Metcalfs first interview since being fired. SUNDAY 11/10

[thompal]

Reasonable people *can and do* differ on where the line is drawn as to what is reasonable and what isn't. Believing that anyone who disagrees with you on exactly where that line is makes them anti-2nd amendment or out to destroy our way of life is...wrong.

So, Metcalf, Schumer, and O'Bama should be welcomed with open arms, simply because they draw that line in a different place than I would??

You either have rights, or you don't. Once you start believing that you can draw arbitrary lines of exceptions to those rights, and still be considered "reasonable," you are saying that Ted Nugent and Chuck Schumer believe the same thing, with only minor differences.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So, Metcalf, Schumer, and O'Bama should be welcomed with open arms, simply because they draw that line in a different place than I would??

No. Its understanding that the differing lines must be within reasonable proximity to each other. If they are within reasonable proximity, than you CAN agree to disagree and be on the same side.

For instance I think the legal drinking age could be dropped to 18. If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink. If you feel that 18 is too young and we are just fine at 21 we can agree to disagree and be relatively on the same side.

But to say we must also welcome the views of those that think there should be absolutely no lower limit, as well as those in favor of outright pre-21st amendment prohibitions is ludicrous. There comes a point in which your lines are too far apart to be on the same side and you must disagree. to make the assumption you made above is ridiculous and downright troll-ish.

 

[thompal]

No. Its understanding that the differing lines must be within reasonable proximity to each other. If they are within reasonable proximity, than you CAN agree to disagree and be on the same side.

For instance I think the legal drinking age could be dropped to 18. If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink. If you feel that 18 is too young and we are just fine at 21 we can agree to disagree and be relatively on the same side.

But to say we must also welcome the views of those that think there should be absolutely no lower limit, as well as those in favor of outright pre-21st amendment prohibitions is ludicrous. There comes a point in which your lines are too far apart to be on the same side and you must disagree. to make the assumption you made above is ridiculous and downright troll-ish.

So, if I were to say that the age at which a person should be "allowed" to drink should be made by that person in conjunction with their parents is an unreasonable stance? Only if I agree with you that the government should be the final word in parenting decisions am I to be considered "reasonable?"

 

[Cameramonkey]

Point missed by venturing off into the weeds of the specifics of the example.

Simply consider the fact that a teetotaler and an "alcohol anarchist" cannot be considered to be under the same tent because the "lines they draw" are too far apart to be considered within reason to the more mainstream 18 vs 21 crowd.

Thus claiming that Obama and Nugent can be lumped into the same group is ridiculously flawed.

 

[thompal]

Point missed by venturing off into the weeds of the specifics of the example.

Simply consider the fact that a teetotaler and an "alcohol anarchist" cannot be considered to be under the same tent because the "lines they draw" are too far apart to be considered within reason to the more mainstream 18 vs 21 crowd.

Thus claiming that Obama and Nugent can be lumped into the same group is ridiculously flawed.

But, I would consider either the "everybody should be free to drink when or what they want" group, AND the "nobody should drink at all" crowd to both me more reasonable and well thought out than the "the government should set arbitrary age limits in spite of parental wishes" crowd.

In other words, the only group that I consider to be an UNreasonable voice at the table is the one that wishes the government to absolve parents of responsibility, and revoke the individuals' liberty.

 

[Cameramonkey]

But, I would consider either the "everybody should be free to drink when or what they want" group, AND the "nobody should drink at all" crowd to both me more reasonable and well thought out than the "the government should set arbitrary age limits in spite of parental wishes" crowd.

In other words, the only group that I consider to be an UNreasonable voice at the table is the one that wishes the government to absolve parents of responsibility, and revoke the individuals' liberty.

Of course you assume that ALL parents take proper responsibilities and are upstanding citizens and are there for their kids. If your logic rang true we would have minimal truancy, very little baby daddies and divorces (for the children), our children would all get good marks/attendance in school,

Hell, why am I wasting my keystrokes to finish my thought?

Fine. Obama and nugent are just like me since we all draw some line somewhere. Congratulations. you win the internets.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I've said the same thing here several times, typically in response to the greatly oversimplified type comments of "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?". No right is absolute. If we take it to be as such, then you are violating a death row inmate's civil liberties by not letting him have a loaded AK-47 in his cell. There's also the tendency to forget that the 2nd amendment doesn't say firearms or even small arms. Howitzers and weaponized Anthrax are arms.

