General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun Writer is suddenly a pariah.
BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s preeminent gun journalists, has vanished.
It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.
In late October, Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws.
...
The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by e-mail. His television program was pulled from the air.
Just days after the column appeared, Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.
Ravi Somaiya
New York Times
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/01/05/banished-for-questioning-gospel-guns/x6NjQNQrgv9mnGhFWolGEM/story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
spanone
(135,768 posts)God forbid someone have a discussion on 'limits'. how dare him.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Brain fart?
Think the Constitution just another "God Damned piece of paper"?
eggplant
(3,906 posts)spanone
(135,768 posts)
TeamPooka
(24,201 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And had to self delete a horrendous misjudgment. If you managed to see it, I apologize.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)But I probably deserved it anyway.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)for Free Speech advocates like Sarah Palin to leap to his defense.
ananda
(28,828 posts)lol
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
Packerowner740
(676 posts)Bater
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I know that. I bet everyone here knows that. Sarah Palin and her ilk don't know that.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)much less what universe they're in.
1monster
(11,012 posts)'Cause I don't think Sarah or her ilk will be coming to his defense in a timely manner.
edhopper
(33,446 posts)a poster on DU and said that?
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)Americans who care at all about the direction this country is going needs to be dialed into this situation, because it highlights the mentality of a significant sector of the population.
I first read about this in the NY Times... this quote jumped out at me...
<“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”>
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Completely remove the text from the Constitution.
How long has it been now since there has been a "well regulated militia" in this country? They have gone the way of the dodo bird. So needs to go the second amendment.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... let's add a constitutional amendment that grant a new Corvette or Cadillac to every citizen. And one that sets the minimum wage at $500 per hour. and so on and so forth.
Issuing proposals that have 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of ever actually happening is really not helpful.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
paleotn
(17,870 posts)....at what seems impossible now, abolishing the 2nd amendment being near the to of the list, might be a no brainer in a decade or two. By then nearly all of the old farts that plague us with their reactionary bullshit will be dead and forgotten. Then maybe this country can move forward.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)as a country we are becoming more urban, less white, and more culturally diverse. Your side's demographic is what is losing here...
I know that's not what you want to hear, but...
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Posted by
CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) - As memories fade from last December's horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a new national poll indicates that support for stricter gun control laws appears to be fading, too.
According to a new CNN/ORC International survey, 49% of Americans say they support stricter gun control laws, with 50% opposed. The 49% support is down six percentage points from the 55% who said they backed stricter gun control in CNN polling from January, just a few weeks after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where a lone gunman killed 20 young students and six adults before killing himself, in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.
The poll's Wednesday release comes on the same day that 911 tapes from the Newtown shootings are being released.
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)not sure how indicative that is of what is coming with a nationwide poll that size...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)&width=600
Fifty-two percent of Americans now say they want stricter laws covering the sale of firearms. By comparison, 38 percent think gun laws should remain the same, and another 8 percent say they should be less strict.
Additionally, the survey finds that the National Rifle Association is more popular than outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is one of the nation’s most prominent (and deep-pocketed) gun-control advocates.
In the poll, 39 percent have a favorable impression of the NRA, while 31 percent have an unfavorable impression.
That’s compared with Bloomberg’s 19-percent-to-24 percent favorable/unfavorable rating.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/13/21878758-poll-support-for-strict-gun-control-drops-to-pre-newtown-levels?lite
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)And we know the pro-gun people are more whipped up and frenzied than the rest of the general population. And water is wet.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)That's the problem with the pro control movement, they're not as passionate as the pro 2A movement, that's why they usually lose on the national scene.
Look, I've conversed with you before and you are one of the more reasonable pro control members here and I enjoy the back and forth.
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)My point is we do know this. It is common knowledge. My further point is that IMO, it is only a matter of time. We do know that there are more guns in fewer hands, not more guns in more hands, at least from what I have been reading. It's not like the word is spreading like wildfire in the American populace that guns are our salvation as a country and therefore we must all band together in larger numbers to oppose gun control at every instance.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but, I would submit that the reason for the impression that there are more guns in less hands is because of the reluctance of the general public to admit that they own firearms when polled.
At least, I know I would never admit to an anonymous person on a phone poll that I owned a firearm.
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I envision a future world where weapons of mass destruction (including guns) cease to exist on the planet. It does seem far off now, but big change has been know to happen fast.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)"I envision a future world where weapons of mass destruction (including guns) cease to exist on the planet."
I envision a world where everyone has a jetpack and we all look like the cast of 90210.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...if it included a significant progress of human mental and social evolution to essentially eliminate our inclination to prey upon each other. I don't see that change as happening in anything but the very long term. Evolution's a slow process...
treestar
(82,383 posts)and a least makes a start.
It is as antiquated as the Third Amendment. We need to make that argument.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but don't come crying when your proposal goes down in flames.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are plenty of people who will back it from the start. It would take a long time. But go nowhere until started.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)This country has a long and rich history of firearms ownership, do you actually believe that you'll ever repeal the 2A? And, do you actually believe that firearms will ever be eradicated from this country?
treestar
(82,383 posts)And won't unless someone makes a start.
But I'm seeing you would be against that. Which is fine, but still, someone will make a start. I guess you'll have to fight them.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I would support that cause. The Amendment is antiquated. I'm not going to just give up as the poster seems to think I should do.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Disarming of American civilians? Nope.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As that Amendment would not be there for them to use.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I don't think any of the additional regulations being proposed (well, the genuinely "reasonable" ones, anyway) run afoul of the 2nd Am, but I'm sure such an argument can be made to try to impede them.
