a crack in the dam?

[ProblemAgain]

and how come the gun advocates love the second amendment but hate the exercise of the first amendment if they don't agree with the opinions?

Guns & Ammo shocks readers with editorial calling for gun control

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News 4 hours ago

Guns & Ammo, "the world's most widely read firearms magazine," is under fire from angry readers over a shocking editorial published in the December issue supporting gun control.

"Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement," contributing editor Dick Metcalf wrote in a column titled "Let's Talk Limits." "The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be."

Because of the Second Amendment, Metcalf argues, "all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly."

Not surprisingly, many readers are flocking to the Guns & Ammo Facebook page, threatening to cancel their subscriptions and boycott the magazine's advertisers until Metcalf is fired.

"If Dick Metcalf isn't given the boot, I will give the boot to my subscription," one reader wrote. "Stabbed in the back by one of our own. What a shame."

"I've cancelled my subscription and I'm NEVER coming back, and I have been a reader since 1964 and a subscriber since 1970," wrote another. "It is unconscionable for a GUN magazine to publish this kind of dribble."

"I will NEVER read your magazine again," another reader wrote. "I will NEVER buy anything offered in your magazine. You can kiss my red blooded, white American ass!!!"

"Wow," wrote another. "Talk about 'shooting yourself in the foot.' What are you thinking by not listening to the response of your subscribers? You're making an EPIC mistake."

Gun rights advocates seem to agree.

"Anyone who says 'I believe in the Second Amendment but –' does not believe in the Second Amendment," Robert Farago wrote in a blog post on TheTruthAboutGuns.com. "They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun."

Farago also took issue with Metcalf's assertion that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

"Yes. Yes you can," Farago wrote. "It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next."

Farago added: "The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification."

The magazine did not immediately return a request for comment.

But gun control advocates are cheering Guns & Ammo's decision to publish the column. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence shared a link to a story about Metcalf's column on its Facebook page.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

I have some friends who seem to think any regulation of firearms or required fire-arms safety training is anti-2nd amendment.  They also believe in subverting the 14th Amendment for everybody based on their Christian views.

If you guessed they support the tea party you are right.

[A4L]

"all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly."-Metcalf

Makes sense to me. What is wrong with what he said? I don't get it.

It seems like common sense. That is the basis of the type of government that John Adams sought to enact. That is also the basis of what the Tea Party is supposed to be about. Which is why I just ignore that constant barrage of insults that have no basis in,

Common Sense.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

It seems there no longer is any common sense in the GOP thanks to extreme right ideology replacing common sense.

[Ioruach]

Whenever I read or hear diatribes like those cited above from gun control opponents, I shudder at the degree of ignorance it takes to produce them. 

[ProblemAgain]

and this just in.....so much for freedom of speech and the freedom of the individual to differ from the groupthink...

'Guns & Ammo' editor apologizes for column calling for gun control

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News 1 hour ago

The editor of "Guns & Ammo" magazine has issued a lengthy apology to outraged readers for publishing an editorial that called for gun control.

"As editor of 'Guns & Ammo,' I owe each and every reader a personal apology," Jim Bequette wrote in a letter posted on the magazine's website late Wednesday. "No excuses, no backtracking. Dick Metcalf’s 'Backstop' column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning [our] commitment to the Second Amendment. I understand why."

In the column, Metcalf argued that gun owners can no longer hide behind the Second Amendment.

"Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement," contributing editor Metcalf wrote in a column titled "Let's Talk Limits." "The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be."

"Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering," Bequette wrote in his apology to readers. "It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached.

"In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, 'Guns & Ammo's'. It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either."

Earlier this week, outraged readers flocked to the magazine's Facebook page, threatening to cancel their subscriptions and boycott the magazine's advertisers unless Metcalf was fired.

"I will NEVER read your magazine again," one reader wrote. "I will NEVER buy anything offered in your magazine. You can kiss my red blooded, white American ass!!!"

"If Dick Metcalf isn't given the boot, I will give the boot to my subscription," wrote another. "Stabbed in the back by one of our own. What a shame."

They got what they wanted.

"Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with 'Guns & Ammo' has officially ended," Bequette wrote.

"I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing. I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness."

Bequette, who was planning to step down as editor on Jan. 1, wrote that he would do so immediately.

He added: “'Guns & Ammo' will never fail to vigorously lead the struggle for our Second Amendment rights."

"But about that First Amendment thingie, that's a whole other story so stfu."

[A4L]

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Ta...

See what you think.

I don't get it.

I am so right wing extremist as you guys like to call it, and pro 2nd amendment, yet I think the article is unoffensive to me. We already have regulations. I think we do need regulations. More training? That is supposed to be bad?
WTF?

I have to say I am with you guys on this as far as I can tell.

It does bother me that people that are pro gun would be so narrow minded that this article warranted some big upheaval. Give me a break....

Over 16 hours of training????  So what?

I get tired of everyone getting typecast.  We are individuals.

I am against this group think stuff that wants to condemn people by association.


Who here agrees on everything?

I represent myself best. Not someone else or a group.

You represent yourself best!!!

