Guns & Ammo....Metcalf article

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Haven't read it but I guess he and the editor were fired....guess it was a 'moderate' pro gun article...whatever that is.

 

GG

[Henry T Harrison]

It was much ado about nothing. It was a simple back page column in which he expressed His
opinion concerning the need for CCW holders to have some basic firearms
training.

I concur with what he said and his right to say it. The 1^st is just as important
as the 2^nd .

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

It was much ado about nothing. It was a simple back page column in which he expressed His

opinion concerning the need for CCW holders to have some basic firearms

training.

 

 

I concur with what he said and his right to say it. The 1^st is just as important

as the 2^nd .

Making no argument about that.

 

GG

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

It was much ado about nothing. It was a simple back page column in which he expressed His

opinion concerning the need for CCW holders to have some basic firearms

training.

 

I concur with what he said and his right to say it. The 1^st is just as important

as the 2^nd .

You're assuming the First Amendment has something to do with an employer setting standards for his employees instead of government interference with the right to free speech.

 

 

This has nothing to do with free speech as the Constitution defines it, and everything to do with employer standards for its employees.

 

NO Constitutional rights were violated here because the government wasn't involved!

[Utah Bob #35998]

You're assuming the First Amendment has something to do with an employer setting standards for his employees instead of government interference with the right to free speech.

 

 

This has nothing to do with free speech as the Constitution defines it, and everything to do with employer standards for its employees.

 

NO Constitutional rights were violated here because the government wasn't involved!

That's pretty much it.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

You're assuming the First Amendment has something to do with an employer setting standards for his employees instead of government interference with the right to free speech.

 

 

This has nothing to do with free speech as the Constitution defines it, and everything to do with employer standards for its employees.

 

NO Constitutional rights were violated here because the government wasn't involved!

 

Good point - thank's for making it

 

GG ~

[Henry T Harrison]

The question is how could he have violated his employer’s standards when they reviewed and
approved the article before publication?
Sorry he was fired as a scapegoat when those who didn’t agree with his
opinion used their vocal threats to intimidate the cowards in charge at that
rag.

Read the article and see what you find objectionable, I agree with what he had to say.

[Cat Brules]

I didn't read the article and I hesitate to comment on a labor issue (as such) that I am unfamiliar with. .

 

However, my ears prick up with caution whenever I read anything that even seemingly puts roadblocks in the path of citizens buying, selling, using, carrying, transferring, etc. weapons.

 

What looks acceptable on the surface is often morphed into something with unintended, undesireable consequences. I'm sure you can think of many examples.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

The question is how could he have violated his employer’s standards when they reviewed and

approved the article before publication?

Sorry he was fired as a scapegoat when those who didn’t agree with his

opinion used their vocal threats to intimidate the cowards in charge at that

rag.

 

Read the article and see what you find objectionable, I agree with what he had to say.

 

Seems the guy who approved the article also was sacked... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/09/shakeup-at-guns-ammo-after-gun-control-editorial-backfires/

 

Though as I haven;t read the article I can't say whether he was right or wrong in hos article BUT I agree with Forty Rod's comment.

 

GG ~

[Subdeacon Joe]

I didn't read the article and I hesitate to comment on a labor issue (as such) that I am unfamiliar with. .

 

However, my ears prick up with caution whenever I read anything that even seemingly puts roadblocks in the path of citizens buying, selling, using, carrying, transferring, etc. weapons.

 

What looks acceptable on the surface is often morphed into something with unintended, undesireable consequences. I'm sure you can think of many examples.

 

 

Yep. I have seen proposals for "education" that a Stanford law professor can't figure out, and "training" standards that Camp Perry champions can't meet. Once you open it up for ANY test, any amount of training, you open it up to increasingly stiff standards.

 

Add in that SCOTUS has ruled that the exercise of civil rights is not subject to any form of testing.