Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

[PredFan]

According to the article that YOU posted, the man did it to himself:



TheNYTimes is merely a radical rag these days, beating the hell out of the Constitution of the United States to show how liberal they are to their base, since they've chased off most of the intellectuals on the right with one diatribe after another touting groupthink leftism for at least 20 years. They're now just subsidized by leftist thinktank organizations. If they touted a Republican as the good person that they are, they'd also lose what little readership they had left before selling out their journalism credentials of simply presenting news as it happens and letting people choose for themselves.

They're presently merely passing off Democrat Party propaganda in op-eds they publish on page one rather than opening topics for debate by the intelligent people that Americans are and have been since the founders relied on news sources that actually let people decide for themselves based on facts unattended by leftist ninnyhammering op-eds by people propped up by global leftist think tanks promoting socialist and not nationalistic agendas.

I give you a "T" for trying, though. Because the leftist ninnyhammers can certainly be trying, no doubt about it.

ummm..... no According to your quote he was pushed-out by the gun manufacturers See what I bolded

NEGGED!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

if I negged people

Supposedly the editors of the magazines were inundated with complaints from readers, too and pressured to fire Metcalf. But again, given the NRA's ability to rally their members, I suspect they were behind it.

I hope they were behind it. The NRA has been putting my money to good use lately.

 

[PredFan]

The gun cult will tolerate no heresy.

Otherwise known as the NRA. I suspect they were behind this.

This is like accusing Mr. Rogers of child abuse and canceling his television show.

The NRA is a pressure group for gun manufacturers and the article said the manufacturers were behind the guy's dismissal. Even if the NRA didn't "pull the trigger" on the guy, they certainly would have if they could have.

Good.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

you want a real laugh at the hypocritical douchbaggery of the left.

Thread A - A&E was perfectly within their rights to fire Phil Robertson. He made statements that were not in line with the Views of the station

Thread B - OMG, lunatic gun fanatics fire the editor of a magazine for expressing an opposing view.

You have absolutely failed to understand what my post is about and what the NYT article is addressing.

To carry out your ignorant analogy: Duck hunters everywhere would turn against Phil Robertson for changing the lacquer finish on a duck call from high gloss to a matte.

Read the fucking article or STFU.

your analogy there is totally wrong. but nice spin attempt

Is this your rebuke? Bahahahhahaaaaa......(lemming)

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Otherwise known as the NRA. I suspect they were behind this.

This is like accusing Mr. Rogers of child abuse and canceling his television show.

The NRA is a pressure group for gun manufacturers and the article said the manufacturers were behind the guy's dismissal. Even if the NRA didn't "pull the trigger" on the guy, they certainly would have if they could have.

Good.

Guess you don't understand what the NRA's own stated purpose is, do you? Wait....BedPan...PredFan....BedPan....Got it.

 

[PredFan]

The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

That's all very civilized but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The writer was dismissed because the gun cult demanded it. They are the same persons who make legislators quake. That leads to gun laws which are not nearly as civilized as a modern society needs.

Kind of like the Duck Dynasty issue. A private company decided to fire someone for going against their policy. I'll bet you defended Mr.Robertson with equal vigor no?

 

[PredFan]

Otherwise known as the NRA. I suspect they were behind this.

This is like accusing Mr. Rogers of child abuse and canceling his television show.

The NRA is a pressure group for gun manufacturers and the article said the manufacturers were behind the guy's dismissal. Even if the NRA didn't "pull the trigger" on the guy, they certainly would have if they could have.

Right, because the NRA is a non-profit "focused on safety, education and responsibility" but actually they are just a big fucking lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

Sounds good to me.

 

[PredFan]

... We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. ...

The Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA and the gun cult and the article is a stark example of their power. Not even reasonable regulation has a chance in the storm of protest which arises when it is proposed.

Again, good!

 

[PredFan]

These groups/magazines used to be run for the benefit of the sportsman now they are run for the benefit of the arms manufacturers themselves. Might as well just be sales brochures

What is good for the gun manufacturers is good for the gun owner.

 

[PredFan]

When Phil Robertson is removed from DD for talking about gays the libs here all claim A&E can do what they want and it is merely contractual.
When writers expressing contrary opinions are removed from magazines it's all about eevul gun owners.
Double standard? Yes I think so.

Hypocrite, thy name is Progressive.

 

[Spoonman]

ummm..... no According to your quote he was pushed-out by the gun manufacturers See what I bolded

NEGGED!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

if I negged people

Supposedly the editors of the magazines were inundated with complaints from readers, too and pressured to fire Metcalf. But again, given the NRA's ability to rally their members, I suspect they were behind it.

I hope they were behind it. The NRA has been putting my money to good use lately.

I agree. its time we start fighting fire with these liberal gun grabbers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

retard alert.

 

[PredFan]

The NRA is a pressure group for gun manufacturers and the article said the manufacturers were behind the guy's dismissal. Even if the NRA didn't "pull the trigger" on the guy, they certainly would have if they could have.

Good.

Guess you don't understand what the NRA's own stated purpose is, do you? Wait....BedPan...PredFan....BedPan....Got it.

