications….
Although it may not seem like it to you, this statement is exactly the argument that anti-gunners like to use to argue against handguns and semi-auto rifles like the AR-15.
The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with "sporting applications."
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:41 am to subMOA
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!
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!
Posted on 11/7/13 at 6:49 am to civiltiger07
quote:
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!
To be fair, I believe he is specifically talking about the training required to carry concealed.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:00 am to Yat27
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.
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:01 am to Yat27
Read this article from The Bang Switch blog about it. He brings up some great points.
The Bang Switch - When a Gun Writer Falls
The Bang Switch - When a Gun Writer Falls
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:11 am to 10MTNTiger
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!
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:15 am to bapple
I saw that. It's funny that the Brady Campaign has already jumped on Metcalf's comments to justify more regulation. Regardless, his article was by far the least offensive of the three mentioned.
Frick this guy.
Frick this guy.
quote:
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.” — Jim Zumbo
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:15 am to Yat27
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...
Posted on 11/7/13 at 7:19 am to Pepperidge
quote:
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...
I just mentioned to civiltiger that the following quote wasn't exactly the truth.
quote:
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!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News