Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Dick Metcalf

fideaufideau 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:
«134567

Replies

  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    Well regulated is not the same as well versed or proficient. It means well organized and obedient, a gang turns into a unit if it has a structured chain of command and obedient soldiers. A militia is not a posse, read this:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Confusion, JawjaPosts: 661 Senior Member
    Well regulated is not the same as well versed or proficient. It means well organized and obedient, a gang turns into a unit if it has a structured chain of command and obedient soldiers. A militia is not a posse, read this:

    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.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member East TexasPosts: 10,815 Senior Member
    So, post the quote. I'm no fan of Dick Metcalf, but I would at least like to read what he said and evaluate it for myself, before I jump on any bandwagon to "Zumbo' him.
  • shushshush Senior Member This Sceptical Isle.Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Second new poster to have a dig at G&A?

    tinfoilhat.gif
  • BufordBuford Senior Member CA. Beach citiesPosts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I do believe this is it.

    "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."
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member crusted in sandPosts: 5,797 Senior Member
    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.



    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.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I do believe this is it.

    "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."



    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.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Between Ft Lauderdale and MiamiPosts: 12,556 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    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.

    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?
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • fideaufideau New Member Posts: 8 New Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I do believe this is it.

    "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."

    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.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Renton, WashingtonPosts: 2,598 Senior Member
    Back before I got into guns, before I had a real understanding of how important the bill of rights is, back when I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I read the 2nd amendment. I hadn't read the writings of Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Hamilton or much of anything from the founding of our nation. And I have the same understanding of "well regulated" that I had back then. The people who advocate that it means government regulations are, in my opinion, liars. I was as naive as anyone, but I understood what that meant from the first time I read it.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Seems that Metcalf hasn't the stomach for offending people anymore, if he ever did in the first place.
  • fideaufideau New Member Posts: 8 New Member
    The column he wrote is "The Backstop" in Dec. G&A on the last page. Not sure if it's on line anywhere. When I read it last night and posted here I was a little inflamed at his basic ignorance. As I said, I have been a G&A reader for almost 50 years. I won't stop subscribing because of this, but I won't pay any attention to Metcalf any more.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,309 Senior Member
    "In Order to have a kick-butt citizen militia, The government cannot stand in the way of people having weapons"

    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.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • NNNN Senior Member NCPosts: 25,221 Senior Member
    The Dec issue is not here yet
  • NNNN Senior Member NCPosts: 25,221 Senior Member
    Ok, it is in the reading room
    he said [wrote] it.

    So the issue is what did regulated mean when the 2D was written and will the Suprime Court agree.
  • NNNN Senior Member NCPosts: 25,221 Senior Member
    So fideau did you come on here to join us or be a :troll: since your first post is attacking our hosts?
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Soon to be in TexasPosts: 1,503 Senior Member
    Reminds me of that turd Jim Zumbo. What a "useful idiot" he turned out to be.
  • NNNN Senior Member NCPosts: 25,221 Senior Member
    What happened to that other guy that came on to bad mouth G&A
    does this guy have the same IP
  • NNNN Senior Member NCPosts: 25,221 Senior Member
    I read that article in another magazine too, can't find it now.
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member WyomingPosts: 2,035 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    The Dec issue is not here yet

    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.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Under a logPosts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Haven't got that issue yet. Takes a while for snail mail to get out here in the ridges. I'll hold off judgement until I read what he wrote.

    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.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • gunwalkergunwalker Member south central Pa.Posts: 479 Member
    Before we jump to conclusions, let's read his article and get the context. A quote does not always deliver the writers intent. The overall point of the article is that there is not any civil right that allows the individual to exercise that right as he/she sees fit. The question is at what point does regulation become infringement?
    We do not view the world as it is, but as we perceive it to be.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Soon to be in TexasPosts: 1,503 Senior Member
    gunwalker wrote: »
    The overall point of the article is that there is not any civil right that allows the individual to exercise that right as he/she sees fit.

    You're right, there is no "civil right" that allows the individual to excersise that right. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member VirginiaPosts: 8,337 Senior Member
    Actually it's an inalienable right endowed by our Creator.
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    My, what tangled webs we weave. Never mind Metcalf, Zumbo, trolls, and so forth. You people would be a lot less stressed, and your lives would be simpler and happier if you just listened to me, and only me. Enjoy.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Dellrose TNPosts: 18,428 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    You people would be a lot less stressed, and your lives would be simpler and happier if you just listened to me, and only me. Enjoy.

    I'd rather listen to Curious George, or maybe Nancy Pelosi!
    Jerry
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    My, what tangled webs we weave. Never mind Metcalf, Zumbo, trolls, and so forth. You people would be a lot less stressed, and your lives would be simpler and happier if you just listened to me, and only me. Enjoy.

    Why? What wisdom have missed by listening to Metcalf instead of you?

    I swear you've posted here before under another name.
  • fideaufideau New Member Posts: 8 New Member
    NN wrote: »
    So fideau did you come on here to join us or be a :troll: since your first post is attacking our hosts?
    Not attacking G&A. If you missed it before I have been reading G&A for 50 years. Probably longer than some of you have been alive. I signed up here some time ago, have not posted but have read some. Been on other forums for years. I don't post a lot. At only two years some of you are Senior Members? You are from NC? I'm here too. My family has been here since before the Revolutionary War, after arriving in the colonies in 1663.
    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.
  • fideaufideau New Member Posts: 8 New Member
    Not hardly. Sorry you are not getting it. Maybe you should do a little research.
    Check the message before you attack the messenger.
    I expect G&A will get a few thousand letters about this.
  • terminator012terminator012 Senior Member Posts: 3,930 Senior Member
    Still haven't got my issue. Dang I need to read it.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement