Gun Rights

Top Editor at Guns & Ammo Out After Column Arguing Gun Regulations Didn't Infringe on Rights

Magazine's relationship with columnist also terminated



Readers of Guns & Ammo did not appreciate a pro-gun control column the magazine ran. It argued regulating firearms wasn't an infringement of constitutional rights because all rights are regulated, and even included the tired and inaccurate "fire in a crowded" theater argument. The magazine has responded.

From Fox News:

The top editor of Guns & Ammo became the second employee of the venerable firearms magazine to lose his job after a column advocating gun control backfired, prompting rifle-toting readers to unload on the publication.

In a statement posted Wednesday on the InterMedia Outdoors-owned magazine's homepage, Jim Bequette apologized to "each and every reader" of the magazine for Dick Metcalf's column that appeared in its December issue, which generated "unprecedented" controversy and left readers "hopping mad" in regards to the magazine's commitment to the Second Amendment.

You can read the original column here (pdf), Guns & Ammo's apology here, and Dick Metcalf's response here. It appeals to the First Amendment, of course.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247

NEXT: Teen Accused of Stealing High Powered Rifles from FBI

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I dunno, newspapers run anti-First Amendment opinions all the time.

    1. More like "First Amendment for me, not for thee" opinions.

      1. Does your boss allow you to insult his customers, cw?

    2. This on wheels with candy sprinkles on top.

  2. There are already laws that regulate the use of guns, like, you know, prohibiting murder. And that's just one. Do we really need more?

    1. As long as there is any crime, poverty, or injustice anywhere, it proves the need for more laws.

      1. But definitely not more voluntary transactions. Coercion FTW.

    2. The cognitive dissonance surrounding gun-control is pretty incredible.

      Apparently someone who isn't phased by the idea of committing murder will suddenly stop in their tracks when it comes to gun registration.

      It relies on the idea that black markets don't exist.

      Funny really because these same people will typically agree that drug prohibition doesn't prevent people from acquiring drugs.

      The only way gun control works is if you do an outright seizure of weapons in a country that never had a big gun culture. Even in those scenarios though you have people who slip through the cracks.

      1. The most depressing part to me is that these people don't understand why we believe in the choice to own firearms: You have a right to defend yourself without relying on some outside entity because you own yourself; society does not.

        1. Welcome to socialized medicine. Now you don't own yourself anymore. Since everyone else is tasked with paying for your health care, they own you.

          Slippery slopes are slippery.

        2. Get progs going enough, and they'll generally come out against self ownership.

          1. Pregnant women own their own bodies, but that seems to be the only exception they will allow.

      2. The only way gun control works is if you do an outright seizure of weapons in a country that never had a big gun culture. Even in those scenarios though you have people who slip through the cracks.

        Yep. Some slip through the cracks?like 81-84% some.

        Researchers for the publication pointed out that the Australian government's own low-ball, pre-ban estimate of the number of prohibited weapons in the country yielded a compliance rate of 19 percent.


        Csaszar points out that, after Austria prohibited pump-action shotguns in 1995, only 10,557 of the estimated 60,000 such guns in private hands were surrendered or registered.

        And when Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, he says, owners complied by filing the appropriate paperwork on 3.2 million firearms. This was a bit awkward, since estimates of civilian stocks were in the 17-20 million range.

        1. Even nowadays, there exist millions of unregistered guns in Germany.
          Germany nevertheless does not have much gun violence.

          1. It's like that all over Europe. A lot of people acquired guns at the end of WWII and have held onto them and passed them down. I think that in a lot of places there are estimated to be 4 or 5 times more unregistered guns than registered.

      1. Except that it's fazed, not phased.

        Please don't shoot.

        1. That was intended for cw's There are already laws that regulate the use of guns, like, you know, prohibiting murder.

          Please don't shoot.

    3. "Injustice often arises also through chicanery, that is, through an over-subtle and even fraudulent construction of the law. This it is that gave rise to the now familiar saw, 'More law, less justice.'"
      ? Cicero, De Officiis

  3. This reminds me of a few years back when all the newspaper editorials were saying that the government should bail them out.

    Are columnists really so ignorant that they don't know where their meals come from?

  4. As for his appeal to the First Amendment, ha. His speech is just being regulated in a way that doesn't infringe on First Amendment rights: exactly what he is arguing for the 2nd Amendment.

    1. Yeah, he wrote:

      If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause.

      a) don't call yourself respected...
      but more importantly...

      It's a GUN magazine. It wasn't your place as editor to ask politically sensitive questions of your readers you arrogant prick. Your job is to give them what they want - because they are paying.

      If you want to write for the Cause - then do so, in a political magazine.

      & yeah, the idea that purchasers of any media should not be able to modify the behavior or staff of what they purchase is ridiculous.

      I mean under that idiocy - some closest atheist gets a job at a Christian based publication and argue they should keep their job after they publish an article questioning the whole "god thing".

      It must be nice though right - most of us with normal jobs, even if we're fired for stupid or non-existent reasons (or even good ones), we don't get to argue that by doing so everyone's rights to engage in activity X is now in question.

      No - the only way you're firing matters to the whole country - is when you're such an important figure as an editor of a gun magazine.

      1. you're / your... damn it... soooo close

  5. ...a column advocating gun control backfired, prompting rifle-toting readers to unload...

    I see what you did there.

    ...generated "unprecedented" controversy and left readers "hopping mad"...

    I don't get it.

    1. Hopping might be a reference to making them dance from shooting oneself in the foot with bad aim.

  6. Yeah, under the first amendment Metcalf does have the right to express any opinion he wants. But he has no right to keep his job if he uses that public presence to carry water for the Brady anti-gun campaign.

    Almost hard to believe that in his rebuttal linked above he throws out this false dichotomy : "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?"

    Sounds like somebody is having a breakdown. Either that or he is ripping off the mask in hopes to increase his value to the other side of this argument.

    1. "ripping off the mask in hopes to increase his value to the other side of this argument."

      Let's see if HuffPo or some other lefty rag picks him up.

    2. I guess it depends on what he means by "regulation," i.e., does he want more than what's already on the books, and if so, what kind?

      Like I wrote above, we already have prohibitions against using a gun (or any weapon) against another unless its for self defense purposes. And I highly doubt any of the Guns and Ammo readers want to do away with that.

    3. Never attribute to malice... He doesn't understand what Rights are. When they can be removed from a person. Or the difference between Constitutional law and Congressional legislation. Or even the notion that a law is written, and not made up.

      But then, in his defense, the Supreme Court can't figure these things out either. So his arguments are correct if you understand that we have a Banana Republic. But if you understand that, then that's why we have the 2nd in the first.

    4. To be precise: the magazine isn't his personal property, it's a business that employed him. He demonstrated his incompetence by angering the business's customers, and was dismissed as he deserved. This in no way impacts his right to say whatever he wants to say; his rights do not include the use of Guns & Ammo as a forum to communicate his pig-ignorant views.


      1. Also, the First Amendment restrains government, not private publishers. There is no right to have another provide you with a soapbox. Government, however, is prohibited from taking your soapbox away from you and putting duct tape over your mouth.

    5. If you've been "rehabilitated" by our justice system, you should have all your rights reinstated to your person. Making an argument like that, he's almost admitting that our justice system doesn't work.

  7. How stupid do you have to be to work at a flagship gun magazine and not realize that a column advocating gun control is going to make your readers go apeshit?

    1. It's as stupid as an editor at Playboy publishing a feminist screed against pornography.

      1. There was a time when Hef insisted that Playboy didn't publish pornography, and he got all huffy when Penthouse ran a photo showing pubic hair for the first time. I kid you not.


        1. I remember this. Yes, I really did read Playboy for the articles. There was a big controversy when Hef's magazine finally gave in and went "full bush." It seems pretty silly today.

    2. Huge relationship between most gun magazines and law enforcement so not surprised by the statist bootlicking.

  8. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?

    They sure do, Dick. Looks like they exercised it too.

  9. First rule of business: Don't piss of the customers.

    Getting a pink slip for violating that isn't a first amendment issue. It's an 'you are incompetent at your profession' issue.

  10. I must say reading the apology it appears that Jim appears to be trying to cover for his own ass too.

    "I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness."

    I don't agree with Metcalf's views, but he does seem to have been made a scapegoat here.

    1. Wow, that's some passive aggressiveness right there. And it's about as sincere an apology as Obama's, as in, not an apology at all.

    2. "I don't agree with Metcalf's views, but he does seem to have been made a scapegoat here."

      One of those does not belong there.

    3. he does seem to have been made a scapegoat here.

      By who?

      He is the "top editor" the only person alive who could have stopped this from going to print.

      1. Nevermind...Metcalf wrote it and is not top editor.

        Still the top editor was also fired...which makes it look more like a purge rather then a scapegoating.

        1. "Still the top editor was also fired...which makes it look more like a purge rather then a scapegoating."

          Acting as publisher, I'd have fired the guy who wrote it and the guy who approved printing it.
          scher dich! schnell!

        2. Editor fired author, then editor resigned.

      2. He was a top editor that doesn't mean someone wasn't above him. My excerpt quotes Jim saying that he was responsible for publishing the column.

        Note I don't agree with Metcalf's gun control views, but that's not to say there isn't something sleazy about thinking a column was good at first and then firing an individual when the response isn't all roses.

        1. Yup, seems sleazy - I guess that is why he (the editor, not the fired author) is steeping down. No way to say if the editor was given a choice to either quit or walk the plank.

    4. No, a scapegoat is an innocent party that is assigned guilt for other people's actions. Metcalfe fucked up, and got the consequences he deserved.


      1. Fair enough a bad choice of wording on my part.

  11. Publish a column of the virtues of foie gras in Vegetarian Times and see what happens.Or a travel story on the best American Rodeos for PETA.

    1. "The virtues of state ownership" in reason.

      Or maybe one of the global warming columns.

      "Why you should vote for Obama"


      1. Lucy never did any of those things!


        2. She was an intern.

          Interns are not forever...and they are not guaranteed a job after their Internship is over.

          I blame you lame asses for not donating enough.



            Lucy Steigerwald is an associate editor at Reason magazine and Previously she was a Burton C. Gray Memorial Intern at Reason.

            How big is the chocolate ration again?

  12. Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution

    Emphasis added. What does that even mean? Are these laws part of the "fabric of society", as well?

    1. The Constitution was written on hemp fabric, so the Founders must have been high when they wrote it.

      1. ...and I'm sure that hemp was grown without pesticides, so it was totally organic, dude.


        1. Depends upon how you define pesticides - I don't know - not sure how to find out (someone likely wrote a book somewhere though) - but I'd bet they used something for pest/insect control and it was likely much more harmful to humans (though possibly not if they hadn't yet found chemicals to use and instead used other techniques).

      2. The Constitution was written on hemp fabric, so the Founders must have been high when they wrote it.

        No, no, no. Some idiot at Slate or Salon or something fucking retard told me the Constitution was written in cuneiform in Linear A, like, a thousand years ago or something. No one knows what the hell it says.

    2. organic fabric = living constitution.

      1. Well, I got *that*.

        What I *don't* get is the apparent assertion that any law is part of the Constitution.

        1. When the SCOTUS shills for them, they're constitutional... move along, sir.

          1. My semantic difficulty: "constitutional" != "part of the Constitution".

            1. I think I caught your gist, I forgot to ?/sarc? at the end of my statement.

    3. Is that the fabric of our lives(tm)?

  13. Of course, he would (mistakenly) appeal to the First Amendment. As a columnist, that's his amendment. Those backwoods hillbillies and their Second Amendment can kiss his ass for all he cares.

    1. Shoulda known I wouldn't be the first to call him on that BS.

      1. Even if he was correct in appealing to the First Amendment, it still strikes me as unscrupulous to appeal to the unfettered interpretation of one Constitutional amendment while advocating stricter regulation with regards to the other. It adds further evidence to the notion that anti-gun activists resent the very fact that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution along with the Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Due Process.

        1. Don't forget that he attacked the first amendment in his original article as well with the comments about "yelling fire in a theater"

          He is appealing not only to the constitution but to the very amendment that he took a giant shit on.

          1. I noticed that too. He's either highly disingenuous or perhaps just an idiot.

            1. I bet money on both sides of that - he seems a bit of both to me.

        2. Crusty old white slave owners..something..something..over 100 years ago..something..something..flintlocks, and swords..something..suicide pact..something..rednecks and bitter clingers..

  14. ..."Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?"...

    I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! Tried to wrap himself in the flag, either from ignorance or from deceit.
    Sorry pal, take a hike. No one is violating your A1 freedoms. You presumed that free speech meant speech without consequences.

    1. " No one is violating your A1 freedoms. You presumed that free speech meant speech without consequences."

      To be fair, he's free to piss and moan about it without consequences, outside G&A headquarters, right after they throw him and his shit out on the street... The system works!

  15. Hey, on November 27th, we can celebrate 16 years of a handgun-free United Kingdom...(Except of course "Pistols for use as personal protection weapons, mainly in Northern Ireland by retired police or prison officers, but also prominent figures who were considered at risk.")

    1. Some animals are more equal than others.

  16. Wrong place to play insider mindfuck, you worthless prick.

  17. OT, but I presume this is the 'evening links' and this is just too good.

    "The successes of Obamacare
    By Nancy-Ann DeParle, Published: May 9, 2013
    For more than 100 years, leaders from both parties struggled to bring affordable health care to all Americans. When President Obama took up the fight, many people predicted defeat. Three years, 34 repeal votes, one Supreme Court decision and a presidential election later, some are questioning whether government is capable of implementing the historic law. Concern is understandable: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) transforms a health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of the U.S. economy and is central to our lives. But recent history shows that big changes in health-care policy can be implemented."

    Yep, for 100 years, there's been some statist or other trying to screw with my medical care decisions, and here comes Obo on his white horse to make things RIGHT!

    1. This is what you get with a candidate that valued "audaciousness."

      I look forward to the candidate that titles his memoirs The Timidity of Reserved Judgment.

      1. Caleb Turberville|11.8.13 @ 8:24PM|#
        "This is what you get with a candidate that valued "audaciousness.""

        Shame he didn't value "competence" at the same level.
        F'ing amateur...


          Jeez, why does his 2004 DNC keynote address deserve a full-length Wikipedia article?

          1. Wiki is wiki'd and there are a ton of Obots on the web.

    2. Having less people with insurance than before your law to force insurance went into effect is an achievement. Of some kind.

    3. " struggled to bring affordable health care Medicaid to all Americans."

      This drives me nuts, Obamacare = insurance pooling scheme =/= healthcare,
      doctors & nurses + hospital/clinic & equipment == "Healthcare", insurance merely funds the transaction. Fork + plate =/= "food".. they merely facilitate the consumption of food...

  18. Wow, Metcalfe really went full-retard in his "poor me" snivelfest. Sounds like he's trying to make a new career on the leftard lecture circuit.


    1. Good point, I can already hear the smug chuckles as the announce him as they guy who was "fired from Guns 'n' Ammo for his progressive views..."

  19. Couple arrested for marijuana possession, child endangerment after 8 year old kid goes to school with marijuana on him

    A couple was arrested after an elementary school student found with marijuana told officials he got the pot from his father's plants in their backyard, deputies said on Friday.

    The incident happened on Thursday at 2:30 p.m. when a deputy responded to an elementary school in the Riverside County community of Good Hope on a call of an 8-year-old student with marijuana, officials said in a press release.

    The student told officials he got the pot from plants that his father had been growing in their backyard, officials said.

    When deputies arrived at the Pepper Drive home, they saw the student's father in the driveway with multiple marijuana plants in the bed of his truck.

    Rafael Lopez, 38, and Yadria Lopez, 30, were booked into custody of cultivation of marijuana and child endangerment, officials said.

    Child protective services respond to take custody of the four children at the home.

    But they would not have been arrested if he came to school with a cigarette or prescription drugs (of course the kid would be expelled, but that's a separate issue). That awful devil weed!

    1. Way to go, kid. Way to narc out your dad.

      1. According to the local news, the kid took a very small piece of the plant and took it to school to show his friends. He clearly didn't understand the ramifications if the school found out.

        1. Yeah...I'm sure that's how it happened. I bet once the kid was taken into "custody", he was shipped off to some Witness Protection resort paradise...I hope the kid sweats every time he cranks the faux ignition on his Big Wheel.

  20. Best Police force OF ALL TIME

  21. Thought I'd Share this.

    It has the potential to be a lot of fun with the trolls.

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

    Click on the icons at the top and you've got a link for the troll.

    1. Missed well poisoning; a Tony specialty.

      1. It's missing a few.

        I didn't see false dilemma either.

    2. I think this should be called the "Nicotine Fallacy," but there was once a time where I would have said that Barack Obama's smoking made him in some way tolerable. It was like the acne on the face of his administration, the one uncalculated personal aspect that proved he was an actual human being instead of a careerist abstraction invented by a PR firm.

  22. Hahahahahaha


    Out on your ass, shitstain.

  23. Publisher Suspends Discredited Benghazi Book Written By CBS Source

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Publication has been halted for a disputed book about the attack last year on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

    Threshold Editions announced Friday that it's suspending Dylan Davies' "The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There" after serious doubts emerged about whether Davies had witnessed the 2012 raid.

    Earlier Friday, CBS News said it had been misled by Davies, a source for a "60 Minutes" broadcast on the attack that aired Oct. 27.

    Damn, what a shame.

    1. It's good to know that the guy who accused the president of blaming a YouTube video and going to the UN saying the future wouldn't belong to critics of Islam turned out to be full of shit.

    2. So the president didn't try to pin the Benghazi attack on a video so his foreign policy wouldn't be called into question right before a presidential election and didn't knowingly lie to all of America for over a week and a half?

      1. The fucking Youtube video is a sideshow. Think Iran/Contra except Team Obama did not commit crimes.

        1. Palin's Buttplug|11.8.13 @ 9:17PM|#
          ..."except Team Obama did not commit crimes."

          You're right, sleaze bag, there is no specific law against leaving an ambassador to the mercies of a murderous mob.
          You sure know how to make Obo look like a winner.

          1. Crime-less corpses

            Shrike's favorite.

            By the way it was not a mob. It was a coordinated, planned attack conducted by trained soldiers.

            Hilary wants you to think it was a mob.

