Guns & Ammo ?????

[London]

I truly don't see the harm in somebody attending a basic instructional course on the safe handling of a firearm, much like driver's E.D. for new driver's.

You have to be kidding me. We've gone over this several times on this board, and it has been gone over 10,000 times elsewhere on the internet. At this point, anyone still advocating these policies is either willfully ignorant or hopelessly ineducable. The arguments you are making were diffused in the linked article; did you even bother reading it?

They walk among us, folks...

 

[London]

There are states that require no course, no test, no instruction, no nothing? Any legal resident can just carry a firearm around? Simply out of curiosity which states are they?

This is absurd. Not only are you showing a total lack of education about the subject you speak of with so much conviction, now you want to be spoon fed easily available information. Start here:

Let me google that for you

 

[London]

You do know that both of those other magazines come from the same folks right??? Just another label on a product from the same guys that hired the turd and allowed him to spew is crap.

The content is much better in the other two. Who is the parent company?

 

[robocop10mm]

This is absurd. Not only are you showing a total lack of education about the subject you speak of with so much conviction, now you want to be spoon fed easily available information. Start here:

Let me google that for you

Yes, there are a number of gun owners who are perfectly willing to trash the 2nd Amendment and turn it into a "priveledge" instead of the "inaileanable right" it is. Yes we will end up like England, Canada or Australia as a result of these misguided (dare I say Ignorant) people.

Rights are not conferred to the people by the Government. Rights are endowed upon us by our creator (as the Constitution so eloquently puts it). Give up one right and the others will soon follow. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment is 2nd and not 10th? It is the teeth to the Bill of Rights. Pulll out the teeth and the rest is just a paper tiger.

I am not a militant. I am a realist. Anyone who has his/her head in the sand on this issue is NOT a friend of the Constitution, but a closet sheep at best and a socialist at worst.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

LOL!!! Ok I see ask a simple question and get ridiculed, speak your piece on an issue and get labeled. Though others were kind enough to post a simple answer you decided to go keyboard commando on my a$$. For all of ya'll that replied, I kindly thank you and I appreciate those of you that offered opposing views on the topic. It was nice to have a simple discussion on an issue and share opinions whether or not we agree on them and debate it without resorting to name calling or ridiculing each other. I will no longer be posting on this thread or this issue as the ability to have a civil, adult conversation is apparently a deminishing option. Carry on....

 

[hellishhorses]

Yes, there are a number of gun owners who are perfectly willing to trash the 2nd Amendment and turn it into a "priveledge" instead of the "inaileanable right" it is. Yes we will end up like England, Canada or Australia as a result of these misguided (dare I say Ignorant) people.

Rights are not conferred to the people by the Government. Rights are endowed upon us by our creator (as the Constitution so eloquently puts it). Give up one right and the others will soon follow. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment is 2nd and not 10th? It is the teeth to the Bill of Rights. Pulll out the teeth and the rest is just a paper tiger.

I am not a militant. I am a realist. Anyone who has his/her head in the sand on this issue is NOT a friend of the Constitution, but a closet sheep at best and a socialist at worst.

Thought hard about adding something of my own to this...




I came up with nothing - except spelling corrections

 

[London]

I will no longer be posting on this thread or this issue as the ability to have a civil, adult conversation is apparently a deminishing option.

There are literally hundreds of threads on this subject waiting to be Googled. In fact, there is even an active thread on this website in which we are discussing the folly of licensing rights (at which point they become privileges):

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...-open-handgun-carry-texas-if-not-why-not.html

Any further "Civil, adult conversation" is merely pandering to those who refuse to do their homework. If you think I am being a snappy jerk, it's because I get tired of diffusing the same anti-freedom statements over and over. I literally JUST finished addressing this issue in the above mentioned thread only to see it pop right back up again. And that's not counting all the other people in addition to you who posted comments just like yours in the TTAG article, apparently without even reading it.

If you're going to articulate an opinion then here are two things that will help you:

1.) Do basic research before forming a premise. The more research, the lesser the likelihood your premise will be flawed.
2.) Have thick skin. Any political statement is going to piss someone off. Advocate anti-gun, anti-freedom policies here and expect the hornets to swarm.

I'm usually not too much of an asshole, but when I see people cheering the destruction of any element of the Bill of Rights, it hits one of my few buttons. Seeing it over and over and over again in a very short time span, and, well, maybe you can understand how my fuse grows increasingly short.

 

[London]

Guns & Ammo Official Response to Metcalf Article | The Bang Switch

 

[ArmyZach]

Rights are not conferred to the people by the Government. Rights are endowed upon us by our creator (as the Constitution so eloquently puts it).

True.

 

[M. Sage]

I read the article in G&A that is the topic of this. My take on the article was not about gun control, but, about the needs for, or, of regulations concerning the purchase of firearms and licensing of Concealed Carry Permits.

What need for regulations on purchase and carry?

Though I don't necessarily agree with all of the article, some of it is quite sound. Such as, paraphrasing here, you wouldn't want a bunch of people driving off a new/used car lots without the minimum requirements having been met for a drivers license.

You can buy a car without a license. You can even drive a car without a license. Legally! You just can't do it on the road. Well, not most of the time, anyway. I don't know about Texas, but I remember there were certain instances in Michigan where you and the vehicle didn't need to be licensed for limited use on roadways. Hell, I've even driven (legally!) on public roads before I was even old enough to be licensed! Farm vehicle for the win.

The analogies are far from sound, and are the same insipid garbage that the antis continually push. Did you know it's not illegal to yell "fire!" in a theater (in spite of what the moron author says)? It's illegal to cause a panic that hurts people, and if you yell fire to do that, you're not protected under your right to free speech. Why? Because you've abused your speech rights and caused harm to other people. There may be specific laws against causing a panic by yelling fire, but the basic meme comes from an old Supreme Court case.

I feel the same way about CCW. I'd like to know for a fact that the guy/girl standing next to me has shown proficiency in the safe operation of their weapon in order to get their CHL.

LOL, are you joking? Have you even taken a CHL class? I bet you a C note I can shoot a passing score on the range portion of the Texas CHL test blindfolded. Iknow for a fact I wouldn't be the first person to do it. I watched a guy shoot a passing score on his recert, and he couldn't even remember to keep his left thumb out of the way of the slide, even after drawing blood that way. I watched a woman who'd never fired a gun in her life shoot a passing score.

I'll have to assume you don't drive much, and have definitely never been on a motorcycle in traffic (if you have, I don't know how you're still alive with the unbroken assumption that a drivers license shows anything approaching proficiency).

CHL classes are a joke at best, and in reality more of a direct modern equivalent to a voting tax or reading test. Same with requiring background checks (which are literally worthless at stopping criminals), training to own, etc. and so on.

All in all, the article was horrible, and the guy should feel horrible. I hope the only job he can get is flipping burgers at McDonalds after this.

There are states that require no course, no test, no instruction, no nothing? Any legal resident can just carry a firearm around? Simply out of curiosity which states are they?
I'm speaking of concealed or open hand gun carry only. And not that I'm completely against Joe Blow carrying his .45 without any type of documentation. The issue I can see is maybe Joe Blow has never had any experience with a firearm and goes out and buys one because his neighbor has a bad a$$ looking 1911, so he decides he wants to carry around one to. Simply look at the "tacticool" explosion that has taken place over the last few years.
Not to argue your point as it is valid, "you can't fix stupid" and maybe you're correct in stating that it provides me a false sense of security. However, I still believe that there are numerous people that go into a firearm course, whatever it may be for and come out with a better understanding and a better appreciation for the use and responsibility that comes with firearm ownership.

In addition to the states listed, there are several states that don't put preconditions on certain forms of carry and - shock! - Texas is one of them.

It's legal to carry a loaded anything in your vehicle (must be concealed if a handgun) in Texas. It's legal to carry a long gun in Texas. No licensing, no training, just load it and go.

Many other states have similar rules. New Mexico is one - you only need a license to carry concealed, if you want to open carry a loaded handgun without a license, you can. There are several others like that.

I have to agree with London on this one. Your opinion on the subject reeks of ignorance, which makes it one best kept to yourself. And yet... you wonder why you catch flak for it? C'mon.

 

[benenglish]

Guns & Ammo Official Response to Metcalf Article | The Bang Switch

Metcalf is fired and the editor is taking full responsibility, admitting the mistake, and apologizing. That's about the best course of action they could take, and they took it rather quickly, to boot. I haven't had much use for the magazine for many years but at least they're doing the best job of damage control they can manage. I gotta hand it to 'em for that.

 

[benenglish]

My take on the article was not about gun control, but, about the needs for, or, of regulations concerning the purchase of firearms and licensing of Concealed Carry Permits.

While I don't agree with the conclusions you or Metcalf have reached, this statement is absolutely true.

And that's what's so sad.

I actually went out and bought the magazine to read the article in question. I simply couldn't believe that anyone who has worked in the gun industry as long as Metcalf did not understand the definition of "well-regulated" in the context of the 2nd. But it's true. In the article, Metcalf actually defines "well-regulated" as "well controlled by government edict" (paraphrasing), a modern definition that does not apply to the context of the 2nd.

