“The hijacking of our movement by these radical extremists causes me to fear for the future of the right I have spent my adult life fighting to defend . . . When we engage in noisy, extremist rhetoric rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever, or refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that constitutionally validated regulations and statutes already exist, we risk alienating the American mainstream. And if we lose that mainstream, we will lose this war.” Dick Metcalf, Target: Me [via politico.com] [h/t CH]
OK, so Dick is in favor of civilian disarmament. Is there anything else do discuss?
Nope
Ol’ Dick is a raging narcissist, as evidenced by the “nothing I wrote could possibly be construed as anti-RKBA… the whole world is wrong I am the only one who ‘gets it'” monkey business. As such, I suspect he reads every word written about him on the web, to include TTAG and the comments section here. With that in mind, I choose my next words very carefully.
F*ck you Dick Metcalf. You deserve everything that you’re getting. Every harsh word, every lost economic opportunity, every painful consequence. You bought it, so stop complaining about the price. Keep preaching the 1st amendment all you want; no one is censoring you. Your firing was a result of the free market. You betrayed the industry that put food on your table. So if you want to stop sounding like a whiney douche bag with a victim complex, climb down off the cross and knock off the free-speech routine. In fact, you should probably reconsider feeding the trolls in the MSM too; they’re only using your words to do even more harm to the RKBA in your name (which frankly is pretty amazing because so much harm has been done to it in your name to begin with). You’re words are certainly not reaching any of us; In the RKBA community, your opinions are worth less than nothing. Go crawl into obscurity and die there, traitor.
Well said.
Fully agree. Problem is that the anti-gun media loves that this guy has been made a pariah, therefore they will always have an open ear for his narcisistic mouth.
Got that right.
Hal,
You nailed it.
Well said.
Only to come to a consensus about referring to him as Baby Dick Metcalf from now on. You know, because of his whining temperament.
I’m in with the Baby Dick thing. He’ll see it in print, too, sooner or later.
Metcalf, don’t you have some fishing to get on with in your retirement. WE THE PEOPLE are not interested in your progressive view on the 2nd Amendment. In other words – f*ck off and die already.
So, mr metcalfe driving people away from support of 2A is just wonderful, people refusing to accept his anti-2A sentiments is the downfall of the Human Race. OK, got it.
Extremity in virtue is no vice.
+1
Sounds like Dicky supports the 2nd amendment but….
If Mr. Metcalf really supports the Second Amendment, he has made the classic mistake of believing in “appeasement strategy”. Newsflash: appeasement strategy does not work when your opponent wants everything.
Just look at the track record since the early 1900s. At every turn, we have given up gun rights, in exchange for nothing I might add, little-by-little to “appease” gun control proponents. And no matter how much we give up, gun control proponents always want more. That’s because they don’t actually want gun control, they want civilian disarmament. How can I make such a claim? Because their sometimes implied and sometimes explicit threat at every action to criminalize our rights has been, “Give us this concession or we will come back and take away even more!”
Classical “appeasement” strategy at best only delays the inevitable … and demonstrates weakness to your enemy in the process. No more appeasement Mr. Metcalf. We have not made recent gains because we have been appeasing civilian disarmament proponents or the “mainstream”. We have made gains because we have been fighting for our rights. And for some strange reason, many of the “mainstream” have joined the fight. Maybe it is because they see the value of the fight and respect us for our fight and have decided to join our ranks. After all, everyone likes to be on the winning side.
Since Metcalf seems to have some difficulty understanding basic concepts, I’ll offer this simplification in case he reads this:
Dick, if a hungry bear wants to eat you, you don’t propose a “reasonable compromise” where he just eats your legs.
Being a ravenously hungry bear myself, I can guarantee that no concessions will be made. It’s all or nothing.
Well… Okay, one concession. I don’t like bothering with marrow, since it’s hard to get to, and the bones get stuck in my teeth.
I support keeping armed bears and the right to bear arms.
Even bears have the natural right to keep and bear arms, even in captivity (incarceration). Have you ever seen their teeth or claws up close? And they have the natural right to use those arms in self defense, including eating you if the occasion arises. No amount of legislation is going to change this and no bear is going to agree to an “either the teeth OR the claws, it’s for the children” compromise.
Do people deserve less consideration?
“That’s because they don’t actually want gun control, they want civilian disarmament. How can I make such a claim?”
That’s easy…as I’ve written several times on these replies, within 2 or 3 DAYS of Newtown, Biden was seen on interviews using the term “civilian disarmament”…this has been on the “honey-do” list for a long time…what compromise?
Sorry I don’t know what happened;
Ok appeasement didn’t work well for Chamberlain, and Hitler needed to be stopped. This has no correlation to Metcalf’s belief that the anti-gun nuts cannot be appeased. It also has not correlation to Obama’s belief that Iran cannot be appeased. I mean what could possibly go wrong with a nuclear Iran or the anti-gun nuts. I am sure they are reasonable. Right?
end sarcasm.
There is no BUT. Either you support it, fully, as in “shall not be infringed,” or you don’t. A statement ending in “but” raises as big a red flag for me as “let me be honest.”
Gun ownership surges 39%
EBRs #1 rifle purchase
I’d say he’s full of Sheit , again, still
What a Dick
Straw man argument again… “extremist rhetoric rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever”. Sounds like Dick has been reading from Bloomberg’s playbook again, maybe the Speech guide used by Obama.
My response…. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh Shaaattttuppp!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArSLNJNUEIM
But we HAVE accepted firearms legislation, willingly, in 1787. It’s called the Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America. The intent of this amendment was to make all further firearms legislation not only unnecessary, but prohibited.
Umm, actually Dick, we’re winning the war, in-spite of you, not because of you. But thanks for playing anyway. Enjoy your twilight years and your retirement.
And you only lose a war when you surrender.
What the hell is a “constitutionally validated regulation”? The Constitution can’t validate anything. A branch of the State (the courts), which is itself appointed by another branch of the State (the executive), can “validate” a regulation passed by a third branch of the State (legislature.) These are all supposed to act within the Constitution, but they are not the Constitution.
The best you can say for any gun regulation is that all three branches of the State got together and agreed that the State should have the power to regulate, and the Individual should be subject to said regulation and thereby subject to the State.
Well stated.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself! But your words are very true. It doesn’t matter whether one branch of government or the entire government agrees to subjugate its citizens — which at that point are no longer citizens but subjects. It is still morally wrong. And in our case, such a situation violates the actual written words of our Constitution and Bill of Rights which are the Supreme Law of the Land!
+1
Exactly. Just because 5 out of 9 TEMPORARY and politically appointed MEN decide that a government regulation is not an infringement of the Constitution does not set that opinion in stone for all eternity, nor make their decision correct. Dred Scott. (Among others.)
“Constitutionally validated.” That’s silly of Metcalf to say. It’s as though he believes the Constitution is the source of our rights as men, and that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Being assaying those rights. Neither is true.
To believe either is to deny that such rights pre-date the Constitution and to ignore that the Supreme Court can be wrong and can reverse itself. Or would Mr. Metcalf care to declare at this time his views that slavery, segregation and internment of Japanese-Americans are all “Constitutionally validated” and, therefore, acceptable?
After all, the Supreme Court did so in its decisions in Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu, respectively. (Would you believe that the last one, to this day, has not only never been formally overturned by the Court, but is actually still cited by various parties for various purposes?!)
Mr. Metcalf, stand up for yourself as a rights-bearing man, and quit subordinating yourself to a robe-wearing clan.
+1 That’s it. In a nutshell.
A little bit of doubletalk there Mr. Metcalf. How do you defend the right and allow restrictions at the same time. Yes, restrictions exist, but the defense of 2a is about freedom and the very restrictions you are proposing limit that freedom. You cannot defend and right and restrict it in the same breath. I’d ask whose side you are on, but you are fortunate to be a position where you work is obvious over the years.
Sir, It is impossible to negotiate with the anti-gun extremist just as much as the pro-gun extremist. Your sentiment that noisy, extremist can backfire is important because heated, non-rational conversations cannot help to address the hardcore facts that exist. The facts that are necessary to win logical support from anyone in the general population who will listen
However, if we are to keep our rights, there are certain lines and restrictions that cannot be allowed.
If I recall his article correctly, he used the oft-regurgitated fallacy about Speech being restricted with the “fire in a crowded theater” to support his misguided argument. And, then his also misused the term “well-regulated.” I think the old man has lost his marbles.
Maybe decades ago Dick d believe in the RKBA and his recent anti-gun articles are just the onset of dementia? I mean the guy is what, 135 years old?
His yelling “Fire!” in a theater argument is irrelevant because the State has never passed a law mandating that people wear muzzles in “sensitive locations”, much less upheld such an asinine law in a court.
His “regulated militia” argument is downright intentionally misleading: a person who as never researched the Second Amendment will discover in less than 5 minutes of research what a “regulated militia” and, indeed the entire Amendment itself, means.
That’s a stupid argument, if there’s really a fire in a theater it’s perfectly fine to yell “fire!”
I was at a military movie one time during a particularly tense scene (white of the eyes type scenario). As the suspense increased several people called out, “Fire, already, goddamit!” Don’t recall the FBI showing up to arrest and prosecute anyone.
The citizens are the militia. The only administrative duty (i.e. regulation) they need to be concerned with is supplying me with kick ass weapons, training and ammo.
He just loves the attention he’s getting from the gun-confiscation claque. He’s playing up to them, like a trained monkey, while ignoring the obvious fact that they would have vilified him as a “gun nut” in the past. And probably did.
I thought this was a pro-gun blog? Anti-open carry article, and now quotes from this moron?
It’s a pro gun blog because he’s quoting this stuff to exhibit how fricking *wrong* it is.
were you born stupid or did it happen over time? They quote this guy because its relevant to the Second Amendment and his story has been covered since the outset, as for the open carry piece, this is a place for healthy debate.
Duh.
It is a truth about guns blog
Yes
My small penis supports itself just fine, thank you very much.
]EDIT] I was responding to this:
” boutros commented on Quote of the Day: Dick Metcalf Edition.
in response to Drew:
It is a truth about guns blog
Looks more like a small penis support group.”
This blog is a place to present both sides of the coin, albeit with a clear favoritism to one. Know your enemy, as we say. Farago has said as much. He’s going to provide a forum for dissenting views. He’ll even publish editorials from anti-gunners, if they have the courage to offer themselves up as a martyr to the anti-gun causes they champion. There have been few takers; but if you look back through the archives, you’ll find a few anti-gun postings on this site.
The QotD is usually from an anti-type, showing how out of touch or misguided they are.
Dick tries to paint himself as reasonable but he was just plain wrong!
He thinks “well regulated” means laws and restrictions.
He suggested 16h of training for Illinois CCL is reasonable without any regard to cost or time availability.
And to prove all of his critics right, he won’t shut up about it and admit he was wrong.
He knows he’s lost the pro-2A people, so now he’s vying for a pat on the head from the antis. Typical sociopathic, narcissistic behavior.
Last nite the NSSF gave Jim Zumbo the Grits Gresham communicator award. Next year fully expect Dicker Metcalf to receive industry awards. It ain’t called “a fifth column ” for nothing.
Apparently the news of Jim’s 180 turn isn’t as widespread as his initial gaffe. He has since seen the error of his ways, gotten some education on ARs and their uses (from Uncle Ted of all people), joined the SAF and is back in the industry doing good work.
Jim Zumbo knew when to quit digging his hole deeper. It’s ok to learn from your mistakes.
I don’t buy these apology tours to Ted Nugent or Al Sharpton. Smacks more of a good PR handler than real change of mind. And just joining SAF for 40 bucks absolves him of his transgression? Nah…
I couldn’t read beyond the first page.
Either this guy is too dumb to realize that the anti-gun extremists are turning him into a poster child for their movement, or he’s got a freaking ego the size of Texas that won’t allow him to shut his own mouth.
He is Dupe, a paid Bloomberg Shill, Attention Whore and Traitor to America.
The Media is loaded with them
He has forgotten the “when in a hole STOP DIGGING” rule.
Nobody gives a shit, Dick.
So those of us who support our natural right to self-defense and self preservation are “radical extremists”? Please. Metcalf has embarassed himself enough already.
Perhaps, it does not mean we cannot take every opportunity to embarrass him more.
Why would you want him to stop? We should be enjoying his little exercise in hole-digging. Go Dick go!
I’ll say one thing for Metcalf…he sure knows how to alienate Pro 2nd Amendment folks and marginalize himself. Next he’ll be in a News Conference with Shannon Watts.
“…causes me to fear for the future of the right I have spent my adult life fighting to defend . . .” Guess what, Dick? You can write-off your “adult life’s work” as a waste of time….
It’s the fault of Fudd’s like him we’re in the situation we are in today. All these “reasonable regulations” and “common sense laws” are the parents of such wondrous nonsense as 10 round mags only filled to 7 and “gun-free” zones.
The NFA, GCA and AWB are essentially Dick’s fault. The fault of Dick and every ignorant, racist Fudd past, present and future.
Same goes for prohibition while I’m at it. Born of bigotry and perpetuated by ignorance at best and a simple desire for control at worst.
These people are the Jews trying to convince their neighbors to just hear the Nazi’s out. Don’t make any waves because it could be worse. Stop open carrying because you might upset some inpatient and get our smoking privileges revoked.
I would not have joined Dick’s NRA. I actively spoke against Dick’s NRA for their anti-liberty actions. I eventually did join the NRA having seen their turn toward what Dick describes as extremist views.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Dick.
Between the Fudd’s, prohibitionists and two-party partisans I really cannot wait for the dinosaurs of the old era to die off.
Hopefully they’ll die off soon enough.
As for Prohibition, it MUST be noted that at that time in our history drunkenness and alcoholism, and all the social ills that accompany the excessive use of alcohol, were HUGE problems and very definitely needed to be addressed.
Historically, private citizens running armed through the streets and shooting up everything and anything, not so much.
But it is obvious in retrospect that allowing the government to prohibit alcohol, especially through such an extreme action as a Constitutional amendment, was pure folly. Any government action addressing the problem should have been in the form of education and incentives and perhaps treatment for alcoholics and some support for their families (better accomplished through religious and community groups). Prohibition was just the introduction and acceptance of government tyranny.
There is no huge sociological problem faced today by law abiding persons exercising their Second Amendment rights. The only problem is the increasingly tyrannical, lawless and potentially fascist federal and local governments fearing that armed citizens may finally mobilize militias to reverse their unconstitutional actions. Hence civilian disarmament; it is the Progressive’s ONLY hope of completing their “Fundamental Change of America.”
What kind of “incentives” are you talking about? Stay sober for a month, and you get a free near beer?
No thank you.
‘former’ Guns & Ammo columnist.
For a reason. The market speaks.
In general, whenever I talk to people who support gun restrictions (registration, univ checks, mandatory training, mag limits) I always try to politely listen to their ideas. Then I ask them to explain (again, still politely) how their proposal would actually affect the target problem.Then I will offer a counter proposal that directly addresses their chosen problem that does not violate our human and civil rights. Example, a lady I was speaking to said she was afraid of idiot careless uninformed people able to buy guns. She suggested a mandatory licencing program one would have to pass in order to buy a gun. I asked her how that would actually work, and how easy it would be to dodge her system. I then proposed a rollback of the gun free school zone act and reintroduce gun safety training (a la Eddie eagle for little ones, and more Jeff cooperesque as they get older) at all levels of public school. Basically put it into the yearly rotation along with DARE, Fire safety, poison safety, sex ed, stranger danger etc. I also mentioned that it would address the (albeit rare) cases of accidental shootings. I let her mull that over and she came to the conclusion largely on her own that my proposed system would be more pervasive, harder to dodge, directly address her concerns, and to top it off, not violate anyone’s rights. She didn’t like it, because of her decades long acceptance of the gun control gospel, but she had to admit that it was a better solution than she originally offered. The key is that even though I am hardline against gun control, I am not some slathering psychopath who is unwilling/unable to have a civil discussion with opposing points of view and cone to a reasonable compromise that gets everyone what they want (more or less). Mr. Metcalf, the difference between you and I is that I don’t see capitulation to a bad idea as a necessary starting point for civil discourse.
Good reply, thanks!
Well said, Josh.
Civilized discussions are what we should all shoot for. Many times, those we disagree with politically might have a good objective in mind, but have the absolute worst method for attempting to achieve that objective. If we can speak to them rationally and show why their method is bad, and that another method is better, we might be able to make progress.
As a writer and a thinker I have on many occasions come up with solutions for problems that seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time. I presented these arguments to other people and listened to their critiques and on many occasions have discovered flaws in my logic that required me to revise or discard my original conclusions. That is the sort of communication and exchange of ideas that has gotten the human race to the technological point it has currently achieved.
DOGMA SUCKS.
DARE is a joke. PR to make little kids want to grow up to be narcs.
Dick Metcalf wrongly perceives himself as mainstream. It’s the exact same disorder Mother Jones, PETA, Green Peace, etc. suffer from.
To be fair, many of the views expressed here aren’t exactly “mainstream”, either.
That doesn’t mean I don’t support them, mind you. Were it up to me, one would be able to buy a full auto weapon and/or a silencer at the local gun shop without so much as a background check…but at least 90% of the American public disagrees with that, and always will.
“Always will”? I disagree, who would of thought back in the eighties that by today; we have six Constitutional carry states; and all the other states have either shall issue CC and only few left with May issue?
The tide is turning in the level of re-awakening of what was the norm for most of our countries history; that is the common every day idea that carrying a weapon for defending oneself and ones community is what a responsible citizen does.
I hope you’re right, but I don’t anticipate being able to buy an M4 carbine with a giggle switch for less than $20K in my lifetime.
I don’t believe that you could obtain a transferable M4 at any price. The design is from 1994 so any true M4 would have been manufactured after the 1986 closing of the full-auto registry by the Hughes amendment.
An M4gery, then…in any case, I will be astonished if the ’86 ban on manufacture of full auto weapons for civilian ownership is ever repealed.
In his milieu, his views are at the right fringe of mainstream. I assure you his interpretation of the term “well regulated” is stock and trade among his peers.
He’s an academic from the Ivy League, in other words, “our betters.” You’re failing to grasp the nut of his position: They’re so much smarter than the rest of us. Why? Because Ivy League, that’s why. Your actual IQ, accomplishments and the facts don’t matter here. The entire SCOTUS is from either Harvard or Yale. Every POTUS since Reagan has been from the Ivy League. And we all know what a geriatric nutter Reagan was… thinking he could take on the communists and win.
That we unwashed, teaming masses don’t accept and genuflect before his obviously superior intellect is the root of the problem here, at least in his mind.
“That we unwashed, teaming masses don’t accept and genuflect before his obviously superior intellect is the root of the problem here…”
It has been the problem throughout the centuries and was THE problem the Founders were attempting to address with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not to mention it was heavily addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Men in societies have a general tendency to either despotism as in autocracy or dictatorship, or to elitism in the form of an aristocracy.
We are currently attempting to address both of these issues in America since the Congress and Judiciary seeks to establish itself as a de facto aristocracy and the Executive branch (not just at the federal level) tends to view itself as autocratic.
The fact that this is happening in spite of all the controls the Founders attempted to include in our founding documents is the very reason they made certain to include the Second Amendment and the words, “…shall not be infringed.”
There are no more obvious signs of impending despotism than official government attempts to subvert or deny ANY of the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights in the Bill of Rights. All such attempts must be viewed by the people as treason against the Constitution and tyranny against the people.
Who controls Politico, Bloomberg?
Bloomturd doesn’t control Politico but he might as well. It was founded by former employees of The Washington Post. Said publication has a long and dreary history of virulent anti-RKBA propaganda. Politico is basically an online only version of WaPo with all of the same beltway “Progressive” baggage dressed up as journalism.
So now that he’s (been) retired from the gun industry Metcalf sees no benefit (to himself) in the 2A. What a whore.
Ah, you effin’ prick!
I suspect after Dick reads this comment, I guess GSL Defense Training won’t be conducting classes at PASA shooting park in Berry, IL!
And you know what? I’m good with that.
Until the PASA members kick this son of a bitch out of his position as president, he can take his rhetoric and stick it up his ass.
You know, I posted at Capitol Fax, “the” political blog in Illinois, that it was good riddance that Dick was out at his old position. I jokingly wrote that perhaps he should apply with Gabby Giffords’ group for a new job.
Looks like he’s doing just that right now.
Hey Dick, FOAD.
Like today.
John
Applause.
Don’t hold back John … please feel free to openly express yourself.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. Bravo! Well said.
I propose to any administrators or moderators of this blog that any prohibition against the FOAD acronym be suspended in the case of any article including Mr. Metcalf or his comments.
“And if we lose that mainstream, we will lose this war.”
It’s that sort of thinking that gave us political candidates like Limp Bob Dole, the Maverick RINO John McCain, the BlueBlood Mitten Romney and equally Blueblood “Read my lips” HW Bush.
Go self-procreate, you pompous ass.
John
It’s not like we are losing the war. Appealing to squishy moderates is always a crappy idea. Lead by example! Get people to conform to your ideas, especially if you are in the right, like we are.
It looks like you are fired up, John. I don’t blame you, I applaud you!
This guy is entering the Zimmerman Zone of guys I wish I didn’t have to hear of or from ever again. What a nimrod.
That’s doubly funny if you know who Nimrod was.