        2. The fucking Youtube video is a sideshow. Think Iran/Contra except Team Obama did not commit crimes.

          First use.

        3. What about Obama blaming it on the "Republican sequestration" when the sequestration started in his office?

          Is that a side show?

          Also whose side show is it? Did the Republicans make up the whole thing about video? Or did Obama and Hilary make it up?

          1. The GOP repeatedly turned down funding for embassy security.

            Reagan was given a pass for the embassy death of 241 US Marines in 1983 despite repeated attacks back then.

            I know that Obama is held to a higher standard than Reagan was - no issue with that here. The GOP gets off Scot-free all the time.

            241 US Marines dead? Who the fuck cares? It was Ronnie as POTUS.

            1. Palin's Buttplug|11.8.13 @ 9:48PM|#
              "The GOP repeatedly turned down funding for embassy security."
              Totally irrelevant, shitstain
              "Reagan was given a pass for the embassy death of 241 US Marines in 1983 despite repeated attacks back then."
              Tu quoque, shitstain.
              Now, did you have anything worth saying? Go fuck your daddy.

            2. The GOP repeatedly turned down funding for embassy security.

              Now you are just making shit up.

              Reagan was given a pass for the embassy death of 241 US Marines in 1983 despite repeated attacks back then.

              Reagan did not put those troops there. Carter did. Obama on the other hand is entirely responsible for Operation Odyssey Dawn.


              Funny how he can afford 110 tomahawk missiles and the ships to fire them but can't afford embassy security.

              1. Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

                Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

                On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."


                You are wrong - Again.

                1. You Have To Prioritize Things

                  How was security at our embassy in Canada at the time of the Bengazi attack?


                  So Obama and Hilary kept the embassy open and unsecured and refused to reallocate the Embassy security money he did have knowing he did not have money to defend it after he fired 110 tomahawk missiles into Libya?

                  So should I chalk up this as a another team blue side show (distraction) along with the youtube video and the "Republican" sequestration or will you?

            3. Embassy? Or consulate? Was it a consulate before the attack? As I recall, it showed up on the state department after.

              Or was it a CIA safe house that was attacked? Maybe with bars like you would find in a prison across half of the interior?

              But it couldn't have been a secret CIA prison, because the president ordered those closed.

              1. For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

                Same link - you shitstain.

                1. Palin's Buttplug|11.8.13 @ 11:19PM|#
                  "For the past two years, House Republicans...
                  Same link - you shitstain."

                  And State (that's be he Hil-monster) decides to spend it on the Belgian embassy, right dipshit?

            4. The GOP repeatedly turned down funding for embassy security.

              Entirely immaterial, shriek. When you turn a consulate into a weapons cache for the purpose of smuggling into Syria, you invite the all sorts of undesireable attention.

              Speaking of which, has anybody seen about 400 SAMs lying around?

              Perhaps Barry should call Oliver North and ask him how to run a arms smuggling operation without fucking it up.

  24. Brazilian man buried alive climbs out of grave

    A woman visiting a family tomb in Brazil had the shock of her life when a body emerged alive from a grave, waving its arms around.
    The woman was at a cemetery in the suburb of Ferraz de Vasconcelos, Sao Paulo, when she heard faint noises then noticed the earth moving in a grave close by.
    'I was terrified to see a man, who I thought was dead, trying to get out of the grave,' said the petrified woman, who asked not to be named.
    'He had his head and hands out and was moving his arms around, trying to get out.'
    The woman first ran away screaming, but returned and called the emergency services, who found the man half buried in a plot of earth.
    It is believed the dramatic rescue, which came to light today, happened about a week ago.
    The man is now recuperating in the local hospital in Ferraz de Vasconcelos. A hospital source said he is 'coming back to life'. He will also be subjected to psychological tests.
    Police believe the man, said to be a former city hall worker, was involved in a fight in another part of the city, where he was badly beaten by his attackers until he passed out and was taken to the cemetery by his assailants.
    It is believed they then threw him into a empty grave which was partly filled with earth.

    If there's ever man who's wrath should task him to seek revenge...

  25. The argument that "well, all the other rights are regulated" is based on a flawed premise: that it's okay that the other rights are regulated. It isn't, and the current state of the 4th Amendment--which is pretty much gone--is a good illustration why. Allow the state to regulate a right, and it'll eventually regulate said right clean out of existence.

    1. Similarly:
      'We're already spending a ton of money on a war; we can therefore afford a O'care / HS rail / free college tuition / etc.

      1. I thought the argument was "All that money we spend on wars should be put to better uses"

        1. I've heard that one also, which still ignores we can't afford the war, so we can't afford the 'better use', either.

        2. ""All that money we spend on wars should be put to better uses"

          Like.. groceries, gas, electric, water, cable/ satellite, insurance (both health & automotive), and a whole host of economy stimulating bullshit luxuries... if the IRS didn't just help themselves to my wallet...

        3. Only when Nixon, Reagan or a Bush is in office.

          When team blue is in office it is the nasty Republithugs who block funding of embassy security of countries team blue just dropped 110 tomahawk missiles on.

  26. Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes invited Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to go to a gun range.

    "As an NRA member, my strong support for the Second Amendment is unquestioned. I am proud of Kentucky's long-held gun ownership, sporting and hunting traditions," Grimes said in a statement on Friday. "It is unfortunate that Senator McConnell is desperate to mislead Kentucky voters about my strong support for the Second Amendment. In the Senate, I will protect my fellow Kentuckians' right to keep and bear arms. Whenever he's not busy pandering to Washington lobbyists, I welcome Senator McConnell to come shoot with me at the range any day."

    Along with the statement the Grimes campaign released a photo of Grimes holding a rifle (pictured above).

    Nice pic, Alison. A gun loving woman - boner material.

  27. That's Allison? Mitch is going down. She looks -- human.

    1. I dunno, there's something about her face...

      In any case, yeah, Mitch is in trouble with this one, although I do think he still has an edge.

      1. You picked the one photo taken with a fisheye lens.

        There is nothing "honorable" about you, asswipe. You shill for the GOP here 24/7.

