Quantcast

Guns & Ammo Editor Supports Gun Control in December Issue Editorial

Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Screen shot 2013-11-04 at 2.16.21 PM

Time to cancel your subscriptions, Guns and Ammo Editor Dick Metcalf has penned an editorial for their December issue that will be leaving fans in shock; he’s supporting gun control. Metcalf claims there is a large difference between regulation, (well-regulated militia) and a direct infringement of civil rights, he has made this distinction the premise of his claims.

(Click here to download a full PDF of Metcalf’s editorial from Guns and Ammo)

(METCALF) “I bring this up, 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.”

Facepalm moment anyone? Now that Metcalf is no longer in a fit mental capacity to be left alone, someone should send Adult Protective services over for a welfare check.

(METCALF) “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!

Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.

Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.~TAG

(METCALF) “I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.
I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, BUT . . .”

Did he just say but?

I would like to inform Mr. Metcalf that :
1) The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the “people that the government deems mentally or physically fit”.
2) The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the “people who demonstrate exemplary marksmanship skills”
3) The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the people who have never made a mistake in their lives

The 2nd Amendment says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THERE ARE NO “BUTS” MR. METCALF.

“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”

I’ll stop right there, if you haven’t already picked up your copy of Guns and Ammo’s December issue, this may be one you want to skip; the first of many that is.

UPDATE…..UPDATE….. UPDATE…. 11/6 2013

It appears Guns and Ammo has fired Metcalf over his editorial!
Here is a copy of the official response from the magazine..
Screen-Shot-2013-11-06-at-6.07.55-PM

Screen shot 2013-11-04 at 2.47.33 PM

read more at “The Free Patriot”

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • LibertyDwells

    First, the 2A is HEAVILY regulated. If this fellow doesn’t know that, or expects others to not know that, then anything else he says is pretty much by definition suspect if not outright irrelevant. Second, he had to qualify the car analogy in a way Antis do not bother with…and yet it still fails. I need nothing at all to buy a car, take it home and own it. Zip. No license, insurance, training, registration, paperwork, nada. As with firearms already, I only need licensing if I am going to take it out in public areas. So lets go ahead and use the car analogy: That’s the end of all background checks, 4473’s and FFL’s. Thx!

    Guns&Ammo has two choices as of now: Fire this clown. Cease to exist. Pick one, gentlemen or gun owners will choose for you.

    • You are correct… two choices… it will be interesting to see which the magazine choses..

    • kevin777

      You are correct. The car analogy has been debunked by common sense. http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/spencer.htm

    • Douglas Morris

      the same anti’s will scream should you offer regulations on the right to vote and Feinstein is after the 1st concerning free speech and the Social Progressives are destroying Christianity thru this separation of church and state nonsense.

    • Jimmy Z

      He didn’t say it wasn’t regulated.

  • mike

    Was about to renew my subscription but I think I’ll wait and see what G& A do with this guy.

  • kevin777

    He’ll have to explain to me how the others right are regulated? He fails to see the line between rights and crimes. I have no prior restraint on my freedom of speech. But if I yell fire in a movie theater and cause damages, then that’s a crime. Just like the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant the right to murder.

  • Douglas Morris

    I have not purchased G&A for YEARS and will continue as such, I always felt they were not on the right side of the issue overall..and this is of no surprise by MetCalf.

  • madeuce42

    how were they stupid enough to allow tris article to get in the mag. If I were still a subscriber I would cancel regardless of which choice they made

  • Robert S Moulds

    While the second amendment was to arm a well regulated militia or national guard. Further more they are 20000 gun control laws in the United States and gun despite headlines has gone down 39%. Why is guns and ammo alienating both their sponsors and customers because that is what will happen.

    • yacope

      wrong the militia and the national guard are not the same:

      “George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.” Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as “all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.” Some state statutes define it as “able-bodied males” of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.

      These statutes also divide the Militia into various classes, such as “organized” or “unorganized”, in the case of 10 USC 311, or “active” and “reserve”, as many states do, with “active” being considered the National or State Guards, but not the national armed forces.” http://www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

  • KrisAnne Hall

    Here you go, Mr. Metcalf. Written by a Constitutional Attorney just for YOU! It’s called 2nd Amendment for Dummies & Tyrants! GET EDUCATED! http://bit.ly/1h19ZuE

  • Vins

    This is truly a sad day when we lose another mind to Alzheimer’s. This magazine spawned a lifelong love of firearms, for me. Bought my first copy when I was 13 years old, 37 years ago. I was always anxious to read “The Parting Shot” by Dick Wolf, but ALWAYS waited until I had read every article in the magazine. I fondly remember those articles written by Elmer Keith, Jeff Cooper, Bill Jordan, and Phil Spangenberger. G&A, may you rest in peace. Mr. Keith, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Jordan would be rolling over in their graves.

  • Just A Visitor

    My friend, you are making yourself clear: you do NOT trust your own government. I prefer not to engage in a diatribe or a debate here, but the point is, government will always be there, rain or shine, whether you were born or not, whether you like it or not. That is a FACT that has remained, and will always remain. If you still believe in a representative democracy, like the one you have in your country right now, then I don’t think you’d be saying all these things. So what that telegraphs is you want a radical change in the form of government, or even no government at all! I don’t know exactly — you tell me.