The specific quote that shows us that Metcalf doesn't understand the definition of the term was this paragraph:

"...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.' The question is, when does regulation become infringement?"

I found that bit of ignorance jaw-dropping. The fact that the editor allowed an article to be published based on a factual error so basic speaks very poorly of the quality of editorial judgment used at the magazine.

 

[stdreb27]

LOL!!! Ok I see ask a stupid question and get ridiculed,...

I think you're confusing simple and stupid... There I fixed it for you.

It really quite simple. The second amendment is in place for the population to have the ability to overthrow the government. If need be. Any limitations to that by the government is putting the fox on charge of the hen house.

It's really that simple. And that's why people ridicule your "piece"

 

[M. Sage]

While I don't agree with the conclusions you or Metcalf have reached, this statement is absolutely true.

And that's what's so sad.

I actually went out and bought the magazine to read the article in question. I simply couldn't believe that anyone who has worked in the gun industry as long as Metcalf did not understand the definition of "well-regulated" in the context of the 2nd. But it's true. In the article, Metcalf actually defines "well-regulated" as "well controlled by government edict" (paraphrasing), a modern definition that does not apply to the context of the 2nd.

The specific quote that shows us that Metcalf doesn't understand the definition of the term was this paragraph:



I found that bit of ignorance jaw-dropping. The fact that the editor allowed an article to be published based on a factual error so basic speaks very poorly of the quality of editorial judgment used at the magazine.

And how he's so horribly mangled the definition of "infringe." It means "to wrongly limit or restrict." Given the due process clause in the 5th, the sum of "shall not be infringed" means that a court case has to be made for each individual whose 2nd Amendment rights the government wants to limit or restrict. After all, without due process the government isn't supposed to deprive you of life, liberty or property, right?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (some of whom even sit on the Supreme Court) who can't be bothered to understand what words written on parchment really mean, and are unwilling to fathom the depths of the reason those words were written.

 

[Acera]

The content is much better in the other two. Who is the parent company?

They are owned by InterMedia Outdoors

Sister publications of Guns and Ammo include:
Shooting Times, Shotgun News, Handguns, RifleShooter, Bow Hunter, Petersen's Bowhunting, Game and Fish, Gun Dog, Hunting, Whitetail, Wildfowl, Fly Fisherman, In Fisherman, etc.


However, it looks like they did the right thing. Lets just see if he weazles himself back into the spotlight like Zumbo did.

 

[wakal]

I've known Tricky Dick Metcalf for years...every time I talk to him I am reminded what a complete and total asshole he is. Now, I have his rant in print to remind me

Guns are a right. Cars are a privilege. Free speech is a right. Health care is a privilege.

If you don't understand the difference, you need to open your mind and think. If you still can't see, then I hope the chains of slavery rest lightly upon you and may history forget that you were once Americans.


Alex

 

[Renegade]

bye-bye. Maybe you can get a job at recoil.

 

[Renegade]

Guns are a right. Cars are a privilege. Free speech is a right. Health care is a privilege.

If you don't understand the difference, you need to open your mind and think. If you still can't see, then I hope the chains of slavery rest lightly upon you and may history forget that you were once Americans.

I guess I need to open my mind and think. I see all as "rights of the people", covered in BOR.

Anyone who does not think I have a right to the car on my driveway is welcome to come and try and take it.

If you do not think I have a right to visit my Dr tomorrow for reasons between him and me alone, come stop me.

Come heavy.

 

[Renegade]

I actually went out and bought the magazine to read the article in question. I simply couldn't believe that anyone who has worked in the gun industry as long as Metcalf did not understand the definition of "well-regulated" in the context of the 2nd. But it's true. In the article, Metcalf actually defines "well-regulated" as "well controlled by government edict" (paraphrasing), a modern definition that does not apply to the context of the 2nd.

For those that do not have mag, you can download pdf of it from the link at top.

Not only is he wrong about what regulation means, he is wrong about almost everything else - Yelling Fire in a theater is legal, convicted felons can legally own guns.

He is just a complete idiot.

 

[wakal]

Renny,

You paid for your car, and its use (on public roads) is heavily regulated. No one pays for your car. It is a privilege.

You paid for your doctor's time in some way (unless you are a welfare queen, which I doubt). Seeing your doctor...unless Obama is involved...is a privilege.

Having a gun is a right. So is free speech. Unless you had to take a test before playing keyboard kommando and issuing amusing attempts at threats


Alex