        1. I don't see John or Tulpa here.

        2. Booooosh!?!!

          1. Soo.. he's a ginger, as well as a retard? Fate is cruel...

      2. Love that Joker..

    2. Interesting choice of rifle. Let's see her do it again with her personal AR or another scary black rifle.

      Also interesting is her campaign's name (Alison for Kentucky). Love to throw that into the Jezzies for some quality trolling.

      1. I liked the "Kentucky Woman" campaign button/sticker. Remember that the lyrics go like this: "Kentucky Woman ... she get to know you ... she goin' to own you ... Kentucky Woman."

        Seems appropriate for a Democrat.

  28. But Wait! There's MORE!
    "Few options for Obama to fix cancellations problem"
    "President Barack Obama says he'll do everything he can to help people coping with health insurance cancellations,
    a president can't just pick up the phone and order the Treasury to cut checks for people suffering from insurance premium sticker shock."

    Ha and HA! This ruler can! He'll just have a staffer announce it in a Friday evening email. He can do stuff like that, 'cause rethuglicans!
    "It was clear from the beginning that there were going to be some winners and losers," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, who supports the health overhaul. "But the losers are calling reporters, and the winners can't get on the website."

    Note this guy supports the train-wreck, so you can be assured there's tons of 'winners', they're just not getting the press, 'cause rethuglicans!
    "In hindsight, the president might have wanted to say that you could keep your plan as long as your insurer or your employer did not change it beyond limits prescribed by the government."

    It's AP so it's obvious he just mis-stated things a bit, 'cause rethuglicans!

  29. The hits just keep on comin':
    "Trickle of D.C., Md. residents have signed up on new health-care exchanges
    The Senate Finance Committee released letters from the four insurers selling on the D.C. marketplace showing that two, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield and Kaiser Permanente, received a total of five enrollments."

    A staffer says there's more, but no company is backing the claim
    "Obama also touted the early successes of states such as Oregon, which cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent during the first two weeks of October. Oregon has enrolled more than 60,000 residents into Medicaid but, as of the end of last month, had not processed any private insurance applications."

    Those 'low-cost' policies are just flying off the shelves!

    1. Calling it -- March 31, or whatever deadline for plan year '14 you want -- smaller portion of individual insurance market with insurance than a year before it,

      1. Medicaid will be absolutely booming...

      2. Except (see below) those "insured" by Medicaid.
        Brit-style delays and rotten care, with Obo assuring you that you're getting the BEST.

  30. This makes a LOT of sense when you think about it.

  31. Federal Agents Strip Search Woman, Insert Fingers Into Vagina Looking For Drugs. Find None, Take Her To University Medical Center of El Paso Watch Her Defacate, X-Ray, Probe Vagina and Anus, and Take Cat Scan. No Drugs Found.

    1. This cop ass/shit fetish is getting creepy.

      1. Contemplate that if women raped by strangers don't tell in some cases due to possible questions about themselves and shame (which I believe is true for some) - how many people do you think have been abused by the police and say nothing for the same reasons?

        1. That's spooky to contemplate.. Hopefully, these recent revelations might encourage them to come forward.

    2. "And her medical records indicate that she refused consent,"

      Why does she hate Americ... oh, yeah.. that. Well, she automatically consented when she crossed an international border, whether she likes it or not. That'll teach her to not go to Mexico.. Oh, that happened to her in America? Never mind...

    3. Uhm... and you know what other City famous for anal probes is reasonably close to El Paso. That's right... Deming.

      Shit, my stomping grounds have become front and fucking center the last few days.

      Go Anal Probers from the land of David Lynch!

  32. OT: The bizarre obituary of former hand surgeon Michael Brown

    It starts off really creepy:

    Physicians at the hospital declared Brown, 56, to be "brain dead" on Nov. 7 and on their own volition decided to end life support Friday morning, said David Brown, a Houston attorney representing Michael Brown's wife in the couple's divorce case.

    Sure there aren't any death panels.

    The details in the divorce case are interesting and at times hilarious:

    Jurors heard about an early morning confrontation in which Michael Brown was sleeping off a night on the town when Rachel Brown began screaming at him.

    The argument allegedly turned physical culminating with Michael Brown hurling a humanitarian award he received the year earlier at his wife.

    What a humanitarian!

    1. I'm waiting to hear the story where Obama cracks Michelle over the head with his peace prize.

      1. Too small; no handle. He'd have to throw it, but with any luck, she'll do so first.

        1. Obama's Peace prize looks like this...

          Because he was ONLY ACTING... in case you didn't get the joke. And all.

      2. I'm waiting for the story where the Wookie uses her freakish Wookie powers to tear his arms off.

  33. Your right to an abortion at 25 weeks is not absolute.

  34. A pro-Israeli activist residing in Dublin, Ireland, was shocked this week when he discovered that a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) organization had taped yellow stickers on Israeli products reading "For justice in Palestine, Boycott Israel".

    Because, "J?den beseitigen!" still has a 'stigma' attached to it...

    1. Among the many items found carrying the yellow boycott sticker was a pack of dates from the Jordan Valley. One of the stickers read: "Organic dates ? produce of West Bank; Israeli Settlement Produce." The call for boycott is directed not only at products made in Israeli settlements but at Israeli products altogether ? even though the sticker notes the product was made in the West Bank. Similar stickers were placed on other products in the Tesco supermarkets chain.

      1. Although, a lot of the mainstream Arab/Palestinian organization have made very little apology for their eliminationist rhetoric about the Jews.

        1. Yes, openly promoting the systematic annihilation of the Jews, and all apostates in general, and indoctrinating their youth that such actions are not only moral, and just... but, a responsibility that 'God' will judge them on... That would be the certainly be the polar opposite of apologizing for their eliminationist rhetoric about the Jews.

          1. Forgive me, it's late, I'm about half lit, maybe I didn't understand the post.

            I'm assuming that the person in question is shocked, SHOCKED that a pro-palestinian is painting "stars of David" on the Jewish Owned Businesses.

            For the record, I find it icky too, if I'm getting the post.

            I'm just sayin', it ain't new with the Palestinians.

            1. I apologize for lack of source and context. The gist of the article was drawing parallel between the marking of Jews in the bad old days, and the more subtle marking and guilt tripping boycott of Jewish produce and merchandise by an apparently, anti-Semitic faction under the canard of "Justice for Palestine" in E.U. stores.

