PDA

View Full Version : Dick Metcalf



shootbrownelk
11-03-2013, 07:59 AM
Did anyone here read Guns&Ammo's December issue yet? I'll direct you to the last page & Metcalf's stupid and harmfull essay therein. He sure put a knife in the back of all gunowners with his "Pro-Regulation" stance on concealed carry. I think perhaps he's lived in Illinois too long or perhaps he's just getting senile. He seems to think that a forced 16 hour gun training and testing session plus whatever fees Feds/State/local law enforcement wants to charge is no infringement on our second amendment rights. The other thing I find incredible, is that G&A actually published it.
Metcalf sure pulled a "Zumbo" writing that harmful trash, and in my opinion should be fired for it. G&A is sure to lose a significant number of subscribers because of it. Check-out the G&A website.

Colorado Cowboy
11-03-2013, 12:05 PM
I subscribe to G & A and have read the article.

Unfortunately I don't completely agree with either of you. I am a CC holder and have been for 15 years. I've been thru the training MY state requires. The Feds pretty much stay out of the CC issue, it is the states that set the requirements. Some states are fine, some aren't. Here in Colorado the requirements were rewritten a couple of years ago. Before then, each County could set their own regs. Now everything is state level, but the County still issues the permit but adheres to the state reqm'ts.. Some states it's almost impossible to a C C permit...like California.

Do I believe that setting requirements for the issues of a CC permit is wrong......emphatically no. Not every gun owner should automatically have a CC permit. I believe that training and profiency should be part of the requirements. Should everyone automatically get a hunting license.....thats why we have Hunter Safety Training. If you believe that no training and profiency is required, then we should do away with hunter safety too. I don't think so. I sure wouldn't want to be in the field if that was the case.

We need some REASONABLE regulation for everyones safety, especially mine. Rest my case.

Musket Man
11-04-2013, 06:13 PM
I agree some form of training should be required. Washington here all you have to do is pass the background check. I think Idaho has a good idea here. They accept a hunters safety card, DD 214 showing you were in the military, or you can take a 1 day course. I got Idaho's too because it is accepted in Wyoming, Nebraska, and a couple other states that WA is not. ! thing I cant understand is if you are an ID resident your CWP is accepted in CO, but if your not an ID resident its not accepted in CO. The requirements are the same for either.

ssliger
11-04-2013, 07:05 PM
There needs to be some training involved. I was able to get mine in Wyoming by showing them my hunter safety card and a background check. I took Hunter safety when I was 8 years old. Thats all they needed.

BKC
11-04-2013, 07:54 PM
My father taught me how to use a firearm. That is probably not good enough for the state I live in. When facing my assailant, I'm O.K. with a handgun and no formal training.

Chippy Hacky
11-04-2013, 09:29 PM
"Shall not be infringed". A right given to us by our creator, no requirement for a class.

shootbrownelk
11-05-2013, 09:21 AM
"Shall not be infringed". A right given to us by our creator, no requirement for a class.

Finally, someone with the right answer. Requiring training is not in the second amendment. Who's to say the next batch of politicians won't ask for "Just a bit more"? That's a slippery slope. You all know that if you give a gun-grabbing legislator an inch, they'll take a mile. JMO

Colorado Cowboy
11-05-2013, 02:27 PM
I stand by my original post. I am a certified NRA Pistol & Rifle Instructor and Range Safety Officer. I have seen some stuff at the range that would curl your hair. I was also a hunter safety Instructor in California. The article in G & A was on training requirements for concealed carry....thats all. I've seen people buy a handgun and not even know how to load it or put it on safe.

I think it would help for some of you to read the article that the original post was based on!

trkytrack2
11-05-2013, 02:40 PM
I subscribe to G & A and have read the article.

Unfortunately I don't completely agree with either of you. I am a CC holder and have been for 15 years. I've been thru the training MY state requires. The Feds pretty much stay out of the CC issue, it is the states that set the requirements. Some states are fine, some aren't. Here in Colorado the requirements were rewritten a couple of years ago. Before then, each County could set their own regs. Now everything is state level, but the County still issues the permit but adheres to the state reqm'ts.. Some states it's almost impossible to a C C permit...like California.

Do I believe that setting requirements for the issues of a CC permit is wrong......emphatically no. Not every gun owner should automatically have a CC permit. I believe that training and profiency should be part of the requirements. Should everyone automatically get a hunting license.....thats why we have Hunter Safety Training. If you believe that no training and profiency is required, then we should do away with hunter safety too. I don't think so. I sure wouldn't want to be in the field if that was the case.

