Please cancel my subscription effective immediately.
Refund any remaining balance.
Do not send any more issues of Guns & Ammo to me.
Gross ignorance of the 2nd Amendment at the top levels destroy the credibility of your magazine.
I would be embarrassed to receive any more issues of that magazine.
—- whew! what lit my fuse? —-
Guns and Ammo Editor Supports Gun Control
in Editorial Feature for December Issue
4302 31 Google +1 0 43
Time to cancel your subscriptions, Guns and Ammo Editor Dick Metcalf has penned an editorial for their December issue that will be leaving fans in shock; he’s supporting gun control. Metcalf claims there is a large difference between regulation, (well-regulated militia) and a direct infringement of civil rights, he has made this distinction the premise of his claims.
“I bring this up,” he wrote, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” Facepalm moment anyone? Now that Metcalf is no longer in a fit mental capacity to be left alone, someone should send Adult Protective services over for a welfare check.
“Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”
You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!
Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.
Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.~TAG
“I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.
I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .”
Did he just say but?
“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”
I’ll stop right there, if you haven’t already picked up your copy of Guns and Ammo’s December issue, this may be one you want to skip; the first of many that is.
