Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[Diogenes]

Dick Metcalf was right. G&A fired him to play CMA over the firestorm of contention that followed.

It is not an argument against the 2A to own that people should have safety training to get a CCD. The response to Metcalf was irresponsible, redneck hysteria.

More like the victim of a misleading rumor spread by purists. The story I heard was that Dick Metcalf penned an article in support of gun control. I accepted it as true because it never occurred to me that anyone would get such a detail wrong.

After reading what you wrote, I went looking for the actual article penned by Dick Metcalf. After reading it, I interpreted none of it as advocating gun control. Unfortunately, that is not the message which had spread across the internet. It is, as you say hysteria created by a misstatement of the man's position.

Dick Metcalf simply contradicted the opinion of the ultra purists, of which there are quite a lot in the Gunosphere.


I've dealt with some of these people myself. There is simply no arguing with them. We all know what that's like I think.

[GIThruster]

Anyone who has read G&A over the years knows Dick is no gun control advocate. This reminds me of the uproar when Ruger supported the Clinton Era assault weapons legislation. The result of the legislation was we learned these things do no good, but Ruger was trying to find a middle group position and was hated by purists for it. It's interesting that thew Clinton ban affected Ruger more than most groups, since it had several handguns with high cap mags and the mini030 and mini-14 were both popular with those whom like 30 round rifle mags. Still people couldn't use the common sense to say "well if they can hold that position against their own self-interest, maybe it's more reasonable than I thought".

People should have looked at Metcalf as more reasonable than a polar position will allow. Safety training is important for CCD situations (as is night fighting and other specialized training.)

[williatw]

I haven't read Metcalf’s actual post either but my understanding of the issue of requiring training is this:

1. You should not be legally required to get training to exercise a constitutional right (you don't need a speech "training" to exercise your 1st amendment right.)

2. Requiring "Safety Training" could easily be used by gun-hating governments like California or Illinois as a kind of de-facto gun control. They can set the standards of said training, (no. of hours, cost, availability) to be whatever they wish, and make them as onerous as they see fit. Sounds too much like "sane", "sober", "sensible" gun control laws that label anything that "looks like it" an "assault weapon" based on appearance.

I personally don't have a problem with it in theory, but would be concerned about the above in practice. I just don't trust the gun-hating Obama administration, or really the dems in general on this issue particularly.

[GIThruster]

I'm aware of the arguments but concealed carry is not a "right". It is regulated and not covered in 2A. And of course we all know the strengths and weaknesses of the slipperly slope argument.

Point is, after decades writing for G&A, people ought to have showed more common sense. Metcalf has always been a sensible guy and 2A advocate.

[Diogenes]

I look forward to the day when any sort of gun control is impossible.


World’s First 3D Printed Metal Gun

Solid Concepts is a world leader of 3D Printing services, and our ability to 3D Print the world’s first metal gun solidifies our standing. The gun is a classic 1911, a model that is at once timeless and public domain. It functions beautifully: Our resident gun expert has fired 50 successful rounds and hit a few bull’s eyes at over 30 yards. The gun is composed of 30+ 3D Printed components with 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 materials. We completed it with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) 3D Printed hand grip, because we’re kind of crazy about 3D Printing.

http://blog.solidconcepts.com/industry- ... metal-gun/

[GIThruster]

This could easily backfire. You can guess the first people to buy the equipment needed to manufacture handguns are going to be drug dealers.

[Diogenes]

Anyone who has read G&A over the years knows Dick is no gun control advocate. This reminds me of the uproar when Ruger supported the Clinton Era assault weapons legislation. The result of the legislation was we learned these things do no good, but Ruger was trying to find a middle group position and was hated by purists for it. It's interesting that thew Clinton ban affected Ruger more than most groups, since it had several handguns with high cap mags and the mini030 and mini-14 were both popular with those whom like 30 round rifle mags. Still people couldn't use the common sense to say "well if they can hold that position against their own self-interest, maybe it's more reasonable than I thought".

People should have looked at Metcalf as more reasonable than a polar position will allow. Safety training is important for CCD situations (as is night fighting and other specialized training.)

The Ruger position was indeed a bridge too far. It is the acceptance of a fundamental assault on a basic right.

What Dick Metcalf was advocating was the notion that the government has a legitimate interest in insuring a minimum level of competence at exercising a potentially dangerous right.

Metcalf's position can be argued both pro and con, but Ruger's position is simply not viable under a reasonable interpretation of the second amendment.

[williatw]

I'm aware of the arguments but concealed carry is not a "right". It is regulated and not covered in 2A. And of course we all know the strengths and weaknesses of the slipperly slope argument.

Point is, after decades writing for G&A, people ought to have showed more common sense. Metcalf has always been a sensible guy and 2A advocate.

Concealed carry per see is not a "right" under the 2nd amendment because the argument was that one can carry openly without a permit, therefore banning without such was deemed constitutional. That was the rational offered for the 1968 federal firearms act that I believe first introduced it on a national level. That's what Calif. uses for its defacto ban on concealed carry (technically "may issue"). However in allot of places if you open carry you are subject to police engagement anyway, the idea is that you "induced panic" because someone saw you with a gun, and called the police. They can take your firearm and charge you with the aforementioned. In other words it defaults to a ban on carry in public period allot of places, exactly as many of us suspect was the intention to start with.

[Diogenes]

I haven't read Metcalf’s actual post either but my understanding of the issue of requiring training is this:

1. You should not be legally required to get training to exercise a constitutional right (you don't need a speech "training" to exercise you 1st amendment right.)

2. Requiring "Safety Training" could easily be used by gun-hating governments like California or Illinois as a kind of de-facto gun control. They can set the standards of said training, (no. of hours, cost, availability) to be whatever they wish, and make them as onerous as they see fit. Sounds too much like "sane", "sober", "sensible" gun control laws that label anything that "looks like it" an "assault weapon" based on appearance.

I personally don't have a problem with it in theory, but would be concerned about the above in practice. I just don't trust the gun-hating Obama administration, or really the dems in general on this issue particularly.

And this is the argument against his position. It is also a reasonable argument. Too often do reasons of regulation for "safety" turn into excuses to infringe.


My own personal position is that people have a right to keep and bear arms wherever they wish, but they also have an obligation to demonstrate a minimal level of competence if they intend to do so around other people.


It's like the right to vote. You have a right to vote, but the government has an obligation to make sure you don't cheat, so they require you to register your name and address so as to make cheating less viable.


That being said, I can live with it either way. Concealed carry with or without required demonstration of competence. I favor requiring a demonstration of competence, but I wouldn't freak out if it were not required.

[Diogenes]

I'm aware of the arguments but concealed carry is not a "right". It is regulated and not covered in 2A. And of course we all know the strengths and weaknesses of the slipperly slope argument.

Point is, after decades writing for G&A, people ought to have showed more common sense. Metcalf has always been a sensible guy and 2A advocate.

I pretty much regard concealed carry as a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't.


I think the Supreme Court agreed in the case of McDonald v Chicago.

[Diogenes]

drug dealers.

I'm going to just let you edit that one into nonexistence.

[GIThruster]

I pretty much regard concealed carry as a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't.


I think the Supreme Court agreed in the case of McDonald v Chicago.

I'm not familiar with the Supreme court case but it seems obvious to me there is no reference to concealment in 2A. Now if the courts have extended the 2A to concealed carry, that is news to me. Not unwelcome news, but news.

[Diogenes]

I pretty much regard concealed carry as a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't.


I think the Supreme Court agreed in the case of McDonald v Chicago.

I'm not familiar with the Supreme court case but it seems obvious to me there is no reference to concealment in 2A.

There is no reference to "bullets" either, but it is an axiomatic consequence of the larger statement.

Now if the courts have extended the 2A to concealed carry, that is news to me. Not unwelcome news, but news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

[Schneibster]

Black people get the same consideration you do from jebus.

Stop lying.

[Diogenes]

And of course, nobody cares what the ignorant/deluded F**k Scheisser thinks about anything.