We need some REASONABLE regulation for everyones safety, especially mine. Rest my case.
I agree with the required training and agree with some of the regulations that a person must adhere to so that they can get a CC permit.
I adamantly believe that EVERYONE should be required to pass a hunter safety course no matter how young OR old they are. None of the "if born before this date" crap, grandfathered in. I've seen too many "jerks" that have no business out in the field with a weapon in their hands and no clue what the hell they were doing.

shootbrownelk
11-05-2013, 03:29 PM
I stand by my original post. I am a certified NRA Pistol & Rifle Instructor and Range Safety Officer. I have seen some stuff at the range that would curl your hair. I was also a hunter safety Instructor in California. The article in G & A was on training requirements for concealed carry....thats all. I've seen people buy a handgun and not even know how to load it or put it on safe.

I think it would help for some of you to read the article that the original post was based on!

Democratic "Common sense" gun regulation? We may have Hillary Clinton as our (new?) president in a few years, and you think O'bummer is bad. And I'll stand by what the second amendment is, a RIGHT, not a privilege.

Colorado Cowboy
11-05-2013, 03:34 PM
I guess we agree to disagree, but 16 hours of training for a concealed carry permit is surely no infringement of anyones 2nd Amendment rights. No one said anything about Democrat or Republican.

wapiti66
11-05-2013, 04:33 PM
I agree that if you give them an inch you will lose a mile. It's all about taking baby steps for them (politicians) to keep picking away at our rights and growing government. I didn't read the article and probably won't, but I get a bad taste in my mouth when they start talking about more regulation about anything, let alone the 2nd amendment. No law they will pass will save lives, but they will do their best to make all of us miserable as we jump through their hoops and keep paying for their regulations and programs. Stupid people are always going to exist and they will always do stupid things, politicians in Washington cannot prevent accidents from happening by mandating tests and regs, they just make it more expensive for everybody to play the game.

brooks
11-05-2013, 07:47 PM
CC.... a lot of people in Colorado must disagree because I see Colorado's new gun laws have some people wanting Colorado to become the 51st state and get away from the crazy, liberals in the state govt. because of in part the ....New Colorado gun laws. People don't want any kind of govt. interference in with firearms ! Remember when Smith & Wesson agreed to some safety things with their guns for the Clinton adm. .....S&W just about went under because of it.

Chippy Hacky
11-05-2013, 08:12 PM
The government has never been any good at legislating things like common sense. They are, however, good at legislating legislation, they do that well. That still won't make anyone safer.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek wisdom. Its just that it shouldn't come from the government, they have a way of screwing that up too.

Colorado Cowboy
11-05-2013, 08:23 PM
CC.... a lot of people in Colorado must disagree because I see Colorado's new gun laws have some people wanting Colorado to become the 51st state and get away from the crazy, liberals in the state govt. because of in part the ....New Colorado gun laws. People don't want any kind of govt. interference in with firearms ! Remember when Smith & Wesson agreed to some safety things with their guns for the Clinton adm. .....S&W just about went under because of it.

The new laws passed here in Colorado had absolutely nothing to do with what this post is about. I was and am against the new laws. This post is about 16 hours of training needed before you get a concealed carry permit in ILL. Thats what the G & A story was about!!!

I have a question for all of you....How many of you actually have a carry permit? If you have a permit and took a class to get it, then what I am about to say will not be new. A lot of the instruction concerns the laws (of your state) concerning concealed carry, what you can and can't do as far as where you carry. Familiarization of how to conceal carry. Scenarios of situations you can encounter and how to react. Practice firing in all types of enviornments (darkness, crowds, indoors, etc) and more.

I you really think that learning how to be proficient in situations and circumstances that you can encounter when carry a concealed weapon is infringing on your 2nd ammendment rights, you really don't know much about concealed carry! Its not just stuffing a handgun in your waistband and walking around in public. If you excersize your right to carry a concealed weapon, you had better know what you are doing.

Rant over!!

xtreme
11-06-2013, 06:32 AM
I believe everyone has good intentions here. I just renewed my concealed carry license which I did take classes for. My shooting this time was very good, impressive even. My wife is just waiting for her cc to arrive in the mail. She went to class and passed her test. When she told me in decided to find out how much she had learned. She had learned enough that I was satisfied it was fine for her to conceal carry. Her shooting ability was never in question. We could get in real trouble quick with a mistake. Having pointed out the need for training Ido agree with Colorado Cowboy, we should have training and background checks too. The problem comes from over reach and incroachment I call training creep. Rules change, procedures are not uniform, states are not uniform, some states do not follow the constitution.
The more attention I pay to what the founding fathers knew the more I am impressed. Maybe because they had fresh memories of a loss of liberty.

