Metcalfs first interview since being fired. SUNDAY 11/10

[Bigtanker]

I agree that there needs to be some regulation. Metcalf states in his article that training should be mandatory for a permit/license. Ok. Who sets the rules on how much training. .gov does. First there will be 8 hours. Then 16. Then 40. Everytime somebody flips out and shoots up someplace the requirement goes up. Then more. And the cost just keeps going up. What about the single mom that wants to carry to protect her kids. She has enough to buy a .38 and get a few lessons at the range. No way she could afford 16+ hours of training. So she should now be able to protect herself and her family.

That is exactly what will happen if the feds get what they want. It will not be a 2 year deal. It will take a lot of time. So in 20 years, a LTCH will be out of reach for the majority of people. That is why the regs we have now are plenty. Too many in my opinion.

I agree that some people should not have a gun. We do our best to keep that from happening now. How about just ENFORCING the laws on the books. That's a good start.

 

[Wild Deuce]

So did you misunderstand or did I miss the purple?

You think Obama's EO banning the import of WW2/Korean surplus M1 Garand rifles to prevent gun violence is reasonable, even though they are pretty much NEVER used in crimes is reasonable?

You think Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban that was allowed to expire (thank God) was reasonable and actually made us safer?

Please explain how those examples will help/helped prevent gun violence.

No purple. It was a serious question. I never said that I thought those laws were right or reasonable.

I was just trying to pin-point your line ... that's all. The one that defines a reasonable or acceptable regulation that you like and one that you don't like. You quoted Guy and said he, "hit the nail on the head" ... "SOME laws are good." I'm trying to understand which laws you like and why ... as well as which laws you don't like and why.

 

[netsecurity]

The part that was most outrageous was his fundamental misinterpretation of the 2A, not that he said some regulations are needed. Everyone knows that "well regulated" meant "well prepared", not heavily regulated! He was quoting liberal talking points, and rewriting history. Next he would say that only militias should have guns. Wat a turd bird.

 

[9mmfan]

I will miss his articles but I won't miss his opinions. He proved himself to be one the the many 'pro gun' people (some of which are on this board) who wants 'common sense' to prevail. Yeah, ok.

 

[Miles42]

I believe the sole purpose of any gun law is an attempt by the government to disarm the populace. I may be paranoid in my old age but have seen this in history so many times by power hungry individuals. So it comes as no surprise the outcry against this clown for attempting to help in placing the first hole in the dike.

 

[jrogers]

You don't have to care. That's fine. I am just curious what happened to a lifetime gun writer/shooter to make him change his views. Or has he always had those views and has been hinding them all this time.

And you're welcome to be curious. I'll state my intended subtext explicitly: "I don't think there is anything the guy could say other than "I was bewitched!" that would excuse his behavior or make me take him seriously again and I will be disappointed in anyone who accepts whatever nonsense excuse or justification he will inevitably attempt."

These backstabbing Quislings should always be shown the door.

We're not as ignorant as you think we are.

So I guess Guy Relford is a traitor as well? He doesnt think the 2a is absolute either. To paraphrase him from his appearance on WIBC this afternoon "SOME well thought out, reasoned gun laws are good. If you are felon, crazy, or a kid, you shouldnt be able to own a gun. Period."

There is no reason to deny a responsible 16 year old his (or her) 10/22. There is no reason someone who was busted twenty years ago with a few ounces of grass should be stripped of the right to own firearms. It is a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of someone genuinely "crazy" in the sense that they pose a danger to others, but there the issue of how one defines crazy and who has the power of adjudication.

I'm not an "absolutist" exactly, but those are terrible examples of "good gun laws."

 

[Destro]

Oh, yeah, thats right. We arent supposed to give a single inch and concede there can be ANY sane limits to a constitutional right. ROCKET LAUNCHERS AND SAWs FOR ALL!!! EVEN FOR THE KIDS!

are you saying .civ should not be allowed rocket launchers and and SAW's? Im a firm believer that any American should be allowed to own anything except NBC and national security sensitive weapons. If somebody wants to own an export version M1 or F16, that are full function, I think it should be allowed. I can't explain my belief with respect to banning NBC weapons other than it's just the way I feel. If I wanna buy a ICBM, the .gov should not be able to stop me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That would be 13,152 bags of popcorn.

Some people like more than others. What can I say?

Except....

 

[jamil]

What's wrong or unreasonable about those laws?

No purple. It was a serious question. I never said that I thought those laws were right or reasonable.

I was just trying to pin-point your line ... that's all. The one that defines a reasonable or acceptable regulation that you like and one that you don't like. You quoted Guy and said he, "hit the nail on the head" ... "SOME laws are good." I'm trying to understand which laws you like and why ... as well as which laws you don't like and why.

Reasonable laws would only affect people who use firearms for illegal purposes, and protect the rights of people who use them lawfully. I'm not sure there can be any such laws except laws against murder, assault, armed robbery, etc.

The blatantly unreasonable laws are laws that seek to punish people who aren't doing anything nafarious. Special taxes on ammo and firearms, "bullet buttons", bans on firearms with cosmetic features, magazine limits, making possession of empty shells illegal--those laws only seek to punish people who own guns. Period. Proponents of these kinds of laws see "gun people" as the root cause for all violence, so they want to punish us. They call it "common sense", but it is blatantly unreasonable.

I suppose there's a grey area, where 2A supporters and gun enthusiasts can disagree. The value of background checks is debatable. But still, if someone's using a firearm maliciously, they're probably already breaking the law. And there are some situations where the likelihood of harm is high where there's no malicious intent. There are already natural laws against "stupid" but sometimes those laws carry the death penalty for innocent people. I'm not sure it'd be wise to let a 5 year old girl carry a loaded smith 686 to school in her backpack, or give a person you know is suicidal a firearm as a gift.

Some people like more than others. What can I say?

Except....

I hope that's Indiana corn. Wouldn't want to support that foreign corn over there in Illinois.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The blatantly unreasonable laws are laws that seek to punish people who aren't doing anything nafarious. Special taxes on ammo and firearms, "bullet buttons", bans on firearms with cosmetic features, magazine limits, making possession of empty shells illegal--those laws only seek to punish people who own guns. Period. Proponents of these kinds of laws see "gun people" as the root cause for all violence, so they want to punish us. They call it "common sense", but it is blatantly unreasonable.

My only tweak to this is the misguided people seek that seek these laws really do think they are addressing problems. It's just that the effect of those laws only punish us--and they don't mind the collateral damage. Otherwise, with everything else; I agree with you that they're unreasonable and have a punitive effect on innocent, law abiding people.

I hope that's Indiana corn. Wouldn't want to support that foreign corn over there in Illinois.

I don't mind exotic imports produced in communist places from time to time. Heck, I even own a gun that was imported from China.

 

[Cameramonkey]

No purple. It was a serious question. I never said that I thought those laws were right or reasonable.

I was just trying to pin-point your line ... that's all. The one that defines a reasonable or acceptable regulation that you like and one that you don't like. You quoted Guy and said he, "hit the nail on the head" ... "SOME laws are good." I'm trying to understand which laws you like and why ... as well as which laws you don't like and why.

on my iPad so I'll be brief.

I believe in constitutional carry.
Most GFZs are bad, save for courthouses and jails. (Hospitals shouldn't be off limits except for the actual jail floor)
felons shouldn't have guns, but the current law should be tweaked to allow after x years of no further infractions and it wasn't a violent felony.
Kids shouldn't be able to own guns, just like they shouldn't smoke. They lack the mental maturity to make the right decisions.
If the law negatively impacts law abiding gun owners, it's not good. If the law does nothing to protect us like the politicians claim it should not exist. (Like claiming stopping Garand imports will actually prevent gun crimes when they are almost never used in crime)

are you saying .civ should not be allowed rocket launchers and and SAW's? Im a firm believer that any American should be allowed to own anything except NBC and national security sensitive weapons. If somebody wants to own an export version M1 or F16, that are full function, I think it should be allowed. I can't explain my belief with respect to banning NBC weapons other than it's just the way I feel. If I wanna buy a ICBM, the .gov should not be able to stop me.

i like that argument. I use that whenever antis start in and I want to illustrate the true nature of the 2A... To be able to defend against a tyrannical govt. our ARs and pistols are like gnats annoying a bull if they get tanks and missiles and we don't.

I don't to think the NFA should have stopped all new full autos. Hefty transfer fees yes, but not outright banning.

 

[PGRChaplain]

He just doesn't get IT! Glad he's gone and the Editor that let him print it. I wonder what 2 Major Firearms Mfg's threatened to pull all their adds?

 

[Hoosier45]

He just doesn't get IT! Glad he's gone and the Editor that let him print it. I wonder what 2 Major Firearms Mfg's threatened to pull all their adds?

CTD and Dick's? (Yes I know they aren't manufacturers.)

 

[DFM914]

I am glad he is gone!

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I might be a lot more sympathetic if the "discussions" he seeks to "open" hadn't been opened again and again, as scabs being picked off a wound. There's nothing new there, and no new perspectives are liable to surface. If someone happens to have one, sure, open the discussion, otherwise it's the same yadda yadda yadda and it just gets tiring wasting the time and effort to kill it again.

