You are not logged in. Log In |  Register New Search
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  
advanced

Posted:  11/5/2013 10:03 AM #39575
CTD Blogger


Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 10828
Last Post: 8/20/2014
Subject: Guns & Ammo Editor Pens Editorial Supporting Gun Control
From pjmedia.com: In the December issue of Guns & Ammo, editor Dick Metcalf uses his Backstop column to argue that the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment can be infringed. "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. Metcalf claims there is a large difference between regulation,  (well-regulated militia) and a direct infringement of civil rights, he has made this distinction the premise of his claims.

“I bring this up,” he wrote, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The full editorial is posted at Free Patriot. It comes out in the next issue.

Reaction on G&A’s forum is running strong against Metcalf so far, with many of the magazine’s readers pointing out that Metcalf has badly misunderstood the phrase “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment, and ignored “shall not be infringed” at the end of it.

“Well-regulated” in the late 18th Century, when the Second Amendment was written, is not referring to government regulating anything. It meant well armed, well organized or well drilled.

“Shall not be infringed” should speak for itself.

 



Posted:  11/5/2013 11:10 AM #39580
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
I am also a member of the G&A Forum (BTW, there are NO operational issues there -it all works just fine-HINT) and there is rage and disappointment aplenty with Metcalf's defection to the Dark Side. Needless to say, other firearms forums as ablaze with this as well.

Posted:  11/5/2013 2:55 PM #39583
hot_lips_banana


Joined: 6/28/2005
Posts: 1336
Last Post: 8/8/2014
I spoke to a friend of Metcalf's on the phone this morning to get the inside scoop. What Metcalf was saying is that gun ownership should be regulated and that gun owners should get training. Not everyone should be able to own a firearm. For example- should a violent felon own a firearm?(My quotes- not Metcalf's, or his friend's quotes. I am paraphrasing what I took away from my conversation this morning.)
There are some in the firearms community who believe that EVERYONE should be able to own a firearm and there are some in the firearms community that believe some people shouldn't own a firearm. 
horselips- what do you think? Is firearms ownership white/black? Or is there a gray area?

CTD Forum Moderator

Posted:  11/6/2013 12:45 AM #39584
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
Metcalf, obviously, felt that he, as a recognized spokesman for the gun culture was somehow obligated to write some sort of 'responsible' defense of the shooting community from the attacks of the antis, who mistakenly insist we gun nuts object to background checks and restrictions on the mentally ill. I don't know anyone in the firearms community who believes EVERYONE should possess firearms. Nobody. Not one person. In his zeal to appear 'reasonable' to people who really couldn't care less, Metcalf quoted the 2nd Amendment, then misapplied a 21st century interpretation to an 18th century phrase and screwed up badly. Poor Dick was in way over his head (a senior moment?)and came out looking like, well, a dick. The impression you took away from your conversation with Metcalf's friend was nonsense - nothing more than spin and damage control. Should gun owners "get training?" Probably, why not? But NOT as a condition of ownership. If there's anything the government wants us to know before we're old enough to buy guns, make it part of the school curriculum. Schools already teach us how to drive and have sex, why not gun control laws and safety as well? Kids need a break from condoms and bananas (no offense). As for gray areas about gun ownership eligibility, I'm one of those that has wondered, if somebody's criminal record or mental ill-health marks him as so dangerous that he should be denied the possession of firearms, should he even be free and loose to begin with?

Posted:  11/6/2013 9:17 PM #39594
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
Breaking News! Dick Metcalf has been fired, and the damn fool editor that published his rant - Jim Bequette - is also being replaced by Eric Poole.

Posted:  11/8/2013 10:00 AM #39613
hot_lips_banana


Joined: 6/28/2005
Posts: 1336
Last Post: 8/8/2014
Metcalf responds. I found this on TheOutdoorwire.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 (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
CTD Forum Moderator

Posted:  11/8/2013 3:18 PM #39615
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
What a PUTZ Metcalf is. His appeal to freedom of speech is an abuse of patriotism and is, in his case, the last refuge of a scoundrel. And then he tries to turn the tables on us and question our values. Pay attention Dick(head), we're not on trial here, YOU are. Your petulant response should have focused clearly and completely on exactly how far you would be willing to extend regulation of the 2nd Amendment, and not one word wasted on the obvious - that it has already been regulated, and already way too much. Dick(head) conceals far more than he reveals. So, we still don't have any idea how far down the slippery slope of totalitarianism Mr. Metcalf has decided to slide, and mercifully, WE DON'T CARE.

Jump to:
 
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  

CheaperThanDirtForums