The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Swamp Yankee on November 03, 2013, 01:35:18 PM
-
An editorial from Decembers issue of Guns & Ammo.
http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/03/guns-and-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-in-editorial-feature-for-december-issue/
Mike Mc
-
For those who don't subscribe or haven't received that issue yet:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf)
-
He definitely doesn't get it.
I wonder what he thinks of a "REGULATED" clock?
-
I can't even believe this. I am glad I don't subscribe any longer to Guns and Ammo, and you can be damn sure I never will. I have watched the TV show, but think that is over too.
-
Never liked G&A anyway..... particularly because of metcalf........ acted like a Fudd anyway.....
I wonder if he knows Jim Zumbo?
-
This total ass hat just committed career suicide. I've been a subscriber to Guns & Ammo for over 4 decades. I'll never give them another penny of my money. This can be laid right at their doorstep. He wrote it, but G&A PRINTED IT. They should have been smarter. They weren't. This guy can join Jim Zumbo for the "Stupid Gun Writers Award". I was always under the belief that people grew wiser with age. These 2 idiots have proven otherwise.
-
I began to notice Cam Edwards getting a little floppy surrounding the idea of trying to negotiate with the left, just in general. Somebody called him "Squish" and he spent a few days being resentful about it, but he also used the time to talk about how "things get done" in Washington"..
(I think about "the way things get done in Washington" as the problem, myself..)
I hadn't accused him of going floppy on politics, but I'd thought it for a few weeks prior to that. It just so happened that I had taken the time to address something he'd said related to politics, stemming from a comment he'd said while talking to Tabitha Hale (from RARE.com), and we spent what seemed like a couple of hours going back and forth on air via email, getting used as an example of some immoderate, unyielding conservative, who just doesn't understand how politics work. I don't recall precisely what I talked about, now.
I don't personally see anywhere that capitulating with leftists gets "us" anywhere that we say we're trying to get to.
I think this mindset creeps in when folks just get tired of fighting.. Or maybe something hormonal happens at 50 years old or something. I don't know. I know Cam seemed to me to be trying to come across as being "above the fray". He says the right things, mostly, (maybe a little too accepting of the NFA for me at times) but I think he thinks we can negotiate ourselves back to a Constitutional position somehow.
IMO, as long as the left is committed to it's beliefs and tactics, you can't "negotiate" your way to a conservative position. It takes a committed majority, or a weapon and/or a jail cell, (and a press blackout)..
I've mentioned this before, and it has nothing to do with Cam, but we need to be looking very hard at each the members of the Board of the NRA, individually.. I have a hard time believing that Grover Norquist is the only "moderate" on the Board. If we lose NRA, there's really nothing else there to fall back onto with the kind of juice that it takes to prevail..
I'm nominating Allen West for election to the Board next time, and probably "Colion Noir". I've never put anybody up for election before, but my understanding of the process seems pretty straight forward. Any assistance in helping get these guys on the Ballot would be helpful..
-
I learned some things about Metcalf a couple years ago that were very disturbing, and nothing he does since shocks me. He has never been my favorite media person, and he just slid down the few rungs he had left.
All I can do is point out that this is the current status of the so called conservative. Rinos and experts who have fallen victim to the Brady Campaign's propaganda. They have equated guns with cars, and intermixed rights and privileges.
-
Trying to strike a balance here, so be patient.
Are some limitations needed on a natural right (any natural right) in order to keep a society together? Of course. Want to exercise your natural rights without society's regulations imposing restrictions? Get an axe and some corn meal and build yourself a cabin near Walden Pond.
However,
Do we need more regulations ton the natural right to keep and bear arms needed besides that which have already been imposed on us?
Hell. No.
There's the difference.
Yes, I think there are some regulations that go along with keeping and bearing arms, but I don't think we need any new ones.
We can have that 'conversation' about gun control that the gun-grabbers want. I'll let them start by talking all the times gun rights have been expanded in the past 100 years, and then I'll recount all the times our rights have been taken away.
Who do you think will do all the talking? :D :D :D
Let's get back the rights we've lost over the last 200 years first. After that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can talk about which regulations work and don't work.
I'm guessing most (if not all of them) will fall under the "don't work" category...
-
Kevin,
We have the only two regulations we need on the Second Amendment, and they apply to all Amendments:
1. You must be a law abiding citizen to enjoy the protection the Constitution provides;
2. You may not infringe on the rights of others in exercising your rights, and vice versa.
Questions?
-
With regards to #1, as a law-abiding legal immigrant to the U.S., most (but not all) of the benefits and restrictions of the Constitution still apply to me. Now to get rid of that pesky "natural born citizen" restriction so I can run for Prez. :D
I don't think there's that much daylight in-between our positions. I think we've lost so much over the last 200 years that any talk of more restrictions on what's left of our rights should be rejected outright.
