Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

[simon99]

I'm just thinking out loud, but why in the world would a writer for any gun magazine even go down this road? It makes no sense.

 

[jbett98]

Might as well be called "Gun & No Ammo"

 

[Sling Blade]

Well regulated back in the day meant Extremely effective. Meaning a militia that could pounce on any and every adversary both foreign & or domestic. It was never intended for the States to have a standing army, let alone a 'communal one' nationally like we see today.

Thanks!

 

[deen_ad]

Crossposted to other gun-boards.

Memo to Primedia: "We got a Burn Notice on you--you're Blacklisted."

Which means what? You got blacklisted for cross posting the story or?

 

[Diamondback]

Deen, it's my personal comment to the publisher, telling them that as far as I'm concerned they're dog food. Invoking a favorite line from a recently ended TV series...

 

[deen_ad]

Deen, it's my personal comment to the publisher, telling them that as far as I'm concerned they're dog food. Invoking a favorite line from a recently ended TV series...

Guess I missed the series!! I don't watch much TV.


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[orygun]

I saw the title of this thread the day I received my newest edition of Guns and Ammo, and I purposely did not open this thread until after I went thru the new mag/rag. When I saw Dick's article I was not pleased and knew what this thread was going to be about.
Personally, I'll keep buying Guns and Ammo. But I think that I should give them a piece of my mind. If nothing else, the page that Dick has now was for a long time Jeff Cooper's. How do you think Jeff Cooper would feel about Dick Metcalf's thoughts? I'm not thinkin he'd be too pleased...

 

[billdeserthills]

I saw the title of this thread the day I received my newest edition of Guns and Ammo, and I purposely did not open this thread until after I went thru the new mag/rag. When I saw Dick's article I was not pleased and knew what this thread was going to be about.
Personally, I'll keep buying Guns and Ammo. But I think that I should give them a piece of my mind. If nothing else, the page that Dick has now was for a long time Jeff Cooper's. How do you think Jeff Cooper would feel about Dick Metcalf's thoughts? I'm not thinkin he'd be too pleased...

I think you should let them know how ya feel,
I don't even buy their rag & I let them know

 

[RB87]

Hmm, guess I should cancel shotgun news.

 

[Don H]

Yes, I think it was "Dumbo" Zumbo . . .
I can't recall how it turned out but he and the magazine took a lot of heat.


Sheldon

But he did realize that he was wrong and became an advocate for modern sporting rifles.

 

[Sstrand]

bcdon
Isn't it interesting what "putting food on the table" can do to change attitudes??

Sheldon

 

[simon99]

I saw the title of this thread the day I received my newest edition of Guns and Ammo, and I purposely did not open this thread until after I went thru the new mag/rag. When I saw Dick's article I was not pleased and knew what this thread was going to be about.
Personally, I'll keep buying Guns and Ammo. But I think that I should give them a piece of my mind. If nothing else, the page that Dick has now was for a long time Jeff Cooper's. How do you think Jeff Cooper would feel about Dick Metcalf's thoughts? I'm not thinkin he'd be too pleased...

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." - Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle.

 

[duane black]

With friends like Dick, who needs enemies ?

 

[Dave Workman]

Would someone please explain this: "You're kidding, right? Metcalf doesn't know that "well-regulated" is "referring to the property of something being in proper working order"? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!"

I am serious - I don't get what the author is getting at.

I kind of lost that one, as well.

Look fellers....I know Metcalf. Count him as a friend rather than a foe.

I also know Zumbo. Count him as a friend and right after he wrote that thing, I let him know he was wrong. He apologized, he bent over backwards to right a wrong and I think we're all better off now. I wouldn't want to tangle with Zumbo on gun rights issues for all the whiskey in Tennessee.

If you look at what Metcalf wrote...it's not really all that wrong, in terms of current political standards. It is a reflection of things as they are, especially in Illinois. And let's be honest....there are a lot of gun owners east of the Mississippi who have grown up with licensing and registration laws, and they think that's just the way it is and for them they can live with it.

Sure, Metcalf could have included a line that said "And I think this whole situation stinks out loud, and we ought march on the capitol" which is what I might have done, but he ain't me, and it is widely known what a shy wallflower I am in print.

All that said, there are many in the firearms community who are way too quick to kill their own, but when it comes to knowing who their legislator is, or who to vote for...or if they even vote...I see all too frequently a very defensive "I don't vote it doesn't make a difference and I don't want my name on a list."

Which is, by translation, a cop out. Mertcalf is a game killer and a pretty decent shooter. He doesn't mind expressing an opinion, even if he doesn't use the best semantics that please the peanut gallery. Some of these folks engage in demagoguery on gun forums, the "my way or the highway, traitor!" kind of person that you wouldn't want to have a beer with, be around in a hunting camp, have on the range in the next stall, and wouldn't want them dating your daughter or coming to Thanksgiving dinner...and you know it.

And the most important thing about Metcalf is that he put his REAL NAME on what he wrote. He didn't hide behind some internet nickname like "Magnum 44 Killer." Like me, he is out there and accountable for what he publishes. He knows he is fair game for everything he does. That takes a special set of gonads.


