I read the column and found it a rational discussion of a controversial issue. Basically, Metcalf was saying that no law or constitutional amendment) is unequivocal. The first amendment guarantees free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater.
Same thing with guns; some regulation (hopefully minimal) can be warranted to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals, or to regulate where they can be fired (not downtown or in a crowded area).
Metcalf's column was not out of line. Sorry to hear that G&A took the cowardly path to avoid controversy (and dollar loss).
You most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theatre. But you must accept the responsibility of the consequences that come afterwards. That is what Metcalfe doesnt get. He believes we should replace responsibility with regulation. He also gets into a rant about the wording if the second and is completely off base. The " well regulated". Meant. Didnt not mean heavily ruled. It meant of similar fashion. This is outlined in the federalist papers.
Metcalfe, according to my thoughts on what he wrote. Feels that by imposing unnessecary limitations on our rights we can disregard the lack of responsibility of some gun owners. This is wrong thinking.