CoHiCntry
11-06-2013, 06:52 AM
I you really think that learning how to be proficient in situations and circumstances that you can encounter when carry a concealed weapon is infringing on your 2nd ammendment rights, you really don't know much about concealed carry! Its not just stuffing a handgun in your waistband and walking around in public. If you excersize your right to carry a concealed weapon, you had better know what you are doing.


I really DO think having to take a mandated course to be proficient to carry IS infringing on my 2nd amendment rights. My thought is everyone should take personal responsibility to learn how to properly own, use, a firearm if they choose to carry one. Having the government step in and tell us what we have to do only makes us that much less free. I don't think we should even have to apply for permits either. I'll never understand why everyone wants the government to step in and save us from ourselves? Will there always be "stupid people" as someone else pointed out doing stupid things. You bet! The government interfering in our lives won't fix that. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me too.

wapiti66
11-06-2013, 07:32 AM
It's the "training creep" and over reach that xtreme talks about that is the reason to put our foot on the brakes now, b/c we won't stop them but we can slow them down a little. It's not that somewhat of a class and background check is out of the question for me, but they won't stop adding to it every time some nut goes and shoots up a crowd of people.

mcseal2
11-06-2013, 08:08 AM
I'd think most people will come across a firearm sometime in their life and should at least know how to safely handle it.

I think gun safety should be taught in school just like reading, math, etc. with shooting as an optional course. It worked in the old days, guns didn't need to be regulated because everyone respected them as a useful tool that could be dangerous if used incorrectly. There was not an irrational fear of guns from those who don't understand them. It would still work today, good luck convincing anyone though.

xtreme
11-06-2013, 08:33 AM
I just now refreshed what Patrick Henry said in his speech in 1775. I am not quite ready to go that far. Death as I have seen it seems to warrant more compromise. My real feeling would be what CoHiCountry said, that looks like the only way to preserve our amendment rights.
It is now evident that our leaders have no intentions of abiding by the constitution. Our Supreme Court has lost its way.

shootbrownelk
11-06-2013, 09:17 AM
I have a CC permit as well, I also learned gun safety from my father when I was a boy. I didn't need any training that I can think of.
In Wyoming you don't need to take a course and pass a test. Our streets aren't running red with blood like some predicted. I like our concealed carry laws....there aren't any. I only got the permit so I can carry in other states. The only other state that I ever consider moving to, would be Arizona.

JMSZ
11-06-2013, 01:01 PM
I really DO think having to take a mandated course to be proficient to carry IS infringing on my 2nd amendment rights. My thought is everyone should take personal responsibility to learn how to properly own, use, a firearm if they choose to carry one. Having the government step in and tell us what we have to do only makes us that much less free. I don't think we should even have to apply for permits either. I'll never understand why everyone wants the government to step in and save us from ourselves? Will there always be "stupid people" as someone else pointed out doing stupid things. You bet! The government interfering in our lives won't fix that. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me too.

In principle, I agree with you and a lot of others, government shouldn't be involved.

In reality, there is always some idiot who who does something stupid and can't/won't handle his weapon in a safe and responsible manner and causes people to call for more laws.

Open, unloaded carry was, until recently, legal in this state and there were people who would deliberately carry in public just to get the police to respond so that they could argue with the police about their rights and make a scene.

That is both stupid and irresponsible in any situation, but considering recent history, it's a good way to get yourself shot, not to mention making gun owners in general look like a bunch of idiots.

So, personal responsibility cannot be relied on.

Like CC, I have no issue with a training course, with the caveat that it is not excessive in length or cost.

Those courses protect the rest of us because we can then show that if somebody did something stupid and/or illegal, they knew the law and they did whatever it was anyways.

As far as the slippery slope goes, again, in principle, I agree, but in reality, it doesn't matter.

There are a lot of people in this country who believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion and kill her child, but those same people believe that same woman has no right to carry a gun to defend her child.

As long as there are a significant number of people in this country with that view of the world, we are stuck on a slippery slope and the laws passed or blocked only vary how fast we slide down that slope.