I didn't move here from Canada to have the U.S. turn into Canada. If I can't have freedom here, where can I have it?
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and be a dissenting opinion.
Having read the article posted, I don't necessarily DISAGREE with the overall statement that there is some necessity for clarification as to who can legaly own a firearm. Do we not keep hounding on the fact that mentally unstable people keep buying firearms and shooting up movie theaters, schools, and malls, since thier records are not properly documented therefore disqualifying them from gun purchases? You can't have it both ways, total deregulation but restrictions on dangerous people getting firearms too. They are law abiding, up to the point they are triggered. Freedom of speach is also regulated, that's why we have slander laws. Should the restrictions be as sweeping? no.
The latter half of the article advocates the requirement for some level of training for a CCW. Definately agree with that, sorry. The most dangerous firearm out there is the one the owner doesn't know how to use. Buying a pistol for "home defense" that is going to sit on the top shelf until its rusted together isn't going to protect anybody. I would go so far as to say it's more dangerous for the owner, as they probably haven't practiced with it enough to be able to HIT anything (not that most of the police officers now do that much better, but that's another thread) without injuring themselves or an innocent bystander. My wife's aunt has a CCW for life in CA and I wouldn't want to be anywhere NEAR her if she actually had to use it, and she's been trained (medically retired prison guard). Every couple years she has to "requal" with her pistol. It boils down to less than a magazine, usually two-three shots, SOMEWHERE on a target at 10 yards. She's on so many medications (including but not limited to marijuana and oxycodone) she can barely pull the trigger more than that.
-
Anybody wants to email Guns and Ammo, here is the link:
http://archives.gunsandammo.com/contact
You can bet your sweet bippy I gave them a talking to!
-
Regulation will not stop the acts of criminals, idiots and madmen.
It only infringes on the rights of the people who follow the rules.
I hate to say it like this, but with any freedom, you will have what must be termed "acceptable losses"....as in: bad things will always happen because of the freedom, but the overall good always outweighs the bad.
**And before anyone says "What if the 'acceptable loss' happens to your family".....well, it has. I lost a cousin to an 'unloaded .357' at point-blank range years ago.....and as tragic, and preventable, a loss as it was, it never deterred my thoughts on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership.
-
Another thing to keep in mind is the source of this story, a website and an author (no, no hames or links. I've had enough of his search-engine pandering ways and I won't play that game now either) that is known for stirring up trouble in the name of page views.
There may be less here than what meets the eye.
-
From Dick Dipstick's ill thought out rant:
"I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe they have a right to use them irresponsibly. "
Well no shit Captain Obvious! Responsibility and liability for your actions is hardly new. ::) ::)
I don't like any required training to be part of, "can I carry a gun?", anymore than I want "Saturday Night Specials" banned.
People who are poor and living in the projects have just as much right to defend themselves as the person who has the ability to buy a top of the line Les Baer and take it to Gunsite for a week. If you want training, fine, go get it. But to have it mandated and paid for by Joe Citizen is beyond "reasonable".
Regulation will not stop the acts of criminals, idiots and madmen.
It only infringes on the rights of the people who follow the rules.
I hate to say it like this, but with any freedom, you will have what must be termed "acceptable losses"....as in: bad things will always happen because of the freedom, but the overall good always outweighs the bad.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
The 2A is there to insure that the .gov doesn't turn into the Khmer Rouge. The losses of life from all the shootings across the USA for the last 100 years isn't a spit in the ocean compared to the loss of life in countries where governments decide to have a purge of "undesirables".
-
What part of "Shall not be infringed " is so damned hard to understand ?
-
jnevis,
Fist, we have all the regulations in place to stop non-law abiding people from participating in their rights as intended by the Founding Fathers. However, our government chooses not to enforce said rules and laws. There is no reason to relinquish more rights through regulation.
Second, Rob Pincus posted very well on his blog this morning his stance, and he states it very well. I will give you my memory of it:
As a firearm instructor he believes that everybody should be trained in the use of firearms prior to using them, however he does not believe that mandatory training requirements are in keeping with our protected rights.
As I have said, there is a difference between right and privilege. Rob Pincus shows his side, the one I believe is correct, and Dick Metcalf chooses to surrender through his version. It appears you are also willing to relinquish your rights in the name of feel good promises.
-
I will admit my position on Constitutional Carry has evolved. When Arizona started talking about removing the need for a permit for discrete carry, I was nervous and couldn't see how that would work.
Then they did it, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED, which brings into question why we needed permits in the first place.