I'd prefer a revision of that amendment...one free of ambiguous, archaic usages.
hack89
(39,171 posts)many have strong gun rights provisions.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Y'all like to ridicule the notion that cars kill more than guns, but the slavery comparison is ok?
Talk about hypocrisy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Even if it seems far off. There was a time the vote for women was unthinkable. But over time, it happened.
There was a time gay marriage was unthinkable, but over time, it happened.
Someday there can be rational gun control in this country.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)The Constitution can always be changed, argue against that fact instead of producing red herrings.
Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)I am shocked.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I am shocked I tell ya, I am shocked!!!!
sarisataka
(18,467 posts)was first ruled on in 1982- Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on rem. 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983)
Perhaps it is not as antiquated as it seems
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)
Sgent
(5,857 posts)It only takes 13 state legislatures to block an amendment.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Sgent
(5,857 posts)I was responding to the parent who posited that increasing urbanization would result in a more liberal populace, and therefore lead to more call for gun control.
Since only 13 states are required to block repeal, the increasing urbanization of most states doesn't matter -- what matters is the change in demographics for states like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, etc.
On a separate issue, I think the deference given to individual states in our constitution is too broad. I don't think Wyoming and California should have the same Senate representation, the same vote for tiebreaker in a presidential election, and the same say in amending the constitution.
The fact that a Wyoming resident has 75X the voting power (and increasing) of a CA voter is to me abhorrent in a democracy.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)was written the way it was. The senate was set up the way it was BECAUSE the FF did not want the smaller states to be completely dominated by the larger states.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)it doesn't mean that what they did was correct -- remember the 3/5ths compromise as well.
Even then it was somewhat controversial, but according to the worst case Virginia had 13x the population of Delaware. California has 65x the population of Wyoming.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Thank you for making my point. Our nation was founded as a collection of states. The house is proportional to population. The senate was not PRECISELY SO THE LARGE STATES DO NOT TRAMPLE ON THE SMALL STATES. you are advocating the exact opposite. In order to make the change you suggest, The small states would have to vote for an amendment that would give away most of their political power. I don't believe you have thought this through.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)the constitution explicitly requires individual state ascension to lose power in the Senate. This would of course never happen politically. However, there is precedent for splitting one state into more -- see Virginia.
That being said, just because something was done at a point in time due to political expediency, doesn't mean its the correct result. The Senate, and to a lesser extent presidential elections as they take place currently, are setup explicitly to be ant-democratic institutions. The entire reason for their existence is empower one set of citizens over another due to the history of the country.
In today's world, is that a good result? Is the compromise that was reasonable at 13:1 still reasonable at 65:1? This entire thread goes back to the assertion that we will be able to pass a gun control amendment in the next 20-30 years because of the change in population centers, and my counter-assertion that such an amendment would be impossible due to the outsized influence of smaller (population) states. I did not initially express an opinion on whether this was a good or bad thing. We are well beyond that discussion although I'd be glad to join in a new thread.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)states have much influence while I believe that if the changes you suggest will give too much influence to large states. We are at an impasse.
I alao disagree with your political expediancy comment. The smaller states' continental congress delegates had a point, and the correct one I believe.
In what state do you reside? I am in the blue state of Minnesota.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Memphis, Tampa-St. Pete, Phoenix, San Diego, Orlando, Miami, and many more. And they aren't in Wyoming, Montana, or Alaska.
edhopper
(33,446 posts)if that part was simple enforced it would make a big difference.
The gunners seem to be arguing these days that there should be no regulation at all. No background checks, no limit on ammo, no restrictions on gun type. And certainly the idea that you must belong to a "well regulated militia" which implies government involvement is completely unacceptable.
They allow for more restrictions on free speech and a frer press (for which the Constitution lays no restriction) than for the right to have a gun, which is prefaced by regulation.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The first part is a justification for the amendment, not a limit. Because the founding fathers opposed standing armies (see Article 1 Section 8 limit on funding), seeing them as tools of oppression, they needed a civilian population who was armed and familiar enough with them to be called up in a hurry to form a defensive force. The best example was the Battle of New Orleans. In the above, regulate is the "to maintain or put in order" definition of regulate. For instance, Napoleon had well regulated Army Corps, with which he crushed most opposition in Europe. I mention Napoleon because his methods of warfare forever changed the concept of militias. It was apparent after that era that armies needed to be professionally trained.
James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, also helped draft the bill of rights. Below is his original wording:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
edhopper
(33,446 posts)
I just don't see that as saying no law regulating firearms should be allowed. Or that any and all arms must be allowed.
If you think a background check is unconstitutional, could you point to a ruling which has said so?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Sorry, the fish aren't biting today.
edhopper
(33,446 posts)I'll fix it.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)And tossed the debate off the topic. I don't consider background checks to be an infringement, no more than I consider noise ordinance and time and place restrictions on free speech to be abridgement of free speech.
edhopper
(33,446 posts)I was not clear I was talking about the NRA and others that are very vocal nationally about this. I don't know where you stand and didn't mean to assume what I said applied to you. Sorry for the impression it did.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Even right here on DU GD that has been even close to agreeing with this. ..
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)to amend the Constitution, I don't see this happening any time soon.
And then, even in the off chance that it did happen, each individual state can set their own firearms policy.
Sure you want to go down that road?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)arming up of right/white wing. That's one reason most of gun culture oppose Democrats, especially Obama, and works to defeat them.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
If that were true, then why hasn't Roe v. Wade been overturned by this RW court?
Fact is that very few SCOTUS's are willing to overturn settled law, but you knew that anyway, right?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)They affirmed the 2A applied to Federal Enclaves, not just states.
