Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Metcalf fired?

2»

Replies

  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    You guys are pigs. I think that's why I like you...:wink:
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Who is RS?

    Likewise who is Dick Metcalf? We've all forgotten him already.
    Guns & Ammo has apparently forgotten him already. There is an announcement from the publisher that Eric Poole has been picked as the new editor. Dick Metcalf's backstop column is replaced by a short article on the first gun fired from an airplane. There is no mention of Dick Metcalf in the entire magazine. After re-reading the controversial "Let's Talk Limits" column four times it is clear to me that Mr. Metcalf is very confused concerning the definition of "regulated" as used in the second ammendment. I am standing by my original comprehension of his column.
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 381 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    This isn't anything new....any of you recall the "literacy tests" used in the South in order to register to vote?

    I think a return to that should be in order.

    In order to vote you should know:
    Who your rep in the US house of representatives is
    Who your state Senators are
    Whether the US is a democracy or a republic

    And only property owners should vote on property tax issues.
  • Rim PhyrRim Phyr Member Posts: 71 Member
    And now they want us to buy them coffee with our cake.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    It's like a zombie thread that just won't die
  • McPigMcPig New Member Posts: 10 New Member
    You should also be able to name the three branches of the Federal Government too.... "The House, The Senate and The President." Oooops, I forgot, that would mean Senator Schumer couldn't qualify to vote. Sorry Senator, its the Legislative, Administrative and Judicial. He should try to read the Constitution some time.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Er...wouldn't that be the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial?
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,462 Senior Member
    McPig wrote: »
    You should also be able to name the three branches of the Federal Government too.... "The House, The Senate and The President." Oooops, I forgot, that would mean Senator Schumer couldn't qualify to vote. Sorry Senator, its the Legislative, Administrative and Judicial. He should try to read the Constitution some time.

    This is the best post I've seen in a long time. Our country is screwed.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    I presume that's a quote from "Chuckie Bloomer", the idiot senator who's been pushing anti-gun legislation for years? He's about as screwed up as a soup sandwich, so nothing he says surprises me! The argument the RINO's used for not trying harder to support the Tea Party effort to unseat Harry Reid was that Schumer might end up as Senate majority leader if the dummycraps still had a majority. That's like getting a choice of whether to get shot or beaten to death!
    Jerry
  • McPigMcPig New Member Posts: 10 New Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Er...wouldn't that be the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial?

    You are absolutely correct and have successfully passed the test!!! The cigar is yours....

    Actually, it was the late hour and the Gin.... and a brain fart by an old fart.

    But even half asleep and loaded I was closer than Chuckie Schumer.... :)
  • McPigMcPig New Member Posts: 10 New Member
    I was gonna send this in to G&A as a protest letter to the editor... It took me so long to get approved to post here this is my first chance, so if it's old news I apologize.

    Dick Metcalf’s “Let’s Talk Limits” G&A December issue he has it wrong, as did his editor that approved it and affronted his readers and fellow gun owners.

    He frames his argument on the modern usage of the term “well regulated” by our opponents in the hoplophobe community, a definition which is grossly incorrect. The words in the Constitution have to be interpreted in terms contemporaneous to the writers. Thus in 1790 the term “well regulated” meant “properly functioning and uniformly equipped”, and was based on identified flaws in State Militia’s sad structures and poor equipage during the Revolution.

    Clocks in Madison’s days were “well regulated” if they kept proper time, and musical instruments were the same if they were in proper tune: We also don’t “repair to the parlor” much anymore but they did in Madison's day. So, in Mr. Madison’s document the term "well regulated" meant a “properly equipped and operating militia” was necessary to a free State and one in which the people’s right to arms would not be infringed. In Madison’s day an “infringement” was “any trespass or encroachment, especially on a right.” Thus Metcalf’s argument falls flat as it means a trespass is no longer committed at the property line, but can extend half way onto your property; and in football terms the encroachment doesn't happen at the line of scrimmage, but reaches half way to the quarterback. We cannot afford that kind of thinking, especially on the front line of the RTKBA fight in publications like G&A.

    I think Madison or Jefferson would have problems with Mr. Metcalf’s interpretation, and indeed would be more likely disturbed as to why government is infringing on the Second Amendment in any manner! Not to mention their consternation as to why Congress is not “providing for the arming of the militia” as required in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It is more correct that the government should be handing out M-16’s than in passing concealed weapons statutes.
    “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    Regarding literacy tests, I think a good requirement would be to describe some aspect of the US Constitution which is federal in nature.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debate, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invested against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

    Jefferson was saying that there are two rules which will help us to determine federal jurisdiction in most cases. People always seem to leave out the 1st rule, so here it is:

    "It may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at once, and with precision, in every case, this limit of jurisdiction. But there are two canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases. 1st. The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others ... 2d. On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  • JamesAPrattIIIJamesAPrattIII Member Posts: 156 Member
    RS Rolling Stone I sometimes flip through an issue at a newsstand. One of their more recent issues has an article about alegded US war crimes in Afganistan. Everybody might want to let all their pals in the military know to watch what you say and do around any reporters from this magazine.
  • McPigMcPig New Member Posts: 10 New Member
    Granted, before the 1880-1900 period the bill of rights only applied to Federal jurisdictional issues; and states were free to do what they willed within their respective states. The early BOR was ONLY a restriction on the FED, thus in the First Amendment it's clear that CONGRESS may make no laws.... The states could.

    Now incorporation has indeed spread the supposed protections of the BOR to all the citizens of all the states, but it's a two edged sword as the downside is that the states have lost control and power over their internal affairs. This affected the power balance between the states and the central government shifting power to the feds.

    And the application of that incorporation, and the due respect clause, is selectively applied. For example, all states MUST recognize a drivers license issued by another state under "due respect" BUT they do not apply "due respect" to the holder of a CCW from another state; an obvious anachronism and an illogical situation. CCW's from any state should be recognized as valid in ALL states, no different than a drivers license, marriage license, etc....
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