BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo Responds to Metcalf article

[HOOfan_1]

Jim Zumbo was a TV host on a gun show, he said he didn't see the point in ARvtype rifles and said they shouldn't be used For hunting and called them "terrorist" guns.

He was fired after a lot of backlash.

 

[danez71]

We liberated the Nazi concentration camps only about 70 years ago. It can happen again. It can happen here.

It did happen here.

About 70 years, we.. the USA, on American soil... started the Japanese Internment camps by executive order 9066. Its estimated that 2/3rd's or more were American citizens.

While I do think out government is better than most every country out there, it doesn't negate the fact that our government has some terrible history with its own citizens.

 

[herrwalther]

I can already see this thread will go until it gets locked for some reason. So many responses in such a short time.

Any other Straw-man arguments you want me to completely destroy?

You destroyed nothing. I offered hypothetical outcomes of celebrity cases to prove a point which you completely glassed over. It is well known, or should be, that felons cannot legally own firearms. I offered examples of felonies based off real cases ie Zimmerman and McVeigh. I am well aware that Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY (opposite of innocent) and McVeigh was sentenced to death. I merely used their names instead of person X or Y since most people are familiar with facts of the Zimmerman or McVeigh case. My point of using them is there are not many people who would feel comfortable with felons or similar forbidden people from legally owning firearms.

First let me say this. I don't care about other countries. My worries are for my Country.

Certainly your right and I wouldn't dream of persuading otherwise.

As to your point of a " fugitive from Mexico coming to our country" is simply a red herring as it is presently illegal for someone who is an illegal alien fugitive or not to own a weapon legally.

That was my point. An illegal alien is here illegally and thus a fugitive and as such illegal from owning a firearm legally. I was using it as an example for where 2A needs and has restrictions as to who it applies to. Believe it or not, illegals do fall under some protections of our Constitution. With this past government shutdown, illegals were allowed to have a rally in the National Mall for immigration reform while WWII veterans were being arrested for going to their open air memorial.

 

[Sam1911]

Overall, I'm pleased by this, at least the response to it!

Back when we were discussing the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show fight, I wrote this:

But it is terrible that this whole thing even happened at all.

It may seem like it right this minute, but it actually ISN'T a terrible thing to happen. As I said before...

Actually, as with Mr. Zumbo a few years back, I'm seeing this as a real positive event for RKBA. Yes, the assault or betrayal hurts. But the public show of force, of a real community of 2nd Amendment supporters and activists coming together -- getting off their butts (um...maybe staying ON their butts?) -- together is noticed by a national audience. And the fact that it WORKING proves that this isn't a few disgruntled cranks sitting on their sofas grumbling about the gub'mint, but a serious and cohesive grass roots movement. That sends a message to a lot of folks. They may not like that message, but when this sort of thing hits the national stage (like when multiple national companies take notice and lend their voices), other gun owners notice (and think about their own stance on such issues and start asking what their gun owning pals believe), other venues and promoters notice (and take notes on what NOT to ever do), other public figures notice (and choose to come out with a strong pro-2nd Amendment stance they'll not readily back away from), and politicians notice what all those dedicated voters just did.

That's a net positive, right there.

I still feel that way about this. It is a net good. We're standing tall, publically, cohesively, and showing ourselves, each other, the undecided public, and the antis that we do not, as a group, accept the proffered opinion. Sometimes it is better to get punched in the nose and get back up and destroy the opponent than to never have been punched at all.

This is right, and fair, and just, and good.

And here's why:

Editorial pages have always been places where those in positions of some prominence in the popular press of their area of expertise air out their views and try and influence people. It isn't actually "promoting dialog" or any such noise, it is trying to stir the faithful to join an opinion or a movement.

Historically the great battles of politics, government, and national policy all had their "second fronts" in the editorial sections of the nation's great (and loathsome, and righteous, and despicable, liberal, progressive, conservative, reactionary, etc., etc.) newspapers.

In times past the readership had a pretty muted influence over those authors, though industry and political parties kept their pets firmly in the palms of their hands. Today that has shifted, and very recently, to give that power to more of the average people, which is very good.

But the key point is that an editor of a high profile publication is not MERELY an individual, expressing his or her opinion. Every person has that right, and we would have no reason to revile them for merely floating an hypothesis for debate.

But no, an editor writing on the 2nd page of a (or THE?) major subject-matter periodical is more than an individual expressing himself. He holds a of leadership and representation of those who read his periodical and all those interested in his area of subject matter.

While he is not elected and certainly does not officially represent any of us, he TACITLY absolutely does, as a high-profile illuminatus of our sphere. As a representative, he can be, should be, and MUST be held to task for upholding the best and most virtuous of our specialized society's principles. As with a Congressman or other political actor, if he fails to represent us, we have a mechanism by which he may be replaced. The mechanics are different here than in the voting booth, but the effect is the same. And sometimes most gratifyingly speedier!

And the effect is completely appropriate. We do him (or ourselves) no disservice if we use the power of our purses to ask that he no longer so represent us -- that he no longer hold a position of prominence in our sphere of interest.

Every man and woman has the right to express their views. No man or woman is granted any right in any way to be immune from the social consequences of that expression. Not a plumber, not a doctor, not an artist/performer, not a senator, not a president, not an editor. When someone takes on a role (elected, official, or unelected, unofficial) of being a representative and leader of others the consequences that may come from representing those people poorly may be more weighty than what would befall the average man who says something asinine -- or merely opinionated in an unpopular direction.

 

[lobo9er]

Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY (opposite of innocent)

Sorry that is incorrect. The opposite to innocent is guilty. herrwalther to remove arguing and conjecture can we establish you are pro gun control? Also in your opinion once someone commits a felony regardless of what it is there is no coming back? And in no way a felon should be able to defend themselves from attack with a weapon, regardless of which party provokes or initiates? And that its ok for muslims to condut themselves in the way you described?

Now back to the article
If a readership is unhappy with a product as much as its the editors right to print what ever they want, so is it the right of the readers or customers to complain and not buy. Voting with your dollar is pretty effective.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Quote:
We liberated the Nazi concentration camps only about 70 years ago. It can happen again. It can happen here.

It did happen here.

About 70 years, we.. the USA, on American soil... started the Japanese Internment camps by executive order 9066. Its estimated that 2/3rd's or more were American citizens.

While I do think out government is better than most every country out there, it doesn't negate the fact that our government has some terrible history with its own citizens.

Yeah...it did happen here. A LOT happened here that we're either ignorant of or blind to. All that stuff about Nazi concentration camps is centered around who was sent there, as much as what happend to them once they got there. Take a good long look at American history on eugenics and note the times they were started, what we did, and exactly who took careful notice of all our actions overseas in the years before WWII started.

Our country has the potential to be no less dangerous than Nazi Germany turned out to be.

And no...this posting isn't meant to be a segway into Godwin's Law.

You make a very good point: Keeping our own country under control is a duty for each citizen, whether we realize this or not.

 

[Mike1234567]

Yup... And like those Germans who were horrified by what there country was doing, we are just as likely to cower before our demigods.

 

[ShamboPyro]

I never new mac was on THR. that's pretty cool.

 

[HKGuns]

While I agree with very little, if anything, of what he wrote and it is extremely unfortunate how little he appears to understand the 2nd Amendment, I can't stop feeling like we just ate a couple of our own. Discussion and discourse would have been preferable to firing I think.

However, the other side of me harkens to the HK blog where none of the magazine editors stood up against the onslaught against non sporting weapons when asked by the ATF. So, in the end perhaps it is a good lesson.

 

[Sam1911]

Discussion and discourse would have been preferable to firing I think.

But is the editorial page of G&A -- ONE man's personal territory -- where we hold discussion and discourse? Or is it the bully pulpit where a leader and representative of our "kind" preaches to the faithful and presents us to the world?

...