Please, learn about the subject before you post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I really wish certain people would research before posting, but, I guess that's asking too much, after all, emotion is more palatable to them than actual facts.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But that would ruin his entire line of argument. His argument is never about facts, just name-calling and power grabbing.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"Justice Stevens said the majority’s understanding of the Miller decision was not only “simply wrong,” but also reflected a lack of “respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself. . . . . . . Justice Stevens said the majority opinion was based on 'a strained and unpersuasive reading' of the text and history of the Second Amendment, which provides: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'”
You guys really should read Justice Stevens dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.
I realize it is frightening to those who can't live without a gun in their pants when walking in public, but one more reasonable Justice is all it takes.
Of course, even Scalia says restrictions are proper.
You guys get your info from too many right/white wing gun sites.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)you interpret rulings incorrectly.
Response to Ranchemp. (Reply #216)
Hoyt This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)on current SCOTUS rulings, which means understanding them correctly.
I have no love of "gunz", they're a tool in my profession, just like a warrant for arrest is, nothing more, nothing less.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Response to Hoyt (Reply #246)
Post removed
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)were you. But, thanks for the offer. I really don't think US law enforcers should be promoting guns, but I'm not going to "turn you in." I'm going to delete my post, on second thought. Sorry for the post. Not sorry for my position on gun toters and accumulators.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and #2, I could care less if you call my supervisor and complain, all that would happen after he stops laughing is he would tell you that unless I'm violating U.S. Marshal policies, then it's a non issue.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)where he is promoting guns?
Seems to me, he is just trying to stay current in law.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 2058, Las Vegas, NV 89101
Contact Number: (702) 388-6286
Feel free to contact them also.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)frothing panic and are incapable of rational thought, only insults and character assassination.
BTW -- I read the dissent and it makes no sense on its own terms because no one asserts the 2A is about hunting. Even in Miller the case was decided not by an interpretation of whether or not the 2A was an individual right but whether or not a sawed-off shotgun held military value (Doesn't THAT bode ill for the resurrecting of the AWB.). There is nothing contradictory in saying: Yes, there is an individual right but; no, there is no practical military value for X.
Is your mind incapable of recognizing the fact that people of color own weapons? Yeah, I know, I know. You got your half dozen or so photos of white people who scare you -- because they're white (not that any of them have been linked to acts of violence) -- but people of color do own weapons. They do so lawfully and for the best of reasons, i.e. Otis McDonald.
You need to get over your incessant racism.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You see any diversity here, 'Guns and Ammo" that started this thread.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/videos/
Face facts, with a few exceptions, most of the gun woo on the internet panders to right wingers. You can deny it all you want, but the facts are pretty evident. Sure minorities have gunz, wouldn't you if the yahoos were arming up because of their fear. Christ, it's like South Africa several decades ago.
Michigan militia on maneuvers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Please demonstrate that minorities are arming themselves out of fear of whites.
Packerowner740
(676 posts) 
Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)Who is that radio guy who brings emotion up all the time?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you repealed the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would not go away. It would then become an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment, and explicitly still protected by various state constitutions.
The bill of rights grants no rights- it protects pre-existing rights from government infringement.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)except how to pass the standardized tests required by the state.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Where the hell is this defined as a basic right?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)the right to protect yourself and hunt for food. Never had to be written.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I do not know about you, but I am no longer a Neanderthal. Some of us have evolved beyond that state and longer have the "needs" that those of the devolved state felt they needed to survive.
I realize that a good portion of the population still live with an animalistic world view. Personally, I feel these people are really sub-humans. Though they share the same DNA as real , evolved humans, their brain has yet to mature to a state where it can peacefully exist with another.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Then come back and tell me you're more civilized than I am.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I get my meat products from a local butcher who gets them from a local (non-industrial) farm. But, I have not been "clean" of industrial farm meats the whole of my life. I have eaten meats from such farms before.
It is true that nature is composed of more than just humans. We are way out of balance.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that many state constitutions have RKBA provisions, why is that?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)State provisions need to be overturned as well. But, 2nd amend needs to go first, then the others can be worked on.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Lost_Count
(555 posts)... but in the end you depend on those who do.
You depend on the policeman to guard your home and you depend on the Soldier to advance the interests of your nation (a benefit of which is the idea of invasion is near impossible)
In the end it all comes down to force...
... but you feel free to think that you are just so much more enlightened than the barbarians you depend on.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)274. You don't carry a weapon...
... but in the end you depend on those who do.
You depend on the policeman to guard your home and you depend on the Soldier to advance the interests of your nation (a benefit of which is the idea of invasion is near impossible)
In the end it all comes down to force...
... but you feel free to think that you are just so much more enlightened than the barbarians you depend on.
Policeman? - I will put out Great Britain as a first world example that disproved gunz are needed there.
Soldier? - There has not been a conflict since WW2 that has not been a war of aggression. There has been no "defense" of me or anyone in this country by gunz. The only interests the more recent conflicts advanced are corporate and MIC interests. Oh, I see, I benefit by the trickle-down effects...
All I can say is OMFG!
You are a barbarian.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)
British police have another layer of separation but I can assure you they have full access to many levels of force to include firearms...
Also, yes... You literally benefit from the existence of your nations military. You can ask yourself what would happen if they and all their bad scary weapons got magicked away tomorrow.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)US v Cruikshank
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Presser v Illinois
"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"
Not all rights are explicitly identified. You won't find a right to travel in the constitution or the bill of rights, yet it exists.
