Metcalf is crying again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yo Mama

Yo Mama

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,230
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...Gun-Companies-Support-Gun-Control-Authors-Too

No more guns to review, no more freebies, no more flights in first class, and the NYT feels so bad for him they had to make a news story out of it.

Personally, reading both articles it's clear he still doesn't get it. If only he had more time to explain his belief in restricting rights then we all would have understood. :banghead:

If he's been exiled, why does this guy keep coming back? Go away Dick, no one is listening to you any more.
 
He obviously still doesn't get it. He also lives in Illinois which may be part of the problem.
 
When A&E and Duck Dynasty had their dust up, the general consensus was that Phil Robertson had a right to say what he said, and A&E had a right to take the action that they did. The response was loud & persuasive and the market decided the outcome. Now apparently in this case, Dick Metcalf has the right to write what he did, but G&A does not have the right to terminate him. Interestingly, there is no hue & cry from the market to reinstate him. Go figure.
 
It was kind of a cowardly move by the G&A editors. They approved the article and threw him under the bus the second there was belly aching from the public and advertisers. If the magazine's editorial policy on gun rights articles is a hardline, why did they let the article hit print at all.
 
Apples and oranges, completely different situation. Had Phil Robertson said something that did not reflect the beliefs or at least support of his audience you can rest assured that they would have run him out, free speech or not. In other words Robertson only offended those outside his core audience and thus got support from his constituency. Metcalf offended his core audience and thus got no support.
 
Last edited:
Jason_W said:
It was kind of a cowardly move by the G&A editors. They approved the article and threw him under the bus the second there was belly aching from the public and advertisers. If the magazine's editorial policy on gun rights articles is a hardline, why did they let the article hit print at all.
Click to expand...
The editor or whoever approved the article made the decision to let him go and also stepped down.
 
Which he was going to do regardless, so he could move into his new higher paying job with the company. He did it a few weeks earlier than originally planned.
 
mac66 said:
Metcalf offended his core audience and thus got no support.
Click to expand...

This^^^^

I read the article today. Seamed like it was set up to show how unyielding the pro 2nd amendment crowd is. That's the way I like it!

Don't go away mad, Dick..... Just go away.
 
I have zero sympathy for Metcalf. He isn't much of a writer IMOHO and was a relic of the old school "go along to get along" system. He hardly ever found a gun he didn't like and was just a flack for the marketing departments of various gun companies.

Nor was he a bold "truth teller" bearing hard truths. His drivel is a product, just like Duck Dynasty or Keeping Up the Kardashians. He was hardly censored; the point just came when no one wanted the crappy product he was peddling. There's no 1st amendment issue, just a hard lesson in a course called Capitalism 101.
 
I didnt read his article, but it sounds like an attempt to capture publicity that back fired. Ill reserve my judgment until I can find and read his article.
 
This is a guy who used to teach history at two of the most prestigious universities in America. But even though he taught history, he apparantly does not know history.

He speaks of compromise. Compromising with liberals is like fighting a pit bull. We compromise, and they simply strengthen their grip. Every time we relax/compromise, they take a bigger bite.

This is the history of compromise re gun control.

I'm truly sorry Mr. Metcalf has been inconvenienced where his career is concerned. I've been there. I might be there again.

But if history has shown us anything, it's shown us that where gun rights are concerned, we need to start being the pit bulls. Because the opposition has never been interested in "compromise." They want confiscation.

Metcalf knows that, and even though I'm sorry for his troubles, he deserved what he got. This is how we should treat all who don't grasp what we're up against.
 
Regardless of what people think of the article, the fact remains that after he lost his job, he was no longer in a position to promote products. With this in mind, why would a sporting goods company invest in him? He is no longer an asset to them. A public figure's only value to a corporation is the influence they have on potential customers. Pro-gun people no longer respect him, and anti-gun people are not likely to purchase gun products.
 
Dick Metcalf has the right to write what he did, but G&A does not have the right to terminate him. Interestingly, there is no hue & cry from the market to reinstate him. Go figure.
Click to expand...

they do have editors at ga who proof read and approve every article before it's accepted for final printing.if this was such a problem for ga,why did it get past editors and proof readers?is the problem with metcalf,or ga in general?boycott both
 
He said his only regret was that the article was "too short". :banghead:

Good riddance. Moron.
I hope he is forced to work a minimum wage job at Wal Mart. He had a good thing going and has no one to blame but himself for his troubles.
 
His opinions aside, his writing quality is I think typical for G&A... flattering drivel that doesn't provide any useful information about the product. I don't have a problem with his opinion on the 2A, or in how he was fired for it, but G&A is such a junk magazine these days that I am certainly not renewing my subscription.
 
One of the gun rags, might be Shotgun news but I could be mistaken on that, did an editorial on the metcalf situation and invoked Ronald Regan who said somethign like, 'What do you call a person who agrees with you 80% of the time? An ALLY, not a 20% traitor!"
Suggesting of course that Mr. Metcalf shoudl not have been so soundly shunned by the firearm community.

I thought about that for awhile and I find myself thinking:

That Regan quote may be true in and of itself, and might have applied to the gun freedom/control debate in the beginning (like in the 1960's). but getting in bed with the 20% traitors is what got us to he point of 'no more compromise' we are currently facing. We have reached the limit of tolenrance to encroachment on our freedoms, in this and other topics, and now view any further disagreement RIGHTFULLY as treason to the cause.