-
This whole episode reminds me of not only Zumbo, but also that Jerry Tsao wanker over at Recoil magazine who almost sank that ship with his "only police should be allowed to own a weapon as dangerous as an MP-7" BS. >:(
-
Until the "National Firearms Act" went into effect in 1934 EVERY BODY was allowed to own guns.
When Frank James was released from prison the Warden returned his pistols as he left the prison.
We have ALWAYS had laws against murder and reckless conduct, those are the only legitimate regulation of firearms .
Any body who believes laws preventing felons or crazies from legally buying guns will have the slightest effect on some one bent on murder is a freaking idiot.
-
Amen, and bravo sir!
-
So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.
-
Then they did it, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED, which brings into question why we needed permits in the first place.
We shouldn't.
Permits (of most all types) were developed as basically another form of taxation....just another way to suck money and foster control.
A hundred and fifty years ago, if you owned your land, you could do most anything. Now you need to get permission and pay a fee for a 'permit' just to build a porch or storage building on your own property.
Folks, it's always been about control...... then it turned into a way to make money as an added benefit.
-
Until the "National Firearms Act" went into effect in 1934 EVERY BODY was allowed to own guns.
When Frank James was released from prison the Warden returned his pistols as he left the prison.
We have ALWAYS had laws against murder and reckless conduct, those are the only legitimate regulation of firearms .
Any body who believes laws preventing felons or crazies from legally buying guns will have the slightest effect on some one bent on murder is a freaking idiot.
^^^^^THIS!!!!!^^^^^
And what's more, once a person has served their sentence, ALL rights damned well ought to be restored, or don't let em out!!!..
Debt paid! Carry on!.. (just a peeve of mine.)
As for "mandatory training", if the State is given the power to "Permit" an activity, it has the right to regulate it's practice.. Under that construct, I don't think it's unreasonable that the "permitted activity" be contingent upon demonstration of competence to do so in a manner as to not infringe upon the "life, liberty, pursuit of" other citizens.
I will always object to a Psych Test in order to obtain whatever Permit is being begged of the State.. The supposed "professionals" that are looked to to diagnose such a condition aren't even able to come up with an objective definition of what the boundaries are, before the vindictive bureaucrat or Pol even gets a chance to twist it to his own advantage..
Labeling someone as "crazy" is as potentially harmful as going ahead and shooting somebody in the first place..
Rant..
So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. Tom more than most..
This was just his day to get a nut.. ;D
(The only likely injury sustained by Toms activities are to my feelings and his credibility, neither of which are guaranteed under the Constitution..
Tom knows he can kiss my ass. If he wants to hear me say it, he'll let me know.. ;))
We shouldn't.
Permits (of most all types) were developed as basically another form of taxation....just another way to suck money and foster control.
A hundred and fifty years ago, if you owned your land, you could do most anything. Now you need to get permission and pay a fee for a 'permit' just to build a porch or storage building on your own property.
Folks, it's always been about control...... then it turned into a way to make money as an added benefit.
The Firearms Permit thing (in the US) came about as a method to skirt the law laid down during/after Reconstruction, used against Blacks? Is that correct?
Alot of things from post-Reconstruction still need to be "reconstructed".. Our great victory in Alabama last year was the ability to get a 5 Year Permit instead of one year at a time.. Woohoo..
I'm thankful to have won, but it's still a slap at Liberty..
-
How about a Bill of Rights refresher?
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The First Amendment only restricts Congress, not the Executive or Judicial Branches. People voting with their dollars to not support opinions they don't agree with is NOT a First Amendment issue. The government restricting the right by enacting laws is an issue.
The Second Amendment is much stronger language limiting the authority of all three branches of the government.
The way these two amendments are treated is upside down.
-
So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.
JN, I'm lost on this one....Unless Tom has become a mod with power of deletion, he hasn't trounced on anyones 1A rights.
(even then, that would be a stretch with user agreements)
Disagreements which Tom & I have had hasn't and doesn't step on my rights nor his. They are just disagreements.
-
So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.
You sound like a typical liberal BS artist.
Since when does Metcalf, or anybody else, have a right to infringe on my gun rights , which are protected by the US Constitution ?
If that is not a right then I am trouncing nothing except the stupidity of some one who lacks critical thinking skills.
Shall not be infringed means just that, and any one who can not accept that should move to Chicago since their stupid ideas are working so well there .
The fact that JNevis, a retired federal employee, feels the only method to refute my comment is by attacking me, instead of my statement tends to prove the truth of that statement.
Just to rub some peoples nose in their mess I'll post this link.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
Oct. 21, 2013
By JOSH MARGOLIN
Kenya Civilians who had been hiding during a gun battle hold their hands in the air as a precautionary measure before being searched by armed police leading them to safety, inside the Westgate Mall, Sept. 21, 2013.
Jonathan Kalan/AP Photo
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
-
^^^^^THIS!!!!!^^^^^
The Firearms Permit thing (in the US) came about as a method to skirt the law laid down during/after Reconstruction, used against Blacks? Is that correct?
Alot of things from post-Reconstruction still need to be "reconstructed".. Our great victory in Alabama last year was the ability to get a 5 Year Permit instead of one year at a time.. Woohoo..
I'm thankful to have won, but it's still a slap at Liberty..
I don't know about "permits" in and of themselves being because of that, but many/most gun laws (which may have eventually led to permits) were exactly made to prevent former slaves from owning guns.
-
ALL gun laws prior to the Clinton AWB were aimed at keeping blacks helpless and defenseless.
-
From the Shooting Wire:
Between The Berms: Paging Uncle Ted
So, the internet began blowing up, again, with cries of betrayal and boycott. It seems that yet another gun writer has weighed in with his considerable wealth of knowledge, years of experience and expertise to help those less knowledgeable better understand the constitution's second amendment.
Previously it was hunting expert Jim Zumbo who set us all straight on the AR-15, the modern sporting rifle...the black gun.
Now it's gun expert Dick Metcalf whose recent Backstop column in the December issue of Guns & Ammo helps us understand that the second amendment was intended to be heavily regulated, and that onerous regulations are not infringements. Instead they simply reflect the wishes of the founding fathers.
Oddly enough this pro-regulation stance hasn't been a hit with readers, and instead of accepting the position of one of Intermedia Outdoors' - the publisher of Guns & Ammo - most respected contributors, they've taken a decidedly different position as evidenced by these few examples of comments left online in the many blogs and forums covering this story.
Time to cancel your subscriptions, Guns and Ammo Editor Dick Metcalf has penned an editorial for their December issue that will be leaving fans in shock; he's supporting gun control. - Michelle Wright
I've enjoyed G&A for decades, but no more. Until Metcalf issues and apology, retraction, and notice of retirement, I'll never so much as LOOK AT G&A again. - TSgt B
Please cancel my subscription and refund the balance of my payment as soon as feasible. This is in direct response to Dick Metcalf's editorial in the latest issue of Guns & Ammo regarding regulation versus infringement. I refuse to support/read a magazine that espouses views that are contrary to the 2nd Amendment. - Mike
And as many online commenters have suggested, it does indeed appear we need to call in Uncle Ted to set a certain somebody down for a heart-to-heart.
They refer to this kind of tête-à-tête as a "come to Jesus" meeting, but in our case, when it comes to issues of guns and giving away our rights, it more a "come to Ted" meeting.
Whether or not Metcalf seeks redemption at the hands of Ted Nugent, as Zumbo did, remains to be seen and probably depends on the extent of the damage done. Should Guns & Ammo find its advertisers spending their ad dollars elsewhere, as was the case when the former editor of Recoil gave readers his expert opinion on who should own guns, then Metcalf could take on the title of "former" as well.
If the organizations - and by extension their sponsors - that frequent the shooting ranges of PASA Park located on the Metcalf family farm in Southern Illinois decide to move their major competitions elsewhere, then a pilgrimage to Uncle Ted's ranch might be a forgone conclusion.
It's hard to tell exactly why Dick Metcalf chose to write what he did. Even harder still to understand his embracing of regulations as both needed and fundamentally the cornerstone of the framers' intent when they wrote "a well regulated militia."
If you have not already seen it you can pick up a copy of Guns & Ammo or find a copy of the column posted here online.
After reading it, and re-reading it, I find I agree with Student of the Gun's Paul Markel who wrote that Metcalf may suffer from "reasonableness disease."
Reasonableness disease is an affliction which attacks those who accept the main stream media's assertion that not accepting reasonable gun control is unreasonable. And most people don't want to be seen as unreasonable, so the only solution is be more reasonable and accept those "reasonable" gun control restrictions.
After all, they're simply regulations and not infringements, right?
What I find troubling in the column is the rather foolish notion that the first amendment is regulated as much as the second amendment. Metcalf implies that through the hackneyed reference of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Prohibiting one free citizen from exercising their first amendment right for the sole purpose of doing physical harm to another free citizen is, well, civilized. If only there were a similar restriction on using a firearm for the sole purpose of doing harm to another. If only....
Of course, if the theater is (what's the term, oh yes) on fire, then one's right to yell fire isn't prohibited. Just like using a firearm for self defense, I suppose.
But what Metcalf and many others seem to forget when equating first amendment restrictions with second amendment restrictions is that there is no required training period imposed on citizens before they're allowed to use the First. There also isn't a background check of any sort. This should be particularly troubling to many considering the pen is mightier than the sword, which in turn makes the computer mighty enough to bring down governments (just ask the Egyptians).