CanonRay
(14,078 posts)They are controlled by the Governor of the state, and are very well regulated. They are mostly part timers working other jobs except for a few weeks a year.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Do they bring the weapons from their personal stockpile? At the time of the writing of the second amendment, they did. Not so anymore.
NickB79
(19,219 posts)For example: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
Good luck with your dream.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)a GD host posting gun threads in GD.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But, back to the topic at hand, as a gun aficionado like the subject of the article, and as a liberal and progressive, aren't you appalled at the treatment documented in this national news story?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)in the hosts forum? Really big news?
And I'm no "gun aficionado".
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I don't know how you define national news, but "running in the globe and the times" works for me.
And again, this is about journalism and politics first, your precious gunz hardly at all, unless you consider "Gun Manufacturers" to be guns, which they aren't, or corporate control of the media to be an RKBA issue, which it isn't.
Still waiting for any comment from you at all about the actual topic.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I've told you before, I have never owned a firearm.
The globe is owned by the times, and they have a gun control agenda.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But the point is irrelevant, the NYT is the national newspaper of record. Running in the times is, by definition, national news.
I'm wondering why you didn't alert on the Liberal Gun Club op. You seem to alert on every remotely negative gun related post in gd, within minutes of it being posted, and yet that positive piece just passed right under your radar, along with all the other obsessive gungeon sop alerters patrolling gd.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It's a shitty move to use your power as a host to call people out for using the alert function. It's bad enough you're a host and constantly whine in ATA about people alerting against your preferences, but to call out individual posters is another level of abuse altogether.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You'd think a host would have the grace to abstain from voting on their own thread.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)No, it's not. At least be honest and admit it's about your disdain for pro 2A members.
And yes, I'm disturbed by the treatment of this man by the pro 2A movement, but that doesn't change the fact that you posted this thread as flame bait.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)which all companies are about, which would make them, in an abstract way, pro 2A.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)that might damage their bottom line, not about the RKBA, but about money. Glad you agree.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)do not seem to matter. That's OK, shows the level that they are at. I just think Skinner should review a host that posts against the SOP, several times like this one has. Delete the second amendment? Last I heard that was still part of the Democratic party platform. How are those printing presses working if we want to be strict about the wording on the amendments.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The only things I disagree on are the AWB and the lie about the gun show loophole. I guess some disagree with this part....
I do not believe banning something by cosmetic looks and not function works. And the gun show loophole covers all private sales, not just sales at gun shows and they should have to have a background check.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I thank Warren Stupidity for speaking out and not hiding his posts away where hardly anyone will see them. There are a lot of people on this site that want open discussion of guns in GD and if you read the Ask the Administrators forum it is clear that even Skinner has very mixed feelings on the rule. I am glad we have a host who is willing to stand for open discussion and won't allow gun enthusiasts to bully him into not posting on the subject.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)However I honestly think this article I reposted is more about the utterly corrupt state of affairs in our society today. It just happens to be framed within "gun culture", but what happened with this journalist is happening throughout our media every day. Corporations are running amok. We've deregulated for 30 years and the consequences are that our economy is whacked into permanent recession for the 99% and unparalleled prosperity for the 1%, and corporation and their cartel lobby organizations are running the country for their own benefit.
I also think it is hysterical that our gungeoneers cannot see past the word "gun". They can't even discuss what this article is about at all, they are just horrified that anything remotely related to their precious gunz that can at all be seen as negative, from horrifying gun crimes to corporate corruption, could get posted where everyone here will read it. It is almost as if they are trying to do the same thing here that was done to Metcalf. Kind of ironic.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Paladin
(28,241 posts)....that meaningful compromise on the gun issue is no longer possible. Advocating a 16-hour training program gets Dick Metcalf's long and respected career handed to him on a platter, courtesy of the firearms industry and its minions. Yet another shameful action, from a movement that long ago lost any capacity for shame.....
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...began waging a cultural war.
There are no doubt laws that you and I can agree on. I found nothing offensive, at all, with Metcalf's article. Requiring an "operator's license" to carry a gun in public is not something I have any sort of problem with.
But many in the anti-gun movement see this as a cultural-war issue. Read the comments in this thread to find a sampling.
The anti-gun movement does not approve of guns for self-defense because those guns are guns designed and optimized for killing people, and they do not want those guns available. They also disapprove and distrust the mentality of armed self-defense, because it involved learning and studying about how to kill people.
They also worry excessively about RW militias, so they do things that cause RW militia to grow and spread. Even though, despite the rhetoric and idiocy (see YouTube), the RW militias don't actually DO anything except stockpile food and toilet paper.
Irrationality meets irrationality.
The major problem, as I see it, is that Democrats do not benefit much politically from such "culture war" attempts, like magazine limits and assault-weapons bans, but the other side does. Violence is the result of social problems; spending precious time and political effort trying to take away the hardware of violence rather than treating the root causes is ineffective.
I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that we it's okay that people are suffering from lack of social mobility, education and employment opportunities, political corruption, a rigged economy, and a lack of health care just as long as they're not killing each other.
There are about a dozen issues that I wish the Democrats had pursued with as much vigor as they do trying to ban protruding pistol grips.
Universal background checks that don't involve registration of guns or their owners? Wonderful. Bring it on. Removing protruding pistol grips? Stupid and useless.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
Paladin
(28,241 posts)As far as that "Cultural War" thing you keep hammering at: if it's me and Gabby Giffords vs. Phil Robertson and Ted Nugent, bring it on. I'm keeping a lot better company than you are.....
krispos42
(49,445 posts)And I don't associate with either of those two. Ted Nugent is a cowardly nutjob. Phil Robertson... I think he's the guy from "Duck Dynasty", right? The one who shoved his foot in his mouth recently? Well, sounds like he's an idiot.
