I had no problem with Mr. Metcalf expressing his opinion, that is what editorial space if for, and his right to do so is protected by the 1st Amendment. My problem was with using the gun banners definition of regulated. That is a factual issue and should have been remedied by the magazine. Funny they didn't mention his leaving the magazine when I called to cancel my subscription last night. The nice person on the phone did seem quite intent on me expressing my reasoning in a written forum, either online or with a good old letter to the editor. I will not be reconsidering my cancellation, but the swift reaction probably saved them from having me cancel my subscriptions to their other magazines.
BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo Responds to Metcalf article
- Thread starter sturmgewehr
- Start date
- Status
exactly they published it was a trial balloon to see reaction this is not the end of it
no but you should join the forum at sarah brady's site. in 15 -20 years there will be no gun rights and gun owners be responsible
how about this. I say any gun owner wanting to limit rights should have those rights taken away. is that "moderate" enough for you RC
I would bet if someone gets hit in the head with a ball you would want mental checks permits and restrictions on balls and club sizeThank ya!
Thank Ya!!
But a few more 'Crazy Young Man with a Manifesto and an AR-15' shootings every week in the news?
And we are all going to be playing golf instead of shooting one of these days!
Mark my words!!
rc
you are right we should have joined with Metcalf and called for more restrictions. that would really endear us to the antis
RC should saying he is sorry not you
yes guns and ammo thought most gun guys think like RC that is why they floated that trial balloon
Queen_of_Thunder
member
The person or persons who allowed it to be published are still there. The only reason for for people leaving is for a sacrafical fall guy to cover up the beliefs of others. The departures are no more than a diversion tactic.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Just imagine
Suppose a liquor magazine editorialist wrote about being willing to compromise with the prohibitionist dries on banning alcoholic beverages with an evil reputation, like Absinth, Chartreuse, 151 rum and Everclear?
Suppose a liquor magazine editorialist wrote about being willing to compromise with the prohibitionist dries on banning alcoholic beverages with an evil reputation, like Absinth, Chartreuse, 151 rum and Everclear?
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Seldom does one make a point so clearly. Your comment is on point and well said.
exactly. it was a trial balloon and guys that canceled should not re up now that they fired Metcalf. let them suffer
While I disagreed with Metcalf's column, I am a little bothered by the insistence that all of us must share ALL the same views or be traitors to all gun owners.
First, I think relatively few of us are true absolutists on this question - true absolutism would mean allowing a 15 year old who had been convicted of murder and was on psychoactive, illegal drugs and diagnosed with acute schizophrenia to buy and carry to school a belt-fed machine gun. Or a known international terrorist to board an airplane with a loaded gun. For those who think that is protected by the second amendment, you are a true absolutist. For the rest of us, we are doing some kind of line drawing. Some of us like the lines where they are. Some of us think the lines are too restrictive. Is it not possible that someone might think that some portions of the line should be moved slightly in a more restrictive direction without wanting to move the line to some truly absurd place?
Second, I don't know that the echo-chamber effect serves us well. It's very easy and tempting to completely tune out sources and opinions that don't accord with our own views. And if the opposing views are so absurd as to be nonsensical, that may be a legitimate choice. But to say that a position that is, say, a 10% variance with our own is not just to be ignored, but affirmatively silenced? That risks leaving us completely isolated from what others not in the community think.
OTOH, I understand the political/PR use that can be made by gun-grabbers of an article by "even a Guns & Ammo writer says we need more restrictions" line of argument. When the other side is eager to capitalize on any "admission," it does kind of hamper a free and open discussion about policy. It's a shame that there are so many eager looking for any advantage, which, I suppose, necessitates some extra vigilance. But living under a siege mentality is not a great long-term plan.
What a mess.
First, I think relatively few of us are true absolutists on this question - true absolutism would mean allowing a 15 year old who had been convicted of murder and was on psychoactive, illegal drugs and diagnosed with acute schizophrenia to buy and carry to school a belt-fed machine gun. Or a known international terrorist to board an airplane with a loaded gun. For those who think that is protected by the second amendment, you are a true absolutist. For the rest of us, we are doing some kind of line drawing. Some of us like the lines where they are. Some of us think the lines are too restrictive. Is it not possible that someone might think that some portions of the line should be moved slightly in a more restrictive direction without wanting to move the line to some truly absurd place?
