Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

[Wry Catcher]

For the record, more Democrats support the 2nd Amendment than people like the OP. So, if any group was eating themselves it would be Dems, who are completely and utterly divided on the issue.

Basically the Progressive wing of the Dem party wants wars, deficits, likes trillions being dumped on the rich, hates the constitution and loves mass welfare. Intelligent Liberal voters want nothing to do with people like the OP.

How many Progressive Democrats have you interviewed? Maybe you've concluded they want wars, deficits..., etc. by reading posts where they advocate these things. Please post the threads wherein they do, or a summary of all those Progressive Democrats who told you they believe the things you allege and any documents written by Progressives as evidence.

Or, STFU and be known as a liar.

 

[whitehall]

Does the radical left allege that Mr. Metcalf was murdered or retired? When anti-gun radical lefties start digging up this crap you know they are plumb out of ideas.

 

[Clementine]

Meet the Paula Deen of the gun control battle. Bahahahaha.....Love it. When they start throwing guys like this under the bus, you KNOW they are in deep kimchee with their ******* stupid 2nd Amendment illiteracy:


Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Mr. Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...he-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


"""BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”"""


Oooops! Now he's toast.

So, the magazine didn't want liberal talking points in their magazine so they fired him. No problem. Is it any different than A&E suspending Phil because he went against their beliefs? That is how it works with companies.

I might take your argument seriously if the left wasn't prone to firing people who went against their agenda. Obama himself fired people over political reasons.

Get over it. The magazine has subscribers and if they complain, that is enough to fire the guy. Hell, Paula Deen got fired for a stupid comment made decades ago and yet the left supported that.

It's not people eating their own in this case. It's people rejecting the liberal mantra. Our rights are not regulated, at least that is what the left says when it comes to voting. We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. The recent regulations, imposed unilaterally by Obama, are going too far. They want guns out of the hands of people and that's a fact. Arresting criminals and forbidding crazy people to have guns is one thing, but we all know the left wants to go way further than that. They want to declare veterans, NRA members and anyone supporting gun rights as crazy. You have done similar in your post, as all lefties have. You equate gun ownership with mental illness. That is the left's politically correct view and they will keep at it until they teach the idiots that it's a fact. I see you have already been indoctrinated.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The gun cult will tolerate no heresy.

Otherwise known as the NRA. I suspect they were behind this.

This is like accusing Mr. Rogers of child abuse and canceling his television show.

The NRA is a pressure group for gun manufacturers and the article said the manufacturers were behind the guy's dismissal. Even if the NRA didn't "pull the trigger" on the guy, they certainly would have if they could have.

Right, because the NRA is a non-profit "focused on safety, education and responsibility" but actually they are just a big ******* lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Meet the Paula Deen of the gun control battle. Bahahahaha.....Love it. When they start throwing guys like this under the bus, you KNOW they are in deep kimchee with their ******* stupid 2nd Amendment illiteracy:


Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Mr. Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...he-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


"""BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”"""


Oooops! Now he's toast.

So, the magazine didn't want liberal talking points in their magazine so they fired him. No problem. Is it any different than A&E suspending Phil because he went against their beliefs? That is how it works with companies.

I might take your argument seriously if the left wasn't prone to firing people who went against their agenda. Obama himself fired people over political reasons.

Get over it. The magazine has subscribers and if they complain, that is enough to fire the guy. Hell, Paula Deen got fired for a stupid comment made decades ago and yet the left supported that.

It's not people eating their own in this case. It's people rejecting the liberal mantra. Our rights are not regulated. We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do.

You didn't read the article.

I've always hesitated to publish an entire article because this is supposed to be a message board, but so many like you won't scratch the surface of something because you're either lazy as hell or just stupid.

 

[Joe Steel]

... We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. ...

The Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA and the gun cult and the article is a stark example of their power. Not even reasonable regulation has a chance in the storm of protest which arises when it is proposed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Meet the Paula Deen of the gun control battle. Bahahahaha.....Love it. When they start throwing guys like this under the bus, you KNOW they are in deep kimchee with their ******* stupid 2nd Amendment illiteracy:


Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Mr. Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...he-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


"""BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”"""


Oooops! Now he's toast.

So, the magazine didn't want liberal talking points in their magazine so they fired him. No problem. Is it any different than A&E suspending Phil because he went against their beliefs? That is how it works with companies.

I might take your argument seriously if the left wasn't prone to firing people who went against their agenda. Obama himself fired people over political reasons.

Get over it. The magazine has subscribers and if they complain, that is enough to fire the guy. Hell, Paula Deen got fired for a stupid comment made decades ago and yet the left supported that.

It's not people eating their own in this case. It's people rejecting the liberal mantra. Our rights are not regulated, at least that is what the left says when it comes to voting. We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. The recent regulations, imposed unilaterally by Obama, are going too far. They want guns out of the hands of people and that's a fact. Arresting criminals and forbidding crazy people to have guns is one thing, but we all know the left wants to go way further than that. They want to declare veterans, NRA members and anyone supporting gun rights as crazy. You have done similar in your post, as all lefties have. You equate gun ownership with mental illness. That is the left's politically correct view and they will keep at it until they teach the idiots that it's a fact. I see you have already been indoctrinated.

Not all gun owners are mentally ill, but some are as can be seen in (too many) mass shootings. That's troublesome, and the NRA Solution was to infringe on the rights of the mentally ill and not all gun owners. such reasoning impacts all of the mentally ill, the few who are violent and the vast majority who are not. Who is to determine who is violent and who is not?

As for our rights not being regulated I disagree. In the 18th Century "Arms" had a very different meaning than they do today, are you one of those who believe "Arms" include any type of weapon? If not, how do you differentiate between 'good' weapons and 'bad' weapons? Haven't the courts decided that some restrictions (infringements) are permissible?

Do you believe the Federal Courts should decide? State Courts should decide? The Congress should decide? or State Legislatures should decide?

 

[Dot Com]

The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Even Scalia wrote/concurred

 

[birddog]

Yeah people take 2A rights seriously and don't like it when people suggest that those rights should be restricted.
I can remember when liberals felt that way about the 1A.

The libs are not smart enough to realize that as the 2A rights greatly decrease, their 1A rights will start to erode.

 

[Spoonman]

For the record, more Democrats support the 2nd Amendment than people like the OP. So, if any group was eating themselves it would be Dems, who are completely and utterly divided on the issue.

Basically the Progressive wing of the Dem party wants wars, deficits, likes trillions being dumped on the rich, hates the constitution and loves mass welfare. Intelligent Liberal voters want nothing to do with people like the OP.

How many Progressive Democrats have you interviewed? Maybe you've concluded they want wars, deficits..., etc. by reading posts where they advocate these things. Please post the threads wherein they do, or a summary of all those Progressive Democrats who told you they believe the things you allege and any documents written by Progressives as evidence.

Or, STFU and be known as a liar.

reading is just words. their actions talk louder than words

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah people take 2A rights seriously and don't like it when people suggest that those rights should be restricted.
I can remember when liberals felt that way about the 1A.

The libs are not smart enough to realize that as the 2A rights greatly decrease, their 1A rights will start to erode.

Gee, you must be dumber than "The libs", as a "lib" I understand the fallacy of the slippery slope and I suspect many other liberals do too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Even Scalia wrote/concurred

But everyone knows Scalia is a RINO and a CINO (that's Conservative in name only).

 

[Spoonman]

The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Even Scalia wrote/concurred

he also said corporations were people too. so its time you liberal dingbats stop whining about that

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Meet the Paula Deen of the gun control battle. Bahahahaha.....Love it. When they start throwing guys like this under the bus, you KNOW they are in deep kimchee with their ******* stupid 2nd Amendment illiteracy:


Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Mr. Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...he-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


"""BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”"""


Oooops! Now he's toast.

So, the magazine didn't want liberal talking points in their magazine so they fired him. No problem. Is it any different than A&E suspending Phil because he went against their beliefs? That is how it works with companies.

I might take your argument seriously if the left wasn't prone to firing people who went against their agenda. Obama himself fired people over political reasons.

Get over it. The magazine has subscribers and if they complain, that is enough to fire the guy. Hell, Paula Deen got fired for a stupid comment made decades ago and yet the left supported that.

It's not people eating their own in this case. It's people rejecting the liberal mantra. Our rights are not regulated, at least that is what the left says when it comes to voting. We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. The recent regulations, imposed unilaterally by Obama, are going too far. They want guns out of the hands of people and that's a fact. Arresting criminals and forbidding crazy people to have guns is one thing, but we all know the left wants to go way further than that. They want to declare veterans, NRA members and anyone supporting gun rights as crazy. You have done similar in your post, as all lefties have. You equate gun ownership with mental illness. That is the left's politically correct view and they will keep at it until they teach the idiots that it's a fact. I see you have already been indoctrinated.

Ignorant nonsense – unsurprisingly.

It’s this sort of idiocy that casts those of us who are gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in a negative light, making it indeed more difficult to defend those rights, and giving credence to the notion that most gun owners are irresponsible and should be subject to additional restrictions.

