Today’s Thoughts . . .

14 Nov

By now you’ve probably read or heard about the cashiering of Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf over his December 2013 “Let’s Talk” column in which he parsed “infringing” vs. “regulating” our right to keep and bear firearms. (Read the subsequent apologia here.)  gun pic lead

I’ve not yet read – or heard – Metcalf called to task for the real mistake he made in his column – which was not tub-thumping forinfringing our rights but for being dishonest (or perhaps merely ignorant) when he discussed regulating them.

Metcalf did the usual thing and quoted the language of the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Italics added.gun cartoon

Where Metcalf erred – or perhaps deliberately hoped to mislead – was by not filtering the language of the late 18th century through a 21st century English translator. “Well-regulated” meant something rather different to the powdered wig set than it means to us, today. (Much in the same way that “gay” meant something rather different to the people of 1920s America than it means to the people of 2013 America.)

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, kept in good orderwell-trained and equipped.

The men who wrote and approved the Second Amendment desired that every yeoman farmer – every able-bodied man – know how to handle a gun for self-defense of himself, his family and his country. And more, they believed he had every right to do these things.


Don’t believe me? Look into it.      colonial pic

The idea that “well-regulated” meantrestricted or controlled or supervised by the state – the meaning of “regulated” in today’s common English – is simply nonsense. An idea that only a historical illiterate could entertain. Else how to explain the fact that there were no regulations – none – restricting or controlling or supervising the possession of firearms by any adult male (or even boys) in the late 18th century – and for decadesthereafter. Are we to believe that the founders really did mean to “regulate” (modern usage) the right to keep and bear arms, but just forgot to do so? What about all those statues of colonials bearing arms? What about all those actual colonials – virtually every man alive – who bore them? Who openly carried and kept them? Without a single “regulation” – in the modern sense?


Metcalf, et al, continue to try to prop up their linguistic straw man. And of course, they do it because it works –  because most people are historical ignoramuses.gun final

You can agree or disagree with this – with the idea of people not having to beg permission from the state to keep/bear arms or only being allowed to keep and bear them under certain conditions. But to take the position that Metcalf did – that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to regulate (modern usage) the people’s right to keep and bear arms – is fundamentally dishonest or ignorant.

Or both.

Which is worse? I’ll leave that up to you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: