Metcalf went on a rant in Guns&Ammo Dec 2013 issue about needing gun regulations. Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control | The Truth About Guns After a flurry of forum chatter, G&A dropped Metcalf immediately, and the editor in charge is departing early. Guns & Ammo Official Response to Metcalf Article | The Bang Switch
Remember the NRA doing a lot of compramizing back in the 60's .. My thoughts then was that the gun grabbers would not stop. 1968 was touted as the end of gun control efforts. NOT !
Yes we have a long list of compromise, accepting just one more gun grabber law. 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, And then all the state laws. I would be happy for gun laws to return to 1933. We sure don't need gun writers spouting off about more regulations.
The standard used by the courts at one time had been was the weapon of military use? Yes equaled protected..
I've been reading about Mr Metcalf in the last few days. Here's a summation of my thoughts on the subject: Getting rid of Metcalf is NOT infringing upon his 1st amendment rights; he's free to say whatever he likes, but G&A doesn't have to print it because they are a private company doing business. Getting rid of Metcalf may not be enough for me- the editor gave a weak "I'm sorry" and "let's for it happened" letter. He had to approve the article. If it was truly allowed in the magazine to spark a debate, there were so many better ways to do it. He's trying to infiltrate the magazine. People that buy G&A with their hard earned money want to read about guns. They don't want to have to read about more crap about how what we shouldn't be allowed to do. We get enough of that everywhere else. This year especially. The argument about limiting weapons mainly draws upon the idea from, and of, limiting other amendments. I.E. you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. This is BS, as you most definitely are allowed, but you have to face the consequences for what you have done. This is regarded as POST USAGE laws. What they are doing to the second amendment would be considered PRIOR RESTRAINT, as they are keeping you from doing something before it happens. Quite a large difference in legal standing. Thought police anyone? To people saying that we are giving the Anti's ripe material to make fun of us for turning on "one of our own", I say to hell with you. They can make a media circus out of anything. The fact that they do means they have little intelligent ammunition to fire at us at the moment and have to resort to the lowest common denominator. How do I feel about Mr. Metcalf? To tell you the truth, I never bothered to read ANY of his articles prior to reading his LAST article. When I bought an issue of G&A, I wanted to read about guns, not what some guy thought abut this or that. I can get that anywhere. So he has an opinion different than mine, and I don't really care much about that as everybody has their own opinions. It was just the fact that he tried to push a "let's go along to get along" agenda, and that he used G&A to do it.
Well let's remember that G&A has always had a weak pro-gun stance as far back as the 1960's when they they published something quite similar to what Metcalf wrote (just saw the 1960's issue and read the article when sorting out my mags and boxing them up again) but don't remember anyone getting fired back then for saying we need to restrict OUR RIGHTS to keep the fools and mouth breathers happy. Times change, gun owners are (very, very slowly) starting to wake up as every "compromise" loses us ground. Incremental-ism: ask for a mile, "compromise" and "only" take three feet. You'll get your mile sooner or later. Go read the old AMERICAN RIFLEMAN mags from the 1920's, SAME BILLS being introduced then as now!! I kid you not. Gun owners need to get their collective heads out of their rears and start DEMANDING their local, county, state, federal thugs...er...servants serve THE PEOPLE, and not the moneyed scum. Either that or get recalled and voted out of office as in Colorado! A few more recalls and scum being kicked out would do wonders. Note that Commie-fornia now has flying gun squad raiders who come and kick down doors to steal firearms from anyone who the STATE judges a "threat". No charges filed, no crimes committed, no court case, just your door being kicked down and YOUR gun stolen for no reason. Also note that NO GANGS have had their guns stolen, ONLY law abiding citizens who registered their guns when buying guns or moving to Commie-ville and were stupid enough to sign the guns in to the state.
Yes, I think 1994 AWB was the turning point for gun owners. That was too big a step and the statists got cocky with success. From then on an increasing number of gun owners resized the scope and goal if the game. Then I think John Ross' book Unintended Consequences and Boston Tea Party's Gun Bible and others galvanized the thinking about possible confrontation, confiscation and resistance. Now we have the Appleseed Project and energized gun forums. The magazines are no longer the dominate voice for gun owners.
Your statement is accurate, but it's not really relevant because at that time the NRA was not as much a political lobbying group as it was a sportsman's/training organization. The NRA did not get sincere about politics until much later. Anyway, about Metcalf, I think he meant well and I do not believe he is/was Michael Bloomberg's secret stooge, but Metcalf vastly underestimated the sentiments of the average gun owner and in doing so flushed his credibility with them right down the potty. Every single gun owner I know, to a man, including NRA, agrees that there absolutely must be some mechanism in place to keep firearms from people who should not have them. The problem with that belief is that there is a whole lotta space between what gun owners and gun grabbers think that "mechanism" should be. Failing to understand this difference is the irreversible F-up that ended Metcalf's employment. Specifically, gun owners are rightfully suspicious of "reasonable regulations." For example, if universal background checks were just that --verifying who you are selling to is not a nut-- then many if not most gun owners would go along with it. But that's not all there is to it and it will not end there. In spite of all the innocent proclamations that it's "for the children," gun owners simply do not believe that the information will not be used for any other purpose, ie, a backdoor registry. The same case could be made for carry permits. They (gun grabbers) will try to cover all these nefarious plots with the pretty wrapping of "common sense gun laws." Metcalf took the bait. That's why he's out. If Metcalf were an unknown writer applying for a job at a pro-gun publication and submitted that piece as a writing sample, he would have never even come close to getting an interview, much less the position. If he applied to a Bloomberg-ish publication, he might get some attention. There, my fellow bitter clingers, is the problem. All said, I don't think Metcalf is a horrible person, or even a traitor. I think he simply lacks knowledge of his readership and the judgement to write for a firearms magazine.
I agree that these people are not "bad" , it's just that they believe that something has to be done and they think there has to be some compromise.. The problem is that there always must be more compromising and we seem to always be on the losing end.. The point comes when there can be no further compromise and in my opinion it has passed some time ago..
Paraphrased" the Right to bare arms, is second in importance only to the constitution itself. It is the people's teeth" George Washington. there can be no compromise with the 2nd amendment.
It might be one thing if a gun writer mused that to be pragmatic we should consider what is a tolerable level of regulation, as distasteful as compromise is. But Metcalf's gaff was to fully embrace the idea of regulation as if 20,000 gun laws do not yet meet his standard for regulation. And held up the extreme example of IL CCW training as the goal. And Metcalf totally avoided the historical fact the gun laws do not prevent stupid or criminal or mentally ill people from getting and using guns to hurt others. Or explain exactly how pre-1934 was so much more dangerous, say in urban areas, than they are now with the strictest gun laws. In doing all this he adopted the gun grabbers frame of reference: gun laws equal increased safety and therefore more is better. Which we know to be disingenuous bunk.
Unfortunataly there are those that believe that to solve all problems that face us we must compromise. Seems they are all on the right... Proof that compromise do's not work is in all the gun laws that have been passed, or that all politicians are complete incompanents .. Oops, did I just let it all out ??
I dunno, but you use the word "that" quite a lot. It's kind of like using this emote for no reason at all...
That may be true.. But the truth as I percieve it is still there. I am allways willing to listen and to learn.