I want my country to change for the better. I see nearly all of the attempts at gun control making it worse, because the proposed laws are more political and cultural than practical, but they cost us the ability to enact laws and policies and money to change many other aspects of our current suckitude.
Call me strange.
Mopar151
(9,973 posts)Yeah, he said some really dumb stuff - but none of it, AFIK, to do with the whole open carry/arm your children/I must be armed at all times crap. Sairy Palin was trying to ride Phil's beard/coattail to relevancy - with the usual results.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)We must accept that many shall die to preserve...this love affair w/ guns many value more than life. 
beevul
(12,194 posts)Since 1934, with the exception of concealed carry, we've been
Since 1934, compromise has been defined, where this issue is concerned, as pro-control passes increasingly restrictive laws, pro-gun gets nothing in return.
That ain't compromising, buddy, and it never was.
And by definition, you see more of the same - more capitulation - as reasonable "compromise".
What did you expect when the pro-control side defines compromise as capitulation by those who are pro-gun.
You guys have no one to blame but yourselves.
Paladin
(28,241 posts)Because that's the first word that comes to mind whenever Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, or Larry Pratt is mentioned: "compromise." Thanks for proving my point so well.
beevul
(12,194 posts)So much for your pretenses.
Go ahead. Keep pretending that guns are "unfettered".
Keep pretending there are "no gun laws".
Because those are the first assertions that come to mind whenever "gun control for the sake of gun control" types chime in and pretend that that they have ever defined "compromise" accurately...or honestly.
Paladin
(28,241 posts)It's not worth my time to set you straight.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Please, ask me for examples.
petronius
(26,595 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)Unless I'm missing something, all Metcalf is saying in the article is that some legally required firearms training should accompany the issuance of a concealed carry permit.
And, he quotes the 2nd Amendment ... but the part forbidden to be uttered by the gun radicals "A well regulated ..."
This little incident ought to be publicized heavily -- it is excellent proof of the fanaticism and extremism of the gun radicals.
spin
(17,493 posts)I consider myself to be a strong supporter of gun rights.
I found nothing in the column that Dick Metcalf wrote extremely objectionable. His argument is largely over the requirement that those who are licensed to carry a firearm in public have to attend a good class on firearm safety and the legal aspects of using a firearm for self defense.
It could be argued that such a class could be taught in less than 16 hours including time on the range to prove proficiency with a firearm. Still, I don't find this requirement overly oppressive.
I remember one concealed weapons class in Florida that was run by a prosecuting attorney. He started out his class by saying, "In this class I will teach you the basics of firearm safety but also the law in Florida as it applies to the use of lethal force. I suggest you listen carefully to the legal section because if you are changed with violations of the law I will be more than happy to prosecute you and send you to jail for a long time."
We have 8 hours of classroom and the range portion can be waived if military or military retired. I would like to see what is required in the 16 hours.
I see no issue with the article either. I have only owned for 20 years and also have a CCW.
spin
(17,493 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)annoyed at Metcalf was his apparent claim that the 2a's use of the term "well regulated" referred to laws rather than proficiency with arms. That could be seen as opening Pandora's Box as far as future firearms regulatiins are concerned. At least that was my take on it.
Metcalf never mentioned AWB, mag size limits, UBC, but he essentially said guns need to be 'well regulated' and some people could have the opinion that he was not opposed to such laws.
I did not consider that the outrage was about the 16 hour class for an Illinois CCW, probably because I live in Minnesota which requires 8 hours of instruction and I wish all states would have such a requirement.
mountain grammy
(26,594 posts)and the stupid, idiot gun nuts in America are letting them. Disgusting.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)mountain grammy
(26,594 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I'll keep my firearms.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and I also will keep my firearms
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The next major rebellion won't be against government, it will be against the real rulers.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Too easy for it to stray into prohibited territory...
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)at the mere mention of any type of regulation! Surely he cannot be shocked! Maybe now he could spend the time he has left fighting for rational restrictions. Probably too much to hope for!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He's nobody's fool, and he was at the tail end of his career anyway. I assume he decided to take a stand and to hell with the consequences.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)
GP6971
(31,100 posts)article, it states that his editors had approved the column prior going to press, but then reversed it after it was published. Talk about cowardice
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)This is the new rule. One cannot hold an unpopular opinion anymore. One must be fired, socially ostricized and anyone who does business with you must be pressured to stop doing business with you.
Is this a good thing?
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)exposed as the brainless, half-witted emotional basket-cases they are.
Now I expect to be juryed for this comment because:
A) Gunadmentalists hate being called out and;
B) I called a gun a manhood extender, which could be anything to extends manhood (so please keep your minds out of the gutter).
QuestForSense
(653 posts)Apropos. They're mostly a bunch of dicks anyway.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)That was, like, a really intellectual response.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)What did you expect, Sartre?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Many in these discussions actually make no distinction. They just are into broad brush insults and name calling.
Logical
(22,457 posts)in this country. Too many people killed by them. More then any other country like us. Per capita.
Not sure why. But the 'gun culture' deal seems to be part of it.
The murder rates are dropping which is good. But lets admit, guns make it much easier to kill people or yourself.
But gun control does not work. At all. Too many guns in circulation. To many stolen. There are enough guns stolen every year to easily commit the 9000 murders a year by guns.
Not sure what the solution is. You cant collect all of them. Can't really evaluate a person to see if they are stable. Background checks are worthless as long as private sales bypass them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just curious as I hope you are not talking about firearms owners.
