GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2013, 22:06   #26
steve1911
Senior Member
 
steve1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oregon
Posts: 2,547
I gave up G&A a long time ago, glad i did.




1911club#410
__________________
html
steve1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 22:06   #27
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooterinpa View Post
Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “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.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .

Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:

Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”

You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ts-gun-control

Good riddance! I am canceling my subscription. Cannot believe they published this!

I won't argue the second amendment regulation because I know where that will go but about this first amendment thing and no regulation there.

Does your state allow you to threaten to kill someone?

Does your state allow you to challenge another person to fight?

Does your state allow you to blast your stereo as loud as you want?

When you say "legally responsible" do you mean criminal or civil or both?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 23:48   #28
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pier23 View Post
...We have already accepted that certain people should not have arms, convicted felons, mentally impaired and so forth. This is an "infringement".


That boat has sailed. Lets get over it and move on. We are part of the discussion of weapon control, or we will be ignored. Claiming a non-existent Constitutional right is not helping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
It's a pretty ignorant position to lump free people in with those who have surrendered their Rights or are incompetant.

Surrender? It was forfeit due to the '68 GCA.
Tiro Fijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 00:31   #29
moeman
Senior Member
 
moeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,097
Yeah sure
I'm sure commandos here weren't around to all the iterations again gun control: almost no gun controls Which had almost all firearms use for sporting hunting and then HD. Limited gun control where black rifles showed up and crazies started to show. Then a s load of gun control laws filled with a s load of blackrifles and way more crazies.if you,be been around since the 60's you've seen gun tailored less to the live off the land types.and a lot more of the militarization of Guns And their owners.


Guys like Metcalf carry a message the neutral position on gun ownership. His message appeals to many. Note: With out he people that see value in guns but are disturbed by gun violence, we lose. We want them.

In such, welcome the plurality of pro-gun opinions, otherwise, we all lose.

Last edited by moeman; 11-04-2013 at 00:35..
moeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 00:57   #30
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
I do not agree with that philosophy and will not buy that magazine again.
Same here.

__________________
When we do hit it we hit it out of the park and send it over to China as quickly as possible to cheapen it and sell it.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:01   #31
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeman View Post
Yeah sure
I'm sure commandos here weren't around to all the iterations again gun control: almost no gun controls Which had almost all firearms use for sporting hunting and then HD. Limited gun control where black rifles showed up and crazies started to show. Then a s load of gun control laws filled with a s load of blackrifles and way more crazies.if you,be been around since the 60's you've seen gun tailored less to the live off the land types.and a lot more of the militarization of Guns And their owners.


Guys like Metcalf carry a message the neutral position on gun ownership. His message appeals to many. Note: With out he people that see value in guns but are disturbed by gun violence, we lose. We want them.

In such, welcome the plurality of pro-gun opinions, otherwise, we all lose.

Muskets were the most modern cutting edge firearms at the time. Hence, they were the, "Black Rifle" of the day. There were crazies then too.

Our Forefathers were pretty plain and clear cut with the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed means in any way what so ever. Period!

His message shouldn't be neutral. It should be in line with the Constitution. Otherwise, he's the POS that he is showing himself to be. We don't really need anymore enemies of the Constitution.

Your either part of the solution or part of the problem. Being neutral or being a apologist is being a anti. There are no two ways about it.
__________________
When we do hit it we hit it out of the park and send it over to China as quickly as possible to cheapen it and sell it.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 04:25   #32
shooterinpa
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
I won't argue the second amendment regulation because I know where that will go but about this first amendment thing and no regulation there.

Does your state allow you to threaten to kill someone?

Does your state allow you to challenge another person to fight?

Does your state allow you to blast your stereo as loud as you want?

When you say "legally responsible" do you mean criminal or civil or both?
Ummm, there are already laws addressing criminal behavior with guns. I am not sure what your point was.
shooterinpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 04:27   #33
shooterinpa
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeman View Post
Yeah sure
I'm sure commandos here weren't around to all the iterations again gun control: almost no gun controls Which had almost all firearms use for sporting hunting and then HD. Limited gun control where black rifles showed up and crazies started to show. Then a s load of gun control laws filled with a s load of blackrifles and way more crazies.if you,be been around since the 60's you've seen gun tailored less to the live off the land types.and a lot more of the militarization of Guns And their owners.


Guys like Metcalf carry a message the neutral position on gun ownership. His message appeals to many. Note: With out he people that see value in guns but are disturbed by gun violence, we lose. We want them.

In such, welcome the plurality of pro-gun opinions, otherwise, we all lose.

BS.

It is not "gun violence" it is "people violence". Stop using their talking points.

And this "plurality" of opinions got us to the point where in NYC you cannot even carry a gun.

Get your head out of your backside. Seriously.
shooterinpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 04:29   #34
shooterinpa
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pier23 View Post
That boat has sailed. Lets get over it and move on. We are part of the discussion of weapon control, or we will be ignored. Claiming a non-existent Constitutional right is not helping.
Barack, is that you??????

Effing pathetic to read that on a gun site.
shooterinpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 05:53   #35
FL Airedale
Dog Breath
 
FL Airedale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 1,790
In my opinion, the only reasonable infringement is preventing people from harming innocents.

Having a gun does not make someone a threat. Pointing it at someone does.

I think that is where the line should be drawn.
__________________
Life Member - NRA, GOA, Florida Carry, Inc.
I used to be a people person but people ruined that for me.
FL Airedale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 06:38   #36
Warp
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Warp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NE of Atlanta
Posts: 29,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pier23 View Post
The part that is prefaced by "A well-regulated militia..."

We have already accepted that certain people should not have arms, convicted felons, mentally impaired and so forth. This is an "infringement".


That boat has sailed. Lets get over it and move on. We are part of the discussion of weapon control, or we will be ignored. Claiming a non-existent Constitutional right is not helping.
I have accepted no such thing.

But please, continue to troll this forum. It wouldn't be GT without trolls like yourself.
__________________
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I HIGHLY recommend Google Chrome and Adblock to all world wide web users. (I would have left GT a long time ago without these extensions!)

Last edited by Warp; 11-04-2013 at 06:39..
Warp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 07:29   #37
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooterinpa View Post
Ummm, there are already laws addressing criminal behavior with guns. I am not sure what your point was.
Reread the op he was talking about the first amendment as if there were no restrictions.

The constitution was written by politicians. They put weasel words in there.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 07:37   #38
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooterinpa View Post
Metcalf is arguing for an education requirement to carry a gun.

How about an education requirement to vote? Think that would fly?

Sorry, but this is more incrementalism which will only act as a direct INFRINGEMENT (Cost, mobility etc) on the very old or those who do not have great mobility to begin with, and who need the 2A more than other groups.

Don't think so? Read Emily Miller's "Emily Gets Her Gun"
I've heard people here argue for low info voters not being able to vote. That and you must own land or pay taxes, which these days puts a lot of voters on both sides out in the cold.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 07:54   #39
Arnold Kuhl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NE Tennessee
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ 40 View Post
I quit subscribing years ago but I will Never purchase a single copy Ever. SJ 40
Ditto.

AK
Arnold Kuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 08:16   #40
bdcremer
The No SpinZone
 
bdcremer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside the Fruit Loop, GA
Posts: 512
There is as much ignorance in the pro-gun community as the anti-gun community. They do have different flavored of ignorance but it's still there. The pro-2nd amendment crowd is its biggest problem.
__________________
Gunner's Mate 2nd Class
Glock Certified Armorer

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
bdcremer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 08:34   #41
Pier23
Senior Member
 
Pier23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
It's a pretty ignorant position to lump free people in with those who have surrendered their Rights or are incompetant.
The issue raised here is the "shall not be infringed" clause. Taken literally, the convicted and the mentally impaired would have unfettered access to weapons.

Since even this place generally thinks that is a bad idea, then "infringement" is accepted and embraced by society and the courts.

So now we are debating not IF infringement should occur, but under what conditions and to what extent that infringement occurs. This is an entirely different discussion.
Pier23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 08:39   #42
Pier23
Senior Member
 
Pier23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdcremer View Post
There is as much ignorance in the pro-gun community as the anti-gun community. They do have different flavored of ignorance but it's still there. The pro-2nd amendment crowd is its biggest problem.
Pier23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 09:56   #43
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeman View Post
Yeah sure
I'm sure commandos here weren't around to all the iterations again gun control: almost no gun controls Which had almost all firearms use for sporting hunting and then HD. Limited gun control where black rifles showed up and crazies started to show. Then a s load of gun control laws filled with a s load of blackrifles and way more crazies.if you,be been around since the 60's you've seen gun tailored less to the live off the land types.and a lot more of the militarization of Guns And their owners.


Guys like Metcalf carry a message the neutral position on gun ownership. His message appeals to many. Note: With out he people that see value in guns but are disturbed by gun violence, we lose. We want them.

