So, what exactly did Metcalfe say that wasn't the truth---or have we become like the far left, just excommunicate those who tell truths we don't happen to like?
Jordan
You didn't read the article?
Travis
No. I just assumed he said something like reasonable restrictions are probably Constitutional, which is what our strongest originalist on the Court (Antonin Scalia) says. Now if Metcalfe had said there is no natural right to possess the means to defend oneself or to revolt against tyrannical government, then them would be fighting words. Did he say that? I think there is a natural rights (a right grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God") to firearms ownership that trumps any enactment of positive law, i.e., any Constitutional right. Jefferson and the founders would say the same. As far as the Constitutional right, its inferior to the natural law right and is not absolute. That is just the way it is with Constitutional rights. Read the Heller opinion. All the conservative justices admit an original intent encompassing reasonable regulations/restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. I'd say about 90% of the laws regulations out there (Fed and State) are unreasonable. And I'll tell you the most unreasonable: the notion that because you got convicted of felony tax evasion, or theft (or felony bitch slap) you can never own a firearm again. Don't think that is Constitutional.
Metcalfe may have been wrong. Its the excommunication of dissent I have a problem with. We're starting to act like the far left.
Jordan