Mopar151
(9,973 posts)A)The ones who think that an unsecured, loaded gun makes things safer or better B) The fools that scare or shame hunters and/or other safe, competent shooters.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Gundamentalists are the same as Fundamentalist, except a Gundamentalists worships a deity known as "LaPierre."
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
A Round Tuit
(88 posts)This actually happened two issues ago, I think. Sometime around October. When it hit the Gun Forums in all their various forms, he was said to have been "Zumbo'd". Google Jim Zumbo for those details. Ironically, Zumbo was defended by the ultimate gun nut, Ted Nugent. Mr. Metcalf has not received similar support.
packman
(16,296 posts)"a well-regulated militia". Let everyone who wants a gun, keep it as long as they show up once a month to drill, march 20 miles with a backpack, and be required to camp out (even if it's raining, snowing or bite-ass cold). Failure to meet those requirements and they get kicked out of the "well-regulated militia" and their guns taken away.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Many USSC decisions do not agree with your interpretation. I think they have more sway with our rights than you.
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #44)
Post removed
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Militias were not provided arms and were formed from the civilian population. I.E., the civilian population already had to have the firearms.
In a more modern take on your idea, you will be in violation of multiple statues including the ADA. Say someone was hit in a motor vehicle and paralyzed, they then lose their firearms as punishment because they can't walk? Barbaric and evil. There are also disabled persons participating in Paralympic shooting events, including one class specifically for blind people (the sights seek sound emitting targets). Beyond that, the whole concept discriminates based on age, as older adults can't maintain that kind of activity. I know several men in their 70s who hunt. They go slow, and need a hand carrying the deer back on occasion, but otherwise can continue their pastime.
sarisataka
(18,467 posts)do you think most of them do that? How often do you suppose an admin clerk- or the other 90% that is not infantry- does any of that?
BTW- it is repeatedly said no one is seriously talking about taking guns away. Perhaps they meant no one who is serious is talking that...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)in my 20 years in the Army. 12 Mile ruck is all. We slept in tents for 6 months when I was deployed, but not during normal peacetime training.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ever happens here and especially in threads about guns. You know that right.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Sorry, should have never asked that question.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)interesting picture in ones mind
El Shaman
(583 posts)'Mo Fucker'!!
spin
(17,493 posts)I look forward to more of your wisdom.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts) Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Surely everyone who was so upset about the "censorship" of Duck Dynasty will rally to this man's defense.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)The right wing "outrage" over what happened to that "poor" whats his name quacker is due to flare up any second for this journalist, right?. It has to. Don't tea partyers believe in "freedom and liberty" for all?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)prohibiting this man from expressing his opinion.
If you could, please post a link to such a law. TIA.
RC
(25,592 posts)Everyone knows how useful hypocrisy can be. Especially the Right-wing and other flavors of nusz.
It doesn't get more blatant than this. Come on Sarah, free speech needs your heroic leadership 
RC
(25,592 posts) 
stuarttman63
(18 posts)The treatment Dick Metcalf received at the hands of his compatriots is strongly reminiscent of what happened to journalists, writers, artists, etc who ran afoul of the party line in various Communist countries. They were vigorously denounced and purged from the ranks. Mr. Metcalf is indeed lucky that these people do not(as yet) have the power of life and death over him lest he share the same fate as Maxim Gorky. The vehemence with which he is denounced, the us vs them mentality that gave rise to it and the entrenched refusal to come to any kind of common ground vis-a-vis the rising tide of gun violence, is a horrible indication of how far the gun apologists have strayed from the body politic. They have become like the Jacobins in Revolutionary France, the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and the Red Guards during China's "Cultural Revolution". They think in the same black and white, good vs evil, us vs them manner.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)showing that gun related violence is decreasing in the country.
It's a conspiracy I tell ya!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I and most DUers are content with guns being discussed in the two (2) groups assigned for that purpose.
But the little group of "activists" no longer enjoy their Castle with wide-screen videos of their re-runs in every room, and they can't engage in real debate within the Open gun group. So they drag their dead horse into GD.
And resume, bidness as usual.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)this is going to be the norm, rather than the exception, especially when a host posts this and then refuses to enforce the forum rules.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)A journalist being oppressed in communist countries was done so by the communist givernment, not the public at large.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Right gun nuts and tea baggers ?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and his employer has the right to terminate him if it's deemed detrimental to the company.
The 1A applies to the govt., not private entities.
Don't schools teach civics anymore?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the gun-nuts and teabaggers, not making a comment on if his employer had the right to let him go.
Don't schools teach reading comprehension anymore?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and you're correct, I missed the irony of it.
Profound apology rendered. 
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that Phil was reinstated to DD. I know you must think that since we want to remain consistant
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I was commenting on the hypocrisy of Gun-nuts and teabaggers.
I think you must be projecting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to early to get that sarcasm, have to go get caffeinated.
7962
(11,841 posts)Its easy to point at countries where there never were many guns to start with, but once we have them, they're here. And crooks would never give em up. Sensible laws make perfect sense, but outright attempts at removal would do little at this point.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)This is the gun nut mentality though... 'Any restriction is trying to outlaw guns' and it's bullshit.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In this very thread, there's a long subthread about repealing the second amendment, which is a closely related issue. There are unrealistic extremists on both sides, and they are indeed making enactment of some very reasonable additional regulations almost impossible.
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)I am aware of a crapload of instances where gun nuts go insane over common sense laws.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I was referring to the pro-control equivalent of those "gun nuts going insane" that you mention...and there are countless examples of what I'm referring to here on DU.