Reading the article, I think Mr. Metcalf is like a lot of people. I wouldn’t call them Fudds exactly but here’s the subtle difference between them and me:
Mr. Metcalf likes guns a lot, and he understands that he needs a little freedom in order to enjoy a lot of guns, but when it comes down to it, it’s about the guns.
I like freedom a lot, and I understand that I (and my likeminded countrymen) need a few guns in order to enjoy a lot of freedom. Sure, I like guns, but when it comes down to it, its about the freedom, not the guns.
Interesting point. I see this more and more, people who buy guns for protection, etc., but aren’t what I’d actually call “gun people”. I buy guns, certainly more of them than I actually “need”, because I freaking love them, but I own guns because they are powerful enablers – protection of home and family for the time it takes cops to arrive, protection in case of a SHTF scenario, etc. I haven’t thought of it exactly that way before, as in what comes first, the desire for freedom to protect me and mine vs. loud, bucking pieces of wood and metal that are kick-in-the-ass-fun to use.
I’m proud to hear that I got you thinking.
The question was posed a couple of weeks ago as to whether “liberal” gun enthusiasts are good for the movement. I think Mr. Metcalf is an illustration of why the answer is “no.” Not that he’s a liberal, but anyone who is lax in his moral and logical basis for gun freedom is an unsteady ally and not someone I want to share a foxhole with. Whereas, someone who staunchly defends his own freedom, on any subject matter, who for whatever reason does not enjoy guns, that man is my ally even if we’ve never met and even if he stands for no one’s rights but his own.
Ask yourself this: Those that killed and died a Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, what was their defining element, their sine qua non? That they were they loved guns, or that the loved Liberty?
One of the best things about the contributors and commenters on this site is that they challenge me daily on my own opinions, prejudices, and assumptions. Good stuff. The fact I learn something new everyday is just a bonus.
If people who love liberty are good to have on our side, then there are lots of liberals who fit that description.
I’m talking about real liberals though… not those mean-spirited, bigoted, self-important, non-thinkers that are so often associated with the word.
“If people who love liberty are good to have on our side, then there are lots of liberals who fit that description.”
If a valid argument can be made against big “L” Liberals (Progressives, socialists, fascists) it is this: They only love their own liberty and the liberty of people who agree with them. If you oppose them they will make every attempt to crush you.
Small “c” conservatives want liberty for all, so long as you do not use that liberty to infringe on other people’s natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights.
I couldn’t agree more, Duke.
+1776
This analysis of his thinking makes a great deal of sense, it would explain a lot.
He thinks of this as a highly enjoyable but rather dangerous hobby with a small element of the mindset captured by: “Don’t do this at home boys and girls! We are trained professionals!”
Now that he’s no longer writing for a gun magazine and having to avoid stepping on the toes of people like you (and me), he can elaborate his position some more. Guns for *most* people provided they pass muster–and to be sure he’s not being a *total* elitist about it; he’d probably be willing to let anyone who doesn’t have a dirtbag police record have ’em with a leeeetle bit of training (not really up to “professional” standards). But WE believe that’s not the point.
We aren’t liking what we are seeing, in the least.
Many “liberal” conclusions begin with the thought: “My mother was right, I am a very special boy.”
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
Dick needs to step away from the keyboard, he just keeps digging that hole deeper.
Dick is a Bloomberg Shill, bought and paid for none of which conflicts with his ego driven philosophy in the slightest. Dick is being marketed and the approval #s will determine if he makes it to MSNBC as a commentator
I wouldn’t be too surprised it he made it to MSNBC. Talking heads are coming and going there at a dizzying speed, as the ratings spiral downwards. Metcalf might be the straw that breaks MSNBC’s back.
They came for the AR15s, I said nothing. They came for the Glocks, I said nothing. They came for the shotguns, I said hey wait, you promised you would leave these alone!
Exactly, when was the last time the pro gun control folks got what they wanted and then let the issue rest? The next time will be the first. Take NY state, first it was 10, now it has to be 7. Or CT, already had an AWB, now it had to be expanded. If CO citizens hadn’t pushed back, does anyone think it would have stayed at 15? If you do I got a bridge to sell you. This is Dick’s error. He thinks if we give a little, the antis will give as well. They won’t. They just will keep pushing and pushing until they’ve eliminated and meaning in the 2nd Amendment. That’s not extremism, it’s realism based on the history we’ve seen.
In NYC, it’s 5 (if I’m not mistaken).
The bill in Colorado originally specified a ten round limit and got bumped to 15 to increase its chance of passage.
+100
Dick Butter
Dick says in his article that he was against gun control laws because they didn’t stop criminals from getting and mis-using guns. Then he turns around and says that there should gun control laws because…… Why? Dick feels better to have the state controlling a right and making it into a privilege? Because the so called “mainstream” feels better to have the government controlling a privilege instead of a right?
Bah! Dick and any so called “Mainstream” are just a bunch of statist control freaks that pee in their pants at the idea of the real mainstream, us, the people; actually being free in practicing a right that the elite don’t control.
Oh you are so right DICK, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone for risk they might take our rights away, we should compromise. What a fvcking FUDD.
The only way to ensure your rights are not taken away by force is to hand them over without an argument.
He’s from Illinois? Something in the water out there, “Land of Lithium?”
Mmmm. Lithium.
Dick Metcalf got the boot for being a sh!theel towards gun rights and that makes him really angry.
His solution is a long licensing process that would cost money, take time, punish the poor, and do nothing to really improve safety. He gets called on it and then get really mad that no one likes his idea.
Hell if you applied Dick’s logic towards religion or freedom of speech, a licensing program of who gets to worship or be a member of the press, he might understand why he’s an idiot, though most likely he’d just call us extremists and cry to gun grabbers at saying how unfair gun right proponents are.
We do not need or want people like Dick Metcalf, and it drives him crazy to realize that.
Nice!
Dick also fought for Rosa Park’s right to ride in the back of the bus.
Capt. Pissy Pants Sails Again! AAaargh!!! Seriously how to you spell FUDD?
This guy is a anti gun enabler. We already have ‘common sense’ gun control laws Dick
Perhaps Metcalf is attempting to secure his “golden parachute” by turning into “the credible, reasonable voice” that Piers Morgan, Bloomberg and their ilk can turn to when they need an “industry insider ” to support their ideas.
This. He wants to be the “contributor” the talking heads turn to when guns are in the news. But you don’t usually get that job unless you bash pro 2A beliefs.
Looking forward to seeing his op-eds on HuffPo. Seems to me us “extremists” were fine when we were writing his paycheck. Its only now that he’s having to shop his wrongheaded ideas and feelings of persecution to some of the very people he was allegedly fighting against “all these years” that we’re now that”extremists.”
Go play in extreme traffic, Dick. Neither side needs you.
Fukking quisling.
Quisling was at least honest in his goals and associations.
Sounds like a last gasp attempt to stay relevant in his longtime profession after self sabotaging that career…
Explain to us, Mr. Metcalf, why you used the gun-grabbing-accepted definition of “well regulated”. Why did you use their argument against us? That is what I simply cannot get past. By your claims you are well educated, taught history as a profession, and have been engaged in fights against gun control for 40 years.
