Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Dick Metcalf has responded to the controversy. http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/228229
Dick Metcalf responds
- Thread starter Flfiremedic
- Start date
- Status
CoRoMo
Member
Sorry Dick, I don't really see an editorial page as an 'open discussion'. You wanted to tell us all that you were right, why you were right, and you wanted us to all jump on the band wagon you'd hitched up, once the applause died down.
C'mon Dick, your 1st Amendment rights are still just as in tact as they were two weeks ago. Don't give me this 'my 1st Amendment rights have been infringed upon' junk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
You're asking if customers hold any sway over the business that is trying to attract them? You had better believe so.
Last edited:
CoRoMo
Member
Okay, wait.
You don't know the answer to that question? How on earth did you get that G&A job?!!?
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
CoRoMo:
What, exactly, do you think the answer is?
And, as a follow up, how many of those laws have been RULED unconstitutional by and federal court?
What, exactly, do you think the answer is?
And, as a follow up, how many of those laws have been RULED unconstitutional by and federal court?
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Well Dick here are my answers.
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
Once a criminal serves their time and have completed all of their Court ordered stipulations then I have to say yes they should have their Rights restored. Should the Laws be repealed? Yes.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
Yes. The Second Amendment does not allow for regulation of the RKBA. That "SHALL not infringe" a term not found anywhere else means just that. No regulation.
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Doesn't matter as one has to play the game until we get the Government to recognize the Second Amendment as written.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
No. I'm just following the law until such time as the government starts enforcing the Secondment as written.
Now as far as your car analogy that's simply bogus. Driving is a privilege not a RIGHT. Learn the difference.
The editorial page does not allow for discussion as its the opinion of one without the benefit of discussion or input from others.
Sorry Dick when you tick off the people who pay the bills you can expect some form of negative feedback including being fired. I do feel that you are just the fall guy though as G&A tries to coverup the mess they made.
To put things bluntly the Second Amendment does not allow for any TYPE OF REGULATION by State or the Federal governments due to the "shall not infringe clause".
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
Once a criminal serves their time and have completed all of their Court ordered stipulations then I have to say yes they should have their Rights restored. Should the Laws be repealed? Yes.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
Yes. The Second Amendment does not allow for regulation of the RKBA. That "SHALL not infringe" a term not found anywhere else means just that. No regulation.
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Doesn't matter as one has to play the game until we get the Government to recognize the Second Amendment as written.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
No. I'm just following the law until such time as the government starts enforcing the Secondment as written.
Now as far as your car analogy that's simply bogus. Driving is a privilege not a RIGHT. Learn the difference.
The editorial page does not allow for discussion as its the opinion of one without the benefit of discussion or input from others.
Sorry Dick when you tick off the people who pay the bills you can expect some form of negative feedback including being fired. I do feel that you are just the fall guy though as G&A tries to coverup the mess they made.
To put things bluntly the Second Amendment does not allow for any TYPE OF REGULATION by State or the Federal governments due to the "shall not infringe clause".
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Queen of THunder:
Does the SCOTUS agree with you on points 1 & 2?
Has the SCOTUS EVER agreed with you on points 1 & 2?
Does the SCOTUS agree with you on points 1 & 2?
Has the SCOTUS EVER agreed with you on points 1 & 2?
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,840
Pizza,
I have disagreed with the SCOTUS on many occasions; I would have disagreed with them on slavery, for instance, for many years.
You keep confusing 'consensus' and 'approval' with 'right'; I believe I am right even when my position does not have general consensus or anyone's approval, because if a million people say a foolish thing, it's STILL a foolish thing.
Larry
I have disagreed with the SCOTUS on many occasions; I would have disagreed with them on slavery, for instance, for many years.
You keep confusing 'consensus' and 'approval' with 'right'; I believe I am right even when my position does not have general consensus or anyone's approval, because if a million people say a foolish thing, it's STILL a foolish thing.
Larry
No, he didn't. There is much in his response that would invoke a reasonable discussion. Perhaps he published the wrong article.
Nonetheless and his arguments aside, the December editorial - as it was presented - gave the anti crowd fodder.
Nuff said.
Having said that... I still think Bequette was the real villain.
Last edited:
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
I understand your point DT Guy and I certainly respect anyone's right to have their opinion.
However, the constitution lays out very clear guidelines regarding constitutionality. The Supreme court makes those decisions. If something is broadly accepts and has been ruled multiple times as being within the bounds of the constitution, you can't really say that it IS unconstitutional. You can say "I think it SHOULD BE unconstitutional." But, the reality is, it is NOT unconstitutional, as defined by the parameters OF the constitution.
On the first day that the constitution was signed, there were regulations of firearms at the state and local level. There have been regulations of firearms ever since and never once has the supreme court given any indication that complete and total deregulation would even be considered. Regulation of firearms is, and always has been, constitutional.
You can THINK that is what should happen all you want, but it is never going to be a reality.