If we can at least hold the line with reasonable (by responsible gun owner's standards) training requirements, then we slow the descent.

brooks
11-06-2013, 07:39 PM
It's really simple........No 16 hour training mandated by the govt !!!!! Preach firearms training, make training available to everyone easily, get your kids involved with shooting, buy them a gun and teach them how to safely use it, promote gun safety.... but NEVER let the govt. require a mandatory 16 hour training course because that will only be the start of things to come !!


If you haven't figured it out yet more than half of the govt. doesn't want ANYONE to own a handgun . I have a CCW in several states. Without my list in front of me I think I can legally carry in about 35 states. Talk to some of the people in NY or CA . Look at what the NY govt. just did to gun owners there and some of the people here want more govt. mandated laws on firearms ??????


My nephew, a US Marine came back from Iraq in 08 he was trained on all the weapons the USMC has . He came home went to the V.A. hospital in town because he was told after 2 combat tours that is what would be best....Now it's Nov. 20013 and he can not get a CCW because he did what they told him he should do. He now has a great job, two great kids and a wife, put his life on the line but old Uncle Sam won't let him carry a gun for his own protection in his own country. Not just no but.... Hell No !!!!!

wapiti66
11-06-2013, 08:39 PM
That's truly a shame about your nephew brooks, for him to sacrifice and risk his own life to fight for the freedoms and liberties they will not allow him to personally enjoy makes me sick. That really shows a lot of what's wrong with this country.

JMSZ
11-07-2013, 05:35 AM
It's really simple........No 16 hour training mandated by the govt !!!!! Preach firearms training, make training available to everyone easily, get your kids involved with shooting, buy them a gun and teach them how to safely use it, promote gun safety.... but NEVER let the govt. require a mandatory 16 hour training course because that will only be the start of things to come !!


If you haven't figured it out yet more than half of the govt. doesn't want ANYONE to own a handgun . I have a CCW in several states. Without my list in front of me I think I can legally carry in about 35 states. Talk to some of the people in NY or CA . Look at what the NY govt. just did to gun owners there and some of the people here want more govt. mandated laws on firearms ??????


My nephew, a US Marine came back from Iraq in 08 he was trained on all the weapons the USMC has . He came home went to the V.A. hospital in town because he was told after 2 combat tours that is what would be best....Now it's Nov. 20013 and he can not get a CCW because he did what they told him he should do. He now has a great job, two great kids and a wife, put his life on the line but old Uncle Sam won't let him carry a gun for his own protection in his own country. Not just no but.... Hell No !!!!!

You are using reason and logic.

The problem is that we are dealing with people who are scared of an inanimate object. They don't use reason and logic, so you can't expect them to understand or agree with it.

There are simply too many people in this country who have little or no exposure to guns and what exposure they do get comes from the nightly news.

They have no personal use for guns and so they see guns and dangerous and unnecessary. Your responsible use of your gun will do nothing to change their mind because they will be worried about the one Dylan Clebold (sp?) who might, possibly, maybe show up in their neighborhood.

Ask an anti-gunner why they don't call for the banning of the manufacture and sale of all cars, since cars kill as many or more people as guns.

They use a car on a daily basis, so that would impact their life, so it would never happen.

What happened to your nephew is a load of crap, but unfortunately, it is a result of the knee-jerk "do something" culture that has invaded military leadership.

Too many guys were coming home and killing themselves. Leadership knows full well that if a guy really wants to kill himself, he will do it. The only way to keep him from getting to that point is getting him the proper treatment, which isn't happening and won't happen.

It's easier to red flag anybody who shows any signs - which is half the guys coming back from combat - and keep them from owning a gun and leadership can say that they "did something".

That policy is also unconstitutional, but that's never stopped the federal government before.

brooks
11-07-2013, 06:41 AM
My nephew was in Iraq when things were really bad. He fought in the battle of Fallujah. He's told me a lot about it and is very proud of his service and the Marines. When he decided to apply for a CCW and was been turned down that really hit him hard. He had been telling me for his first gun he was going to buy a Colt .45 acp Marine but some govt. agency has said .....nope, you went to war for us, you've seen combat, we don't think a guy like you needs a handgun and that's with a good military record and an honorable discharge . He carried a Beretta 9 mm as a side arm in Iraq and a M204..... Dick Metcalf can k.m.a......Hell No !!!

shootbrownelk
11-07-2013, 07:26 AM
My nephew was in Iraq when things were really bad. He fought in the battle of Fallujah. He's told me a lot about it and is very proud of his service and the Marines. When he decided to apply for a CCW and was been turned down that really hit him hard. He had been telling me for his first gun he was going to buy a Colt .45 acp Marine but some govt. agency has said .....nope, you went to war for us, you've seen combat, we don't think a guy like you needs a handgun and that's with a good military record and an honorable discharge . He carried a Beretta 9 mm as a side arm in Iraq and a M204..... Dick Metcalf can k.m.a......Hell No !!!