So why did you make such a fundamental mistake? I can only assume, based upon your resume, that you did not see it as a mistake in your argument. You have not addressed that problem in any of your replies and pleas published since your editorial was published. Why is that?
I can only conclude that you agree with our enemy’s arguments as you refuse to deal with the substance of our objection. Looking at your resume, you should have known better, and we deserved better. Enjoy your retirement.
You may have found the chink in his intellectual armor (such as it is). He’s willing to respond to attacks, clearly (with a steamshovel, so as to dig deeper, faster). But he dodges this *specific* point.
He used “welll regulated” in that way because he is not the expert on the 2nd ammendment he thinks he is.
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Dick is a dick.
Dear Mr. Metcalf. I dare you, no I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to spend 1 year in a Massachusetts town, and then tell me how we need to “compromise”. You might even get your government issued photo and fingerprint ID by the end of that year, since the delays now are only at 6-9 months. Till then, you cannot own any rifle, shotgun, handgun, ammo, or even pepper spray. Feel free to complain, I am sure our AG and governor and legislature will help. You also cannot buy any “assault weapon”, about 85% of handguns, and would have to register each and every gun you own. Make sure you lock everything up when you leave the house, cause if you leave so much as a single piece of ammo out, it is a felony. Also, individual primers, powder, bullets, and cases are all considered ammo BTW. In the meantime, you can compromise all year long with Rep. Linskey, who wants all medical records of gun owners released to the police. You can compromise all year long with Sen. Chang-Diaz, who wants one gun a month and dealers limited to 15 sales per year. You can compromise all year with Governor Patrick, who wants 7 round limits in a magazine even in your own house! Or you can STFU until you have a clue what you are talking about and what the opposition is really after.
Whoa, that’s a serious breach of etiquette leaping directly from dare to triple dog dare, my friend, but I agree with the rest of the post.
A triple dog dare in defense of liberty is no vice.
I Triple Dog Dare Mr. Metcalf to wet his fingers and than grab a flagpole in sub-zero temperatures. That should save us from his typing out any more of this drivel for awhile.
Many of the most ardent Nazis were highly educated professionals who endorsed reasonable restrictions on German citizens, for the betterment of all. As a “History Professor” Dicky should be well aware of what he is endorsing
I’m nonplussed that Metcalf doesn’t understand why people who value the 2nd Amendment found the article repulsive. When a ‘gun writer’ pens an article about the 2nd Amendment yet makes it obvious he either hasn’t read or doesn’t agree with Heller, of course he should experience disdain. It doesn’t matter, really, how many hunting trips he’s been on.
Nailed it. Metcalf is just another Fudd who couldn’t give adamn about the RKBA as long as his trusty huntin’ rafle is safe.
Heller? Heck, it’s obvious that he either hasn’t read or doesn’t agree with the Second Amendment.
While I somewhat agree with this blog’s airing of the opposition’s viewpoints so that we don’t all exist in a bubble, last week, Dick was on the front page of the NY Times. He has had enough exposure and enough of an audience to whine to. This story was a waste of bandwidth. The people of the gun have spoken and excommunicated him, let him go with his kind, the anti-gunners.
I see where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree. This disgusting traitor must be confronted every time he inserts his corrupted opinions into the MSM. He must be shamed and mocked relentlessly until he crawls into a hole somewhere and stays there. He is a vile person that must be ostracized, and the TTAG is one of the best mechanisms for this. If anything, Farago and his crew err on the side of being too polite (because they’re not playing checkers, they’re playing chess) when discussing folks like Dick Metcalf.
And that’s a +100, right there.
Oh boy, here comes the butt hurt titty baby, throwing his senior citizen temper tantrum after having been called out for the fraud he is. How declasse.
“Radical extremists”, he said? As opposed to whom, “Radical moderates”, “Conventional extremists”, or some other nonsensical collective? Good grief. “Extreme” is an adjective, which are used to describe nouns. Adjectives don’t have a stand alone, contextual meaning until applied to something else. Even then, “extreme” must apply to something specific and dimensional, not just to a person in general.
Moreover, while itself ignoring any underlying noun, “extremist” nevertheless invites you to assume one for yourself and that it’s bad. Well. Who’s to say all “extremists” (his word) are bad? Wasn’t Jesus an extremist for Love? Wasn’t Ghandi an extremist for Peace? Wasn’t Mother Teresa an exremist for Charity? Quite the Axis of Radical Evil there, those three, eh, Mr. Metcalf?
Use of meaningless terms like “radical extremist” is simply shorthand for “I don’t like you or your ideas, but since I cannot articulate a cogent counterargument, I’ll resort to this stretchy catchall slur.” Grow up, Mr. Metcalf.
I’m an extremist for pizza…
Extremist for double-chocolate stout, here.
Very good point. This is why all those -ists and -isms are so popular and why they work so well. They harness negative assumptions without needing anything concrete to back them up.
Don’t agree with me? You’re an extremist! The accusation is also the proof.
Very well said. English is so often abused.
Yes, and by the abusive and the nonchalant alike.
And he’s a professional writer!
Next time somebody calls me an extremist I’m going to call them a “very very.” And then a “double plus very very”.
Here’s one more English question:
Racist = one who focuses on the race of another and disregards content or quality of character.
Sexist = one who focuses on the sex of another and disregards content or quality of character.
Materialist = one who focuses on material goods and disregards other goods.
So, an “Extremist” if the term has a definition, would = one who focuses on the extremity of another’s position without regard to the content or validity of that position.
So, Dick Metcalf = Extremist.
For the record – extreme is an adjective. Extremist is a noun.
So, just like the women from MDA, Dick is basically interviewing for a job at MAIG by using the media…got it!
Your name wouldn’t be DICK would it ? Well I’ve met many but in his particular case it’s fitting. The antis don.t want common sense regulation and unless you haven’t been listening closely they (YKWTA) want nothing short of complete gun bans. Lead by the likes of Frau Blumberger, Sen. Frankenstein, Shannon Twatts, financed by Red Turner and others who want CONTROL!
Regulations that are meant to hamper law abiding citizens from exercising a right is not constitutional Dick. Now quit your crying about what happen to you and look in the mirror. You did this to yourself.
He IS Right on one point:
This IS a War
And he has chosen his wallet over his duty as a citizen
Traitor
Extremists? Fundamentalists? Extremist rhetoric? Is Debbie Was-A-Man Schultz the new ghost writer for ol’ Dick? She uses those terms every 5 minutes, too.
So, Dick saunters over to the Politico, of all places, in an effort to redeem himself of his untenable positions and ends up being hoisted on his own petard. It seems the sheep’s clothing has fallen off the wolf. Say good night, Dick.
// rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever … we risk alienating the American mainstream //
One can legitimately ask whether compromising a bit might not get you more in the long run. I used to think it might, but changed my mind after seeing State-level legislation last year.
What some of the more inane State laws passed last year taught me beyond reasonable doubt is that once a State runs out of “reasonable” regulations, it proceeds to enact insane ones. A 7-round magazine limit is inane. Confiscating lever guns with tubular magazines holding over five .22lr rounds (NYC) is crazy. No semi-autos with detachable magazines is ridiculous. It didn’t start out that way in those places, but they ran out of “reasonable” stuff and they still needed to keep “doing something”, and so they did. Just watch MA this year, and you’ll see more of that.
