BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo Responds to Metcalf article

[sappyg]

Haven't subscribed or bought a copy of G&A in I can't remember when. Certainly seems to have taken a bit of a left turn somewhere from then til now.

All the same the article drops G&A down about 5 notches for me regardless of Metcalf's fate. Sure Metcalf wrote it and owns it. G&A actually circulated it. G&A owns it too. At least as much as the author. Maybe more. How could G&A be so out of touch with it's audience?

We all have opinions so here's mine:
G&A writes and publishes whatever it gets paid to publish. Only this time, it sorely underestimated the BS meter of it's subscribers. The real gun writers can always find a more proper venue for their work. Once upon a time G$A was at the top of the heap but that was a long.... Long time ago.

 

[Glocktogo]

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.

That is truly the heart of the matter. The .gov has proven itself untrustworthy to protect the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sam Cade]

The real gun writers can always find a more proper venue for their work.

Indeed! In a very real sense the role that the gun-rags once played has been superseded by electronic media.
THR itself is a better resource than any print magazine could ever be.

The OP of this thread, member sturmgewehr, operates a youtube channel that is of the utmost quality.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?feature=mhsn

THR has a growing gear review magazine as well.
http://www.shootingreviews.com/

 

[browningguy]

While I don't agree with what Dick said in that one article I have enjoyed his writing for many years. I for one don't think he should be fired for one article just because it's something I don't agree with.

I will add, I own more guns than most people (about 72 at present), including AR's, HK's etc., I spent 6 years in the Navy back in the 70's and went to some not so friendly places. So I feel like I have earned a right to express an opinion, as Metcalf has.

Unfortunately in todays world anyone that doesn't agree 100% with our own personal opinions seems to earn nothing but a burning at the stake, and I think that reflects very poorly on both the country and us as firearms enthusiasts.

 

[Grassman]

If RC took my comments the wrong way, I'm sorry. I was just taken aback by what I read. RC has always had my utmost respect on firearms and reloading. Maybe just not on gun rights now. I'm not the criminal, nor have I ever been so. I'm just a little tired of paying the constitutional price for the actions of a few, and the political gain for a lot of elected officials.

 

[MErl]

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.

I think we're pretty aware of the ultimate goal of the larger anti organizations and some (outspoken) people in government. That is why we get so upset about the topic, they want the whole cake. They are not going to get it though as things like this post by taliv show. Saddle us with a bunch of regulations, training requirements, they are not going to get their ultimate goal. (not to say they cannot hurt us)

I'm too young to know, how did hunter safety requirements some about? Was there a loud cry at the time about driving people away from hunting? It is a barrier for new people.

 

[BSA1]

The article shows how divided gun owners are on the issue of regulation and ownership of firearms within our own ranks.

While I don't object to a healthy debate within our own ranks about gun control laws, etc. it is important to remember who your paying customers are.

Bill Ruger learned this lesson years ago when he publically supported a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The backlash lasted for years against his company and him personally. In fact I lost all of my respect for him when he got up in front of a KRA convention I attended and whined about how unfair everyone was being to him.

That said I don't see Metcalf article as being much of a loss for gun owners or as a victory for the Libs. It should serve as a powerful reminder to writers and editors when they burn the candle at both ends of the stick just to stir up controversy that someone is likely to get burned.

 

[sappyg]

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.
.

You mean the clout of the 2nd amendment right? Or does that really matter anymore? Last I heard the government does not have the right to license freedom.

 

[tarosean]

The article shows how divided gun owners are on the issue of regulation and ownership of firearms within our own ranks.

Bingo.....

Heck if you really want a rude awakening. Read the comments section in the news articles on shootings, etc... We are just as bad as the Anti's...

 

[Glocktogo]

While I don't agree with what Dick said in that one article I have enjoyed his writing for many years. I for one don't think he should be fired for one article just because it's something I don't agree with.