However, the constitution lays out very clear guidelines regarding constitutionality. The Supreme court makes those decisions. If something is broadly accepts and has been ruled multiple times as being within the bounds of the constitution, you can't really say that it IS unconstitutional. You can say "I think it SHOULD BE unconstitutional." But, the reality is, it is NOT unconstitutional, as defined by the parameters OF the constitution.
On the first day that the constitution was signed, there were regulations of firearms at the state and local level. There have been regulations of firearms ever since and never once has the supreme court given any indication that complete and total deregulation would even be considered. Regulation of firearms is, and always has been, constitutional.
You can THINK that is what should happen all you want, but it is never going to be a reality.
Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Concealed carry is just a method of transporting something the constitution guarantees you the right to own, not some mystical awe inspiring privilege you have to earn.
The other thing that gets me is all the rhetoric about not taking away guns for hunting...just defensive or "Assault" weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a thing about hunting. Militia means military...and military/defensive weapons.*
The other thing that gets me is all the rhetoric about not taking away guns for hunting...just defensive or "Assault" weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a thing about hunting. Militia means military...and military/defensive weapons.*
Last edited:
He messed up and is still hardheaded about it. I believe all states should take Alaska, Arizona and Vermont's model. A Valid state ID/Drivers License is all that is needed. IMO you don't even need that, but I'm just reiterating no "permit" is needed.
I was upset the other day someone posted they agreed with him and that 20 something's today are dumb with firearms and basically shouldn't be trusted without proper regulation and training.
I served my country in Afghanistan, North Africa and Iraq, am 20 something and can defiantly handle a firearm. I have many 20 something friends who never served in the military or had similar training, yet are very responsible even more so then some older people.
I personally think it's the older baby boomer generation that failed us before we were born, by letting all the liberal elements of their generation gain political power, thus effecting the current liberal school system of propaganda brainwashing our youth, current promotion of music and TV that promotes young single mothers, no morals, crime, promiscuity and violence as "cool" - but I am not spouting it off everywhere.
Metcalf is an idiot, and that's my opinion on the subject. Good riddance fool.
I was upset the other day someone posted they agreed with him and that 20 something's today are dumb with firearms and basically shouldn't be trusted without proper regulation and training.
I served my country in Afghanistan, North Africa and Iraq, am 20 something and can defiantly handle a firearm. I have many 20 something friends who never served in the military or had similar training, yet are very responsible even more so then some older people.
I personally think it's the older baby boomer generation that failed us before we were born, by letting all the liberal elements of their generation gain political power, thus effecting the current liberal school system of propaganda brainwashing our youth, current promotion of music and TV that promotes young single mothers, no morals, crime, promiscuity and violence as "cool" - but I am not spouting it off everywhere.
Metcalf is an idiot, and that's my opinion on the subject. Good riddance fool.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,840
Pizza,
You miss my point; the SCOTUS is a political organization, and has held opposite views on any number of issues throughout time. While what they are currently deciding might be 'constitutional' in the legal sense, it does not make it 'constitutional' in fact.
The constitution gave us a clear mandate; politicians have been compromising that since before it was signed, but it remains clear to me, and to many others, what the intent was.
I am comfortable with that being 'what I think'; after all, half the world is below average, and those folks all vote, too.
Larry
You miss my point; the SCOTUS is a political organization, and has held opposite views on any number of issues throughout time. While what they are currently deciding might be 'constitutional' in the legal sense, it does not make it 'constitutional' in fact.
The constitution gave us a clear mandate; politicians have been compromising that since before it was signed, but it remains clear to me, and to many others, what the intent was.
I am comfortable with that being 'what I think'; after all, half the world is below average, and those folks all vote, too.
Larry
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
DTGuy-
The Supreme Court was established by the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws. They are the ONLY authority under the constitution that can make that determination.
The Supreme Court (and their decision making power) is every bit as fundamental to the constitution as the second amendment.
What you are arguing is NOT constitutionality.
"Constitutionality" : Accordance with the provisions or principles of a constitution
If the SCOTUS (established under the provisions of the US constitution) rules law X to be Constitutional (under the process established under the provisions of the US constitution) it IS constitutional.
What you are arguing is something entirely different. You are saying that what has been ruled constitutional is undesirable and that you think a different system that created a political/legal climate that conformed with your beliefs would be more desirable.
The Supreme Court was established by the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws. They are the ONLY authority under the constitution that can make that determination.
The Supreme Court (and their decision making power) is every bit as fundamental to the constitution as the second amendment.
What you are arguing is NOT constitutionality.
"Constitutionality" : Accordance with the provisions or principles of a constitution
If the SCOTUS (established under the provisions of the US constitution) rules law X to be Constitutional (under the process established under the provisions of the US constitution) it IS constitutional.
What you are arguing is something entirely different. You are saying that what has been ruled constitutional is undesirable and that you think a different system that created a political/legal climate that conformed with your beliefs would be more desirable.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
The SCOTUS are a bunch of lawyers who like all lawyers believe only they can understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Two documents that were written for the common person to understand not something for lawyers to parse.
lobo9er
Member
Nope didn't get it.