So, it could be that not compromising on the UBC’s or something in 2013 will look like a mistake a few years down the line, but you know what, compromising would set us on the well-trod road to perdition, so perhaps we may as well lose our rights sooner but fighting against encroachments than lose them a little bit later, but acting like sheep all along. And who knows, maybe we won’t fare too badly after all.
“…rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever … we risk alienating the American mainstream…”
By rejecting all regulation of Jews whatsoever…we risk alienating the German mainstream…” FIFY
To borrow the phrase from Shark Tank: Dick, you’re dead to me.
Metcalf himself says in this very article “While researching existing laws and crime statistics in all 50 states I came to an inescapable conclusion: Gun control had essentially zero effect on reducing crime—for the simple reason that criminals by definition didn’t obey those laws. Mostly, gun control laws created a new class of criminals: ordinary citizens who ran afoul of them. I saw it not as a political statement, just a fact.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/guns-second-amendment-target-me-102133_Page3.html#ixzz2qUHIDS8n
Yet he is supportive of legislation that only targets people who aren’t inclined to break the law in the first place.
For example, let us consider CCW permit holders. Depending on the state, the requirements range from paying a fee and passing a background check to paying a much larger fee and undergoing some amount of training.
Does this make anyone safer from criminals?
No, because as Mr. Metcalf has pointed out, criminals don’t follow laws. They will not be attending the CCW permit class and paying the fee with you. They’ll carry anyhow and you’ll have no control over that.
I don’t hate Dick Metcalf and I won’t be sending him any nasty emails full of childish threats and idiocy, but the man seems to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
Yup.
One thing that folks who support “gun control” regulations seem to often forget with regard to other issues is that there is NO VICTIM for these crimes.
Carrying a gun down a street, openly or concealed, harms NO ONE.
Owning a 100-round drum magazine, by itself, harms NO ONE.
Owning an automatic firearm, by itself, harms NO ONE.
Even using these items harms no one, unless they are either mishandled or intentionally used to hurt others.
The only thing these “gun control” laws do is make people who are not harming others into criminals, simply because the law says so.
As you pointed out, criminals don’t obey the law. The utter failure to realize this is probably most noticeable with the creation of “gun free zones” … a law that criminals obviously ignore, and a law that puts all of those in the supposed gun-free zones at a higher risk of injury and/or death.
Sometimes I must think that Mr. Metcalf, and some others who have lived in highly gun-restrictive places, have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that restrictions are reasonable, even if those persons are relatively pro-gun.
Just because a law, or belief, or policy has “always been that way” or “been that way for as long as I can remember” does not make it correct, moral or justified.
Slavery had been the way of the world for quite a while, until people finally started to abolish it. Oppression of people based on their race or gender has been the way of the world apparently forever … that doesn’t make those things right.
Regulations that restrict the right of self-defense are not legitimate. This is not to say people should not get training regarding firearms – they absolutely should. But it is not up to the government to determine what is and is not acceptable in order to exercise the right of self-defense.
Lest we forget, the right of self-defense includes defending oneself FROM the government. It is not up to them to determine whether or not we may defend ourselves, and how we choose to do so.
So true. I am ashamed to admit that, not being an AZ native, I felt a bit uneasy when AZ adopted constitutional carry in 2010. I wouldn’t have it any other way now.
One has only to read some of the posts and comments here on TTAG to understand that there is a WIDE chasm in the opinions of what is the “appropriate level of training” for gun owners and CCW, even among POTG. And there is also no clear agreement as to whether or how much the government should be allowed to infringe on the RKBA.
The answer is simple – “…shall not be infringed.” Training encouraged, perhaps even subsidized, but NEVER required. And absolutely NO legislative restrictions or hurdles or fees put in the way of the RKBA.
Your only potential safety is to obtain, learn to use and carry an appropriate weapon. Your only guarantee of tyranny is to let the government decide what you may obtain, how much training you need to receive, and where and when you can carry.
I think the first name pretty much says it for me.
I am surprised MSNBC hasen’t given him his own show by now.
I think that Metcalf is preparing for a new career with Moms Demand Action. He has the requisite mind-set and an equivalent level of estrogen, so why not? It’s a living.
Given a sufficient travel budget he could personally raise the attendance count at each and every MDA rally to as much as four!
What is sad, is that even after he was fired, he has had time to reflect and he still doesn’t get it. Listen up, Metcalf. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy by penning your misguided column.
Here is what a man of your stature should understand by now!
No amount of compromise is enough for liberal gun hating, democrat voters. The end game is confiscation and civilian disarmament. Period. So, a little regulation here and a little regulation there, isn’t enough.
So, a NO COMPROMISE stance by the gun rights movement, in your opinion means we are radicals?
If refusing one more encroachment on our 2nd amendment rights makes me a radical, then I will wear that badge with honor sir!
You can be a democrat gun owner. But if you pull the lever and vote for Obama or any other democrat, you are part of the problem. I don’t see how you can reconcile, the two. It is the democrat party coming after our gun rights!
That said, as a firearms trainer, I don’t care if your democrat, republican or independent. I will teach all that wish to learn. Once my students are trained, they will make the journey politically that makes sense to them. As a trainer, I don’t even mention politics in my classes. I do encourage them to join the NRA or some other grass roots organization but that is it.
The real problem Metcalf, is that you don’t understand what you did. You threw the movement you were in for decades under the bus. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy! Yes, our fellow american citizens are our blood enemies. People like Bloomberg and Feinstein have to be our enemies. They are elitist, who have NO problem, taking away your right to self defense, because we as tax payers pay for their armed protection.
The 2nd amendment, isn’t up for debate. That debate ended in 1791 with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. If we accept more gun control, we allow them to take the next step, which leads to the end goal. Confiscation and civilian disarmament.
Enjoy your retirement!
You can be a democrat gun owner. But if you pull the lever and vote for Obama or any other democrat, you are part of the problem. I don’t see how you can reconcile, the two. It is the democrat party coming after our gun rights!
Quite simple, really…Democrats who own guns value other things over gun rights..and they may well conclude that their ability to own Fudd guns will not be restricted.
For now, anyway…
You’re still part of the problem.
You’re still part of the problem.
For pointing out that Democrats who own guns don’t put a priority on gun rights?
For pointing out that Fudd guns are (mostly) safe from proposed gun legislation?
Help me out here.
Mitt Romney gleefully signed Massachusetts’ version of the AWB into law when he was the governor there, didn’t he?
As I recall, he was the Republican presidential candidate last time around.
Are you seriously asserting that Republicans are, on the whole, no better than Democrats when it comes to gun rights?
I am asserting that Mitt Romney, the guy that the Republican Party hoped would be president of this country, publicly supported and signed into law an “assault weapons” bill when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Way to go out on a limb, there…
The fact remains that Republican politicians (on average) vote in favor of gun rights far more often than do Democrat politicians (on average). That being the case, if you pull the lever for the (R) consistently than than for the (D), you will be In large part be voting for candidates who are much more pro-gun rights than their opponents.
Agreed?
Just to get my argument into the queue here,
Mitt Romney was NEVER the conservative choice for president, he was nominated by Republican GOP RINOs which left us the choice of Romney, Obama, or write in a guaranteed loser.