In such, welcome the plurality of pro-gun opinions, otherwise, we all lose.
You're right, it's all the fault of black rifles. Did you ever hear of Charles Whitman? A sniper who killed 13 people and wounded many more with bolt and pump action "sporting" rifles. Do you think todays mass killers could be equally effective with a couple of sawed off shotguns or 6 revolvers? Glad to see who here is on the other side. Metcalf can suck it.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 09:58   #44
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pier23 View Post
I am going to guess that you are against concealed carry, open carry, semi-automatics weapons, and for mandatory licensing, registration, 10 round magazines and smart guns.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:10   #45
12131
CLM Number 101
Monkeyboy
 
12131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: God's Country (Texas)
Posts: 11,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooterinpa View Post
Barack, is that you??????

Effing pathetic to read that on a gun site.
The 5th column is alive and well on every gun board. Why are you surprised?
__________________
NRA Lifer, GOA Lifer, SAF Lifer
Commie libs, criminals, and sheeple love gun control. It's easier to blame inanimate objects than the killers themselves.
Andrew Cuomo & Michael Bloomberg = Friends of criminals

Politicians and judges who voted for, and supported, Obamacare are traitors to the country!
Con, the first 3 letters in Congress.
UN, the first 2 letters in UNnecessary.
12131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:16   #46
12131
CLM Number 101
Monkeyboy
 
12131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: God's Country (Texas)
Posts: 11,021
Here you go, on compromises and reasonable regulations.
http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustra...o-gun-control/
__________________
NRA Lifer, GOA Lifer, SAF Lifer
Commie libs, criminals, and sheeple love gun control. It's easier to blame inanimate objects than the killers themselves.
Andrew Cuomo & Michael Bloomberg = Friends of criminals

Politicians and judges who voted for, and supported, Obamacare are traitors to the country!
Con, the first 3 letters in Congress.
UN, the first 2 letters in UNnecessary.
12131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:34   #47
20South
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East of CBUS
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12131 View Post
Here you go, on compromises and reasonable regulations.
http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustra...o-gun-control/
It left out Reagan's acceptance and signature on legislation effectively banning "unregistered" full auto's by civilians after 86.
__________________
"You should never under estimate the predictability of stupidity" - Bullet Tooth Tony
20South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:41   #48
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
I won't argue the second amendment regulation because I know where that will go but about this first amendment thing and no regulation there.

Does your state allow you to threaten to kill someone?

Does your state allow you to challenge another person to fight?

Does your state allow you to blast your stereo as loud as you want?

When you say "legally responsible" do you mean criminal or civil or both?
Yes, my state law allows me to threaten to kill someone.

Yes, my state law allows me to challenge another person to a fight.

Yes, my state law allows me to blast my stereo as loud as I want.

Laws do not ban behavior. They simply define activities that constitute crimes and create penalties for engaging in behavior.

For example, the IL UUW statute does not say "you will not unlawfully possession a firearm." It defines UUW and tells you when you are committing it. It then defines penalties.

The law is not active. It is reactive.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:47   #49
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
I am a steadfast supporter of the "reasonable regulation" of every Constitutionally guaranteed divine right. HOWEVER, it is rare that politicians on either side of the aisle engage in reasonable discussions about anything, much less the Bill of Rights. One man's "reasonable" is another man's injustice.

In theory, guaranteeing that gun-owning citizens have a certain degree of education/familiarization with firearms isn't a bad idea. I mean, my buddy just did a concealed carry class with people who had never picked up a pistol before it was time to shoot the trainer's rental at the qualification.

In practice, I agree that the gun-control lobby's position does not support my definition of "reasonable" and, at best, is more supportive of an incrementalist strategy toward a long-term firearms ban. Because of this, I will not support 99.999% of their agenda.

I think most logical people agree that those with recent criminal convictions or mental health issues should probably be excluded from firearm ownership. And I think most logical people would conclude that background checks are a solid way of identifying and excluding the aforementioned people when properly conducted. But the partisan polarization of the gun-control lobby's attitude on background checks forces gun owners to be zealots themselves, when common-sense approaches might have been supported.

A polarized political platform does not benefit anybody.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:48   #50
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Yes, my state law allows me to threaten to kill someone.

Yes, my state law allows me to challenge another person to a fight.

Yes, my state law allows me to blast my stereo as loud as I want.

Laws do not ban behavior. They simply define activities that constitute crimes and create penalties for engaging in behavior.

For example, the IL UUW statute does not say "you will not unlawfully possession a firearm." It defines UUW and tells you when you are committing it. It then defines penalties.

The law is not active. It is reactive.
So receive no punishments for those actions?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,088
326 Members
762 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42