In what’s being described as a coup against gun rights, Dick Metcalf just got himself sort of fired from Guns & Ammo for writing an article that stood in defense of gun laws.
The article about the article: http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html
The article (copied, bad display quality): http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf
Now, maybe you want to take a deep breath and relax, because none of this is really a thing. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
The problem comes when discussing rights, as the Constitution comes into play because the Holy 2nd Amendment says that people have a right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to keeping and arming bears:
This is basically the problem with being a legal fundamentalist. As Metcalf pointed out, having a Constitutional right doesn’t mean that the right is unregulated, as per the usual ‘freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can scream “fire!” in a crowded movie theater’ scenario. There are limits. But gun owners, bless their hearts, get all freaked out about rights being infringed because they flatly don’t trust the democratic process to rationally regulate their rights.
I agree with them. I know perfectly well that more gun regs are a terrible idea for a number of reasons. I know that gun owners are fighting against a group of people – liberals – who are fundamentally and severely opposed to gun ownership. They don’t want guns to exist, let alone be an available product for the average American. I also know that “well-regulated” referred to the military in the 2nd Amendment, not to gun owners generally. None of this means that guns cannot be regulated.
But you can say an awful lot about how extreme this shit has gotten from this one instance. Think about the dynamics here. One guy – ONE FUCKING GUY – says, “gun regs are okay” and suddenly it’s both a coup and a betrayal. Gun rights people are incensed. Gun control advocates think it’s the second coming of the Lord Jesus.
And you know why. The debate here is between more and less control. The controlling side talks as if admitting that the government has the prerogative to set regulations means that they can legislate gun ownership to death. Dianne Feinstein has said this. Obama has waffled on the issue, clearly for reasons of political self-interest. Liberal mouthpiece Bill Maher has come right out and said that the 2nd Amendment is bullshit. They want guns gone.
It’s well laid out by this guy, a pro-gun liberal (yes, there is such a thing): http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/
Gun owners know perfectly well that they don’t have “gun rights”. If they thought any such thing, there would be nothing to worry about. But with enough popular support, their “rights” can disappear, because this is a democratic country subject to effective mob rule any time someone can exploit the emotions of Joe Sixpack. They try it with every (very rare) mass shooting. With anything called a right, political strength is required to maintain it. Rights are an idea, what Richard Dawkins might call a ‘meme’. You have to keep them alive, same as with the right to speak freely and practice a religion. Any of them can go if people stop giving a shit. The reason gun owners care about what Metcalf said is because he gave – technically correct or not – hollow-point, exploding tip rhetorical ammunition to the other side of a fight by stating the obvious, sane conclusion regarding a collection of words written on parchment over two centuries ago. And sane is a bad idea when you’re fighting liberals. They use any admission of non-extremism against you.
Metcalf was correct, in theory. He didn’t say in the article, “there should be more regulations”. What he said was, gun owners need to stop being extreme about their rhetorical position. There are good reasons to believe this, namely the rather obvious fact that people on the fence or otherwise unmoved by gun issues look at the gun lobby and can very easily see a bunch of kooks. Making absurd arguments like, “Constitution says I can own all tha guns, nanny nanny boo boo!” doesn’t help. But Metcalf’s statement was still stupid as a matter of political strategy, because the survival of gun rights in America requires that gun owners be intense enough to convince the rest of the country that more attempts to destroy the 2nd Amendment aren’t worth the political cost.
Everyone in the country knows – or should know – that automatic weapons are already nearly impossible to own in America. We DO regulate guns, and I have yet to hear the NRA say that every American should own a Thompson submachine gun or an AK-47 assault rifle, let alone an M2 Heavy Barrel. Nor do they say that states must allow everyone who isn’t currently in jail to carry a boomstick wherever they go. Maybe a couple of them will support positions like that in an argument, but that’s totally a matter of staying logically consistent and winning the argument. That’s the kind of shit they have to do, because liberals will otherwise turn the argument towards, “you don’t need a gun, so you don’t have a right to a gun if it’s dangerous or offensive to others”, and that idiotic thinking would have all sorts of shit people like getting banned.
We shouldn’t even have to be discussing this, because the Constitution writers DID make it quite clear that owning a weapon is generally a good idea, or at least allowable, and I have yet to see anything which clearly points to this not being the case. What I do see are a handful of tragedies used for the sake of greater political control, knowing that there are plenty of ways to kill people en masse without using a legally owned firearm. Illegally owned firearms, for example, and there’s always diesel fuel and fertilizer. Liberals: stop trying to control shit you can’t control, at cost to people you don’t culturally identify with.