Dick Metcalf now supports gun Control

[ExurbanKevin]

With regards to #1, as a law-abiding legal immigrant to the U.S., most (but not all) of the benefits and restrictions of the Constitution still apply to me. Now to get rid of that pesky "natural born citizen" restriction so I can run for Prez.

I don't think there's that much daylight in-between our positions. I think we've lost so much over the last 200 years that any talk of more restrictions on what's left of our rights should be rejected outright.

I didn't move here from Canada to have the U.S. turn into Canada. If I can't have freedom here, where can I have it?

[jnevis]

I'm going to go out on a limb and be a dissenting opinion. 
Having read the article posted, I don't necessarily DISAGREE with the overall statement that there is some necessity for clarification as to who can legaly own a firearm.  Do we not keep hounding on the fact that mentally unstable people keep buying firearms and shooting up movie theaters, schools, and malls, since thier records are not properly documented therefore disqualifying them from gun purchases?  You can't have it both ways, total deregulation but restrictions on dangerous people getting firearms too.  They are law abiding, up to the point they are triggered.  Freedom of speach is also regulated, that's why we have slander laws.  Should the restrictions be as sweeping? no.   

The latter half of the article advocates the requirement for some level of training for a CCW.  Definately agree with that, sorry.  The most dangerous firearm out there is the one the owner doesn't know how to use.  Buying a pistol for "home defense" that is going to sit on the top shelf until its rusted together isn't going to protect anybody.  I would go so far as to say it's more dangerous for the owner, as they probably haven't practiced with it enough to be able to HIT anything (not that most of the police officers now do that much better, but that's another thread) without injuring themselves or an innocent bystander.  My wife's aunt has a CCW for life in CA and I wouldn't want to be anywhere NEAR her if she actually had to use it, and she's been trained (medically retired prison guard).  Every couple years she has to "requal" with her pistol.  It boils down to less than a magazine, usually two-three shots, SOMEWHERE on a target at 10 yards.  She's on so many medications (including but not limited to marijuana and oxycodone) she can barely pull the trigger more than that. 

[gunman42782]

Anybody wants to email Guns and Ammo, here is the link:
http://archives.gunsandammo.com/contact
You can bet your sweet bippy I gave them a talking to!

[PegLeg45]

Regulation will not stop the acts of criminals, idiots and madmen.
It only infringes on the rights of the people who follow the rules.



I hate to say it like this, but with any freedom, you will have what must be termed "acceptable losses"....as in: bad things will always happen because of the freedom, but the overall good always outweighs the bad.


**And before anyone says "What if the 'acceptable loss' happens to your family".....well, it has. I lost a cousin to an 'unloaded .357' at point-blank range years ago.....and as tragic, and preventable, a loss as it was, it never deterred my thoughts on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership.

[ExurbanKevin]

Another thing to keep in mind is the source of this story, a website and an author (no, no hames or links. I've had enough of his search-engine pandering ways and I won't play that game now either) that is known for stirring up trouble in the name of page views.

There may be less here than what meets the eye.

[Sponsor]

[kmitch200]

From Dick Dipstick's ill thought out rant:
"I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe they have a right to use them irresponsibly. "

Well no shit Captain Obvious! Responsibility and liability for your actions is hardly new. 

I don't like any required training to be part of, "can I carry a gun?", anymore than I want "Saturday Night Specials" banned.
People who are poor and living in the projects have just as much right to defend themselves as the person who has the ability to buy a top of the line Les Baer and take it to Gunsite for a week. If you want training, fine, go get it. But to have it mandated and paid for by Joe Citizen is beyond "reasonable".   

Regulation will not stop the acts of criminals, idiots and madmen.
It only infringes on the rights of the people who follow the rules.
I hate to say it like this, but with any freedom, you will have what must be termed "acceptable losses"....as in: bad things will always happen because of the freedom, but the overall good always outweighs the bad.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

The 2A is there to insure that the .gov doesn't turn into the Khmer Rouge. The losses of life from all the shootings across the USA for the last 100 years isn't a spit in the ocean compared to the loss of life in countries where governments decide to have a purge of "undesirables". 

[tombogan03884]

What part of "Shall not be infringed " is so damned hard to understand ?

[MikeBjerum]

jnevis,

Fist, we have all the regulations in place to stop non-law abiding people from participating in their rights as intended by the Founding Fathers.  However, our government chooses not to enforce said rules and laws.  There is no reason to relinquish more rights through regulation.

Second, Rob Pincus posted very well on his blog this morning his stance, and he states it very well.  I will give you my memory of it:

As a firearm instructor he believes that everybody should be trained in the use of firearms prior to using them, however he does not believe that mandatory training requirements are in keeping with our protected rights.

As I have said, there is a difference between right and privilege.  Rob Pincus shows his side, the one I believe is correct, and Dick Metcalf chooses to surrender through his version.  It appears you are also willing to relinquish your rights in the name of feel good promises.

[ExurbanKevin]

I will admit my position on Constitutional Carry has evolved. When Arizona started talking about removing the need for a permit for discrete carry, I was nervous and couldn't see how that would work.

Then they did it, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED, which brings into question why we needed permits in the first place.

[Pathfinder]

This whole episode reminds me of not only Zumbo, but also that Jerry Tsao wanker over at Recoil magazine who almost sank that ship with his "only police should be allowed to own a weapon as dangerous as an MP-7" BS.