Dick Metcalf, an editor at Guns & Ammo of all places, argued in an editorial for the fairly obvious (well, at least to most people) claim that even constitutionally guaranteed rights–such the rights to freedom of religion and to a well-regulated militia–ought to be, er, regulated some (but not very much). Not every instance of speech is allowed; to use the author’s example, you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
Metcalf’s argument didn’t sit well with the Guns&Ammo crowd. You can view selected responses here. It would be charitable to nut pick them. Why bother anyway, in response to their many reasonable interventions, Guns & Ammofired Dick Metcalf.
Not surprising that a bunch of gun fanatics would turn to the ad baculum.
Those familiar with Reddit know that inconsistency memes are very popular. This is because consistency checking is a dominant form of criticism. You cannot, after all, be for one thing but against another similar thing. It’s a contradiction. A contradiction cannot be, and if you support the one but not the other, you’re a scumbag, or just daft. So it does double duty: it challenges a view as untenable while characterizing the holder of the view as dishonest, or an idiot.
There is nothing wrong with that, of course. Provided that the inconsistency is a real one. So many inconsistencies aren’t.
Here, I think, is a real one:
This at least shows that the 2nd Amendment advocates featured have to show a difference between rights of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights. This probably isn’t impossible, but it’s not obvious either.