Dick Metcalf now supports gun Control

[gunman42782]

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. 

[jaybet]

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.

[billt]

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!

[MikeBjerum]

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?

[JLawson]

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.

[Sponsor]

[kmitch200]

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. 

[billt]

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.

[mkm]

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.

[billt]

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.