Metcalf is not the enemy. For clarification, I didn't say I agree wholeheartedly with what he wrote, but we know who the real enemy is, and if we slaughter our friends for being candid and disagreeable, pretty soon we'll be facing that enemy all by ourselves. Rather than demand Metcalf's destruction and damnation, how about engaging him in the kind of spirited conversations we have here all the time? He may learn something, and so might the rest of us.

Take a real hard second look at what he wrote before oiling up the noose. Just sayin'

 

[Dave Workman]

I saw the title of this thread the day I received my newest edition of Guns and Ammo, and I purposely did not open this thread until after I went thru the new mag/rag. When I saw Dick's article I was not pleased and knew what this thread was going to be about.
Personally, I'll keep buying Guns and Ammo. But I think that I should give them a piece of my mind. If nothing else, the page that Dick has now was for a long time Jeff Cooper's. How do you think Jeff Cooper would feel about Dick Metcalf's thoughts? I'm not thinkin he'd be too pleased...

Well, I knew Jeff, too, and served with him on the NRA board for several years. Counted him as a friend, also.
He might have had some sharp exchanges with Metcalf, and maybe not. I'm pretty confident Cooper would have conducted himself not as the leader of a lynch mob, but as someone engaged in a healthy debate.

Cooper was also someone who put his REAL NAME on what he wrote, and he was not afraid to be held accountable during a disagreement. He was also opinionated on some things with which I disagreed, and on occasion he knew it. But he was still a guy I'd share a campfire with, and I'm pretty sure vice versa.

 

[RB87]

Why bother voting when you have gents like Metcalf who will sell you out anyway? Much like the NRA on some political issues. This isn't some silly girl wearing a tasteless halloween costume. I respect much of what you do Mr. Workman but I just don't understand anymore why people think we can have discussions or "healthy debate" on this and issues similar to it anymore. The other side does not play by such rules. They shot Queensberry long ago. Metcalf is aiding and abetting the enemy. He's welcome to his view, but he has to be rebuked hard or it will lead to the loss of rights all in the name of the vaunted "compromise". You can't compromise with the likes of Dianne "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Finstein. You can't legislate morality, you live it and teach it.

Look at the poor New Yorkers who are arrested for having 10 rounds in a magazine instead of 7. Talk of responsibility vis a vis gun rights/usage is nice and all but we've seen where mala prohibita laws have led us for many issues. Not a good place in my opinion.

 

[Martini_Up]

"I bring this up because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to continue to keep and bear arms is an infringement," Metcalf writes. "The fact is that all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be."

Yeah, he's real a champion of the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS not being INFRINGED.

I would love to debate him but unfortunately he didn't want a debate. Rather he wanted his opinion in print for the whole world... and not just those in Illinois - JUST SAYING

 

[Dave Workman]

Why bother voting when you have gents like Metcalf who will sell you out anyway? Much like the NRA on some political issues. This isn't some silly girl wearing a tasteless halloween costume. I respect much of what you do Mr. Workman but I just don't understand anymore why people think we can have discussions or "healthy debate" on this and issues similar to it anymore. The other side does not play by such rules. They shot Queensberry long ago. Metcalf is aiding and abetting the enemy. He's welcome to his view, but he has to be rebuked hard or it will lead to the loss of rights all in the name of the vaunted "compromise". You can't compromise with the likes of Dianne "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Finstein. You can't legislate morality, you live it and teach it.

Look at the poor New Yorkers who are arrested for having 10 rounds in a magazine instead of 7. Talk of responsibility vis a vis gun rights/usage is nice and all but we've seen where mala prohibita laws have led us for many issues. Not a good place in my opinion.

Well, now's as good a time as any to ask: What do you suggest we do, then, start shooting people to rid the landscape of our opponents?

Do we stage a coup and deny liberals the vote?

Some of the conversations I've seen on the various forums over the years raise lots of complaints, but also a frustration that working within the system to fight the fight gains us nothing.

Look, I have less use for anti-gunners than most people, and I don't suffer fools.

What Metcalf said is the reality a lot of people face in many places, bt intead of just yelling that it's not right, what do you suggest we do to correct the situation? We are, after all, talking about changing widespread public policy about guns, by altering the way a lot of people think about guns.

How do you suggest we do that.... and in your analysis, the word "if" is not permitted.

 

[Dave Workman]

Yeah, he's real a champion of the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS not being INFRINGED.

I would love to debate him but unfortunately he didn't want a debate. Rather he wanted his opinion in print for the whole world... and not just those in Illinois - JUST SAYING

Would you honestly be willing to trade rational conversation with Metcalf?

 

[RB87]

How do you suggest we do that.... and in your analysis, the word "if" is not permitted.

Who died and made you King?

I don't think you can do anything other than what you and others are trying, slowly fighting back through education besides "start shooting people to rid the landscape of our opponents". Unfortunately, I think collapse and fighting is inevitable at this point and thus that education is mostly a waste of time. There are far too many who will not ever wake up and many who post economic collapse/gov tyranny will ignore reality and give up liberty for safety.

Metcalf may be dealing with the reality of the Fudds, moderates, and whatnot. in Illinois etc. but that moderate stance won't get you anywhere in the long run but on the losing side. I've seen this too much in the past ten years in multiple areas of politics/philosophy of governance. There are some lines that you cannot compromise on. These anti-gunners/progressives etc. are people that for them the ends justify the means. They do not fight fair. You cannot compromise with that.