His original article not only misconstrued ‘well regulated’ and was phrased like every other “I’m a gun owner but….” screed I’ve ever read but he then talked to every media outlet hostile to the 2A (NYT for example) and dug his hole even deeper by using anti-gun terminology in his numerous responses.
I stand by my assertion that his ivory tower hasn’t included interaction w/ gun control advocates for a long time. He goes on about “constitutionally-validated regulations and statutes” which includes semi-auto bans and countless others leaving us years of litigation and legislation to try and overturn it. His vague 'regulations are fine' bit are what led to every restriction and ban we've fought so long and hard to overcome. His 'let's have a discussion' bit is fine until you actually look at how unreasonable anti-gun advocates are in their fanaticism. New York and Colorado come to mind of 'statutes' that, by his wording, would be acceptable.
As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t until CCW was already court mandated (2013) that G&A showed up to an IGOLD. I am unable to locate any columns by Metcalf regarding the years of various legal wranglings that occurred in IL nor did he testify at the hearings in his very own state as an ‘expert’. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen him anywhere in 'active' advocacy circles over the last decade I've been involved. Please correct me if I'm wrong but until then his 'years of advocacy and research' mean exactly bupkis.
Sorry. No forgiveness here.
2 comments:
Metcalf's article made 2 major mistakes.
First, he did not recognize and emphasize that we have mortal enemies, the gun control crowd. Many of their "common sense" policy proposals amount to nothing more than harassment and discrimination. One cannot throw raw meat (anything that could be spun as supporting their cause) at these people. They will gobble it down and then ask for more.
Second, he wrote in terms too general: "limits" and "regulation." Individual gun control proposals need analysis in detail. Do they accomplish any identifiable result or are they just harassment? For example, is the 16-hour training requirement for an Illinois concealed carry permit useful or just something that adds expense and scheduling problems for gun owners? Is there really 16 hours worth of course material?
Metcalf could have written an analysis of each Illinois CCW requirement, balancing the supposed advantages against the monetary and other costs.
Metcalf is stewing in his own juice.
JBS
I have read and paid to read as much Metcalf as I am going to read. He is not on our side and therefore will not get any support from me.
No paid readers is the correct response to him.
Post a Comment