Here's what folks forget. Not everyone is you. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone had your experiences. Calling other gun owners "Fudds" and making your tent ever smaller as you apply the No True Scotsman test to gunowners screws us all in the end. Reasonable people *can and do* differ on where the line is drawn as to what is reasonable and what isn't. Believing that anyone who disagrees with you on exactly where that line is makes them anti-2nd amendment or out to destroy our way of life is...wrong. You want people to be involved, but only if they pass your "True Gunowner" test? Why do you think everyone has heard about the NRA, even if they don't give too poos about guns and gun control, but few outside of "the in crowd" know what the GOA is, or JPFO? That's not to disparage the other organizations, but how much more clout does the NRA have because it DOES reach out to all gun owners, it does do education, it does have a children's program, all designed to keep the casual gun owner or "fudd" in the fold.

The "they always take and we never get it back" mentality is selective reporting or memory. How many states have concealed carry now as opposed to 15 years ago? How are cities like DC or Chicago faring in the post-Heller world? Anyone still talking about pre-ban and post-ban rifles? No? Right.

This is the second most ignorant polemic I've come across all day, second only to the tripe Rick Ungar put out today. I would rather have five true believers at my side than a thousand half-hearted centrist apologists. JPFO has done as much - or more - for the actual preservation of the Second Amendment and its installation into the minds of the public since 1989 than the NRA has done in the past 142 years. Why? Because JPFO does not compromise, they have not compromised, and will not compromise. They don't sponsor infringing legislation. They don't let presidents buy a membership and take photographs with their organization's hat on so that they can claim they support the Second Amendment before backing import bans of military-style rifles a la H.W. They don't say 'so long as you leave our hunting rifles and our shotguns alone,' we don't care. They don't say 'we support the gun control act of 1968.' They don't say ''We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone...'' - Wayne LaPierre, circa 1999 to the Congress. No. They say 'the downside to gun control is not inconvenience to gunowners: it is genocide.' I know whom I trust more, I know whose reasoning carries weight, and I know who is less likely to sell me - and my rights - out in exchange for preferential treatment by the national legislature. They may have fewer members, but they do just as much to preserve the recognition and acknowledgement of the Second Amendment by their uncompromising stance than the NRA does by weakening its stance regarding one of the most sacred and innate natural human rights simply to appeal to a wider audience. I reject your premise by virtue of being unsound fallacious reasoning.

You can keep your death-row strawman, fallacious argument, and your 'reasonable people' and all the compromise and watering down that goes along with it. I will keep my arms and my principles and not get into bed with those who believe that any compromise is acceptable.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

on my iPad so I'll be brief.

I believe in constitutional carry.
Most GFZs are bad, save for courthouses and jails. (Hospitals shouldn't be off limits except for the actual jail floor)
felons shouldn't have guns, but the current law should be tweaked to allow after x years of no further infractions and it wasn't a violent felony.
Kids shouldn't be able to own guns, just like they shouldn't smoke. They lack the mental maturity to make the right decisions.
If the law negatively impacts law abiding gun owners, it's not good. If the law does nothing to protect us like the politicians claim it should not exist. (Like claiming stopping Garand imports will actually prevent gun crimes when they are almost never used in crime)



i like that argument. I use that whenever antis start in and I want to illustrate the true nature of the 2A... To be able to defend against a tyrannical govt. our ARs and pistols are like gnats annoying a bull if they get tanks and missiles and we don't.

I don't to think the NFA should have stopped all new full autos. Hefty transfer fees yes, but not outright banning.

Why don't you save us all some time and just go work for the Brady Campaign? I'm serious. Go call up Sarah Brady, tell her that you own firearms but you want some reasonable restrictions on firearms and ask her if there's an open position for another propagandist in her organization. Here, I'll save you the trouble of looking up their phone number: 202-898-0792. We don't need your beliefs: we have enough people who share your beliefs who don't insult firearms owners by claiming to be on our side.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So you seriously believe ANYONE should be able to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want with absolutely ZERO restrictions? Up to and including courthouses, felons on parole are A-OK, and what the hell, lets eliminate the ban on all NFA restricted items and allow anyone to walk into walmart and buy C4, hand grenades, 37mm HE rounds, etc. ?

Dude, either you are an epic troll, or you are one warped MF-er... Please let us all know before you climb that clock tower or fill a u-haul with diesel and fertilizer to protest the oppression of your ABSOLUTE and TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED God given 2A rights.