              1. Hey now, if you can't identify Jew-owned business in Europe, where can you do it?

                /gallows humor

                1. Oddly enough, it's been tried before...

    2. Bunch of sticks-in-the-mud...

      1. Does that make you feel old? I first heard it when I was 15.

  35. You can read the original column here (pdf), Guns & Ammo's apology here, and Dick Metcalf's response here. It appeals to the First Amendment, of course.

    Mr. Metcalf, your right to say and think what you say and think is absolute. You don't have to go home, you just can't stay here.

    1. Mr. Metcalf, like a child tugging on an iron's cord, or reaching for a hot skillet... your toxic soup of.. the 1st Amendment, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater (and assuming responsibility for all the cascading events after "fire!" is yelled), and the hyper-sensitive pro 2a powder keg he was pouring gas and roadside flairs upon, in the wake of several state and federal assaults on the very fabric of the 2A, is yours to choke down.. What could possibly go wrong?

  36. What are the odds he will tour the talk shows and the legacy media programs to discuss his martyrdom?

    1. I'm sure Piers Morgan, and MSDNC will be ringing his phone off the hook soon enough..

    2. He's got a cushy PR job waiting at the Brady Campaign, to be sure.

      Opening, of course, with a 'mea culpa' article apologizing and "realizing" the rabid nature of pro-abortion pro-2nd amendment supporters.

    3. Give this hero, this speaker-of-truth-to-power, his own NPR slot!

        1. But he's a big fan of the 1A, and nothing says 1A quite like government funded radio.

      1. Snark Plissken|11.8.13 @ 11:48PM|#
        "Give this hero, this speaker-of-truth-to-power, his own NPR slot!"

        Just now, I look over at the TV and there's that slimy Olberman mugging on a sports channel.
        Put 'em together on NPR and watch the ratings drop.

        1. That would only prove they were speaking uncomfortable truths that the public just wasn't ready to hear yet, thereby proving the absolute necessity of more gov funded media with even lower ratings.

        2. What would the equivalent to zero Kelvin be on the Neilson ratings scale?

  37. For some reason the pdf was really crappy, so I couldn't read the column. Having said that, I don't think Guns & Ammo was wrong to fire him, but I do think there is value in people being able to read an opposing viewpoint without flipping out, as long as it is respectful.

    1. I would expect to be denounced at Jezebel for questioning the tenants of feminism, or trolling them on the morality of their "pro-choice" positions. In the wake of all the anti-2a rhetoric, and the state and federal laws, both proposed and passed, the average G&A reader is probably a little sensitive and fatigued, and certainly unwilling to subsidize some perceived sanctimonious "reasonable gun control" horseshit in a pro-2A advocating print, when they can find sort of thing on any channel or website all day everyday.. for free.

    2. To add to what Pathogen said, I'm imagining... a Planned Parenthood executive finger wagging the pro-life movement about how their right to an abortion is not absolute.

    3. "but I do think there is value in people being able to read an opposing viewpoint without flipping out, as long as it is respectful."

      I don't think there is a lack of an opposing view. In fact, I'm certain it's hard to miss an opposing view; most every media outlet in the US will supply it.

  38. Well. This was forseeable.

  39. But the question you have to ask yourself: What would Rob Ford do?

  40. Comeback story of the year.

    1. Unintended consequences...

      everybody roots for an underdog

    2. Blair cited several reasons for the rise in rickets cases, including children spending more time playing indoors, the stringent use of sunscreen and religious beliefs that mean skin is covered.

      Yeah, sunscreen use is mostly BS, especially in Britain. I'd add poorer diet--less consumption of eggs and full fat milk (fat helps absorption). Also the increasing amount of dark-skinned people in Britain who basically get no Vit D from the sunlight.

      1. "and religious beliefs that mean skin is covered."

        Ah, Shariah Law. Is there anything it can't do?

        1. "Ah, Shariah Law. Is there anything it can't do?"


          1. Empathy..

      2. Considering humans evolved the ultraviolet light-based VitD production method WHILE they were dark-skinned in Africa, I'm calling BS on the last point. I wouldn't be surprised if white people produce more VitD in that manner (hooray for sunburn) but black people must produce it too.

    3. It was a tough field, what with all the Jenny McCarthy diseases out there having great comeback years...

      ...but yeah, you gotta give the award to rickets.

  41. Boom baby!

    Authorities in California are trying to crack the case of a nut thief who made off with 140,000 pounds of walnuts.

    The theft, estimated at nearly $400,000, occurred Sunday in the small Central Valley town of Escalon. Investigators say it was one of the biggest to hit the booming industry. Last month, about 12,000 pounds of walnuts worth $50,000 were stolen from a trailer parked on Highway 99 north of Sacramento.

    This time several truckloads of walnuts were taken from the facility. Authorities say rising prices ? about $2 per pound ? is what appears to be driving the recent walnut thefts.

    No arrests have yet been made.

    Walnuts are California's fourth-leading agricultural export. China remains the world's leading producer of walnuts.

    That's a lot of nuts!

    1. Most people get vitamin D from the sun, oily fish, eggs or dairy products.

      Obesity crisis. We'll have none of that!

      1. reply to something else upthread or... somewhere. Half lit! Half lit!

    2. "China remains the world's leading producer of walnuts."

      A common conception is that Chinese culture stripped the land of trees hundreds of years ago.
      I didn't know they were a major walnut producer, but having been there, there is no lack of trees.

      1. I too, had assumed that China had a tree shortage..

    3. If I caught the nut thief in the act, I'd tell him "I implore you to reconsider!"

    4. The guy was trying to prevent the walnuts from getting to children, who were going to die of an allergic reaction to the walnuts.

  42. Metcalf wrote:

    At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.

    Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?

    Any infringement of the right to "keep and bear arms" is prima facie unconstitutional. I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court says, I can read English myself.

    American Jurisprudence 2d: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."

    1. A standing army, being a necessary evil for the security of a free state, your right to point guns back in self defense, shall not be infringed.

    2. Any infringement of the right to "keep and bear arms" is prima facie unconstitutional.

      Disagree. For example, I do think that denying prisoners access to a gun is constitutional.

      1. No kidding. Imprisonment denies a man of their life, liberty, and property, which are their natural rights. The Constitution states when and how it is to be handled.

