Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
fideau
New MemberPosts: 8 New Member
Dick Metcalf
fideau
New MemberPosts: 8 New Member
Just read his "Backstop" column in G&A December. To say I am stunned is more than an understatement.
I cannot believe that in a magazine that I started reading in 1964, that led the way for the right to keep and bear arms, that I have continuously read even when I didn't have a subscription at times, would allow what he wrote, even though it's an opinion column.
If Mr. Metcalf does not understand the words "well regulated", I will never have any respect for any opinion of his. I have read and studied the times of the Revolutionary War, and pre-war, all my life. I understood "well regulated" the first time I ever saw the words. In the vernacular of the times, it meant "proficient, competent in the use of", not what so many anti-Second Amendment zealots have tried to twist it to mean.
And now, it seems, Mr. Metcalf. Hang your head in shame, Dick. I'm looking thru you, where have you gone?:down:
I cannot believe that in a magazine that I started reading in 1964, that led the way for the right to keep and bear arms, that I have continuously read even when I didn't have a subscription at times, would allow what he wrote, even though it's an opinion column.
If Mr. Metcalf does not understand the words "well regulated", I will never have any respect for any opinion of his. I have read and studied the times of the Revolutionary War, and pre-war, all my life. I understood "well regulated" the first time I ever saw the words. In the vernacular of the times, it meant "proficient, competent in the use of", not what so many anti-Second Amendment zealots have tried to twist it to mean.
And now, it seems, Mr. Metcalf. Hang your head in shame, Dick. I'm looking thru you, where have you gone?:down:
Replies
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
Wouldn't we be better suited by checking the definition from a dictionary of the time?
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate
In any event gun control laws are not in line with the context of the 2nd amendment.
"And I do believe that their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."
I would agree with this. Definitions are changed and altered in just decades and if someone is going to argue about the intent or definition of something written in 1791, they should base their argument on definitions and vernacular of that period.
Based on his quote, I'd wager that Mr. Metcalf, like many liberals, cannot grasp "shall not be infringed". The meaning has not changed since 1791.
What Metcalf also fails to understand is how many of my fellow citizens would chose to define "adequate training". I recently read a politician saying that the only ones that should be allowed to own an "assault weapon" is SEALs or other people that are members of elite special forces.
Adam J. McCleod
If only SEALs have assault weapons, what would the rest of our Military carry? They have only carried an AR style rifle for over 40 years now?
No. Look at the first paragraph. Quote: "Note carefully. Those last four words say "shall not be infringed". They do not say 'Shall not be regulated.' "Well regulated" is, in fact, the initial criterion of the amendment itself." Unquote
He goes on to talk about things being restricted, or regulated as if that was the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment.
You only have to read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the Federalist Papers to be clear on what "well regulated" means.
Antis have tried to say "well regulated" meant "restricted" for years. I hate to see anything give any credibility in this belief, especially someone who writes for a gun magazine.
That's the way that I read the 2nd amendment, translated into modern-speak"
IF Metcalf wrote what is quoted above, he has stepped on his own junk. In my personal opinion, of course. I'll be reading my copy of G&A in the hunting blind this weekend.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
he said [wrote] it.
So the issue is what did regulated mean when the 2D was written and will the Suprime Court agree.
does this guy have the same IP
I just got my December issue yesterday, and read Metcalf's "Backstop" column. At first I was all set to ridicule Fideau. But after digesting Metcalf's drivel, I tend to agree with Fideau. Metcalf is all for folks taking a 16 hour course and test before being issued a CCpermit. He seems to think it's OK to have folks jump through Federal, State and local law enforcement hoops and fork over money in order to defend themselves. The second amendment be damned. I too lost all respect for Metcalf.
In general, though, if a writer steps on his junk, he will get hammered; same as he will get accolades for a well written piece.
― Douglas Adams
You're right, there is no "civil right" that allows the individual to excersise that right. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
NRA Endowment Member
I'd rather listen to Curious George, or maybe Nancy Pelosi!
Jerry
Why? What wisdom have missed by listening to Metcalf instead of you?
I swear you've posted here before under another name.
Since my G&A came yesterday, and it was late last night when I began to look thru it, the first paragraph of his article really hit me. I have read his stuff, and watched him on TV for years. I never noticed this kind of thinking from him before. It was just incomprehensible to me that he missed the very basic meaning of the 2nd Amendment. And that I even saw that in my G&A.
Check the message before you attack the messenger.
I expect G&A will get a few thousand letters about this.