BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo Responds to Metcalf article

Status
Not open for further replies.
So your proposal to stop this is a mental background check too?
Click to expand...

No, my proposal is, when parents have been saying to friends for years their kid is crazy, and they never did anything about it.

Or a state university said a student is a danger to himself or others, and refuse to enroll him in the school for the next semester?

Or the cops have been called over & over again to stop the fights at an out-of-control persons home??

Report it, record it, and let the instant background check sort some of them out before they go on a rampage and kill a bunch of unarmed kids, or TSA agents.

rc
 
I am constantly berated by moderate gun owners for my "no compromise" stance on the 2nd Amendment. I have zero tolerance for anyone who is willing to accept a single infringement on our rights, especially our right to own firearms.

With that being said, I also know several of the writers at Guns & Ammo, they're personal friends of mine. I know for a *fact* the men I call friends are diehard, no compromise, 2nd Amendment supporters. They were just as taken back by Dick's article as I was.

I hold Dick accountable for his comments, no one else. Yes, it was a mistake to print them however I will not condemn the entire organization for the actions/comments of one editor (Dick Metcalf). He owns those comments. He's now gone.

I see no reason to hammer G&A any further on the issue. They owned it, they didn't pull a RECOIL and try to blame H&K for their editors comments. They owned it, apologized, let those responsible go and now I believe it's time for us to be equal men and accept that apology and move on.
 
RC has more than proven his entitlement to any opinion he wants. I think most of us learned how to live and communicate with people we STRONGLY disagree with. If RC draws the line a foot further away than I do, we will just talk about something else.

But I still think Metcalf said the wrong thing in the wrong way at the wrong time in the wrong place.
 
After reading Metcalf's article, I think it is poorly/stupidly written.

But, on the 2nd Amendment: It provides the right to keep and bear arms. And in my interpretation, absolutely so. But, it does not provide the right to use them in an unrestricted way.
 
Post 28 ... I appreciate your sentiment. This news reflects swift, decisive leadership at G & A. Let's hope it signals renewed committment to RKBA and good things for gun owners. Blessings.
 
Last edited:
In the interest of remaining calm, I didn't like the article, I lost respect for a gun writer I had previously liked, I think he was fired for pure profit motive which is exactly as it should be. We have to very careful with giving even a little bit as the other side will and have taken much more than we offered.
 
The article reeks of the standard "The public is too stupid to do anything on their own and need the permission of the elite to do anything". Part of freedom is accepting the risk that comes with it and knowing that others can do stupid things.
 
NRA is on record as supporting certain kinds of mental health reporting -- those involuntarily admitted to a psych facility, etc.

That has the advantage of limiting the reach to things like:
suicidal depression
paranoid schizophrenia (spelling that is hard for me)
psychosis

The run of the mill depression, personality disorders, adjustment disorders, tuattional depressions etc will not run afoul of the NRA type stand.

I don't think we should let it go anything beyond those.
However, don't think for a minute that this will do a whole lotta good.

The Newtown shooter had no mental health issue; he had a neurological congenital defect.
 
Have to say objectively that this incident has HURT the gun lobby a lot.
If people disagreed with Mr. Metcalf's opinion - that's fine. Gun owners had the perfect opportunity here to put forward their thoughts in a way that was logical and well-reasoned. Didn't Mr. Metcalf do the same thing?

Instead, what happened - as observed in the Internet readers' comments -was a huge outpouring of angry feedback from gun-owners - with scarcely any mature words to be seen at all. These responses have given many Americans who are neutral on the issue of gun rights the impression that gun owners are "emotional jackasses with an addiction for weapons". That's really too bad, and it has set back attempts to support the Second Ammendment by quite a lot. It's a shame when a vocal minority can do harm to the efforts of the majority ... but it happens a lot.

IMO.

CA R
 
Sam Cade said:
To keep from derailing the thread just follow the link:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/09/13/recoil-magazine-stirs-outrage-with-hk-mp7-remarks/
Click to expand...

something apropos from that article in Guns & Ammo

for the rest of us media geeks, there’s a lesson to be learned here: You, our faithful readers, will fight tooth and nail to defend the Second Amendment, and any statement that can be construed as a betrayal of trust will be taken quite seriously–we can assure you, we didn’t need that reminder.
Click to expand...

CA Raider said:
Have to say objectively that this incident has HURT the gun lobby a lot.

These responses have given many Americans who are neutral on the issue of gun rights the impression that gun owners are "emotional jackasses with an addiction for weapons".
Click to expand...

Please point to some sources where this story is even mentioned outside of gun circles....

This is not even a blip on the radar to the antis...or the neutrals.
 
Last edited:
RC, my apologies on my prior post which was deleted since it wasn't High Road. But geez man, wanting to restrict my freedoms just because of what criminals do?? C'mon....we all need to stand together. And positions like that.....well.....um...(staying High Road is sure tough)......
 
HOOfan_1 said:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-...ember-2013.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link. My hands were a little busy to work the Google-fu myself.