Many of us conservatives are disgusted with the RINO party and wish we had a viable alternative.
Pro 2A Democrats are like Pro-choice Catholics. The establishment they support is in direct conflict with their personal beliefs, yet they continue to support it.
I don’t really need to go out on a limb… because the Republicans chose who they chose. They could have chosen someone with a very strong RKBA background as THE GUY they wanted elected president. Instead, they chose someone who’s signed an AWB into law. As much as some of you hate to admit it, that’s what they did.
As for voting for either a D or an R, either could compromise our rights away. But I’ll concede that Republicans are generally more pro-2A. Except when they choose a guy like Romney as the presidential candidate.
I’m still of the opinion that the RKBA community needs to embrace anyone who feels like we do about guns.
No liberal candidate is going to fear losing your vote if you’re conservative. They’ll never have your vote anyhow, so they don’t have to fear losing it. But a liberal gun owner… or a million of them… they have to fear losing those votes.
They value guns for drug lords, higher taxes, bottomless/non-sustainable entitlement programs, wielding the IRS as a tool to suppress dissent and the wholesale collection (i.e. spying) of every single email/phone call/text in America over the RKBA? Good to know.
Poor Dick. He absolutely wallows in self pity, self righteousness and self absorption all at the same time. He also seems to be very confused about some key concepts in constitutional law and history. If you read the entire article carefully you can see the glaring contradictions and misstatements. This is a man who is in the habit of sloppy thinking.
For instance, he writes that regulations aren’t infringements (without ever bothering to define the difference). Then at the end of the article he states plainly his belief that the 2nd Amendment “affirms an absolute right”. WTF? The term “absolute right” means subject to no governmental restrictions whatsoever. Yet he clearly believes in RKBA restrictions and can’t even bother to provide a fundamental basis to justify those restrictions.
Metcalf is a very sad, pathetic, confused and egotistical fraud. Despite his proudly proclaimed advanced degrees and teaching credentials he has never learned to think critically and develop a personal philosophy that is consistent and rationally related to a set of fundamental values.
If you’re thinking of going deeply in debt to send your kid to a prestige university like Yale or Cornell, where Dick claims he was a history professor, maybe you should have a plan B.
Metcalf claims he taught history at Yale and Cornell. He doesn’t (to my knowledge) claim to have been a professor. His claims are often ambiguous. He seems to assert that he taught constitutional law at Yale, and some of his fans believe that is true. I suspect he was a grad student TA or adjunct teaching constitutional history briefly.
His G&A article simply reflects he never read the Heller opinion. It was incompetent. He actually refers in his article to his former professional interest in con law, but then betrays that claim as a mere pretense.
Dick, please…just go hunt turkeys on your property in Illinois and shut up.
Gun owners aren’t willing to pay him to lecture to us about how great infringements on fundamental human rights anymore, but the gun ban crowd will write him a check for every article like that!
I don’t disagree with any of the content in these articles read them in their entirety, then pass judgement.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/guns-second-amendment-target-me-102133.html?ml=m_a1_1#.UtbT6_Srxgg
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?_r=1
We disagree with his column in G&A. You know, the one where he betrays his employers (i.e. the industry that paid the bills through advertising) by arguing that firearms regulations are A-Okay.
Go troll somewhere else.
I have read that one also. No change in my opinion.
Do you, like Dick, think the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms is to be regulated? I don’t. Neither do most. There is no doubt that there can be, and are some regulations on it now, as there are with all the amendments. But the second amendment does not demand in its wording that arms are to be regulated or limited to state militias. Read the Federalist Papers (or the Oxford dictionary) to understand what “well regulated” means. Dicks mistake is his willingness to cede endless regulation. It’s obvious he doesn’t think there is enough regulation, or else why write the article? Our enemies would love nothing more than to regulate your guns right out of your hands, and have been trying to do so for decades.
I think there’s a certain amount of regulation that we’re always going to have to deal with on guns, unless we descend into anarchy Somalia style (which I would prefer to avoid). I don’t always like it, but I doubt that it’ll ever be perfect. Never was, never will be.
I guess if we’re going to have gun legislation though, we should have the same requirements on guns as we have on voting. Both guns and political power are dangerous when they’re in the wrong hands.
You need a background check for a Glock? Get one to vote.
You need to fill out a form to buy a Glock? Fill out a form vote.
You need to pay a $300 fee and take 16 hours of class to carry your Glock? Let’s put the same requirements on voting.
There is no infringement from paying a fee to carry and requiring a weekend’s worth of classes according to Metcalf and his supporters, so a requirement like that wouldn’t infringe on anyone’s right to vote either, right?
Somalia descended into anarchy not because of guns, but because of the lack of a viable government structure devoid of corruption. This in turn allowed factions and gangs to establish dominance.
Political power is dangerous when politicians are the only ones with guns. The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to establish a government answerable to the people and give the people the means to protect themselves from that government if it got out of control, as governments historically ALWAYS do.
Background check for Glock? Form to buy a Glock? Fee of $300 to buy a Glock? Training 16 hours to carry a Glock? I wouldn’t willingly BUY a Glock (unless that was the only thing I could find/afford), why in Hell would I jump through all those unconstitutional hoops for one. (/sarc)
Dear Midget: I believe most of us read both articles as they were published, and in their entirety. If you don’t disagree with either one of Metcalf’s articles then I recommend to you, as I did to Metcalf, a reading of the entire Heller opinion. You could not agree with his assertions while also accepting SCOTUS’ holding in Heller. The opinion isn’t so lengthy as to preclude your wading all the way through it.
I didn’t read mr m’s article,but it seems to me, that in fact he is correct , there are constitutionally validated ( via the supreme court) restrictions and regulations that we all do live with right now, like it or not. I also agree that extremism is harmful to our cause. He ( and I , most probably ) should not be surprised at the reaction.
The opposition to which specific proposed laws do you regard as extremism?
I personally regard opposition to the Constitution as extremism (in this context meaning an extremely evil position).
If you didn’t read Mr. Metcalf’s articles than you could not know that he advocated an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as primarily a collective right associated with a government-organized militia, and not an individual right. Of course Heller made clear that reasonable regulation of commerce is permissible, and it noted that this individual right can be restricted (as are other rights such as the right to vote) based on serious criminal violations by the individual. Metcalf would have the world believe (well, New York and Washington) that the entire G&A uproar was about some regulation on commerce, or restrictions on criminals. It wasn’t. The uproar arose because a gun writer who claimed knowledge of the history and law surrounding the 2nd amendment decided to advocate against the individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent opinion to the contrary, and express historical documentation (history which led to the clear statement of the right in the Pennsylvania constitution, for example) making clear that the framers understood that the right was individual, though doubly justified by the possibility of collective needs which could not be met without citizens experienced in assertion and exercise of the individual right.
Why comment if you haven’t read the two articles and the Heller opinion?
I was commenting on Kerry’s statement, “I also agree that extremism is harmful to our cause,” and what I wanted to know was what specific gun control proposals pushed in 2013 one would have to agree to in order not to be considered an “extremist”.
One doesn’t need to read Heller (which I have in part) or Metcalf’s articles (which I haven’t ) to ask that question.
Oops, I think I “replied” to a comment that wasn’t directed at me. My apologies.