I understand the feeling of damaging one of "us," but in many ways it is the same hard choice faced by folks represented by others the world over. Do we vote out the guy who's pushing an agenda we don't like, if he's a good guy otherwise and says he's on "our" side? Do we risk the various and sundry consequences of removing an established leader/representative for his failures, knowing that just as many further negative results may befall us if we do than his actions will cause us if we do not? For that matter, do we discipline a child whom we love but who has gone astray, even though their pain and anger wounds our own hearts?

It isn't easy.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Wow.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow.

Indeed!

 

[Lost Sheep]

Guns and printing presses vs voting booths any difference?

Dick Metcalf asks a valid question in his offending article:

When does regulation become infringement?

He then went on to use precious column-inches on a poor analogy: Ownership and use of a vehicle on the roads. A far better analogy is the right to free speech. Does the government (any government within the U.S.A.) require licensing, training, fees or qualifications to own or operate a printing press? True, there are laws regarding the irresponible use of the printing press, just as there are laws "infringing" on the use of firearms.

It IS a question that we must address, so whether Mr. Metcalf is an apologist who deserves sanction or a voice of reason who deserves a hearing is up to us (Guns & Ammo market, subscribers and readers). But his right to a printing press is not in dispute.

The 16 hour training class is just as much a valid requirement for owning and carrying a firearm as it ought to be for entering a voting booth, speaking in public or owning a printing press. That is, no validity under our Constitution.

Frankly, I would have liked to have seen him permitted to defend his article (if he could) in the January issue. But it is left to him to find another magazine to publish his rebuttal. I would love to read it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Dick Metcalf asks a valid question in his offending article:

When does regulation become infringement?

He then went on to use precious column-inches on a poor analogy: Ownership and use of a vehicle on the roads. A far better analogy is the right to free speech. Does the government (any government within the U.S.A.) require licensing, training, fees or qualifications to own or operate a printing press? True, there are laws regarding the irresponible use of the printing press, just as there are laws "infringing" on the use of firearms.

I've come to really dispise the "ownership and use of a vehicle on the roads" analogy. This isn't a "right" in any way, shape, or form comparable to any of the Constitutional rights. Therefore it fails in comparision to the RKBA.

 

[Lost Sheep]

NOT GUILTY (opposite of innocent)

I would like to point out that "Not Guilty" is NOT the opposite of innocent. They are very close together, in fact. In U.S. law, they are all but identical.

Our criminal justice system and penal systems are based on the concept of the rehabilitation of offenders. If a person actually guilty of a crime were actually rehabilitated, he/she SHOULD have their civil rights restored. If not completely rehabilitated, that is another matter (not yet fully addressed in our penal code - open-ended or extendable sentences are not allowed in most cases

Lost Sheep

 

[herrwalther]

Sorry that is incorrect. The opposite to innocent is guilty. herrwalther to remove arguing and conjecture can we establish you are pro gun control? Also in your opinion once someone commits a felony regardless of what it is there is no coming back? And in no way a felon should be able to defend themselves from attack with a weapon, regardless of which party provokes or initiates? And that its ok for muslims to condut themselves in the way you described?

You obviously don't know much about criminal proceedings. Guilty or not guilty are verdicts. Innocent is not a verdict. So you are accusing me of being pro gun control? Why? Because I see the usefulness of concealed carry permits? How very judgmental. No I am not pro gun control. Metcalf picked a very bad time to write a very dividing article. And he paid the price for it.

There are ways to expunge felonies from records to return to, for lack of a better term, an upstanding citizen. I have known a few people who have managed to pull it off and it is a long, arduous process. But it can be done if you have the determination to get that felony out from over your head. A friend of my wife has a felony on her record for back child support. By comparison that would be easy to expunge from her record and get her driver's license back, right to buy firearms, help with employment, and voting rights. But she won't, claims she is too afraid.

 

[SunnySlopes]

And like those Germans who were horrified by what there country was doing, we are just as likely to cower before our demigods.

Not all the Germans who were horrified, cowered.