So I guess Guy Relford is a traitor as well? He doesnt think the 2a is absolute either. To paraphrase him from his appearance on WIBC this afternoon "SOME well thought out, reasoned gun laws are good. If you are felon, crazy, or a kid, you shouldnt be able to own a gun. Period."

In this case it may be helpful to think of these not as restrictions on firearms, per se, but rather restrictions on the people in question. Crazies are forbidden all sorts of items, children (with arbitrary age limits) as well, and if a felon is good to be released, his sentence should be over. If you can't trust him with a firearm, how can you trust him with other freedoms? My fault, obviously, trying to make sense of it.

Oh, and by the way:

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So I guess Guy Relford is a traitor as well? He doesnt think the 2a is absolute either. To paraphrase him from his appearance on WIBC this afternoon "SOME well thought out, reasoned gun laws are good. If you are felon, crazy, or a kid, you shouldnt be able to own a gun. Period."

I agree with Guy. He hit the nail on the head. SOME laws are good.

I've said the same thing here several times, typically in response to the greatly oversimplified type comments of "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?". No right is absolute. If we take it to be as such, then you are violating a death row inmate's civil liberties by not letting him have a loaded AK-47 in his cell. There's also the tendency to forget that the 2nd amendment doesn't say firearms or even small arms. Howitzers and weaponized Anthrax are arms.

Here's what folks forget. Not everyone is you. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone had your experiences. Calling other gun owners "Fudds" and making your tent ever smaller as you apply the No True Scotsman test to gunowners screws us all in the end. Reasonable people *can and do* differ on where the line is drawn as to what is reasonable and what isn't. Believing that anyone who disagrees with you on exactly where that line is makes them anti-2nd amendment or out to destroy our way of life is...wrong. You want people to be involved, but only if they pass your "True Gunowner" test? Why do you think everyone has heard about the NRA, even if they don't give too poos about guns and gun control, but few outside of "the in crowd" know what the GOA is, or JPFO? That's not to disparage the other organizations, but how much more clout does the NRA have because it DOES reach out to all gun owners, it does do education, it does have a children's program, all designed to keep the casual gun owner or "fudd" in the fold.

The "they always take and we never get it back" mentality is selective reporting or memory. How many states have concealed carry now as opposed to 15 years ago? How are cities like DC or Chicago faring in the post-Heller world? Anyone still talking about pre-ban and post-ban rifles? No? Right.

 

[Bigtanker]

Here is the interview.

guntalk's Podcast : Guntalk 2013-11-10 Part A

 

[youngda9]

The interview today didn't challenge Dick in the least, what a joke. Tom wussed out and hardly called him out on any details of what he actually wrote. I'm quite disappointed.

 

[subtlesixer03]

People always bring up the felon thing. It really ticks me off. Simply put if you are too dangerous to own a gun, or go near children, or drive a car(repeat DUI offenders), ect..YOU SHOULD EATHER BE DEAD OR PERMAITLY CAGED. Yes I firmly believe in capital punishment. I also firmly believe much of the leagel system and Laws are serously damaged. What crime with a sentace should ever exceed 10yrs that shouldnt have a permenant option? even more so for repeat offenders? The only people that should be caged permaitly are the truely insane. As for the vilently inane there should be a permenant option there as well. Im all for second chances and even third ones on some things but a repeat blatant disreguard for responcabilty is unaceptible. Rights are given by your creator. Responcabilty is the gift of free will. They go hand in hard.

 

[Jack Burton]

Just like the 1A has a few exceptions like crying fire in a crowded theater

Metcalf used the same, tired and flawed analogy. It's bad enough with the anti-guns using it out of ignorance but when our own side can't get it right it is even more frustrating.

Read and learn. And remember.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech—falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater—has been invoked so often, by so many people, in such diverse contexts, that it has become part of our national folk language. It has even appeared—most appropriately—in the theater: in Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead a character shouts at the audience, "Fire!" He then quickly explains: "It's all right—I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech." Shouting "Fire!" in the theater may well be the only jurisprudential analogy that has assumed the status of a folk argument. A prominent historian recently characterized it as "the most brilliantly persuasive expression that ever came from Holmes' pen." But in spite of its hallowed position in both the jurisprudence of the First Amendment and the arsenal of political discourse, it is and was an inapt analogy, even in the context in which it was originally offered. It has lately become—despite, perhaps even because of, the frequency and promiscuousness of its invocation—little more than a caricature of logical argumentation.

The Atlantic | January 1989 | Shouting "Fire!" | Dershowitz