I'm not sure which is the more sane one... you or Feinstein. Wait, NEITHER!

so where did I put that ignore button? LOL

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So you seriously believe ANYONE should be able to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want with absolutely ZERO restrictions? Up to and including courthouses, felons on parole are A-OK, and what the hell, lets eliminate the ban on all NFA restricted items and allow anyone to walk into walmart and buy C4, hand grenades, 37mm HE rounds, etc. ?

Yes.

Dude, either you are an epic troll, or you are one warped MF-er... Please let us all know before you climb that clock tower or fill a u-haul with diesel and fertilizer to protest the oppression of your ABSOLUTE and TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED God given 2A rights.

I'm not sure which is the more sane one... you or Feinstein. Wait, NEITHER!

so where did I put that ignore button? LOL

Setting aside your libel and hysterics: I don't want heavy transfer fees on NFA items. You do. I don't want to tell parents that they can't gift firearms to their children. You do. I understand that there is no reason to ensure that everyone in a courtroom is disarmed when the lunatics overwhelm the minimal security there: I would rather the place not be a killing field "gun-free" zone. You apparently do. I agree that if someone commits a crime, has served time, and is released then their right to own a firearm should be restored: if they are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to re-integrate as functioning member of society, they should not be released back into society. The responsible will be responsible no matter the circumstance. The irresponsible will be irresponsible no matter the circumstance. Depriving decent people the right to be armed simply invites attack by indecent people.

I don't know what could possibly explain this to you, who wishes that NFA items were still allowed to be possessed privately (but presumably not those terrible 37mm HE rounds you seem so terrified of) but with high transfer fees - the very nature of your desire implies that you believe there is a right and wrong class of citizen simply by virtue of being a citizen, those who should and should not be allowed to possess NFA items. So what is your criterion? Should they be a non-felon? Should they be of sound moral character, vouchsafed by the local chief of law enforcement? Should they be white? Should they be male? Should they be Protestant? Should they be Presbyterian? Should they be younger than sixty-five?

Setting aside the derogatory 'warped,' the label which I presume you affix to me simply for being in disagreement with your severe restrictions upon a right recognized by our founding document, what do you find so extreme about my position, that our founding document means precisely what it says? C-4 plastique, as an explosive and not a destructive device, does not fall under the purview of the NFA, although it might well be considered a form of armament. But again, synthesis is fairly easy for the non-law-abiding, and the national government having restricted its manufacture and possession through other regulations has done nothing to curb its illicit use, much as marijuana being a Schedule I drug has done nothing to prevent its illicit use. Perhaps you could audit a course at the local community college in logic or rhetoric, with particular emphasis on forming cogent argumentation.

As a final note, please don't project your own disturbed, libelous - and disturbing - fantasies about clock towers and U-Hauls onto me. There are plenty of psychiatrists in the Camby area. Please do get help lest you hurt someone. This will be my final retort. Here's to hoping you have a great night, if you can still see this.

 

[sepe]

So you seriously believe ANYONE should be able to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want with absolutely ZERO restrictions? Up to and including courthouses, felons on parole are A-OK, and what the hell, lets eliminate the ban on all NFA restricted items and allow anyone to walk into walmart and buy C4, hand grenades, 37mm HE rounds, etc. ?

Dude, either you are an epic troll, or you are one warped MF-er... Please let us all know before you climb that clock tower or fill a u-haul with diesel and fertilizer to protest the oppression of your ABSOLUTE and TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED God given 2A rights.

I'm not sure which is the more sane one... you or Feinstein. Wait, NEITHER!

so where did I put that ignore button? LOL

Yes. People should be able to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. If you're a violent felon that has served your time and been deemed fit to re-enter society, your rights should be restored.

 

[LarryC]

Honestly, I don't think Metcalf's views are as uncommon in the gun community as we'd hope. I think there are ton of a old school shooters and Fudd types who really don't think the MSRs should be owned by anyone or believe that we should have tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

I've run into that before at ranges (especially during the decade or so I frequented DNR ranges before picking up a membership to Linden Conservation Club). If you bellied up to a table and pulled out an AR, you were about as likely to get some snide remark or dirty look from the guy next to you, who was sighting in his .270 bolt gun for the umpteenth time, as you were to strike up a friendly chat with your neighbor.