Personally I don't see why he was let go for his opinion on the Second Amendment. I agree with him, to a degree. The 2A is very polarizing, you will find some who think anything but permitless carry system is an infringement and on the other side you will find total abolitionists of firearms. As with everything, moderation is key. I don't mind that once a year I have to drive 30 miles to pay $30 dollars to renew my "right" to carry a concealed firearm. I really don't. If that little piece of laminated paper in my wallet allows me to protect myself, I will go through the "trouble" to keep it. Carry permits also protect US as a whole. If permitless carry were the norm everywhere, gun grabbers could paint anyone who does carry as wild vigilantes without the clout of a permit granting, firearm loving state. On the other hand some places do take the permit system way too far, New York for example. The fees, pictures, personal references, wait times, registration and fingerprint cards are a hindrance bordering on infringement in my book. All those hoops you have to jump through has no bearing on whether or not you are a safe firearm owner.

Now on the subject of training, yes you should have training. It is our duty to have some sort of knowledge on the firearms we carry. Now if that is a formal class taught by certified instructors, yay that is great and good for you. Military or LE is great as well. Or even just being taught casually by someone who knows what they are doing.
 
Herrwalther, I must disagree with you on the requirement (much less pay for) to have a permit. That is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms - some people can't afford the permit. Now, the 2nd Amendment does not address whether we have unrestricted rights as far as how we may bear them. For example, what says that a law can't be passed that requires all bearers of handguns to carry them concealed?
 
HOOfan_1 said:
something apropos from that article in Guns & Ammo

Please point to some sources where this story is even mentioned outside of gun circles....

This is not even a blip on the radar to the antis...or the neutrals.
Click to expand...

It took less than three days:

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html

But gun control advocates are cheering Guns & Ammo's decision to publish the column. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence shared a link to a story about Metcalf's column on its Facebook page.
Click to expand...

So thank you G&A and thank you Dick. This hurt us and will continue to do so.

Another one: http://adage.com/article/media/guns-ammo-editorial-supports-gun-control-angers-readers/245135/
 
Have to say objectively that this incident has HURT the gun lobby a lot.

These responses have given many Americans who are neutral on the issue of gun rights the impression that gun owners are "emotional jackasses with an addiction for weapons".
Click to expand...

while i am also skeptical that anyone outside the die hard pro and anti gun communities is even aware of this,
it's a difficult subject, because much of the history and nuance is completely overlooked by people who are more interested in sharing their own opinion than understanding the people around them and giving serious thought to a matter of life and death and more.

that said, i can definitely see how people ignorant or with only a cursory familiarity with gun rights issues and history, could get a negative reaction and perceive us as unwilling to compromise. that's why I think it's especially important to explain the many, many compromises already made, and how most really have not demonstrated any success whatsoever.
 
Glocktogo said:
It took less than three days:

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html



So thank you G&A and thank you Dick. This hurt us and will continue to do so.

Another one: http://adage.com/article/media/guns-ammo-editorial-supports-gun-control-angers-readers/245135/
Click to expand...

Nothing in there about outrage over Metcalf being fired though....although I was apparently wrong


this was a blip on the radar of the antis...and they are using the fact that the article was published against us.
 
Last edited:
rcmodel said:
No, my proposal is, when parents have been saying to friends for years their kid is crazy, and they never did anything about it.

Or a state university said a student is a danger to himself or others, and refuse to enroll him in the school for the next semester?

Or the cops have been called over & over again to stop the fights at an out-of-control persons home??

Report it, record it, and let the instant background check sort some of them out before they go on a rampage and kill a bunch of unarmed kids, or TSA agents.

rc
Click to expand...

This is how the current system is supposed to work, but as we have seen it doesn't always work. Parents don't always report problems with their kids. School psychiatrists report issues with a student but that info doesn't get shared with the appropriate people. Cops get called to a place over and over but sometimes nobody presses charges.

In such cases, no background check system of any kind will work.
 
HOOfan_1 said:
Nothing in there about outrage over Metcalf being fired though....
Click to expand...

It's all over the G&A Facebook page. That place is crawling with pseudo-RKBA'ers that are castigating the mag for canning him, along with plenty of people thanking G&A for dumping him of course.

The simple truth is that the mainstream media and the Brady Bunch got a hold of Metcalf's editorial and our dissent. They are using it to their advantage. The chief editor should've never placed G&A and our rights in the crosshairs, by giving Metcalf a soap box. It was a foolish mistake that will cost us all.

Say what you will about "censorship", because it isn't. G&A is a privately held magazine and just like this forum, you're not allowed to say whatever you want. In this case, discretion would've been the better part of valor. :(
 
I agree with much of RCModel's line of reasoning on this issue.

The only problem is the government is not sincere in their true intentions, and their ultimate goals.

The proper kind of regulation drawn up by pro-gun advocates, would actually protect our right to keep and bear firearms.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill should be a priority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Jan Morgan (2A advocate): "Time to cancel your subscription to Guns & Ammo magazine".
Replies
3
Views
646
Al Thompson
A
G
  • Locked
Guns & Ammo Television
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Guntalk
G
W
  • Locked
RKBA-PA] protect your guns - come to Daryl Metcalfe's Pig Roast this Saturday August
Replies
0
Views
258
WAGCEVP
W
S
  • Locked
PA Legislators standing strong
Replies
1
Views
417
Mike Sr.
M
S
  • Locked
PA Legislators standing strong
Replies
4
Views
605
FullEffect1911
F
Back
Top