So imagine the reaction Metcalf would get if he advocated the same regulations (which of course aren't restrictions) for the exercise of the first amendment that he's quite happy to support - as evidenced by his column - for exercise of the second.
I'm guessing it would be a reaction not easily measured but could quite quickly cure one of the reasonableness disease.
- Paul Erhardt, Editor, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network
Got shooting sports news? Send us an email at info@shootingwire.com.
-
G&A hasn't been the same since Bob Peterson sold it. He was a true gun owner and hunter, and NEVER would have allowed such a stupid rant published in anything that had his name attached to it.
-
He definitely doesn't get it. I wonder what he thinks of a "REGULATED" clock?
The term "Well Regulated" as defined in the Bill Of Rights means, "To be in working order". He most certainly doesn't get it.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
-
The term "Well Regulated" as defined in the Bill Of Rights means, "To be in working order". He most certainly doesn't get it.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
That was why New Englanders at one time were required to bring their guns to church.
It was the one time the Militia commander could be sure of finding every one together for rifle inspections.
-
Didn't Colt, or someone make a single action called "The Regulator"? And wasn't the bunch that went after Billy The Kid called "The Regulators"? Didn't Metcalf go to school, or watch westerns when he was a kid??
-
Gone.
“Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended (http://www.exurbanleague.com/misfires/2013/11/06/mother-mercy-can-end-metcalf/).”
... and dontcha come back no more, no more. Hit the road, Dick, and dontcha come back no more.
-
According to TTAG Dick Metcaff has been fired and the guy who is in charge has resigned. Of course in his case he said he was leaving at the end of December anyway. There was also a very contrite apoligy to everybody.
-
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/breaking-guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-for-2a-betrayal/
-
This guy can join Zumbo at the retirement home for afternoon shuffle board. Both committed career suicide. They deserve each other. As far as I'm concerned, Metcalf is just another liberal anti gunner from Illinois. God knows there is enough of them.
-
This guy can join Zumbo at the retirement home for afternoon shuffle board. Both committed career suicide. They deserve each other. As far as I'm concerned, Metcalf is just another liberal anti gunner from Illinois. God knows there is enough of them.
Not exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo#Return_to_Television
Return to Television
According to Jim Zumbo's website, fellow hunter Ted Nugent came to Zumbo's rescue. After the blog incident, Zumbo flew to Nugent's ranch in Texas to learn about the so-called black rifles. Nugent wanted to use Zumbo's ignorance as an example of an avid hunter who was unaware of the popularity and uses of these firearms. Zumbo went on to work with the Second Amendment Foundation.
On July 3, 2007 Zumbo's TV show went back on the air, and some sponsors began coming back. Over the last few years Zumbo has been focusing on wounded soldiers who suffered severe injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking them on all-expense paid hunting trips, with more planned in the future.
In August 2008, Zumbo was appointed as national spokesman for the Outdoor Recreation Heritage Fund, which is a branch of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
-
Tom Gresham has announced that he will interview Metcalf during his show this coming Sunday.
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/bonus-podcast-gns-ammo-s-dick-metcalf (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/bonus-podcast-gns-ammo-s-dick-metcalf)
-
David Codreas article on it..
http://www.examiner.com/article/firing-of-guns-ammo-editor-highlights-inconsistent-gun-owner-reactions?CID=examiner_alerts_article
-
Metcalf responds:
Metcalf's response
Postby gunman42782 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:13 am
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 (http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228219), 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
To me, it sounds like he is wanting to take the moral high ground here, like everyone but him is wrong. He raises some valid points, as I have felt the CCW laws are the same as registering gun owners. But, how could anybody in their right mind not know the storm his words would cause is beyond me. Oh well, he will have plenty of time to think it over!
-
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
OK, Dickie, let me net it out for you, you self-serving smarmy SOB:
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? - Yes and Yes, for the simple precedent Tom stated earlier in this thread (Frank James - a violent repeat offender BTW - was handed his weapons on his way out of the prison). Also, society has ways of dealing with VRO's, even if the .gov can't figure it out.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional? - YES
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway? - Yes, only because the .gov has more men and guns than I do, so I stay out of prison.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself? - NO you limp-disk Dick. It is the .gov which is violating the code of conduct written to control its conduct, not mine.
Clear now?
Sheesh, what a sanctimonious POS that Metcalf is. Clearly he does not think he did anything wrong, like the follow-on "apology" that Jerry Tsai wrote on FB after his Recoil gaffe.
Hey Jerry Tsai, come and pick up your clueless buddy Dick for a stimulating round of shuffleboard in your well-deserved retirement. and let's see if we can get the NRA wanker Jackson to accompany you both!!! >:(
-
Thanks for saving some typing. Path....... I agree.