        However, denying former prisoners the ability to possess firearms beyond the duration of their sentence is unconstitutional and a form of attainder?specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

    1. The 'evil' moniker not necessary.

    2. A man with a bowtie, beat someone to death. What is this country coming to?

    3. That's what happens when you eat yogurt. It makes you angry.

  43. China: world leader in carbon emissions

    1. WE should emulate them!

      /T. Friedman

  44. Drunk fan steals hockey helmet

  45. Any good WWI Docs? I've seen WWI in color already.

    Netflix has squat

    1. Order World At War on DVD narrated by Sir Lawrence Olivier. Best WWII documentary ever.

      Not what you asked for, but it's all I've got.

    2. "The Great War", and "The First World War" are documentaries in the same vein...

      See also:

        1. that's a sad list.

          1. I also have "WWI War to end all Wars"

          2. WWI never got much love...

            1. Try this playlist.

            2. I thought the Brits would be all over it, but there's nothing on Netflix UK either

              1. I have a ton of books on WWI, and I think the thing is, people are ashamed of it.

                WWII has this "saving the world from darkness" quality to it. It can be portrayed as literally a crusade against evil itself.

                What the hell are you going to say about WWI? "We REALLY wanted that chunk of Africa, and those fuckers claimed it first! And THEN they started building up a navy! This cannot stand!"

                Also, there aren't any epic, sweeping battles (or relatively, after the Battle of the Frontiers and some maneuverings on the Eastern Front). It's mostly hundreds of thousands of men slogging away for a few yards at a time, crawling over piles of rotted corpses from the last attempt. It's why there's [double-digit] Battle of the Isonzo River, Third Ypres, etc.

                I find it fascinating because I think it represents the Fall of the Old World (with a New Order not emerging until the end of WWII).

                1. Third Ypres

                  Ah, Passchendaele

                  1. I was looking back on the causes of the War, and while the death of Franz Ferdinand may have been a spark, it went back further, further even than the Crimean War.
                    But I've discovered that the 20th century was defined by Nationalism.
                    Which is why flag waving makes me sick.

                    1. The last bastion of the tyrant...

                  2. The Trench (1999)


                2. " think the thing is, people are ashamed of it....I find it fascinating because I think it represents the Fall of the Old World (with a New Order not emerging until the end of WWII)."

                  I think there's much truth to that post. The quaint notion of glory and chivalry were forever lost in that war, along with an entire generation of Europe's youth, and the notion fa?ade of Europe's "civilized sensibilities" which were completely dispelled in WWI Pt.2 some 20 years later. High explosives (TNT/Tetryl/etc), machine guns, poison gas, practical aerial bombardment, etc. all made their debut during that war, with devastating effect that few cared to remember, let alone discuss.

    3. Do they still have Kubrick's Paths of Glory?

      1. Not on Instant.

  46. Now this guy's free to go start a magazine for gun enthusiasts who want their gun rights regulated.

    Good luck with that.

    1. Kind of a 'niche market'...

    2. LEO Monthly?

  47. And you thought being friend-zoned sucked

    The American animal lover who fell for the world's former fattest man rejected the overtures of a handsome, Lacrosse champion filmmaker from Illinois who longed to marry her, MailOnline can reveal today.
    Rebecca Mountain, 40, of the small hamlet of Orange, Massachusetts, went public this week with her love for 52-year-old Paul Mason, from Ipswich, UK, who once tipped the scales at 980 pounds.

    Mason has since gone under the knife in a radical gastric-bypass surgery and shed 672 pounds and he's now on a crusade with his new girlfriend to rid the rest of the remaining flab.

    The two met on Facebook and later wrote emails and chatted endlessly over Skype before Rebecca took the plunge and traveled to England to finally meet Mason in person.

    But before she was wooed by Mason, Rebecca turned down the chance to marry her handsome best friend of 20 years, Greg Bizzaro, 45, of Chicago, Illinois.

    While Bizzaro said he didn't quite get to the stage where he got down on one knee, he said he had planned to grow old with Rebecca.

    Bizzaro says Rebecca remains his 'best friend' who he loves 'more than life itself.' And with a sense of chivalry says he supports her choice of lover.

    1. As a long-time friend-zone resident, you often find (even if a long time down the road) you're lucky you never got what you wanted.

      1. I haven't got much sympathy for him. 20 years and he never broached the subject of a deeper relationship?

      2. The fantasy is often better then the reality.

    2. I woke up....could not get back to sleep. I came here to see what had been written since I went to bed and find....this.

      Thank you RHSM, Visc. You have creeped me the fuck out.

      Now I will have a couple shots of Vodka to try and cleanse this from my mind and go back to bed.

      1. The heart wants what the heart wants. Some people like to bang MILFs, others want someone who almost weighed a metric tonne.

        1. Or people who spell "ton" like a commie

        2. He can't run away

    3. Her connection with the animals, Pastor Libby believes may have played a part in her bond with Mason. 'Rebecca is smart but I think she needs to be needed by people', he said.

      The dude dodged a bullet. Now go find a normal one, Mr Bizzaro.

      1. [Now go find a normal one, Mr Bizzaro.]

        Wouldn't that suggest he become a homosexual, in keeping with a correct bizzaro response?

    4. He looks like a female breast cancer patient.

  48. OT: Dog shot in face by CPD

  49. I'm guessing that this first 3D-printed metal gun article has been posted already but just in case.

    1. also Lou Reed died.

      1. I didn't kill him.

        1. It was Col. Mustard, in the library, with the pipe wrench...

      2. And someone had something illegally done to their anus in Deming.

        1. Illegally? They should call the cops.

  50. Best game of Monopoly ever played.

    1. I'm always the cannon.

  51. As an apology for that last link I posted about the world's fattest man finding love, here's Paulina Gretzky, daughter of the Great One

    1. showing good thigh gap.

      1. You'd love to score through the five hole wouldn't you? Fecking perv.

        1. What? there's a fifth hole?

  52. And here it comes...

    Obenshain has held a lead, but it likely narrowed Friday after developments in blue-leaning Fairfax County, where Herring appeared to net about 1,100 votes after previously uncounted ballots were reviewed, according to observers. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said his political office had noticed that the absentee ballot return rate in the part of the county covered by the 8th Congressional District seemed too low, helping prompt a review.

    It's probably nothing...

    1. Funny how the Dems always win the close recounts. Anyone know of a statistical analysis on just how many times the Dems pull out a win on the recount?

      1. Anyone know of a statistical analysis on just how many times the Dems pull out a win on the recount?

        No, but I do note how fucking apoplectic they get when they don't get recounts until the Dem wins (and then the recounts end because the election was "decided"). It's fairly safe to extrapolate from that that they are used to cheating "recounting" resulting in victory.

  53. Well-regulated was well-defined legal jargon back when the Bill of Rights was amended into the constitution. It had a radically different definition in 1789 than it does today in 2013.

    Anti-gun folks love to point out that by the 2013 definition of well-regulated, a citizen's militia isn't regulated at all. But if linguistic drift, a change in the supreme court membership or a minor edit to a dictionary could alter the meaning of the constitution, there would be no need for the built-in system to amend it.

    The fact that there IS such a mechanism tells us all we need to know about the validity of using 2013 general dictionaries to define 1789 legal jargon.

    1. "regulate" has the same basic meaning now as it did then -- "make rules for" (from the Latin regula, "rule").

      What's changed since 1789 is the most common context in which the word is used. Nowadays it's almost always used in the context of rules made by bureaucrats and legislators which the plebes must follow or be locked in a cage. But, there are still contexts where it's used in a more general meaning of "control" -- for example a damper is said to regulate air flow, thermoregulators regulate temperature, etc.

      It's clear that the intended meaning in 2A is the more general one -- the militia needs to be controlled and disciplined. But the word hasn't changed meaning.

      1. "It's clear that the intended meaning in 2A is the more general one -- the militia needs to be controlled and disciplined."

        It meant disciplined but I don't see where it meant controlled.

        To regulate in that context meant "to make regular". The word in that sense still exists today, but I've only seen it used in military terms--the same way it was used in the Second Amendment:

        In military usage, you'll hear about "regular army" and "irregulars".

        Even in that sense, though, the word has changed. We wouldn't say "a well regulated army" anymore, we would say "regular army". They would have written it today, "A regular Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...".

        They're saying that citizens need to be able to organize themselves into companies that have already trained themselves in how to use their weapons. I don't see how "regulated" here means they need to be controlled.

        1. In the context of the 1700's "regulated" meant "practiced" or "drilled".

          1. So the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to drill interstate commerce?

            I anticipate another linguistic history expert to inform me that the meaning changed between 1787 and 1789, too.

        2. It meant disciplined but I don't see where it meant controlled.

          Distinction without a difference, at least in the military setting. Discipline consists of making rules and ensuring that they are followed (ie, control).

          To regulate in that context meant "to make regular".

          Again, distinction without a difference. "Regular" comes from the same Latin root, and means "according to/following a rule". As in "regular expression", "regular bowel movements", "regular intervals", and a gazillion other phrases. "Regular army" originally came from this meaning -- an army under direct state control, which follows the rules and orders given by the state -- before it became associated specifically with professional standing armies.

      2. Re: Tulpa,

        "regulate" has the same basic meaning now as it did then -- "make rules for" (from the Latin regula, "rule").

        Irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to armed defense, it purports to protect that right.

        1. If that's your belief, then don't bother quoting the text of the amendment. When they come to take your guns, maybe Santa Rights will swoop in from the North Pole to protect you.

  54. Wow man that makes a lot of sense dude. LIke seriously.

  55. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue

    That's what ALL the concern trolls say.

    And then...

    Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.

    Except for those Americans I deem to be ineligible.

  56. Looking further into the dispute, Metcalf's article was only talking about was a training requirement for a CCW license. For gun owners to go on a feeding frenzy over that is insane.

    I'm really wondering about the average intelligence in the gun community these days. First they were threatening to boycott any store that raised prices on ammo in response to scarce supply, ensuring that the shortage becomes eternal... now they're treating Metcalf's tepid suggestion like a call for a gun ban. Once they've purged the thinkers from their ranks, they'll be left with shouting SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED HURR DURR DURR as the demographics continue shifting in the banners' favor.

  57. Here are my answers to the questions Metcalf posed in his response:

    1. I believe that there should be laws against doing bad things to people, whether with firearms or not; I don't if that puts me with those who believe that the "Second Amendment should not be regulated at all."

    1a. We need to revisit crime and punishment. If someone simply cannot be trusted to use guns responsibly, as evidenced by repeated irresponsible use of guns, especially in the commission of crime, this merits either life imprisonment or exile, or at least the permanent denial of 2nd Amendment rights (perhaps under a parole system, instead of life imprisonment). But in every other situation, whatever finite punishment someone receives should mark the extent of loss of RKBA. Once the sentence is up, restitution made, etc. -- in other words, once someone has paid his or her "debt to society," rights including RKBA should be reinstated. We need punishments that reasonable people can agree constitute payment in full of one's "debt to society."

    2. Yes. No arms should ever be licensed or tracked. We are not talking about a privilege here. Licenses and tracking schemes are fairly useless if the government isn't ever going to use them against law-abiding citizens, but NECESSARY otherwise.

    (continued in reply post)

    1. (continued from above)

      3. No.

      4. Getting a license from the government for something that should remain unlicensed is just living in the world because TPTB are bigger than you and can force you to dance to their tune. Big deal. Acquiescing to this is a poor way to show respect for the people who have fought and died to establish and maintain our freedoms, but it is not "violating the Constitution." The Constitution is there to restrain GOVERNMENT, not the citizen. Now, if you are in the MILITARY, or have otherwise sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (do naturalized citizens have to do that anymore), then perhaps giving in to a gun licensing scheme amounts to breaking that oath. But what are the criminal penalties for that? If they exist, they are certainly rarely visited on the political criminals in DC, who break their oaths with seeming impunity, practically on a minute-by-minute basis.

  58. His for rebuttal questions are so painfully stupid it is obvious firing him was the right move.

    My answers:
    1. Criminals don't obey laws, and repeat criminals clearly don't obey laws.

    2. Yes

    3. Yes

    4. You do understand the concept of negative rights, correct?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.