The “Right to vote” was established, and amended, in the Constitution. It was never included as a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right as part of the Bill of Rights. As such, voting is a privilege subject to the controls of the government, the Right to keep and bear arms is NOT.
There are in fact SCOTUS validated (NOT Constitutionally validated) restrictions and regulations on the Second Amendment, which clearly states that the government has no authority to restrict or regulate the right to keep and bear arms, “…shall not be infringed.”
We live with these restrictions and regulations now and DO NOT LIKE IT! But we like even less the alternative of being persecuted by our government and its lackeys and being either shot or incarcerate for daring to oppose them in this blatantly unconstitutional infringement of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
“The tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson. An extremist?
“He who will sacrifice an essential liberty for a little temporary safety shall have neither.” – Ben Franklin, extremist.
Poor Dick. He is just steaming mad because this week he should be at the SHOT Show, walking around like a celebrity VIP; people asking for their photos with him; small retailers salivating at the idea Dick might see, like, and promote their product; the comped hotel room, all the attention. And now he has to sit at home.
If he thinks the movement is hijacked only by extremists and a minuscule percentage of nuts, then he should show up to the SHOT show, and see an entire industry snub him to his face. I bet Dick’s beloved Smith & Wesson wouldn’t even let him in their booth! A photo of him holding their latest gun could kill it.
I hope Politico paid by the word.
The amount of ad hominem, character assassination and outright distortion is shocking. Metcalf is as much a “gun guy” as anybody, and what he wrote was intended to spark constructive conversation. The very reaction some are having prove his point! He writes:
“Both sides believe they have the American mainstream on their side. But when Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to bar convicted felons from acquiring guns, the American mainstream stops listening. When Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to require any training whatsoever before carrying a concealed firearm in public, the American mainstream stops listening. Likewise, when anti-gunners call for the repeal of the Second Amendment and the prohibition of citizen firearms ownership, the American mainstream stops listening. When extremist anti-gun and anti-hunting voices aim death threats at the children of those who would bid on a license to legally cull an African game animal and donate the proceeds to endangered-species conservation, the American mainstream cringes.”
He knows that the facts ARE on our side and that we are never going to win the day by alienating 50% of the voters. He also knows we won’t solve anything without working together when he writes:
“All Americans want to find ways to keep horrors like Newtown from happening. But Americans need solutions, not political placebos or public relations gestures. And certainly not more hate speech. Not since the Civil War has there been a greater need in this country for reasoned, civil discourse instead of extremist rhetoric. Never has it been more important for our public officials and our corporate leaders to make rational decisions instead of bowing down to the strident voices of a radical few.”
There MUST be room for reasoned discourse, especially among we People of the Gun. Before putting torch to the stake, at least get the facts:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/guns-second-amendment-target-me-102133.html?ml=m_u1_1#.Utb2KfRDuSr
Metcalf should have thought harder before submitting that article, and the editor supervising him should have too.
Remember, it was just a year ago that we were all up to our knees in writing our congressmen and sending money to pro-gun organizations to halt efforts to make standard capacity magazines and many semi-automatic firearms illegal. Our vice president led a “national conversation” that revolved around hammering gun owners into submission. As I recall, there were no pro-gun voices on his council to deal with gun violence… but they found space for Walmart. So yeah, that’s entirely reasonable… because Walmart’s interests are more important than the stuff included in our Bill of Rights.
Even if gun owners are a little paranoid at times, they come by it honestly. As they say, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
If all he was trying to do was spark some conversation, he could have found a better way to do it.
Who defines “mainstream” and why should I care if I am not included?
In the middle east Muslims are the mainstream. Does this make Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or agnostic arguments any less valid, just because this mainstream does not care to listen?
This is the typical democratic argument (not Democrat) and what the Founders attempted to subvert by creating a republic as opposed to a democracy which they had seen to fail repeatedly throughout history. Establishing any social order in which the bare majority ALWAYS determines the outcome is to establish a tyranny of the (bare) majority. Under this system if a majority of one vote was reached in the House and Senate, validated by a president who had won office by even one vote more than his opponent, and further approved by 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices, the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights could be scrapped.
The mainstream can go to Hell. Being in the majority does NOT automatically make you right.
That’s not the point. This is a political battle — a fight for “hearts and minds.” If you alienate people, you’re going to lose. It’s that simple. This goes back to the old saying, “It’s not what you say, but how you say it.” So while blurting out an epithet might make you feel good for a few seconds, it won’t change anyone’s attitude and, in fact, might make them more resolute. On the other hand, if you don’t treat people like idiots, find any point of agreement that you can, no matter how small, and then build on that using logic, facts and reason (which strongly supports the pro-gun argument), you may change a mind or two.
In the very article linked to this discussion Dick Metcalf himself states that gun control laws do nothing to reduce crime because criminals don’t follow laws. He elaborates, stating that gun control laws actually only make innocent people into criminals.
So what does a law requiring 16 hours of training do to prevent crime?
Nothing.
But it, and the costs associated with it, do put the ability to exercise the right to self defense out of the reach of some people.
What Metcalf is so keen on bartering away in the interests of looking more reasonable isn’t an innocent concession.
Also in the same article, Metcalf isn’t exactly happy about how long the course is and other details, but his MAIN point is that, up until then, there had been NO legal way to get a permit. So he saw the 16-hour course less as a huge burden, and more as a relief to decades of having zero legal options for concealed carry — a promising “first step.”. (I really don’t know why he stayed in Illinois — I’d have bolted for a more free state.)
Personally, I thought what Jim Zumbo said was far worse, and after a boot camp with Uncle Ted, all was forgiven and his show runs on and on. Metcalf has been in G&A and other mags and TV shows since I became aware of gun media and I am shocked by how gleefully some stand ready to throw him under a whole fleet of busses. Kind of a crappy way to pay him back for literally a lifetime of great articles, information and instruction, even if he did get a couple points wrong. (And it makes us all look bad.)
Poor baby. Here’s a binky; enjoy your suck.
Even if he were right about the essence of the right, limits and all that…he is dead wrong about political reality.
Chances are we will never have completely libertarian gun laws. But say the anti-gunners want F, and you only want B, you may well have to settle for D, in between. But if you push for A, even if you only want B, you might get C.
The thing is you always start off asking for more than you actually are trying to get. By letting the other guy have room to negotiate, you make him feel like he has accomplished something too. But you also obtain something closer to what you want.
We must never “settle” for D in between! We must ensure that they are required to FORCE it on us, against our will, under protest.
We must continue to protest loudly, publicly and to the greatest degree possible without being crushed under the weight of the tyranny they are willing to exert. We may reluctantly submit to overwhelming force, but we must NEVER give up the fight for our cause is just.
Amen!
Did Dick receive a blow to the head? The boy’s not thinking right.
You don’t need us, Dick. You’ve done plenty of damage to the Second Amendment on your own.
Dickie poo needs to watch this short clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KydSAKywdE
Sorry but I just found another great video. This guy has it 100% right too! Watch THIS one too Dick.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d38_1389817751
“… lose this war.”
There we have it. Dick Metcalf has openly declared war on the Constitution of the United States. Doesn’t that make him a Traitor, and isn’t hanging the appropriate punishment for Treason?
Comments are closed.