And furthermore:
Metcalf wrote:
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.
I would remind poor Dick that the very "innumerable federal, state, and local statutes" that serve to "regulate" firearms ownership and usage which he uses as his evidence are, from a basic standpoint of 2nd Amendment purists, also unconstitutional.
-
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?
In 1791 a gun control law was passed. It said, (in summary), 'Keep your fooking goobermint hands off.'
Everything since has been and is, political bullshit.
Thanks for saving some typing. Path....... I agree.
Yep.
-
I don't see his point?
He opened a controversial discussion, stated his side of the controversy and lost the debate.
The system works.
-
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?
So if there are "convicted violent repeat criminals" that are deemed too dangerous to have guns then why aren't they in jail? Same goes for the mentally ill.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
I am no constitutional lawyer but yeah, pretty much.
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Yes
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
WTF? ??? I don't get that. Blame the victim I guess?
-
Path and Kmitch both also saved me a bunch of typing as well.
-
Reality, gun control is never going to go away and every single person on this forum knows and even agrees with some of it. ( the use of guns) it would be great if we could just have gun safety rules as laws.
-
Here's the "reality" of the gun control debate .
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation
National Rifle Association
2,748,967 likes · 155,990 talking about this
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Violence-Policy-Center/284334690298
Violence Policy Center
20,570 likes · 343 talking about this
-
Reality, gun control is never going to go away and every single person on this forum knows and even agrees with some of it. ( the use of guns) it would be great if we could just have gun safety rules as laws.
Just make Gun Safety a mandatory course in Middle School.
First term mandatory. Safety rules and procedures for safe handling with training on safe handling of various types of firearms.
Additional terms electives. Range time and marksmanship work.
-
Won't help, the prob is people( both idiots and criminals) not guns, remember half the population is bellow average iq.
-
TAB has started his campaign for President of the Brady Campaign. Pretty broad brush strokes in your assertions concerning "everybody" >:(
-
Won't help, the prob is people( both idiots and criminals) not guns, remember half the population is bellow average iq.
TAB has started his campaign for President of the Brady Campaign. Pretty broad brush strokes in your assertions concerning "everybody" >:(
He didn't say anything that isn't completely accurate .
In fact it's probably the most concise, coherent comment he's ever posted on the subject.
I don't see what your problem is with it ?
-
TAB and Tom,
What gun control measure does everybody support?
-
One ragged hole is gun control, Mike!
The rest is people control...
-
how about not shooting a gun up in the air.
-
how about not shooting a gun up in the air.
I agree from the gun safety part of your statement.........
But......
Not to sound like an ass, but from someone who has been hit by a car, I'd rather take my chances with a random bullet fired in the air than an idiot or drunk behind the wheel of a car..... and yes, as far as idiots and their actions go, the two are comparable acts.
You can't regulate idiocy because it puts unnecessary controls on 'normal' folks.....you can only deal with it.
-
how about not shooting a gun up in the air.
That is not gun control. That is comparable to not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
-
TAB has started his campaign for President of the Brady Campaign. Pretty broad brush strokes in your assertions concerning "everybody" >:(
TAB and Tom,
What gun control measure does everybody support?
how about not shooting a gun up in the air.
That is not gun control. That is comparable to not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Now I'm totally puzzled about your earlier comment . ???
Shooting in the air is reckless conduct, irresponsible behavior, and just plain stupid.
Stupid is still legal, but the other 2 have always been punishable.
It goes back to my earlier post, Murder, assault, and negligent conduct have always been against the law, that's all that's needed IF you have Judges that actually punish criminals.
-
Now I'm totally puzzled about your earlier comment . ???
Shooting in the air is reckless conduct, irresponsible behavior, and just plain stupid.
Stupid is still legal, but the other 2 have always been punishable.
It goes back to my earlier post, Murder, assault, and negligent conduct have always been against the law, that's all that's needed IF you have Judges that actually punish criminals.
Tom,
Shooting into the air is not a firearm issue. It is reckless endangerment of human life and property. Reckless endangerment is illegal, so why do we need special firearms laws that can be interpreted to specify something with arms? The actual act of falsely shouting fire in a crowded venue is not illegal, but the reckless endangerment it causes is. The reason we know so much about this particular phrase is that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that my free speech protections end when I endanger someone else's basic rights.
Over the years we have become conditioned to believe that we need everything very specific and black and white. The Founding Fathers did not craft our Constitution in this manor, because they wanted to protect us from the stupid concept that it was only as things were the day the document was signed. That is why we can correctly say that modern arms are protected, as opposed to only flint lock firearms are protected.