I will add, I own more guns than most people (about 72 at present), including AR's, HK's etc., I spent 6 years in the Navy back in the 70's and went to some not so friendly places. So I feel like I have earned a right to express an opinion, as Metcalf has.

Unfortunately in todays world anyone that doesn't agree 100% with our own personal opinions seems to earn nothing but a burning at the stake, and I think that reflects very poorly on both the country and us as firearms enthusiasts.

I'm sure a lot of us have served over the years. Regardless of whether you served or not, you're always entitled to your opinions and your 1st Amendment rights. You are also entitled to the repercussions that may come with exercising them, just as Dick discovered.

The problem here is that no one is entitled to their own set of facts. They stand alone. The facts in this case are decades of "reasonableness" by the RKBA side has resulted in unreasonable restrictions. Politicians cannot be trusted to safeguard our civil liberties. Sadly, neither can the voters nor the press. Not anymore.

So unless you're willing to stand and say that certain groups of otherwise law abiding people shouldn't be allowed to bear arms, or that only privileged groups should be allowed to bear certain types of arms, you have to agree that the will of the RKBA faithful has been exercised in this case.

 

[horsemen61]

I am quite surprised that they fired him to be honest

 

[csa77]

I couldn't be happier that metcalf is gone. good riddance

the 2nd amendment is the single most important article in our constitution. this is a black and white issue.it is our birth right.....Shall Not Be Infringed!

 

[SunnySlopes]

I didn't even know who he was. I cancelled my subscription to the magazine decades ago because their articles were redundant. The magazine sucked.

But I'm glad they got rid of the author of the above article. The rat gun grabbers have shown they won't give an inch in their nefarious goals.

I don't think we should give an inch on our righteous goals. Sort of like Sean Connery in "The Untouchables." "They send one of us to the hospital. We send one of them to the morgue." So to speak.

 

[Field Tester]

I initially took this as an heartfelt apology as well, before I looked more into it.
Why would the Editor let this print? (God, here I go, I'm going to sound like a conspiracy nut) The Editor was 2 months away from a promotion with the parent company of G&A. Now from what I've read is that the owner of the parent publication is a long life friend of the Clintons.

So is this a case of an order from above to stir controversy to sell more prints since he was getting his promotion anyways? Is this G&A's stance at heart, and now they've 180'd because they realized their ploy may not work (apparently there was mass cancellations of the paper print)?

Or did he really just think that he was thinking this was a smart move to open dialogue and greatly miscalculated?

I've got no clue. But I can say this, Mr. Bequette is still very much employed and with a permotion at that. I'd be very curious to see where Mr. Metcalf is in a few months and who is paying his salary.

Seems like G&A is playing games with our 2nd Amendment rights to sell magazines or the owners true colors are showing and are willfully giving the Brady Campaign and other Antis plenty of ammunition to take us down with.

 

[tarosean]

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.

Front page of Yahoo count???


http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

 

[bannockburn]

My thoughts are basically "Good riddance" to another compromiser who wants to trade our freedoms for his misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Hacker15E]

I find it hilarious that it is early November...and Metcalf's article is in the December issue....and he has all ready been "fired" due to the backlash from the article.

This all just smacks of "we're sorry now that we've seen the reaction" instead of "we're sorry because this article doesn't reflect our shared principles and values at the magazine." Kind of like when my kids are sorry they've done something because they were caught doing it. Seems very, very insincere.

If it was something that G&A felt that strongly about, it would have never made it past the editor's cut prior to even going to graphic layup....much less after the print run. Ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Front page of Yahoo count???


http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

Already linked, and I already admitted I underestimated the power of the internet. I still don't see where our outrage, that this article was published in a medium where we expect support for our cause, has put us in a bad light.

If an article was published in a Brady Bunch publication saying how they are misrepresenting firearms, and they need to stop trying to ban the weapons and look more at the people, how do you think the anti-gun subscribers would react?