That just goes to show just how screwed-up our Federal Government is. Denying a Combat Veteran and Hero one of the Constitutional rights he risked life and limb to protect. Again, Regulations suck.

JMSZ
11-08-2013, 10:38 PM
My nephew was in Iraq when things were really bad. He fought in the battle of Fallujah. He's told me a lot about it and is very proud of his service and the Marines. When he decided to apply for a CCW and was been turned down that really hit him hard. He had been telling me for his first gun he was going to buy a Colt .45 acp Marine but some govt. agency has said .....nope, you went to war for us, you've seen combat, we don't think a guy like you needs a handgun and that's with a good military record and an honorable discharge . He carried a Beretta 9 mm as a side arm in Iraq and a M204..... Dick Metcalf can k.m.a......Hell No !!!

Brooks,

I don't know if your nephew has already tried this, but it sounds like either the VA or the Marines put the label on him.

There is an appeals process that he can go through to have the prohibition removed, I'm not sure what it is, but if he's still got any buddies in the Marines, I would suggest that he go that route first. Getting his old chain of command involved will be a lot more effective and take less time, partly because he's a fellow Marine and partly because they probably know nothing about it and will be screaming p***ed when they realize that they will likely end up in the same situation.

Worst case, he can go through the VA, but (and he's probably well aware of this) he will need to be prepared to track down the right people to get it done because there's a good chance nobody else will know what he's talking about.

Colorado T
11-09-2013, 08:58 AM
Don't know if anyone has seen it but Metcalf was fired and the editor resigned due to the backlash G&A got...

trkytrack2
11-09-2013, 03:34 PM
Yep, Metcalf was fired. Never cared for that jerk anyway. Zumbo either.

CoHiCntry
11-09-2013, 05:11 PM
Don't know if anyone has seen it but Metcalf was fired and the editor resigned due to the backlash G&A got...

Doesn't surprise me as MOST hunters and gun owners feel the same way. We're all sick of the government trying to cram more and more regulation down our throats trying to accomplish they're ultimate goal... and we all know what that is. However, I hate to see someone lose their job for expressing their own opinion. We're all on the same side and our opinions won't all match exactly all the time. There is definitly a "No compromise" type of attitude out there amongst gun enthusiasts. Can't blame us I guess???

shootbrownelk
11-11-2013, 02:54 PM
Well, just as I figured the Metcalf "Commonsense regulation" drivel he scribbled on the backstop page of Guns&Ammo is now on the Brady "GunGrabber" FB website. Getting praise from all our enemies, calling him a hero and being courageous for his PRO regulation stance. What a back-stabber he is. He issued a statement, but NO apology. Good riddance.

Musket Man
11-12-2013, 05:22 PM
I dont get the mag but went to a news stand and read the article and that was bad enough but to get back on here finally (I had to take my computer in to get fixed so I havent been on for a week) and hear about vets being denied a concealed permit because of PTSD flat out makes me MAD!!! I am curious what state it was in. If we were good enough to defend our country we should be good enough to defend ourselves when we get home! I have a PTSD rating of 50%. IMO all vets have some form of PTSD but it certainly doesnt mean we are not safe to carry a gun, its quite the opposite. We have training and experience and when the s#$% hits the fan we know how to handle it.

wolftalonID
11-12-2013, 06:22 PM
Well my wife attended hunters ed here in Idaho.....had two girls asking which way the 22 shell pointed when they loaded it.....bet those gals have no issue getting a cc permit if they tried.....
too bad the hunters ed instructor didnt just say whuch ever way is the easiest!!!

Musket Man
11-12-2013, 08:11 PM
Well my wife attended hunters ed here in Idaho.....had two girls asking which way the 22 shell pointed when they loaded it.....bet those gals have no issue getting a cc permit if they tried.....
too bad the hunters ed instructor didnt just say whuch ever way is the easiest!!!

This is why Im not against requiring training to get a CWP. While I am against all forms of gun control I also believe anyone carrying or using a gun should know how to use it.

wolftalonID
11-14-2013, 08:32 AM
"Shall not be infringed". A right given to us by our creator, no requirement for a class.