-
Tom,
#1 Shooting into the air is not a firearm issue. It is reckless endangerment of human life and property. Reckless endangerment is illegal, so why do we need special firearms laws that can be interpreted to specify something with arms? The actual act of falsely shouting fire in a crowded venue is not illegal, but the reckless endangerment it causes is. The reason we know so much about this particular phrase is that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that my free speech protections end when I endanger someone else's basic rights.
Over the years we have become conditioned to believe that we need everything very specific and black and white. The Founding Fathers did not craft our Constitution in this manor, because they wanted to protect us from the stupid concept that it was only as things were the day the document was signed. That is why #2 we can correctly say that modern arms are protected, as opposed to only flint lock firearms are protected.
We are in complete agreement on number 1, on number 2 another thing to consider is that when we today consider the "arms" mentioned in the 2A we think only of pistols, rifles, and shot guns.
That is NOT what the Founders intended or said.
The 2nd A DOES NOT PROTECT "GUN RIGHTS".
The 2A specificlly states "ARMS" NOT "GUNS".
"Arms", as used includes all weapons from slings to ICBM's.
The original intent was every thing from bayonets to the latest naval cannon which were quite often placed on privately owned merchant ships.
The possession of plutonium is highly restricted so nukes lack the critical component, but as written the 2A protects everything else .
The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in the Miller decision by finding that Miller's sawed off shotgun had no "military utility".
-
I'm trying to figure out where I felt we went different directions Tom, because your latest post is right along my train of thought. I will not try to hard to figure it out, and accept we are on the same page. TAB, however ... NOT SO MUCH.
-
I'm trying to figure out where I felt we went different directions Tom, because your latest post is right along my train of thought. I will not try to hard to figure it out, and accept we are on the same page. TAB, however ... NOT SO MUCH.
The confusion started when Tom responded to your comment about TAB running for BC Pres.
He thought you were referring to TAB's comment about half the folks being below average intelligence when you were actually referring to TAB's comment about everyone here supporting some kind of gun control.
Tom agreed with TAB's half the people comment but he thought you were disagreeing with it.
You disagreed with TAB's comment about everyone wanting some kind of gun control and you thought Tom was agreeing to it.
Simple ;D ;D ;D
-
Now I really need a drink!
Here's a quick tip for future reference:
If you notice that I am pissed with TAB it is always better than duck and cover than jump in the middle ;)
-
or you know maybe i was trying to earn money to feed my family... Gun control is not just about who owns what, its also about how you use it.
-
Bold talk from a pumkin headed turkey who spent too many years in the people's republic of Kalifornia, sometimes referred to as the land of fruits and nuts.
-
It's the granola state --- fruits, nuts, and flakes.
-
Did anyone listen to the Metcalf / Gresham interview? I was working.
-
Did anyone listen to the Metcalf / Gresham interview? I was working.
Yeah, I did. You can go to his website and still listen to it. To Metcalfs credit, all the mainstream media was after him for an interview, but he chose Tom Gresham. He was doing a lot of back pedaling, and claimed he never meant this and never meant that, but I still say the article speaks for itself.
-
To me, it's not so much that Metcalf wrote something that seemingly lends legitimacy to the antis. In a discussion (as in "ongoing in our nation") one has to delve into subjects sometimes where it's easy to say something that could be interpreted one way or the other. We are all zero tolerance when it comes to infringement, but sometimes someone has an idea and it doesn't turn out right.
My gripe with him, and why he needed to go in my opinion, is that he makes his living from the world of guns and shooting. Our participation, interest in products he may review or subjects he writes about, and our dedication to 2A is what keeps him in dollars.
Don't kick the golden goose, ***hole.
Having said that, his editors let his article slip through to publication and you have to wonder about that too.
-
I agree. All of this makes no sense to me. With all there is to write about in the world of guns, why choose something so inflammatory? It's just dumb.
Another thing is American gun owners are completely fed up. They've had it up to their eyeballs with the anti's. The recent stupidity in Colorado proves that. 2 more Democrats are out on their asses because of it. Gun owners in this country are sick of "spirited debates" over the Second Amendment. As was said, Americans want to enjoy their gun rights, not debate them. We've been debating gun rights for the last half century. Most of us older guys are sick and tired of it. Yes, we must keep up with Second Amendment issues, but not every time we pick up a gun magazine. I want to read about GUNS, not every swinging dick that wants to take them away, or thinks that "regulation" is necessary and prudent.
To me Metcalf was poking a stick at an already angry dog. He got bit, and got bit good and hard. He should have known better. Trying to convince gun owners in a gun magazine, that "regulation" of guaranteed firearm rights is necessary, is just plain stupid. It seems there has been an alarming increase of this kind of crap lately. First was the Zumbo incident. Then there was the Jerry Tsai / Recoil Magazine incident. Now we've got Metcalf sticking his foot in his mouth. These guys really need to think before they write crap like this. And the editors who print this nonsense had better wake up. Now we have 2 more guys in the gun world on the unemployment line as a direct result. All because of the lack of simple common sense, and not thinking things out. They deserved what they got. One can only hope others in their field will wake up and take notice........Quickly!