Yeah you got nothing dumbass.

 

[Spoonman]

... We have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to regulate that out of existence, which is what they are trying to do. ...

The Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA and the gun cult and the article is a stark example of their power. Not even reasonable regulation has a chance in the storm of protest which arises when it is proposed.

the only ones perverting the 2nd amendment are gun grabbers. gun laws are infringements. the second amendment clearly states the right shall no be infringed.

 

[MikeK]

I'm all for gun ownership and generally find most restrictions to be useless gestures but I will be damned if I will ever be able to identify with the fetishistic attitude some people have with their firearms.

I like your avatar. It speaks volumes.

 

[Joe Steel]

The answer to the question is the heart of the problem.

NRA propaganda.

The NRA twisted the words of the Second Amendment to mean everyone must have a gun. It's good for the gun business and that's what the NRA is all about. Nothing is sacred to them if it stands in the way of gun industry profits. Not the Constitution. Not the blood of dead children. Nothing but the profits of the gun industry.

 

[Joe Steel]

True.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, the question is not whether Second Amendment rights might be subject to restrictions – as clearly they may – but which restrictions are appropriate and which are not.

And that determination is made in the same manner as other Constitutional rights: is there a rational basis for the restriction, is the restriction predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does the restriction pursue a legitimate legislative end.

That's all very civilized but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The writer was dismissed because the gun cult demanded it. They are the same persons who make legislators quake. That leads to gun laws which are not nearly as civilized as a modern society needs.

Kind of like the Duck Dynasty issue. A private company decided to fire someone for going against their policy. I'll bet you defended Mr.Robertson with equal vigor no?

I never actually posted anything supporting Robertson because I didn't think the issue was all that important. In my opinion, nothing Robertson said was offensive. He doesn't seem to like gay sex. So what.

 

[Spoonman]

The answer to the question is the heart of the problem.

NRA propaganda.

The NRA twisted the words of the Second Amendment to mean everyone must have a gun. It's good for the gun business and that's what the NRA is all about. Nothing is sacred to them if it stands in the way of gun industry profits. Not the Constitution. Not the blood of dead children. Nothing but the profits of the gun industry.

no, they have clarified the words to the original intent. every man has the right to own a gun. BTW, Profits are good. imaging how piss poor obamas failed economy would be with out the $30,000,000,000 gun industry.

 

[Joe Steel]

The answer to the question is the heart of the problem.

NRA propaganda.

The NRA twisted the words of the Second Amendment to mean everyone must have a gun. It's good for the gun business and that's what the NRA is all about. Nothing is sacred to them if it stands in the way of gun industry profits. Not the Constitution. Not the blood of dead children. Nothing but the profits of the gun industry.

no, they have clarified the words to the original intent. every man has the right to own a gun. BTW, Profits are good. imaging how piss poor obamas failed economy would be with out the $30,000,000,000 gun industry.

The Second Amendment is not a declaration of universal gun rights. Instead, it declares a right to civilian military for the American People. Beginning in the late 1970s, the NRA has been conducting a propaganda campaign to twist the Founders' words to mean everyone should be able to own a gun. They're doing it to increase gun industry profits. Profits may be good but not when they're measured in blood money.

 

[Spoonman]

The answer to the question is the heart of the problem.

NRA propaganda.

The NRA twisted the words of the Second Amendment to mean everyone must have a gun. It's good for the gun business and that's what the NRA is all about. Nothing is sacred to them if it stands in the way of gun industry profits. Not the Constitution. Not the blood of dead children. Nothing but the profits of the gun industry.

no, they have clarified the words to the original intent. every man has the right to own a gun. BTW, Profits are good. imaging how piss poor obamas failed economy would be with out the $30,000,000,000 gun industry.

The Second Amendment is not a declaration of universal gun rights. Instead, it declares a right to civilian military for the American People. Beginning in the late 1970s, the NRA has been conducting a propaganda campaign to twist the Founders' words to mean everyone should be able to own a gun. They're doing it to increase gun industry profits. Profits may be good but not when they're measured in blood money.

uhm everyone should be able to own a gun. the 2nd amendment wasn't written for a specific group of individuals. it was written for all citizens. No twisting going on there.

 

[Spoonman]

The answer to the question is the heart of the problem.

NRA propaganda.

The NRA twisted the words of the Second Amendment to mean everyone must have a gun. It's good for the gun business and that's what the NRA is all about. Nothing is sacred to them if it stands in the way of gun industry profits. Not the Constitution. Not the blood of dead children. Nothing but the profits of the gun industry.

no, they have clarified the words to the original intent. every man has the right to own a gun. BTW, Profits are good. imaging how piss poor obamas failed economy would be with out the $30,000,000,000 gun industry.

The Second Amendment is not a declaration of universal gun rights. Instead, it declares a right to civilian military for the American People. Beginning in the late 1970s, the NRA has been conducting a propaganda campaign to twist the Founders' words to mean everyone should be able to own a gun. They're doing it to increase gun industry profits. Profits may be good but not when they're measured in blood money.

so I have a question for you. what was the purpose of this civilian military?