Metcalf in the NYTimes

He didn't get fired because he talked about gun regulations.  He got fired because he was talking about MORE regulations.  He didn't get fired because Ruger and Remington didn't like him.  He got fired because the customers of Ruger and Remington didn't like him, and R and R remembered how the customers of Smith and Wesson treated that company when they rolled over 20 years ago.

Metcalf gave aid and comfort to the enemy.  In today's political climate.   And he also didn't have the best grasp of how Constitutional rights work. Plus, no one likes prior restraint. 

This isn't Duck Dynasty.  Where an outside group demanded his head on a platter.  This was in house, TCB.

But look, he was kinda right.  The right guaranteed in the Second Amendment does indeed need some restriction.*  Only the ardent uber libertarians and anarchists think there should be NO limits.  The thing is, where to draw the line?  What MOST gun owners, most Americans, think is that we crossed the line some time back.  Rollback the regulations a ways now.  To, say, 1967?  Maybe 1933?  1900?  Then fine tune, maybe.  After rolling back to a 1933 regime, and everyone pretty satisfied with it, THEN Metcalf could have written that article and it might seem more reasonable.  But the forces of gun-banning evil would have been vanquished and we could afford to be thoughtful.  Give them anarchists a hearing and maybe go that way.  They could convince me to go that last 10%, but first we both need to roll back the 90%.

Stupid New York Times.  Don't cry for Metcalf.

And regulated in the Amendment doesn't mean regulated like you are saying it now in the 21st Century.  Your side keeps trying to reinvent the world the way you like it with textual post modern deconstruction, and it is wrong.  CUT IT OUT.  Liars.  Or idiots.


~

*["Whadayamean, restrictions, T-Bolt!  How dare you!" I dunno.  Maybe on some of the more unstable Nerve Agents?  Artillery with a range greater than 3 miles?  That sort. Maybe.]