usajon
.30 Stingray
Posts: 326
|
Post by usajon on Nov 8, 2013 19:19:27 GMT -5
|
|
cmh
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 3,745
|
Post by cmh on Nov 8, 2013 19:57:30 GMT -5
Yeah I read about that. Seems they had a few folks that were less than believers in the 2nd.......... good riddance!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken O'Neill on Nov 9, 2013 7:32:34 GMT -5
I was at the library yesterday and read that article of Dick Metcalf's (I quit subscribing to G&A years ago). It was almost enough to make one fall out of their chair, and I suspected that there would be an uproar.
This is not the first time he's faced a lot of criticism. During an early Masters Tournament held on his PASA Park Range, he had heavily promoted the match, and it's cash prizes, which were not paid as promised. He was writing for Shooting Times which published his explanation, as well as their own comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by schmidty on Nov 9, 2013 7:54:10 GMT -5
Anyone know where the original G&A article or "rant" can be found online? I've seen this topic pop up on several forums and I'd kind of like to see what all the fuss is about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 11:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountaineer on Nov 9, 2013 19:39:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sierra11b on Nov 10, 2013 4:11:45 GMT -5
Read everything in this thread and he got what he deserved. It isn't that the gun community is comprised of a bunch of radicals but rather the anti-gun opposition takes whatever they can from gun owners; whenever they can. Trust me I know as a California native.
If there could be a "middle ground truce of the ages" which soldified our rights to possess whatever we wish if we only needed some stupid permit (such as California's ridiculous and insultingly easy permit for handgun purchasing) under the pretense that anti-gun advocates could never advance on our rights EVER again, then as a tired Californian, I may take such a deal and run with it...
But it's NEVER that easy as they want to nickel & dime their anti-gun agenda until there's nothing left! If 2nd amendment supporters aren't resolute - which may appear radical to some - then we will continue to loose ground. Period!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountaineer on Nov 10, 2013 6:25:48 GMT -5
Bravo, sierra11b!
We must remember that the ultimate objective is total disarmament (of we law-abiding) and nothing less, one step at a time.
Metcalf forgot that, or worse, never believed it.
|
|
jgt
.327 Meteor
Enter your message here...
Posts: 782
|
Post by jgt on Nov 10, 2013 12:11:05 GMT -5
Dick Metcalf seems to be ignorant of the letters and editorials written by the founding fathers during the time period they wrote the Second Amendment. Metcalf puts his own spin on the term "well regulated" phrase as meant for individuals. The Amendment reads the well regulated part as pertaining to the militia and not individuals. At the time "well regulated" meant the same as a phrase we might use today as "well equiped,trained,or disciplanned." It took individuals to provide the equipment. The plan was to have enough armed citizens trained in militias so no army foriegn or domestic could be raised to outnumber them. This is as true today as it was then. The opposition to the Second Amendment understands this they just count on the ignorance of new generations to swallow this kind of drivell.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldschool on Nov 11, 2013 9:26:04 GMT -5
Dick Metcalf seems to be ignorant of the letters and editorials written by the founding fathers during the time period they wrote the Second Amendment. Metcalf puts his own spin on the term "well regulated" phrase as meant for individuals. The Amendment reads the well regulated part as pertaining to the militia and not individuals. At the time "well regulated" meant the same as a phrase we might use today as "well equiped,trained,or disciplanned." It took individuals to provide the equipment. The plan was to have enough armed citizens trained in militias so no army foriegn or domestic could be raised to outnumber them. This is as true today as it was then. The opposition to the Second Amendment understands this they just count on the ignorance of new generations to swallow this kind of drivell. Or as Webster put it, "well calibrated". It's shocking that with a mindset like that, Metcalf was giving "college seminars" on constitutional issues! |
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Nov 11, 2013 13:25:12 GMT -5
Read everything in this thread and he got what he deserved. It isn't that the gun community is comprised of a bunch of radicals but rather the anti-gun opposition takes whatever they can from gun owners; whenever they can. Trust me I know as a California native. If there could be a "middle ground truce of the ages" which soldified our rights to possess whatever we wish if we only needed some stupid permit (such as California's ridiculous and insultingly easy permit for handgun purchasing) under the pretense that anti-gun advocates could never advance on our rights EVER again, then as a tired Californian, I may take such a deal and run with it... But it's NEVER that easy as they want to nickel & dime their anti-gun agenda until there's nothing left! If 2nd amendment supporters aren't resolute - which may appear radical to some - then we will continue to loose ground. Period! I agree with your points, but I dont understand your point about the CA handgun permit as being "ridiculous and insultingly easy". I know nothing of the CA permit, can you explain this? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by sierra11b on Nov 11, 2013 19:22:48 GMT -5
In order to purchase a handgun here you must take a test to obtain a permit. You need to present it when purchasing a handgun and if you don't have one the gun store clerk will give you the test right then and there.
It's from the Ca DOJ and is called a "handgun safety certificate" and lasts five years. It's a common sense multiple choice test my sixth grade nephew could pass... Took me five minutes.
It's just more red tape and money that teaches nothing on safety. It's intention is to intimate potential handgun owners from purchasing and likely reduce the amount of total guns purchased. I feel it does the exact opposite as I purchased as many handguns as I could before mine expired in October. Ill need to take it again when I go to purchase another. Forget the cost but I want to say about $30.
|
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Nov 11, 2013 22:01:01 GMT -5
In order to purchase a handgun here you must take a test to obtain a permit. You need to present it when purchasing a handgun and if you don't have one the gun store clerk will give you the test right then and there. It's from the Ca DOJ and is called a "handgun safety certificate" and lasts five years. It's a common sense multiple choice test my sixth grade nephew could pass... Took me five minutes. It's just more red tape and money that teaches nothing on safety. It's intention is to intimate potential handgun owners from purchasing and likely reduce the amount of total guns purchased. I feel it does the exact opposite as I purchased as many handguns as I could before mine expired in October. Ill need to take it again when I go to purchase another. Forget the cost but I want to say about $30. Agreed that having to take a test to exercise your rights is stupid. But would you not then prefer that the test is easy? If you (have) to take a test, it seems better that it is not difficult. I assume that a background check is what actually weeds out the ineligible. Putting conditions on our rights really pisses me off. One good thing about my otherwise increasingly liberal state (WA), we are a "shall issue" state for a Concealed Carry License and with one the waiting period is waived. |
|
|
|
Post by sierra11b on Nov 14, 2013 19:20:41 GMT -5
I suppose it being easy is convienent but it wouldn't matter if I were harder (to the point it actually meant something) for people like you and myself.
If CA can demand proof of purchase of a gun lock and information on your home gun safe for every purchase, then I'd much rather show proof my money was donated to an organization promoting safety, conservation, the NRA, whatever... Instead, it's just more wasted money gobbled-up into the vortex of meaningless government spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by tek4260 on Nov 15, 2013 7:01:06 GMT -5
So what exactly did Guns and Ammo think the outcome of this would be? Surely they had to know it would cause an uproar and in the end they would be the loser.
|
|