So what about the first part...do we ignore that? "Well regulated militia..." Funny how the training actually is mentioned before the part about guns.

Picture yourself in a room. A large room with say, 400 people in it. Like a giant church meeting, or a convention. In comes uniformed soldiers, all with military weapons, and a man in a suit approaching the mic. The soldiers suround the room and then the suit speaks as to whats going on and why they are there....(say a dignitary is arriving to talk not a take over ).

Many of us would be nervous at first, intrigued maybe, but not in shear panic....why? Because we recognize the uniform as " well regulated", or in other words, trained to restrain from stupid.

Now lets tweak this same scenario. All thats needed is to replace a uniformed group of soldiers with guys in cut off plaid shirts, shotguns, AR's, AK's, bats, missing teeth, chewing tobacco being spit, and a loud mouth pistol swinging leader approaching the mic. The people will audibly be screaming before any words reach the audience, and more than likely, those of us carrying will have made a decision on how we will address the threat.

Americans are mostly far from well regulated in any form or fashion. We have grown up in a world of thinking no one can tell us what to do. If they try we will sue em good, or shoot em dead. If law is crushed, we riot, loot, plunder, and destroy our own cities. I believe that training brings character, and character brings order and at some level, safety. Allowing law abiding citizens to rampage untrained with firearms has not yet caused issues, but it could.

I understand no law keeps guns out of crazy peoples hands, and that is what the politicians seem to think will happen if they make more gun laws. Funny how the current laws aren't working on the crazies.

However, training, and safety go hand in hand. Otherwise.....lets just give your teens the keys....who needs drivers ed anyway right? They will figure it out juuuuust fine cuz my kids are good kids!

shootbrownelk
11-14-2013, 10:33 AM
So what about the first part...do we ignore that? "Well regulated militia..." Funny how the training actually is mentioned before the part about guns.

Picture yourself in a room. A large room with say, 400 people in it. Like a giant church meeting, or a convention. In comes uniformed soldiers, all with military weapons, and a man in a suit approaching the mic. The soldiers suround the room and then the suit speaks as to whats going on and why they are there....(say a dignitary is arriving to talk not a take over ).

Many of us would be nervous at first, intrigued maybe, but not in shear panic....why? Because we recognize the uniform as " well regulated", or in other words, trained to restrain from stupid.

Now lets tweak this same scenario. All thats needed is to replace a uniformed group of soldiers with guys in cut off plaid shirts, shotguns, AR's, AK's, bats, missing teeth, chewing tobacco being spit, and a loud mouth pistol swinging leader approaching the mic. The people will audibly be screaming before any words reach the audience, and more than likely, those of us carrying will have made a decision on how we will address the threat.

Americans are mostly far from well regulated in any form or fashion. We have grown up in a world of thinking no one can tell us what to do. If they try we will sue em good, or shoot em dead. If law is crushed, we riot, loot, plunder, and destroy our own cities. I believe that training brings character, and character brings order and at some level, safety. Allowing law abiding citizens to rampage untrained with firearms has not yet caused issues, but it could.

I understand no law keeps guns out of crazy peoples hands, and that is what the politicians seem to think will happen if they make more gun laws. Funny how the current laws aren't working on the crazies.

However, training, and safety go hand in hand. Otherwise.....lets just give your teens the keys....who needs drivers ed anyway right? They will figure it out juuuuust fine cuz my kids are good kids!

As far as driver's training and licenses go...well, driving is a regulated privilege, not something in the Bill of Rights. If you want to be a butt-smooching "Sheeple" like Metcalf, by agreeing to more and more regulations...by all means go ahead. It still is (the last time I checked) a free country.

wolftalonID
11-14-2013, 11:56 AM
Butt smoochin huh? Lol only if your my wife and its hot, lol. Seriously...the ignorant cant even answer the question.

So i will repeat it and make it bold to catch more attenttion "WELL REGULATED MILITIA...."

Explain please the first part of the ammendment.

I will throw in a cut paste copy of the definition for you.

reg·u·late
ˈregyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
1.
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
"a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
synonyms: control, adjust, manage More
control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"
synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More
set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.

Hmmm ever notice even our founding fathers spoke english with complete thought....maybe us rednecks should learn to research, understand, and comprehend our constitution for how it was written, not how we are bumper sticker educated.

lets next look at the word MILITIA.

mi·li·tia noun \mə-ˈli-shə\
: a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

Full Definition of MILITIA


1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
See militia defined for English-language learners »
See militia defined for kids »
Origin of MILITIA


Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
First Known Use: 1625

And now the whole text of our constitutional 2nd amendment as a whole thought, and not a chopped up bumper sticker taken out of context.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.





This is written clearly talking about the people to be used as needed to ensure a free state, and that these people be armed to do so. We are that people, and to regulate us as a militia means training, rules and compliance under them. Otherwise you are no different than the crazies with guns. Our constitution was written to ensure our safety, not to ensure crazy run amuck do as we like arrogance.

shootbrownelk
11-14-2013, 12:36 PM
Butt smoochin huh? Lol only if your my wife and its hot, lol. Seriously...the ignorant cant even answer the question.

So i will repeat it and make it bold to catch more attenttion "WELL REGULATED MILITIA...."

Explain please the first part of the ammendment.

I will throw in a cut paste copy of the definition for you.

reg·u·late
ˈregyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
1.
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
"a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
synonyms: control, adjust, manage More
control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"
synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More
set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.

Hmmm ever notice even our founding fathers spoke english with complete thought....maybe us rednecks should learn to research, understand, and comprehend our constitution for how it was written, not how we are bumper sticker educated.

lets next look at the word MILITIA.

mi·li·tia noun \mə-ˈli-shə\
: a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

Full Definition of MILITIA


1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
See militia defined for English-language learners »
See militia defined for kids »
Origin of MILITIA


Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
First Known Use: 1625

And now the whole text of our constitutional 2nd amendment as a whole thought, and not a chopped up bumper sticker taken out of context.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.





This is written clearly talking about the people to be used as needed to ensure a free state, and that these people be armed to do so. We are that people, and to regulate us as a militia means training, rules and compliance under them. Otherwise you are no different than the crazies with guns. Our constitution was written to ensure our safety, not to ensure crazy run amuck do as we like arrogance.

Ignorant? Well, there evidently are a whole lot more folks out there who think like I do. Otherwise, how do you suppose the editor and Metcalf were quickly terminated? Lots of folks canceled their subscriptions to G&A. And expressed their displeasure on countless other gun forums. Didn't a constitution framer once say "Those who would give up freedom for safety,deserve neither" or words to that effect. The constitution doesn't mention the safety of the populous, if I remember correctly. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

wolftalonID
11-14-2013, 01:03 PM
First....you still have ignored answering my question.....

and second...you are most correct, many people do ignorantly think as you do. Precisely my point. Americans think that because they can say four words on a bumper sticker they "know" or better put, "comprehend" the second ammendment.

G&A is a business. Our first ammendment does nothing to protect Dick's comments as he has spouted off about and made a bigger fool of himself in the process. He made those comments in the hire of a private business. The business seems to fundamentally ignorantly agree with the customer base with which it is affiliated with. Dick's comments and the EIC that approved their publication came betweent the bottom dollar of the business they were in the hire of. Simple choice, the blockade was removed....money flows again.

This argument here is simply trying to show how misread in history we are. Not trying to regulate yours or my guns away. However....wouldnt it be nice to see our states pay our way for a weekend at Front Site, all in order to be doing what they were informed to do by constitutional decree? Yet insted, they make us pay for the permits( your state not required ), the training, and ignore the government responceability to "regulate" ( ie train as a soldier) its people.

Imagin having gun education in school, instead we have a misinformed and paranoid ignorant people fearing guns in school.
Imagin seeing trained, proficient moms with guns, instead we have moms so afraid their kids can't even point french fries in the school cafe like a gun.
Imagine feeling safe at a range because those there have earned their right to enter by showing a saftey card, or feeling safe out hunting, because those out there truely understand what it means to trigger control until the target is verified, but instead we keep our eyes sideways at the range when a GI Joe loud mouth shows up with an AR displaying 50 pieces of electronic gear attached, and swear at the ahole who shot at you and your kid on the hill because he "thought" you were a deer.

making training regulatory IS what the second ammendment says first, in that training, the right to bear arms as a militia second. Its a whole thought man, not a retarded misquote its been turned into.

Chippy Hacky
11-14-2013, 04:19 PM
Respectfully, we aren't ignoring you. Unfortunately you must call people ignorant, that's too bad.

I think it's better not to wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

But, that's another bumper sticker, isn't it?

wolftalonID
11-14-2013, 06:23 PM
Well lets educate some more further for the purpose of clarification of the boiled blood the masses are expressing.

ig·no·rant
ˈignərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant
1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

This is often misunderstood by the ignorant as to mean this.....

stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opid/
adjective
1.
lacking intelligence or common sense.