Lonestar49
Member
Yes, put simply, the wording "the right to bear arms" means to carry, no different IMHO that if one bears a grudge, that person is carrying, on himself, that grudge throughout one's daily travels.
The same meaning in the biblical phrase - the 3 wise men came bearing gifts for the_Child..
Ls
larryh1108
Member
Part of the punishment for his crime is losing his rights. Many crimes that are classified as felonies do not warrant losing one's rights, IMO, but those decisions are what should be challenged, not the decisions that violent criminals lose their rights.
If a violent offender wishes to protect his family then he should refrain from doing his viscious acts that landed him in jail. When he held up that liquor store or gas station he handed his rights to the court as his punishment for his crime. His choice. He can protect his family the same way they were protected when he was locked up, if he's so concerned. Convicted, violent offenders have no "right" to be legally armed. Their choice, not the courts. The courts enforce his decisions to give up his rights.
Problem is, there are many victimless crimes that are felonies. Hell, even driving 100mph or over is a Felony now. Have you ever driven over 100 in your lifetime? Don't lie. With powerful cars/muscle cars, it's easy to reach that speed in a couple seconds during a pull on the highway. Now I don't race on the street, I'm just saying.
If you think murder, rape and armed robbery/burglary are the only felonies, you are most defiantly mistaken.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Really, because ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION they ARE the only ones who can interpret the Constitution.
Excerpts from Article III of the Constitution of the United States:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
...
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
ETXhiker
Member
In the most anti-gun, anti-freedom climate I have ever seen in America in my lifetime, Metcalf gave the gun grabbers a stick to beat us with. Furthermore, Bequette,as editor, apparently saw no problem with it. I have no sympathy for either of them.
And he obviously doesn't understand the "Zumbo" law. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
And he obviously doesn't understand the "Zumbo" law. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
HoosierQ
Member
I personally think that denying rights to former felons is wrong. I have a relative in the younger generation...a step in-law to be more precise...who committed a drug felony quite a number of years ago. Convicted. Incarcerated. Parolled. Problem is, the guy is forced to live a pretty marginal life because he cannot get a good job with that felony. Prior to knowing him, I would never have considered this.
Basically, if somebody is "so bad" that we as a society must deny them rights, constitutional or otherwise, then for crying out loud...KEEP THEM IN PRISON! If the individual has served their time and are declared "safe" to walk among free men and women, then all of their rights should be restored. If that's the right to get a decent job or own a gun...so be it. I never used to see it this way. Now I do.
He didn't harm anyone. If he had harmed someone, I'd advocte for him and others like him to still be locked up.
The question then of giving 2nd Amendment rights back to convicted felons is complex of course. But once one has completely served their sentence...in total...parole, probation, community service, restitution...the whole deal...and return to being fully free citizens again, I say, there is no justification for withholding rights from the person. If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they shouldn't be out of prison...pure and simple. My relative obviously agrees with this. He also agrees, having been there, that there are a lot of his former fellow inmates that have no business ever walking among us again. He's quite sure of that as well!
Basically, if somebody is "so bad" that we as a society must deny them rights, constitutional or otherwise, then for crying out loud...KEEP THEM IN PRISON! If the individual has served their time and are declared "safe" to walk among free men and women, then all of their rights should be restored. If that's the right to get a decent job or own a gun...so be it. I never used to see it this way. Now I do.
He didn't harm anyone. If he had harmed someone, I'd advocte for him and others like him to still be locked up.
The question then of giving 2nd Amendment rights back to convicted felons is complex of course. But once one has completely served their sentence...in total...parole, probation, community service, restitution...the whole deal...and return to being fully free citizens again, I say, there is no justification for withholding rights from the person. If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they shouldn't be out of prison...pure and simple. My relative obviously agrees with this. He also agrees, having been there, that there are a lot of his former fellow inmates that have no business ever walking among us again. He's quite sure of that as well!
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,840
Pizza,
We get it; but what do we do when the SCOTUS is wrong? You apparently just shrug, while some of us still believe that an individual's personal belief should remain his guiding light. Does my belief carry the force of law? No. But 1000 SCOTUS justices saying something I disagree with will not change my mind without compelling evidence to do so.
Justices have been, and continually are, wrong; how else could be get 4 to 5 decisions all the time? I accept the the SCOTUS has the authority to decide issues of constitutionality, but do not accept that they are never wrong. When they are wrong, I disagree with them.
Larry
We get it; but what do we do when the SCOTUS is wrong? You apparently just shrug, while some of us still believe that an individual's personal belief should remain his guiding light. Does my belief carry the force of law? No. But 1000 SCOTUS justices saying something I disagree with will not change my mind without compelling evidence to do so.
Justices have been, and continually are, wrong; how else could be get 4 to 5 decisions all the time? I accept the the SCOTUS has the authority to decide issues of constitutionality, but do not accept that they are never wrong. When they are wrong, I disagree with them.
Larry
ForumSurfer
Member
Will someone please explain to the "Constitutional scholar" what the 1st amendment protects him from?!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