    • Chase

      This nation does not practice “representative democracy.” This country is Constitutional Republic. Republic meaning representatives are elected to carry out the functions of government, Constitutional, meaning that there is a document that, among other things, guarantees that certain rights that are inherent to all human beings cannot be taken away by those representatives. A democracy WOULD allow those rights to be voted away by a majority. Unfortunately those who oppose freedom have promoted this idea of democracy for the past century or so to elevate the collective over the individual.

  • nearboston

    Dear Second Amendment opponents,

    “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“

    “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“

    “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“

    Did I repeat myself? Oh….

    Do you get it NOW?? It DOESN’T refer to Anti gun legislation!

    JEESH!

    • vernabc

      And background checks, gun registration, and a ban on large capacity clips ” DOESN’T refer to Anti gun legislation!” either. Do you get it NOW??

      JEESH!

      • nearboston

        Uh…. yes it does.

        • vernabc

          Do tell Chicken Little. How do any of those measures prevent you from owning a gun?

          • nearboston

            One reply was all it took for you to resort to name calling.

          • vernabc

            Name calling, really? That is your reply?

  • badge2283

    Having watched Mr. Metcalf’s firearm handling skills on TV, I am always shocked at his lack of basic safety skills. He should not have a gun.

  • averagejoeusername .

    So now my natural born human right is to have the STATE force other people not to treat me badly via discrimination? What a bunch of nonsense this metcalf is out of his mind. Oh and this one..if we have a RIGHT to participate in govt without discrimination or repression someone needs to inform the IRS they can no longer target Obama’s political enemies such as groups with “LIBERTY” in the name lol. What planet does this guy live on?

    ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression
    Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/11/guns-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-december-issue-editorial/#HqCkaydkp8ymZIlB.99
    ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression
    Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/11/guns-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-december-issue-editorial/#HqCkaydkp8ymZIlB.99
    Civil
    rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity,
    life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race,
    gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
    religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the
    freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the
    press, assembly and movement.”
    Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/11/guns-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-december-issue-editorial/#HqCkaydkp8ymZIlB.99
    Civil
    rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity,
    life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race,
    gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
    religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the
    freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the
    press, assembly and movement.”
    Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/11/guns-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-december-issue-editorial/#HqCkaydkp8ymZIlB

  • Shawn O’Loughlin

    “A well regulated militia” had and still has NOTHING to do with Government Regulation. “Shall not be infringed” is in plain English, it does not say Shall not be infringed except if the government wants to”. It does not say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT US TO HAVE, …” It is our RIGHT and it cannot be infringed (curtailed, delayed, limited, or denied) upon. Good job G&A for firing this ass-hat.

  • Kenneth DeWit Jr

    I AM JUST “THRILLED TO DEATH” YOU “FIRED THAT LIBERAL ” IDIOT!

  • Kenneth DeWit Jr

    He “IS” really GONE RIGHT?

  • jamesben

    This is exactly why the Framers left NO “wiggle room,” and why they penned it “shall NOT be infringed.”
    Ever prescient – is as if the Founders envisioned challenges to our well armed citizenry – as if they could for tell the rise of the Fascists, Communists and Socialists – such as the douche we’re enduring now…always, they knew – an ARMED CITIZEN is a FREE CITIZEN.

  • Chris Fostel

    Just an amicus brief: the issue of gun ownership and militias or national guard membership was settled by the Supreme Court in the Miller case 1939. The decision was that gun ownership is a PERSONAL right acknowledged, but not created by the 2nd Amendment. There was no implied requirement to be part of a militia or national guard unit to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to have AND BEAR arms. This decision was reaffirmed in the Heller case 2008. The Miller decision declared that the right to bear arms exists to ALLOW armed citizens to form of a militarily competent militia. However, the Miller case upheld the automatic weapons bans passed in response to the organized crime wars of the 1930s. In the Federalist Papers the meaning of ‘Well Regulated militia’ was ‘well equipped militias’ since national guards did not exist at the time and ‘free state’ meant ‘The state of Freedom’ not a territory with a government.

  • Don M

    Outstanding article Jan Morgan and intelligent, clearly worded comments from your readers. Very proud of you all. Each day it becomes more and more clear how insightful our countries founders were. We must vigorously protect these ideals everyday.

  • heyrakes

    i was shocked that Metcalf was even in the G&A. it reinforces the idea that your worst enemy are the ones that are supposed to be on your side. what he did was make comparisons to force some rights over others. like the “yelling fire” in a crowded theater. i do not have the right to shoot a gun in a crowded theater either. but my carrying a firearm does nothing to others rights. it will not harm anyone at all
    by Metcalf suggesting that there are legitimate reasons to infringe on rights is to go down a hole that has no bottom. this is the same lie that ANTI’s have been pushing for years. itis the same lie that the progressives have also been pushing. I am glad they fired him at G&A. but my question is how did he get published in the first place

  • Jimmy Z

    So… Jan Morgan is arguing in FAVOR of people with mental defects or who have
    committed a felony still having the right to possess firearms. Just wow.

  • vernabc

    As has been suspected all along. The perceived 2nd amendment rights trump 1st amendment rights.