Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

[Martini_Up]

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

I sure would but it would be difficult to keep it rational when he lacks reason and understanding. An example in his own words:

"I [wonder] whether those same people [those writing him in complain about concealed carry requirements] believe that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver's training, test, or license."

I see that he has confused a RIGHT with a PRIVILEGE and they are very, very different.

Moreover:

"Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice."

He assumes that a gun owner is without responsibility. I certainly have the freedom to shout whatever I like anywhere I like HOWEVER I will be held accountable if people are injured due to my actions and conversely will be a HERO in that theater IF THERE IS INDEED A FIRE!!! Were I not FREE shout fire, those poor folks would burn.

He goes on to assert that WELL REGULATED means regulations, which it doesn't... but even if it did, the militia is regulated and the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Perhaps you should ask your friend to take a second look at the 2nd amendment and some of the other writings of the founding fathers so he may know them a bit better. Were he more educated on the subject, he would have never wrote that piece in Guns / Ammo, IMO.

 

[Dave Workman]

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.

It is widely known I'm the man who would be king...a benevolent king

I can't find fault with your analysis above. Metcalf indeed may be dealing with a reality in his region. I've never been accused of taking a moderate approach to anything, but I'm not ready to say we've done enough talking..slap leather.

I've seen the political situation up close and personal for the past ten years, as most of you know. It falls within what I do for a living. It's often not pretty.

I haven't talked to Metcalf about this. It's a writer's thing. We try not to beat up on one another for doing what we do, but I'll have to send him an e-mail and ask how the weather is in his bunker.

I hope you're wrong about the inevitabilty of collapse and fighting. That may make for entertaining television, but in real life, urban chaos with gunfire is no laughing matter. Riots lost their amusement for me when I was sort of caught in one about 40-some years ago.


Thx for your response....my loyal subject :winkkiss:

 

[Sstrand]

On the contrary, Metcalf has elevated himself in his own mind, to the point that he believes he speaks for the defenders of the 2nd amendment.

And, who can blame him, he has a fawning following and when he looks in the mirror he imagines that he is a great leader.

Be careful who you trust. While they are shaking your hand they are stabbing you in the back . . .

Sheldon

 

[jbett98]

The People have spoken.

 

[erudne]

Metcalf was not fired, he and his editor were kicked upstairs as a reward for turning traitor, no doubt there are many anti-gun speaking tours already booked. His motivation may be murky but the results are clear.
Metcalf knows what he did as he used to teach the US Constitution at Yale.
Today he is nothing more than an armed Liberal working to take my freedoms

 

[Dave Workman]

Metcalf was not fired, he and his editor were kicked upstairs as a reward for turning traitor,

Where does it say that?

 

[duane black]

Wow.

I didn't see that coming. ( really )

Dick has been around a long time.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Workman]

Guns & Ammo column on gun regulation costs writer his job

The firearms community is roaring today with news of the downfall of veteran Guns & Ammo writer Dick Metcalf, whose December back page column headlined “Let’s Talk Limits” infuriated gun owners and was savaged earlier this week by gun blogger Robert Farago.

<broken link removed>

And THANK YOU 'RB87' for your reasoned summation! Made a perfect closing

 

[Martini_Up]

Good.

He was no friend of freedom and should not have shared his politics with his national audience whom he had to know would disagreed with him. If not, then he's an idiot too.

 

[Dave Workman]

Good.

He was no friend of freedom and should not have shared his politics with his national audience whom he had to know would disagreed with him. If not, then he's an idiot too.

Hmmmm. Saying something you KNOW will be unpopular, yet still saying it and putting your REAL NAME on it.

Metcalf fires back on firing; Angel win helped by gun owners

Embattled veteran gun writer Dick Metcalf has broken his silence in this morning's edition of the on-line Outdoor Wire &#8211; edited by gun rights stalwart Jim Shepherd &#8211; and he poses some questions to his vocal critics that will raise their hackles, and perhaps put some of them in their own spotlight.

<broken link removed>

 

[Sstrand]

"Metcalf Fires Back." . . . He should have given some thought to the way he expressed himself.
Had he done so. He wouldn't now be bringing a "pop-gun" to a fire fight!!!

Sheldon

 

[Don H]

This is Metcalf's response from http://www.shootingwire.com/.

FEATURE
Metcalf Responds
Editor's Note:

This week, Dick Metcalf has been fired by his longtime employer and cursed, threatened and damned by many of his former readers for something he wrote. And he's had no opportunity to respond. To me, that's unfair, especially among people supposedly on the same side. Some of you are already hot under the collar and will blast me for writing this. For the record -I disagree -totally- with what he suggested, but believe Metcalf deserves the opportunity to respond. I extended the offer early this week. He chose to wait. Today, Dick Metcalf responds. He will also be a guest on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio this Sunday, November 10.

--Jim Shepherd

When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following "clarification and elaboration" on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all. Then, after Paul Erhardt's column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday (Between The Berms: Paging Uncle Ted | Shooting Wire), IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.


How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

From its inception as "Cooper's Corner" in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded--some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).

In today's political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute "NO!" And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term "well-regulated," and how they are used and misused.

I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?

Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.

At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.

Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?

All 50 states now have individual statutes or constitutional provisions regulating concealed firearms carry. The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence? Should we obtain concealed-carry licenses anyway? Are we violating the Constitution ourselves if we do? On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ (although you wouldn't know it from what erupted on the Guns & Ammo website, G&A Facebook pages, and many other firearms forums following the appearance of the December Backstop column).

Myself, I would rather carry legally, than carry illegally and risk prison. Given the fact an Illinois concealed carry law now does exist, I have no problem spending 16 hours of my life under its training requirement. And I will. I am glad Illinois finally passed a concealed carry law. Do I believe training is a good thing? Of course I do. Do I believe the onerous fees and procedures imposed by Illinois' anti-gun legislators to reduce the number of applicants are an "infringement?" Of course I do. I'm applying for a license anyway. But that's just me.

Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

I would hope this discussion could continue.

--Dick Metcalf

 

[Sstrand]

Notice his parenthetical comment: "(and to my continued existence on this planet)."
That is his attempt to cast himself as a "victim," and is a patented phrase that liberals
use when someone "Dares" to disagree with them.

By the way, I understand that volunteers are being sought for a trip to Mars . . .

Sheldon

 

[Don H]

Also, his questions are easily answered and have no bearing on his argument.

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

Violent repeat criminals should be in prison or dead. If a man serves his time and is no longer a criminal then he should have all his rights restored.

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

Yes

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

Yes

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

No. The government is the one violating the Constitution.

 

[1811GNR]

Also, his questions are easily answered and have no bearing on his argument.


Violent repeat criminals should be in prison or dead. If a man serves his time and is no longer a criminal then he should have all his rights restored.


Yes


Yes


No. The government is the one violating the Constitution.

These answers need to be communicated to Metcalf. He seems to be using the template of the anti-gunners in his attempt to defend his position. It really is sad.

Sent from FBHO! using Tapatalk 4

 

[RB87]

Hmmmm. Saying something you KNOW will be unpopular, yet still saying it and putting your REAL NAME on it.

Metcalf fires back on firing; Angel win helped by gun owners

Embattled veteran gun writer Dick Metcalf has broken his silence in this morning's edition of the on-line Outdoor Wire &#8211; edited by gun rights stalwart Jim Shepherd &#8211; and he poses some questions to his vocal critics that will raise their hackles, and perhaps put some of them in their own spotlight.

<broken link removed>

Thanks Dave.

I agree with bcdon's response to Mr. Metcalf's questions. Regarding the vitriol via the internet (his line about continued existence), thats an unfortunate negative of social media. Its also not due to solely to internet and anonymity. Its a product of the "the personal is political" mantra. A tactic that Mr. Metcalf is clearly informed of and capable of using.

 

[Martini_Up]

Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.

but he neglects to mention the most important words... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That gun magazine did well by immediately and swiftly eliminating him from spreading anti-freedom, pro-regulation of firearms messages from it's pages. He reminds me of a writer for Conde Nast Travel telling people to stay home for vacation, haha!

 

[Dave Workman]

Gresham hosts Metcalf; was writer simply naïve?

Sunday's nationally-syndicated "Gun Talk" with Tom Gresham was something of a must-listen event with a full segment featuring embattled veteran gun writer Dick Metcalf revealing that "nobody anticipated" the tidal wave of negativity that cost him his job last week with Guns & Ammo magazine.

<broken link removed>

 

[Sstrand]

Metcalf sounds like a kid that just got whipped in a school yard fight walking away grumbling over his shoulder . . .
If he feels he could have been clearer HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER!!

Sheldon

 

[luke23]

I'd like to find out what the hell he was thinking. Unfortunately I think the answer is that he wasn't.