Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

November 4, 2013 - 6:12 pm

In the December issue of Guns & Ammo, editor Dick Metcalf uses his Backstop column to argue that the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment can be infringed.

Time to cancel your subscriptions, Guns and Ammo Editor Dick Metcalf has penned an editorial for their December issue that will be leaving fans in shock; he’s supporting gun control. Metcalf claims there is a large difference between regulation,  (well-regulated militia) and a direct infringement of civil rights, he has made this distinction the premise of his claims.

“I bring this up,” he wrote, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The full editorial is posted at Free Patriot. It comes out in the next issue.

Reaction on G&A’s forum is running strong against Metcalf so far, with many of the magazine’s readers pointing out that Metcalf has badly misunderstood the phrase “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment, and ignored “shall not be infringed” at the end of it.

“Well-regulated” in the late 18th Century, when the Second Amendment was written, is not referring to government regulating anything. It meant well armed, well organized or well drilled.

“Shall not be infringed” should speak for itself.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Agreed.

The thing is, within the gun owning community you have a certain group of snobs.

If your gun price tag doesn't run to 4 or 5 figures and include English Walnut stocks, they tend to look down their noses at you.

A lot of these snobs tend to gravitate towards positions where they like to think they can influence the rest of the gun owning community with their particular brand of enlightenment.

I tend to categorize Metcalf into that category.

I also suspect the publishing community still tends to be heavily weighted towards anti-gun types. Metcalf may be an acceptable gun owner in the publishing community's view specifically because he shares some of their views - hence his continued employment at the magazine.

Too bad, really.

I would pick up issues of that magazine at Barnes & Noble - if this characterization is legit I won't be doing so in the future.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I assume that Metcalf has a job offer in hand from Holder.

Subotai Bahadur
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not the first time Metcalf has written such an article. Why he's still working for/with G&A is a question their readership really needs to ask.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (48)
All Comments   (48)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I really hope that everyone, on all sides of this issue, will actually take time to read what Dick Metcalf wrote. Most gun control advocates would consider him a pro-gun extremist!

I am a pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues - and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those "in common use" by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called "assault weapons" being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS - and in practical terms, that is what matters.

Furthermore, in spite of the reaction to the editorial, most gun owners and most NRA members would probably agree with it. It is my personal opinion that the NRA leadership would love to enter into a "grand bargain" in which they would trade so called "universal background checks" for things on our "wish list", such as nationwide "shall issue" CCW permits with mandatory recognition by all other states - or even better, the federalization of all gun laws - which would invalidate the oppressive and unconstitutional state gun laws many of it's members currently live under. However, this incident shows why they do not dare do so. They already have groups competing with them on the basis that they are the "no compromise" gun owners group. Every time they have cut a deal (and yes, this has happened more than once) the NRA has been attacked and has lost members. At this point, the leadership has been forced into a "do not give an inch" stance - even if by giving that inch, they could gain two or three yards. Even if that "inch" is something clearly not protected by the 2nd Amendment as defined by SCOTUS. It really is too bad, because a few months ago we could have gotten almost anything in trade for almost nothing.....
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
And now today I see the "official" response from the magazine.

Metcalf has been summarily $hitcanned and the editor who allowed it to be published in the first place is accelerating his own retirement from that position.

That was quick!

Might have to pick up January's copy.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good. Maybe Salon, Daily Kos, or ThinkProgress have made some overtures to him. Apparently, he understands guns & ammo, he just doesn't get the 2nd Amendment, which is about Liberty.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
That rumbling sound you hear is Elmer Keith and Jeff Cooper revolving in their graves at 7200 RPM.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I dropped my subscription to that magazine years ago. Seems like I made the right choice.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
No all rights are not regulated, the basic right is inalienable.

Example: in a proper judicial decision it is not "free speech" that is allowed to be restrained/regulated but some other concern that is being addressed (example blaring a loud speaker at 3 AM in the morning). You can argue with the effects or unfairness of the decision but, at least there is an attempt to make the distinction between content of speech and a time/place/manner violation.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's interesting that--even today--the meaning of "regulated" in horology is quite similar to the 2nd-amendment sense of the word.

REGULATION

"Also known as Adjustment. Optimizing the timekeeping of a movement at various temperatures and in various positions. Depending on the movement’s quality and on the degree of precision desired of it, various kinds of regulation can be performed."

Full definition here:

http://www.watchtime.com/reference-center/glossary/regulation/
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I seem to recall that some big anti- gun liberal had bought up several hunting and outdoors magazines and production companies? I'm almost sure G & A was on that list.... please correct me if I'm in error.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I guess Jim Zumbo won't feel lonely for much longer.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Well Regulated" = well armed, well organized or well drilled.

In order to provide for a well regulated citizenry capable of defending their communities, the Gun Rights Act shall require the Federal government to provide (at discounted cost) any applicable citizen with a semi-auto handgun, plus 12 loaded full capacity magazines, and an AR-15 or AR-10 rifle, plus 12 loaded full capacity magazines. The Federal government will be required to provide every citizen with free firearms, self defense law and CQB training once per year. Citizens applying for firearms shall have their background checked through NICS, and must provide proof that they have attended the aforementioned training. Citizens shall be encouraged to form local groups for the purpose of drilling and competition.

How's that sound??? Clear enough? Molen Lobe
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't agree. I don't want every Tom, Dick, and gangbanger getting free guns, ammo, and training at my expense.

I want people who are personally motivated and have enough self-discipline to hold a decent job to be completely free to buy their own guns, ammo, and training, and to carry those weapons freely.

Mixing welfare and guns is a bad idea.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, and meant to add, No record of transfer of firearms shall be made, other then noting it's transfer out of Federal government inventory. No record of training shall be made.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent - but I would suggest adding that the recipients of such firearms likewise, when showing up for drilling and competition, must be able to present said firearm for inspection by local militia officers or face a hefty fine.

I assume the point would be to have an ably armed citizenry, not to put money into the pockets of individuals who would sell their government issued weapon in a heartbeat for a pocket full of cash.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All