My thoughts anyway.

C-

P.s. edited: the source was an article and interview featuring Sen. Cornyn from Texas. But the point is the same.
 
When a publication that depends on advertising dollars for profit, the writers and editors must increase readership not cause readership to decline. The lines have been drawn between the too much/not enough gun control and advocating more control is going to cause a decline in a publication where the readers are in the "too much" camp.

Metcalf has strong opinions, I respect that and I will - as the popular quote says - defend to the death his right to express them. But I am not and will not be duty bound to pay to read them. Neither am I duty bound to support the advertisers of a publication that would print them as part of the masthead. If that makes me unforgiving and hard hearted. Perhaps the NYT can give me a by-line for my opinions on abortion, global warming and various other topics that will incense their readership. You can't build a fence with only one side.
 
At least we can be grateful there's just a little less of his misguided drivel, in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
 
If only being a gun supporter 80% of the time is ok for you, then is your spouses commitment to be faithful 80% of the time equally acceptable?

Yeah, sure.

If I'm in combat and my teammate is only 80% reliable, then it impedes my mission, and you can bet that his lapses in support will yank him in front of the command chain for counseling, reprimands, or court martial.

You can't be 80% committed. It's like the old cliche about breakfast, the hen and the pig have much differing views of their "commitment."

What we have are too many chickens. :evil:
 
Metcalf has strong opinions, I respect that and I will - as the popular quote says - defend to the death his right to express them. But I am not and will not be duty bound to pay to read them. Neither am I duty bound to support the advertisers of a publication that would print them as part of the masthead.
Click to expand...

Well said ma'am.
 
As I recall, the issue that got Metcalf in trouble was his support of state mandated training to get a CCW permit.

I've had that same discussion on here. If the state charges you a fee in exchange for "allowing" you to exercise your rights, are they rights anymore? I'd say no and I'd also say that onerous requirements keep marginally employed people and people on fixed incomes from being able to defend themselves.
On this board people have disagreed with me over that.
I don't think they're my enemies because they probably are on board with me 80% of the time. I'd rather have them with me 80% of the time than have them against me 80% of the time.

Having said that, Metcalf's position is that of an elitist. He's got several hundred dollars and sixteen hours of free time on his hands to go get a permit from IL, so he doesn't see that as an infringement. But to some of us, several hundred dollars is a month's rent or a month's grocery budget. You should never have to choose between feeding your kids and your ability to protect them.

So he lost his job. And he deserved it. I'm not going to line up and demand he be rehired. He got what he had coming.
 
if this was such a problem for ga,why did it get past editors and proof readers
Click to expand...

It wasn't a problem which, to me, suggests something about the magazine. Metcalf wrote it. The editor approved it. It was in line with the magazine's philosophy.

Then when the gun owning community and subscribers let them know how things really are, the editor fired Metcalf and himself, stepped down.

Metcalf used to teach at two very liberal universities. I don't know as I would want someone like that speaking for me (a gun "expert" to whom antigunners might consult, etc) re gun rights, in the first place.
 
I have two problems with his latest endevors.

1. On G&A TV he pushed the modern sporting rifle defense of the AR. I have mention a few places (like TFL), that I think this is a terrible mistake as sporting guns are not the purpose of the 2 Amend. and can be easily restricted.

2. I respect that he can disagree with the G and A decision. However, the NY Times is a noted antigun publication and does not respect the basic right to own anything. Thus, choosing to discuss the issue in that outlet was just feeding the antigunners. He can discuss it in many progun forums. If it was picked up by antis - that's life. But putting in the Times was unwise to say the least.
 
goon said:
As I recall, the issue that got Metcalf in trouble was his support of state mandated training to get a CCW permit.

I've had that same discussion on here. If the state charges you a fee in exchange for "allowing" you to exercise your rights, are they rights anymore? I'd say no and I'd also say that onerous requirements keep marginally employed people and people on fixed incomes from being able to defend themselves.
On this board people have disagreed with me over that.
I don't think they're my enemies because they probably are on board with me 80% of the time. I'd rather have them with me 80% of the time than have them against me 80% of the time.

Having said that, Metcalf's position is that of an elitist. He's got several hundred dollars and sixteen hours of free time on his hands to go get a permit from IL, so he doesn't see that as an infringement. But to some of us, several hundred dollars is a month's rent or a month's grocery budget. You should never have to choose between feeding your kids and your ability to protect them.

So he lost his job. And he deserved it. I'm not going to line up and demand he be rehired. He got what he had coming.
Click to expand...
Have to agree with you. If a Right is curtailed in anyway it is no longer a Right but nothing more then a privilege that can be taken away without cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Handgun Hunting Expert -- Dick Metcalf
Replies
8
Views
1K
WESHOOT2
W
Speedo66
  • Locked
Truthfulness In Gun Publications
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
Mohave-Tec
M
M
  • Locked
Grown man crying over an EBR
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
7K
HankB
H
P
  • Locked
Shooting Times Reviews the Ruger .454 Alaskan SRH
Replies
4
Views
2K
41mag
4
jobu07
  • Locked
Chucky's at it again...
Replies
12
Views
1K
Fly320s
F
Back
Top