I reiterate: the extremists and shriekers on both sides of this debate are a huge part of the reason nothing gets done. Every time some dolt vehemently rejects the most reasonable of regulations or screeches insults to all gun owners, the gulf only widens. Extremist rhetoric doesn't create solutions, it creates more extremists.
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)The also actually enact laws and keep laws on the books that are nuts, like the SYG law in Florida.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Pro-control extremists block laws, too (must-issue CCW in several states being just one example...permit reciprocity being another).
But if you insist on believing the extremism only really matters on one side of this issue, there's not much I can say, really. Have fun...I'm done here.
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)'Let us do what we want with our guns or YOU are the extremist'
Yeah 
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I hope so, since it fails utterly as a representation of what I actually said or believe.
In case you posted about must-issue CCW without knowing what the phrase actually means, it's not "anyone that asks for CCW should have one." It means that if a person meets the legal requirements (completes the training and passes the background check), then the issuing authority must grant the permit.
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)As long as someone is not forbidden to own a gun, they must get a ccw if they ask... And of course, anyone should have a gun. I have no idea how people function when they are so afraid they have to be able to carry guns everywhere.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If there are already several things that disqualify you from having a firearm? That is why you go through a background check for a CCW. To prevent prohibited persons from getting a CCW permit.
Ohio Joe
(21,724 posts)MOAR GUNS!
Amazing how that is always the answer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,339 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)This is a new one.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)some of these sayings some come up with.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Thou shalt not speak any criticism of the "My Precious" or it's worshipers.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts) 99Forever
(14,524 posts)... to any person not infested with the insanity of Gun Culture. It's actually quite obvious.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Well, you got one thing right at least.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Surely no one could actually fail to realize that posting inane, insulting, hyperbolic nonsense reduces the chance of enacting reasonable firearms regulations, right?
'Fess up: you and Hoyt are really Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts) 
rock
(13,218 posts)"I'm gonna shoot you so many times there'll be nothing left but the holes!"
TxDemChem
(1,918 posts)but it seems being even somewhat reasonable in that circle is hazardous to career and life. And death threats? Don't those people know they just defeated their own argument against sensible regulation? Ridiculous.
deminks
(11,011 posts)Sounds strangely familiar...
Anyway, I would agree that this is further evidence that gun owners are being used by the manufacturers, much like fundies are used by GOPers. I especially liked the part where reviews of new gun products are edited by the manufacturers before they are printed. Lovely.
Courtesy Flush
(4,558 posts)Guy loses his job for voicing an opinion? Only liberals do that. Right?
world wide wally
(21,733 posts)KG
(28,751 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Posting gun (ahem, "journalism"
issues -- even as a moderator -- can I now post videos explaining/illustrating (in a journalistic manner, of course) how self-defense using a firearm is not covered adequately by MSM?
There are many examples of SD on innertube videos (all real, because journalism). I'm sure the general DU audience will welcome this "rising tide" of armed self-defense as much as they'll welcome the return of...
Guns. On GD. All the time.
And all the smear, hatred, division, and potty talk that Always, Always goes with it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)he will be the first to lock it to prevent discussion.
I do always love
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Some animals are more equal than others...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)And form an iron butt. They can't start a "movement," so they hard wire bright shiny lights, welcoming folks to a ghost town.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Creekdog does it as well. They should be banned from hosting for it because they're trying intimidate people into not alerting on their pet issues. It's an abuse of power.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"That's kinda like a GD host posting gun threads in GD"
AFTER alerting on the OP as inappropriate for GD. Given the attempt at intimidation by you, I thought it only fair to bring up the hypocrisy of you (and others) both posting in threads and alerting on them, and of only alerting on negative gun threads in gd, not the positive ones.
By the way, NOTHING in the hosts forums is secret. That issue was settled a long time ago. We are not mods. Any member can volunteer. Nor are we banned from posting in any forum, even if our posts are, horrors, controversial.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and an attempt at intimidation?
So alerting on a thread should prohibit one from posting in it? That's your buddy's logic. He hasn't posted in this thread so, along with all the other DUers who haven't, he must think it's an SOP violation.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)He has said that in several posts but I guess it is OK for some hosts to do what they want.
I don't think there is a need to make the names of alerters public.
First, the username of the alerter is not necessary for jurors to evaluate a post. In fact, it could actually be prejudicial.
Second, making alerter usernames public would create a disincentive to alert. But we do not need any additional disincentives to alert. We get very few alerts already. We don't have a problem with alert-stalking or excessive alerting. And people whose alerts are found to be without merit temporarily lose their alerting privileges.
Third and most importantly, making alerter usernames public would create more meta-discussion and forum drama. If I send an alert (and yes I send them regularly) the last thing I want is for a disgruntled juror (or poster whose post got hidden) to start a thread calling me out as a cowardly net nanny who is unfairly picking on innocent people who never did anything wrong. I would stop alerting immediately, and so would almost everyone else. So it is unlikely that we will ever make alerter usernames public.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I guess Skinner doesn't feel strongly enough about it to actually, you know...enforce it.
I've done just what Skinner predicted: (mostly) stopped alerting. Warren got what he wanted: intimidation of people he disagrees with. 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But you know that.
This story is not about the RKBA, it is about a corporate manufacturer's lobby organization squelching opinions it doesn't want published. There is no RKBA issue here at all. There is an issue with the political power of corporations in this country. Are you concerned about that issue?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It's about guns and the RKBA, Warren. But you knew that.
sarisataka
(18,467 posts)it seemed to become about RKBA at the second reply...