Granted, I noticed this attitude has greatly dropped off over the past few years as more and more shooters are bringing MSRs to the range, but those guys are still around, even if they are little more quiet these days. I think it's just a generational thing. I've almost never gotten that sentiment from a younger shooter (I'm just talking about the shooting community, not general population here) and by younger, I mean 50 or younger. Maybe it has to do with when the M16 was adopted and all the people who have grown up since then have just accepted that the AR15 (and other MSRs) are just as normal to own as grandpappy's bolt gun.

I also belong to the Linden club - have to somewhat disagree with you regarding the acceptance of the AR type firearms by us older guys. You may have seen me sighting in / breaking in my LR-308 at Linden (by the way I'm 72). Think I may have shot my SVD-40 there once or twice, know I have shot my sons/DIL's AR, and my AK, possibly one of my SKS's there. My best friend is in his late 50's - has a real nice Mini 14 (with drum mag.) and SKS. I still like my Garand's and M1 carbine and all the bolt guns I have but sure do like almost all the rest (like the Tec - 9 I bought for my son). Can't say I am a great fan of the AR-15 - mainly cause I like bigger calibers. I do have a couple lowers and lower kit, but thinking about building them into .450 Bushmaster, socom or similar.

 

[LarryC]

So you seriously believe ANYONE should be able to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want with absolutely ZERO restrictions? Up to and including courthouses, felons on parole are A-OK, and what the hell, lets eliminate the ban on all NFA restricted items and allow anyone to walk into walmart and buy C4, hand grenades, 37mm HE rounds, etc. ?

Dude, either you are an epic troll, or you are one warped MF-er... Please let us all know before you climb that clock tower or fill a u-haul with diesel and fertilizer to protest the oppression of your ABSOLUTE and TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED God given 2A rights.

I'm not sure which is the more sane one... you or Feinstein. Wait, NEITHER!

so where did I put that ignore button? LOL

I think you are the one with your head hidden in the sand! Who "obeys" the current "gun control measures"? ONLY those of us that are law abiding and carry ONLY for legitimate reasons! If you think any criminal / felon cannot acquire a firearm when he wants it you either are on drugs, very ignorant of the facts or delusional. LOOK at New York, California, Chicago, even the murders in Indy - how many are committed by felons that have no right to possess firearms? - ALMOST ALL! It is a proven fact that none of the "gun control" measures have any effect on the criminal element.

Yeah when I was young, you could carry a firearm anywhere. I had a firearm in my house, loaned to me by a family friend to squirrel hunt when I was 14, carried it many places - shot many squirrels. Almost all my classmates in school owned and used firearms by the time they were 12 ~ 14 years old (in the 1950's). At that time you could order firearms from ads in magazines and have them shipped to your home. I don't recall any major shooting (or minor) incidents then! Last I heard there were near 300,000,000 firearms in the USA. Many of these are on the "black" market, having been stolen or traded around the criminal community for many years. There are NO LAWS that will affect the "transfer" of these firearms.

I will wager with you that I can go to some of the seedier taverns (or even on the street in known violent areas) and let people know I am wanting to purchase a firearm and have cash and I will own another firearm in less than 48 hours. In my younger days I have watched many similar transactions. Some were among honest people, others were sold to some pretty seedy characters. A desperate criminal wanting a firearm will either steal one, steal something he can trade to other criminals for one, steal money and buy one on the black market, or trade dope for one.

In my opinion all of the "Gun Free" zones would be far safer if guns were allowed to be carried.

The only people harmed or restricted by the laws are those who follow the law!

 

[Beowulf]

I also belong to the Linden club - have to somewhat disagree with you regarding the acceptance of the AR type firearms by us older guys. You may have seen me sighting in / breaking in my LR-308 at Linden (by the way I'm 72). Think I may have shot my SVD-40 there once or twice, know I have shot my sons/DIL's AR, and my AK, possibly one of my SKS's there. My best friend is in his late 50's - has a real nice Mini 14 (with drum mag.) and SKS. I still like my Garand's and M1 carbine and all the bolt guns I have but sure do like almost all the rest (like the Tec - 9 I bought for my son). Can't say I am a great fan of the AR-15 - mainly cause I like bigger calibers. I do have a couple lowers and lower kit, but thinking about building them into .450 Bushmaster, socom or similar.