-
I am surprised that journalists and their editors can not smell the wind. Dick Metcalf, Jim Zumbro, etal, are a reflection of the general public who have lost sight of our freedoms, and what the full intention of the Second Amendment. It isn't just the younger generations who have been dumbed down.
Dick Metcalf is just the latest of firearms journalists who believes that we are too extreme and in your face. He is expressing that in his we must all compromise position. Sadly, Dick has forgotten what happens when you compromise. To steal a line from Air Force One, "If you give a mouse a cookie, he will ask for a glass of milk."
I will deal with what I consider the lack of wisdom from Dick and his thinking. However, the bigger picture that is being missed by most, but was touched on here by Jaybet: What are the editors and publishers thinking when they let a writer put this in their publications. It is not censorship for Dick Metcalf to be held to the principles of the contract he has signed. This is where I say that I will deal with Dick and his thinking, but what about the publishing house that openly promoted his train of thought?
-
G&A listened to their readers and advertisers and then made a business decision... their response being appropriate from a business perspective.
I have been reading G&A for several years and will continue to subscribe because I enjoy it and learn something from each issue - it benefits me. Do I believe, or agree, with everything I read in the magazine? Of course not - I always reserve the right to consider the material in a critical manner. I also try to differentiate between the presentation of fact (understood to be the writer's version of it) and opinion. Metcalf's article, as misguided as it is, is an opinion piece. I think he's wrong, I certainly question the basis for his opinion, and I find suspicious an editorial vetting process that would allow such a piece to proceed to publication unaltered.
Should we be concerned, however, that as an industry and consumer community, we are creating an environment where fear of excommunication will erode the expression of differing opinions? Is it in our best interest to only allow reiterations of the accepted doctrine and disallow any utterance of dissent? We understand, from a historical perspective, that "compromise" on the 2A has always been one-sided - we always give while the other side always takes. Should these battle scars, and the fear of reprisal from our own brotherhood, silence those who have their own ideas?
Each of us participates in this forum and expresses opinions without fear of disenfranchisement. As long as we keep our comments within the boundaries of propriety, we debate about issues of common concern and - in my opinion - are the better for it. One of our greatest fears should be that we will miss an opportunity to learn something because we refuse to permit others to disagree with us.
-
Should we be concerned, however, that as an industry and consumer community, we are creating an environment where fear of excommunication will erode the expression of differing opinions? Is it in our best interest to only allow reiterations of the accepted doctrine and disallow any utterance of dissent? We understand, from a historical perspective, that "compromise" on the 2A has always been one-sided - we always give while the other side always takes. Should these battle scars, and the fear of reprisal from our own brotherhood, silence those who have their own ideas?
Each of us participates in this forum and expresses opinions without fear of disenfranchisement. As long as we keep our comments within the boundaries of propriety, we debate about issues of common concern and - in my opinion - are the better for it. One of our greatest fears should be that we will miss an opportunity to learn something because we refuse to permit others to disagree with us.
To me, there is a difference in debating 9mm vs 45, revo vs semiauto and Chevy vs Ford.
If someone wants to educate me on how my 2A views aren't boisterous enough, I'm all ears.
If someone wants to try and bullshit me that any further infringement is a good thing and needs to be discussed, they can wrap it in barb wire and shove it up their ass.
-
I listened to the Metcalf / Gresham interview via. podcast from Gresham's "Gun Talk" website. Metcalf just doesn't get it. Never has. I think a lot of that has to do with his living in Illinois. He mentioned how they, (gun owners), had to "compromise" to get their concealed carry law passed. Everything in that state is "give and take". The gun owners give, and the state takes away. I think Metcalf has grown numb to the term guaranteed rights. Either way stick a fork in him......He's done.
-
As to the editors that let this through, I have a (conspiracy) theory. The main guy already knew he was on his way out. Maybe, he knew Dick better than most of the public and wanted to expose him. By letting the article through, the editor fell on his sword while destroying Dick. It may not be true, but it seems like a somewhat viable option and gives the editor a chance at some respect.
For the record, I have read few if any G&A.
-
As to the editors that let this through, I have a (conspiracy) theory. The main guy already knew he was on his way out. Maybe, he knew Dick better than most of the public and wanted to expose him. By letting the article through, the editor fell on his sword while destroying Dick. It may not be true, but it seems like a somewhat viable option and gives the editor a chance at some respect.
Interesting, but I think it's simply a case of Dumb & Dumber.