If Second Amendment advocates are going to be taken seriously they must acknowledge the fact that Second Amendment rights are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions, and compel advocates of gun control measures to justify a given restriction with objective facts and evidence, in Federal court if necessary.

 

[Dot Com]

These groups/magazines used to be run for the benefit of the sportsman now they are run for the benefit of the arms manufacturers themselves. Might as well just be sales brochures

 

[The Rabbi]

When Phil Robertson is removed from DD for talking about gays the libs here all claim A&E can do what they want and it is merely contractual.
When writers expressing contrary opinions are removed from magazines it's all about eevul gun owners.
Double standard? Yes I think so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:



Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Even Scalia wrote/concurred

he also said corporations were people too. so its time you liberal dingbats stop whining about that

Actually he didn’t – Justice Kennedy wrote that opinion.

And Citizens United did not ‘make corporations people,’ it held that government restrictions on political speech violated the First Amendment.

That’s the same process the Second Amendment is subject to, where citizens may challenge restrictions to gun rights to determine which restrictions are valid and which are not.

 

[Avorysuds]

For the record, more Democrats support the 2nd Amendment than people like the OP. So, if any group was eating themselves it would be Dems, who are completely and utterly divided on the issue.

Basically the Progressive wing of the Dem party wants wars, deficits, likes trillions being dumped on the rich, hates the constitution and loves mass welfare. Intelligent Liberal voters want nothing to do with people like the OP.

How many Progressive Democrats have you interviewed? Maybe you've concluded they want wars, deficits..., etc. by reading posts where they advocate these things. Please post the threads wherein they do, or a summary of all those Progressive Democrats who told you they believe the things you allege and any documents written by Progressives as evidence.

Or, STFU and be known as a liar.

I just went off the poll of people that voted for Obama, you know, the guy that does everything I listed.... I think your pissy because you voted for my list twice is all.

 

[Spoonman]

Meet the Paula Deen of the gun control battle. Bahahahaha.....Love it. When they start throwing guys like this under the bus, you KNOW they are in deep kimchee with their ******* stupid 2nd Amendment illiteracy:


Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Mr. Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...he-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


"""BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”"""


Oooops! Now he's toast.

So, the magazine didn't want liberal talking points in their magazine so they fired him. No problem. Is it any different than A&E suspending Phil because he went against their beliefs? That is how it works with companies.

I might take your argument seriously if the left wasn't prone to firing people who went against their agenda. Obama himself fired people over political reasons.

Get over it. The magazine has subscribers and if they complain, that is enough to fire the guy. Hell, Paula Deen got fired for a stupid comment made decades ago and yet the left supported that.

It's not people eating their own in this case. It's people rejecting the liberal mantra. Our rights are not regulated, at least that is what the left says when it comes to voting. We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. The recent regulations, imposed unilaterally by Obama, are going too far. They want guns out of the hands of people and that's a fact. Arresting criminals and forbidding crazy people to have guns is one thing, but we all know the left wants to go way further than that. They want to declare veterans, NRA members and anyone supporting gun rights as crazy. You have done similar in your post, as all lefties have. You equate gun ownership with mental illness. That is the left's politically correct view and they will keep at it until they teach the idiots that it's a fact. I see you have already been indoctrinated.

Ignorant nonsense – unsurprisingly.

It’s this sort of idiocy that casts those of us who are gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in a negative light, making it indeed more difficult to defend those rights, and giving credence to the notion that most gun owners are irresponsible and should be subject to additional restrictions.

If Second Amendment advocates are going to be taken seriously they must acknowledge the fact that Second Amendment rights are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions, and compel advocates of gun control measures to justify a given restriction with objective facts and evidence, in Federal court if necessary.

liberal horseshit. there is nothing reasonable about putting restrictions on law abiding gun owners. if you gun grabbers are going to be taken seriously you need to start pushing for the repeal of laws that infringe on people constitutional rights. which is pretty much all of them

 

[Spoonman]

Even Scalia wrote/concurred

he also said corporations were people too. so its time you liberal dingbats stop whining about that

Actually he didn’t – Justice Kennedy wrote that opinion.

And Citizens United did not ‘make corporations people,’ it held that government restrictions on political speech violated the First Amendment.

That’s the same process the Second Amendment is subject to, where citizens may challenge restrictions to gun rights to determine which restrictions are valid and which are not.

what difference does it make who wrote it? he still supported it. and what it di was grant free reign for corporation to donate like a citizen. So I see you support citizens united. that's a good thing