I can't say I've noticed much of that attitude at Linden, especially in the last 5 or so years. These days, I'm more likely to plunk down next to a guy shooting his AR or even someone plinking away with a suppressed pistol. Maybe it was just the DNR range crowd. People at Linden have been way more friendly. I've had the opportunity to shoot some very interesting rifles and pistols (anything from a .50 cal, to a 7.62 custom long range tactical rifle, to a PS90 SBR with a suppressor) that people have brought to the range and I try to do my part to show off some of the more interesting MSRs and suppressed pistols I have (or even some of my 19th century stuff, like my Remington Rolling Block 7mm or my Springfield Trapdoor). So, I definitely think the attitude I was discussing is slowly going away. I just think Metcalf is still one of those guys that just can't roll with the times.

Not that there is anything saying everyone has to love ARs (personally, I'm almost at the point where I want to throw them into a lake... for real, but that has to do with ammo picky-ness rather than a dislike of larger capacity magazines). I'm all about letting everyone enjoy shooting sports the way they want. If you like shooting tactical rifles rapidly, have fun doing it. If you want to break out a beautiful vintage sporting bolt gun from the 30's and take your time keeping her sighted in, experimenting with making the very best handloads possible, please do.

What I cannot abide is one segment of the shooting community deciding that what another does is unnecessary and should be restricted. While Metcalf didn't go that far, he went far enough that, in his position as editor of one of the largest gun magazines in the country, he received a ton of backlash for his statements. Those same statements and the backlash it caused cost him his job. Personally, I'm fine with that. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussions to that speech. He claims he was just trying to start a conversation, but honestly if you read his editorial, it's pretty clear he's just rattling off his opinion without any real intention of opening some grander national conversation (something later he accuses his detractors of being unwilling to participate in... seemingly ignoring decades of very public discourse on these subjects, culminating in some landmark Supreme Court Cases).

 

[rvb]

So I guess Guy Relford is a traitor as well? He doesnt think the 2a is absolute either. To paraphrase him from his appearance on WIBC this afternoon "SOME well thought out, reasoned gun laws are good. If you are felon, crazy, or a kid, you shouldnt be able to own a gun. Period."

You think Obama's EO banning the import of WW2/Korean surplus M1 Garand rifles to prevent gun violence is reasonable, even though they are pretty much NEVER used in crimes is reasonable?
You think Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban that was allowed to expire (thank God) was reasonable and actually made us safer?
Please explain how those examples will help/helped prevent gun violence.

I'll turn the table. Please explain how laws against felons or 'crazies' having guns, (or laws requiring a license to deal guns, nics) etc has made us safer or helped prevent gun violence. We have decades of imperical data. Should be easy, right? How much better are crime rates today than 1968 (when the GCA was passed)? If any improvement was realized was it worth giving up rights for? If no/little improvement, was the perception of an improvement worth giving up rights for? And all at what cost to tax payers?

I'll even help you out... here's some data based on the FBI UCRs.
Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics
Year - Violent Crime Rate - Murder Rate
1968 - 298.4 - 6.9
1980 - 596.6 - 10.2
1991 - 758.2 - 9.8
2012 - 386.9 - 4.7

I included 1980 and 1991 since they were two peaks in the murder rates.... both well after the FFL system and felons were prevented from owning guns.

I'll also add the comparison to 'limits' on the 1st amd aren't valid, imo. The limits exist because other activities are illegal.... slander, inducing a panic, perjury, etc. It's analagous to laws against murder, intimidation/brandishing, armed robbery, etc. with a firearm. We don't outlaw your ability to talk, just the ability to hurt others with your speech. We shouldn't outlaw guns, just the ability to hurt others with the arms.

that slope IS very slippery. It starts off as felons. then people with 'mental conditions,' then returning soldiers w/ ptsd, then... should we include people on prescription sleep meds? and on it slides.... Just as the NFA started off as MGs and SBS/Rs and silencers, we saw efforts in the last few months to put "assault weapons" under that law, and in recent past .50 bmgs.

On an "emotional" level, keeping felons/'crazies'/'drugies' sounds like "common sense legislation." Has it worked? Has it made us safer? Does it keep felons from getting guns? What are the costs to the tax payer? I used to be for "common sense" gun laws, until over the years I saw the slippery slope in action, saw people denied/delayed who shouldn't be (eg just because of a common name or a computer system 'down'), saw the potential for abuse, saw the strong-arm tactics used against dealers over minor paperwork issues, etc.



-rvb