Google Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example.

 

[jerkface11]

If someone writing for car and driver was advocating reinstating the 55mph speed limit you'd expect them to lose their job too. A gun magazine simply is not a place for gun control advocates to work.

 

[Agsalaska]

The question of when does regulation become infringement is not knew and not restricted specifically to the second amendment. It is not an argument without validity but he picked horrible analogies and an even worse platform for delivery. I would expect him to be fired immediately if they want to save that publication.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Metcalf was defending the concept of a 16-hour class. How would you feel if the class was free (paid for by money taken from anti-gun treasure chests, perhaps) and the only requirement was attendance, no pass/fail, just go through it?.

Second question: are there other analogies that would be more to the point than driving vehicles?
Vaginal ultrasound before obtaining an abortion?
Citizenship course (or literacy test) before voting?
What kind of hurdle would you apply to create a web site, own a printing press or own a soapbox (talk about slippery slope)?

I, like Mr. Metcalf, think a course in gun handling, safety and use-of-force law is a good idea. But requiring it? Across the board for everyone (how about ex-police, who presumably could TEACH the course)?

But the biggest problem I have is determining who decides what the criteria for the course is, what it takes to count as acceptably completing it and what it does to delay exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, "Who gets the key to the kingdom?" My answer is what every mention of "the people" in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founding fathers meant. The individual.

One of the founding principles of this country is that the individual is responsible for his or her acts. Another is that prior restraint is not in keeping with the concept of freedom.

Mr. Metcalf is wrong, but I have to believe an open debate is good.

Guns & Ammo has the right to shut off the debate in their pages (either as a business decision or an ideological cliff), but I am glad we can debate here. I just wish Mr. Metcalf would chime in.

Or we could gather together our pitchforks, torches, feathers and tar.

Lost Sheep

 

[ngnrd]

How would you feel if the class was free (paid for by money taken from anti-gun treasure chests, perhaps) and the only requirement was attendance, no pass/fail.

I would feel a couple of things:

First, I would feel that such a class would likely be as non-educational as the driver's ed classes that people take to get a couple of points off their license. Very few people actually learn much of anything in those classes; they are simply an inconvenience to the student.

Second, I would STILL feel that the government has no Constitutional authority to institute such a requirement. There would be a civil uprising if government classes were required before being allowed to vote, or before being allowed to post opinions on the internet, or before being allowed to preach, or before being allowed to gather as a group in public.

The fact that you think that it's the government's responsibility to 'teach' its citizens how to 'properly' exercise their rights is a clear indication of how much freedom we have already given up in this country. Please, stop relying so heavily on the government to protect you, because it will not. And stop demanding that the government protect me, because it cannot. Stand up for yourself. Stand up for your family. Stand up for your neighborhood, and your community. Indeed, stand up for your country, and I will stand beside you. Accept personal responsibility for your own actions, and expect as much from your fellow countrymen. Further, demand that the government stop usurping your personal responsibility. Because that's not the function of government, and THEY HAVE NO RIGHT to do so. And because the elimination of personal responsibility necessarily brings with it a corresponding elimination of personal freedom - yours, and mine. And our freedom is well worth fighting for.

 

[splithoof]

Lost Sheep, I too believe a course in gun handling is a good idea. I say this based on my experience as an RSO observing many people do some very stupid things with firearms. If they only hurt themselves, that is their business, but the problem that I have witnessed is that they tend to bring harm on others who were simply close by. I don't post pictures of GSW's on public forums, but suffice to say I have seen enough in my professional career and as a member of a private club. Public ranges? Forget it! I won't even go near one in less my job requires it. That is I think why Mr. Metcalf was advocating safety training. The big problem in that is how do we go about it without making it a requirement to own/use firearms? Is that even possible? Like I said in another topic, we gun-owners had better get it together before others make too many decisions for us.

 

[Robert]

Godwin's Law, drifting way too far afield, or more side discussions than you can shake a stick at. Take your pick, but this mess is done.