So not being able to see body language, or hear vocal enunciation's to determine ones stance....I am not referring to the American public as stupid, however that alone may be a debate amongst scholars, I am positively stating they are ignorant.

In order to win a battle, one must be educated in the art of war, and know their adversary. Our fight for our guns is not a fight of brawn,( yet ), but of a fight of wits, education, and financial leverage in the form or lobbiest and politicians, amongst whom think banning hi cap mags will make them get used up and go away...(pun on a certain lady of the law in cali).

We the few that feel our right to be the regulated militia the constitution speaks of must first educate ourselves to the full extent of the law that is used to protect our freedom as its recognized. Partial context spouting is being ignorant. Stupid is when we go to war not even trained in how to conduct it and think shear firepower will win.

BigBy1
11-14-2013, 07:03 PM
I just cancelled my subscription to G&A..... No seriously I really did!

JMSZ
11-27-2013, 10:40 AM
Ignorant? Well, there evidently are a whole lot more folks out there who think like I do. Otherwise, how do you suppose the editor and Metcalf were quickly terminated? Lots of folks canceled their subscriptions to G&A. And expressed their displeasure on countless other gun forums. Didn't a constitution framer once say "Those who would give up freedom for safety,deserve neither" or words to that effect. The constitution doesn't mention the safety of the populous, if I remember correctly. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

A large number of people thinking the same thing doesn't mean a lack of ignorance.

A lot of people used to think that the world was flat and that you'd fall off the edge if you went too far out into the ocean.

There were a lot of them, but they were still ignorant of the reality and as a result, wrong.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in this instance, just that your argument that there are many of you, therefore you must be right, doesn't work.

I haven't read Metcalf's article and don't know if I will get a chance to, but from the bits that I've seen, I can understand how what he wrote was just handing the anti-gunners an opportunity they couldn't afford to not exploit.

That was poor judgement on his part. Whether it was worth him being fired, I'm not a subscriber, so I don't have a dog in that fight and so I'm not even going to chime in on it.

As far as training goes, I don't think that it should have to be compulsory, I would think that every responsible gun owner and every citizen who is even remotely serious about his or her duty as a member of the militia would see getting training - even minimal training - as an obligation.

Like many things, any idiot can shoot a gun. What makes the difference is the ability to proficiently OPERATE - not just shoot, but maintain, load, unload and safely handle - a weapon(s).

Demonstrating that ability instills confidence, not only in the shooter, but also in those around the shooter.

Having a common set of training standards developed by gun owners and training centers (Gunsite, etc) and getting those standards recognized by as many LE agencies as possible and getting gun owners to VOLUNTARILY agree to meet them would be the ideal situation and would take one more argument away from the anti-gunners.

hoshour
11-28-2013, 08:21 AM
I believe in a Creator but I don't believe He gave us an unrestricted right to carry a gun any more than He gave us the unrestricted right to drive a car.

In fact, despite the Declaration of Independence, I'm not sure we are endowed with any inalienable rights. What God actually gave us are inalienable duties.

For example, life and liberty are rights that God in his instructions to Israel regarding their criminal law told them to take away from people after they committed certain crimes. So those rights were not inalienable, but only for those who kept the criminal law. That is also the case in our country today. Those who are innocent should have the right to life and liberty; it is wrong to kill a baby for example. As for the "pursuit of happiness," our founders understood that in a whole different, more responsible sense than people in our narcissistic culture do today who love to talk about their rights and talk little about their duties.

Our right to bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, no one should take it to mean that it is an unrestricted right. There is no such thing for those who know right and wrong. Those who use weapons on other people do not deserve the right to carry one, nor should they if they cannot demonstrate proficiency and safety. I'm with CC on this one.

pahuntnut
01-18-2014, 02:26 PM
Finally, someone with the right answer. Requiring training is not in the second amendment. Who's to say the next batch of politicians won't ask for "Just a bit more"? That's a slippery slope. You all know that if you give a gun-grabbing legislator an inch, they'll take a mile. JMO

I agree, you should not need to take a drivers test or get a license to practice medicine either. They also are not in the constitution.

This mentality is going to be the death of us gun owners. And while we scream about freedom and the second admentmet, God help any gun owner that excerises their right of freedom of speech. Agree with us or we will crush you. This was the thinking of Nazi Germany and Stalin. I got to say it worked.....for awhile