From an RKBA standpoint, this is old news. I recall debates about it in gun forums back in October when it happened. Many guns owners, as myself, agreed it was one man's opinion and a pretty good one at that. Others felt any give, especially from a noted writer would be used to push less-than-reasonable legislation. No consensus was really reached.
From a journalistic standpoint, it was felt by the majority that editors can write and give their opinion as they see fit; even if any particular individual thinks the editor is talking out his/her ass. To fire an editor for expressing an opinion in an approved article was a crappy thing to do.
As an aside, I cancelled my subscription to G&A over this incident
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The op, the news article in today's times and globe, is not about guns, it is about corporate influence over media and how that affects journalism. There shouldn't be one person posting here who isn't disturbed about the events described in the article, regardless of their stance on rkba issues, because this isn't about Rkba issues.
sarisataka
(18,467 posts)I believe a free press, or other media, should be free.
If the audience does not like the message they can choose to not listen but censoring it because it is unpopular is the antithesis of freedom. That is something all sides should be able to agree on, if they believe what they say...
El Shaman
(583 posts)"“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
perdita9
(1,144 posts)This story shows that the people arguing gun rights in court rooms are not responsible or responsible. They are extremists who care nothing for public health.
Please stop enabling their craziness. It's literally killing some of us.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"He is unsure of his next move, but fears he has become a pariah in the gun industry, to which, he said, he has devoted nearly his entire adult life."
Well, that's what you get for being devoted to a cult of death your entire "adult" life. (I'd say his "adult " life is just starting. Maybe he can now "devote" himself to..... oh art and music! Or philosophy. or macrame.... y'know something more adult.)
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)Once you break free from a cult, you are healthier and stronger. I wish him the best with his new life. It sure is a lot better than his old one.
gulliver
(13,168 posts)As long as it is the opinion of the gun manufacturers.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)or at least it would be in any other context.
aikoaiko
(34,154 posts)When you base a conclusion on the premise that "well-regulated" meant 'govt imposed restrictions' as opposed to 'well-ordered' as the OED suggests was the case in the 1780s, then you're failing your duty a writer.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I'm shocked. SHOCKED.
How many more people need to die from guns before the irrational gun advocates start to realize that hey, we need to do something here to curb the gun deaths?
Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)Just saying.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts) Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts) Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I know you are not scared since you made the allegation
Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to get rid of all of these trolls
Kingofalldems
(38,414 posts)You can think anything you want.
CTyankee
(63,881 posts)Who voted with the Republicans?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)do you like the MAIG? Brady Org?
Logical
(22,457 posts)from dying. They are just not realistic. And they lie.
Don't know who MAIG is.
Bloomberg's gun control group, Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, which is, in reality, against any guns, whether illegal or legal.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I do not know what makes a gun illegal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns
Largely in response to a recent NRA organized letter writing campaign, dozens of mayors have resigned from or distanced themselves from the MAIG while still in office.[45][46][47] The NRA 's web site lists 73 mayors that have quit the MAIG, including 15 in Pennsylvania, alone.[48][49][50][51] Responses have been varied, including, announced resignations, requests to be removed from the MAIG's roster, or disavowals of ever joining the coalition. In one case, Mayor Orlando Ortega Jr. of Portales, New Mexico complained that the NRA listing of member mayors had incorrectly identified the mayor as being a member. Ortega was indeed listed as a MAIG member in a July 2009 MAIG-produced letter to congress.[23] One mayor mentioned that her reason for resigning was "...because she thought [MAIG] was attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns."[52] In some other cases, mayors have claimed that MAIG has used their name without permission.
I do not agree with today's NRA points but they used to be very big on firearms safety back in the day. I think we need more of that again.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Packerowner740
(676 posts)Are you ok with MAIG and the Brady org and the Mark Kelly/gabby Giffords gun control org?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)
Baitball Blogger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,658 posts)
leanforward
(1,076 posts)I read, I listen and to this day, I don't believe unfettered access is necessary. To me, there is nothing wrong with a bolt, lever, pump, or a cylinder. Unfettered access of guns is a threat to me and family. I've seen mishandling of weapons. I read about it all the time. A lot of folks have a fascination that a weapon will save "me". Extra "guns" on the scene confuse the issue for my first responders. Limits and waiting periods will weed out a few. If you are a good guy, then strict background investigations should not be a problem.
Gothmog
(144,848 posts)The SCOTUS made this clear. Here are some quotes from some extremely conservative sources http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/still-limits-second-amendment
The Supreme Court put an end to that reticence last week when it came down squarely on the side of the individual-rights interpretation. In so doing, the court struck down the D.C. gun ban as a clear violation of that right.
Yet the court also recognized that this right is not absolute. “Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.
See also http://www.mediaite.com/tv/justice-antonin-scalia-on-fox-there-are-some-limitations-on-second-amendment-rights/
Wallace brought up the majority opinion that Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller, deciding that the Second Amendment grants the individual right to bear arms. Wallace asked the justice “how far” that freedom goes, and if any legislature has the authority to ban semi-automatic weapons or high capacity magazines. Scalia said that the Heller decision left the door open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are “permissible.”
Scalia acknowledged that there are limitations on those rights, but the court would have to decide what they are. He emphasized the “bear arms” point to say that while owning a gun is perfectly legal, owning a cannon is a different story. However, he noted that there are certainly handheld weapons which can do a fair amount of harm, and said when such a case comes before the court, he would have to make a legal call based on what were understood limitations at the time of the Founders.
The author in this piece was merely discussing the law and the fact that regulation is authorized under the Second Amendment. The reaction to these views are sad.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Anyone want to bet it's related to having gun discussions like this one in GD?