The neutrals are not paying attention to this....if they were paying attention do it, then they really aren't neutrals. If they happen upon it and read it, I would guess they would see that the RKBA crowd are serious and passionate.

No one wants to go to their comfort zone and be challenged. That is why it is a comfort zone. Any sane person understands that, and any sane person understands why subscribers to the magazine would be upset that they are being chastised in a publication they pay to support.

 

[powder]

this was a blip on the radar of the antis...and they are using the fact that the article was published against us.

I'm interested to see where/when the antis are using Metcalf's article "against us"?Somebody, anybody please link where this editorial is being used as ammo against us.

Same boat as Sunny-magazine was a redundant ad. blitz years ago, dropped it long ago, and it's free at our public library. Meh...

OTOH, I agree with Mr. Metcalf, and fail to see how the stance is giving an inch. I also fail to see where/how the antis are using it against us-know why? What he wrote is the truth, and the antis do not see it as a point of leverage OR debate: stating a truth is not giving in to anything.

Firearm ownership/CCPs is/are regulated by local and state laws. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but it is the truth of what we know to be as "law(s)".

Mr. Tsai's opinion, on the MP7? He said it is a firearm exclusively used to put down scumbags, ( by LEO and Mil). The MP7, IIRC, is a gun for LE/MIL purchase only? Is that correct? What's the big deal?

 

[HOOfan_1]

I'm interested to see where/when the antis are using Metcalf's article "against us"?Somebody, anybody please link where this editorial is being used as ammo against us.

Read the thread...it has already been pointed out

 

[tomrkba]

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.

Metcalf went far off the reservation.

I disagree with any sort of mental health check for any right, for ANY purpose other than treatment. I have lived in a country where a mental health check was part of the interview process. It is not pleasant and no employer needs to know that much about a person. Notice that no constitution provides for limiting rights based upon any medical condition.

Adding mental health checks as a condition of a right is unconstitutional and evil. The standard will be arbitrary and the constantly changing depending upon the mood of the legislature. Like the Lautenburg Amendment, it will be used as a tool to easily revoke a right. The difference is they will have electronic medical records and can perform mass revocations with a simple database query and update. Just put it in the servers' cronjob and run it daily. Poof! Your RKBA is gone when your records are updated.

 

[powder]

I have read the thread. Where is the citation which shows where/how this article is being used against us?

Read the thread...it has already been pointed out

 

[ilbob]

I did not think what Metcalf said was as bad as the way he said it.

It is pretty clear that as a practical matter there will be some very significant infringement of the 2A that will continue for the foreseeable future. We don't have to like it and we don't have to accept it, but it is not going away, probably never. We may however, have success in reducing the level of infringement, but it will be a down and dirty fight that never ends.

I feel bad for him in some ways, but he has to take responsibility for what he said. It is probably time for him to retire anyway. Like a lot of the gun writers who often write about expensive guns and hunting trips most of us could only dream about, I think he associated way too much with people who have a bunch of money that gives them a lot more options than the rest of us. I think he may well have forgotten that most people who buy G&A are not the multimillionaires that he has been hobnobbing with.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Powder,

The Brday Campaign and Moms Demand Action both linked the article on their facebook pages. They are definitely aware of it and definitely plan to use it.

 

[Field Tester]

I find it hilarious that it is early November...and Metcalf's article is in the December issue....and he has all ready been "fired" due to the backlash from the article.

This all just smacks of "we're sorry now that we've seen the reaction" instead of "we're sorry because this article doesn't reflect our shared principles and values at the magazine." Kind of like when my kids are sorry they've done something because they were caught doing it. Seems very, very insincere.

If it was something that G&A felt that strongly about, it would have never made it past the editor's cut prior to even going to graphic layup....much less after the print run. Ridiculous if you ask me.

Actually I was just at the store and saw the January issue. At least I think it was. I had to do a double take but it said January 2014.

The reason why it's the December issue is because magazines put out the issue a month ahead of time. In fact most do. It's like a car company releasing the 2014 model in the fall.