[ProblemAgain]

i had a discussion about this a few years back with a nice conservative guy i know who takes the position that it is unconstitutional for the govt to in any way regulate firearms. he believes that even the national firearms act of 1934 which regulated machine guns, sawed-off shotguns etc was illegal. i asked him about the wacko meth dealer down the street being able to own a machine gun and he blandly assured me that he couldn't have one because he is a criminal. he looked quite dumbfounded when i told him under his scenario the govt could not regulate who owned weapons at all and in addition, even if they were allowed to regulate felons and firearms, unless and until he was a convicted felon, he would be legally allowed to own machine guns, rocket launchers and hand grenades just like the truly fine conservative himself.

 my own opinion is that there are certain firearms which should only be legal for the military and possibly the police. and there should be tests and licenses to safeguard the general public from some dipshit with half a brain exercising his second amendment rights but not common sense. Example? just recently a person was turned down for a permit to open a gun range on his property. he was not at all happy about it and cited second amendment rights and the rioght to do what he wanted with his own property and yatta yatta yatta. the fact is his property on which he applied for the permit for a gun range is IN A SUBDIVISION. it is surrounded on all sides by other homes and structures. yes he could build a dirt berm as a backstop for his gun range but shit happens and who woulw be responsible for errant rounds that did not bury themselves in the dirt berm but instead into neighboring homes, cars, livestock and people?

[ProblemAgain]

and by the by, the concept of classes and licensing includes the possibility of taking the classes and yet FAILING the test, not just an automatic pass for your 49.95 fee to be able to carry concealed or whatever

[A4L]

Look I am on the same page with you on the specifics of the example you gave.

I want people to be able to protect themselves. If there are ways to keep all citizens more safe and balance that with keeping people able to bear arms, that makes perfect sense.

The context of the constitution is a period where people were fighting for independence. And a trained army was not that well established I am sure. Nothing that these really inspiring people did in general was way out of context for common sense at the time they were doing it.

Like you said saying that people could have rocket launchers and RPGs and the like sitting around their houses with not even the slightest of regulations is (in my mind) silly.  Training people makes tons of sense. In gun safety and usage, etc. Limiting people to the right to protect themselves is a separate issue to me.

Some regulations I am not for, but I think there are areas that can find agreement with people on the right and left about fine tuning regulations and addressing more problems.

How many people have been known to have mental issues that have been responsible for so many of the shootings of late? Most of them!  This needs some addressing.

[ProblemAgain]

and that gets into the realm the definition of 'mentally ill' and of the civil rights of the mentally ill. we used to lock people into institutions when they were considered mentally ill. that term mentally ill covered a LOT including people who needed to be locked up to protect the public or to protect them from themselves (tho that's a real hard thing to do), people who didn't fit the norm, people who were different, women who were stubbornly independent (oh she's hysterical take her away!). some folks were 'cured' by lobotomy or drugs. some lived out their lives in wards or behind chainlink fences. people who are old enough might remember state institutions for the mentally ill. they are a lot scarcer now than in the past due to enlightenment and also budget cuts from the reagan revolution when it was deemed more humane (and lots cheaper) to leave them out on the street to live with their families or to find their way however they could.

 these days court decisions have held that you can't just commit people to institutions with a signature like they used to in the good old days but rather that it has to be determined that they are a danger to themselves or others in order to protect both us and them. but in the meantime the person with mental issues is perfectly legal in acquiring any and all firearms and ammunition they want and let's face it, there are some people who would knowingly sell anything to anyone including selling guns and ammo to adam lanza or the aurora shooter or the person who shot giffords and others in tucson. and there are few regulations regarding the private sales of weapons after the dealer sale is a done deal. so how do you find the dangerous ones and how do you keep firearms from them? we still haven't even achieved a common concensus of what 'mentally ill' is except in psychiatric jargon.

  when there was an 'ammunition shortage cause obama is gonna take our guns and shit', there were incredible sales of ammunition from dealers and factories. one sale to a private party took a transport from the factory by an 18 wheeler to deliver all the cases to the individual who had coughed up something like 32,000 dollars for the order. now imagine that much ammunition in someones garage? unless it is properly stored, you could be looking at a disaster. but they're prepared for the zombies i guess....or whatever else they are scared of this week. i'm thinking that mindset might be considered kinda mentally ill too

[LoveLife&Laughter]

" these days court decisions have held that you can't just commit people to institutions with a signature like they used to in the good old days"

Too bad.  There are a few politicians...

[exedir]

This is important, the idea of mental health and its diagnosis and treatment.  

The Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, of previous note and fame, announced that mental health has to be dealt with as if, and in the same level of care and treatment as are other medical services.

 In the past, mental health, was in the most part, provided and covered with limits, usually limits of the length of treatment, such as, no more than 20 outpatient visits and constraints in the use of inpatient services.  This was due to the difficulty of what and how to do with mental issues, and the costs involved to diagnosis and treat, inclusive of who was to provide the services involved.  To many of us in the business of insurance this was an open ended, invitation to unlimited costs and unclear results.\

Health care and health care costs are in crisis, the mental health of many are in crisis, and can we afford both, much less cure any of this, without a serious understanding of what is being dealt with and why.

As to have a drugged out population looking to feeling better...we have already declared war on that...