Sunday, November 10, 2013

Gun magazine is too reasonable

Apparently, Guns & Ammo magazine forgot, for a moment, who their audience was:
Jim Bequette, an editor for the popular “Guns & Ammo” magazine, issued an apology Tuesday after outraged readers seized upon a pro-gun control column in its December issue which argued that gun regulations didn't infringe upon the Second Amendment.

"The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be," said contributing editor and author Dick Metcalf, noting that the rights of Americans to express themselves in speech and assembly also come with some limitations.

"I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly," he added.

Readers threatened to boycott the magazine and cancel their subscriptions until Dick Metcalf was fired.

Of course, Metcalf was absolutely right, and who can deny it? The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but still, you can't falsely yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Libel is still against the law (with appropriate restrictions to defend free speech). Treason is still illegal. So is fraud. I could go on and on.

Freedom of religion is likewise guaranteed, but you still can't burn witches and heretics alive. You can't cut the hearts out of living people as a sacrifice to your god, even if they're willing volunteers. You can't kill your neighbor for mowing the lawn on Sundays or for being gay, no matter what it says in the Bible.

Every right in the U.S. Bill of Rights comes with some limitations. But acknowledging that was far, far too reasonable for gun nuts. It's just amazing to me that Guns & Ammo didn't realize that.


Alex said...

"Well regulated"

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Bill Garthright said...

Um,... "well regulated" is two words, actually, and I didn't actually use either of them in the post above. I did use an illustration which quoted that part of the 2nd Amendment, admittedly.

But telling me that a phrase doesn't mean what I think it means - if you had some reason for saying that in the first place - doesn't accomplish anything, if you don't follow it up by explaining what you do think it means.

Besides, do you disagree with what I actually said here? I appreciate comments on even a five-year-old post, but you might want to address what I actually say in the post. Do you agree or disagree?