Second, I don't know that the echo-chamber effect serves us well. It's very easy and tempting to completely tune out sources and opinions that don't accord with our own views. And if the opposing views are so absurd as to be nonsensical, that may be a legitimate choice. But to say that a position that is, say, a 10% variance with our own is not just to be ignored, but affirmatively silenced? That risks leaving us completely isolated from what others not in the community think.
OTOH, I understand the political/PR use that can be made by gun-grabbers of an article by "even a Guns & Ammo writer says we need more restrictions" line of argument. When the other side is eager to capitalize on any "admission," it does kind of hamper a free and open discussion about policy. It's a shame that there are so many eager looking for any advantage, which, I suppose, necessitates some extra vigilance. But living under a siege mentality is not a great long-term plan.
What a mess.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Its just more ammo for the anti gunners and will be used against us when it will do us the most harm, say 2014 elections for the US House and those states electing Senators. Just becsuse you don't see it today does not mean you won't see it. Heck you may even see the author standing with the anti's after this mess.
jerkface11
Member
Yeah because we all agree someone like that should be walking free.
Captain33036
Member
I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I claim to know what was in the minds of our founders, however, when I read the key phrase in the 2A, it is very clear to me, what they meant. You simply have to think of the era in which they lived.
If someone else has mentioned this, please forgive my ignorance.
"A well regulated Militia [comma] being necessary to the security of a free State [COMMA]"
The above phrase is simply an indication of the reason why the amendment exists. A well regulated Militia has nothing at all to do with the right....it is exactly the reverse.
Think about where exactly the well regulated Militia came from, in Colonial days, and in the years after. It came from ...US. WE THE PEOPLE. I believe that the forefathers understood that in order to raise an Army that would effectively defend the country, those people had to have a LIFETIME of skill and familiarity with firearms.
Even today, many of the most talented young people that go into the military are already very proficient with arms. One could easily argue, if that were not the case, how much more time and training would it take to create such world class soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines? Could this nation afford to allow that talent to wither away?
It is obvious to me, that the founders were warning us not to.
Thanks
John
If someone else has mentioned this, please forgive my ignorance.
"A well regulated Militia [comma] being necessary to the security of a free State [COMMA]"
The above phrase is simply an indication of the reason why the amendment exists. A well regulated Militia has nothing at all to do with the right....it is exactly the reverse.
Think about where exactly the well regulated Militia came from, in Colonial days, and in the years after. It came from ...US. WE THE PEOPLE. I believe that the forefathers understood that in order to raise an Army that would effectively defend the country, those people had to have a LIFETIME of skill and familiarity with firearms.
Even today, many of the most talented young people that go into the military are already very proficient with arms. One could easily argue, if that were not the case, how much more time and training would it take to create such world class soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines? Could this nation afford to allow that talent to wither away?
It is obvious to me, that the founders were warning us not to.
Thanks
John
"Its just more ammo for the anti gunners and will be used against us when it will do us the most harm, say 2014 elections for the US House and those states electing Senators. Just becsuse you don't see it today does not mean you won't see it."
very true. the issue has not gone away.
and for those people earlier who asked - this story actually hit Yahoo News last evening. It might not have lasted very long on Yahoo, because they are always talking about Edward Snowden, the Kardashians, and Jennifer Anniston's hairstyles. But it was there for a short while, and did get several hundred comments. I just looked through the first 50 reader comments.
CA R
very true. the issue has not gone away.
and for those people earlier who asked - this story actually hit Yahoo News last evening. It might not have lasted very long on Yahoo, because they are always talking about Edward Snowden, the Kardashians, and Jennifer Anniston's hairstyles. But it was there for a short while, and did get several hundred comments. I just looked through the first 50 reader comments.
CA R
it seems the biggest mess is your post. all the whackos you cited are banned from guns and would have them anyway being they are criminals. we are doomed if this is the way a sizable portion of gun owners thinkWhile I disagreed with Metcalf's column, I am a little bothered by the insistence that all of us must share ALL the same views or be traitors to all gun owners.
First, I think relatively few of us are true absolutists on this question - true absolutism would mean allowing a 15 year old who had been convicted of murder and was on psychoactive, illegal drugs and diagnosed with acute schizophrenia to buy and carry to school a belt-fed machine gun. Or a known international terrorist to board an airplane with a loaded gun. For those who think that is protected by the second amendment, you are a true absolutist. For the rest of us, we are doing some kind of line drawing. Some of us like the lines where they are. Some of us think the lines are too restrictive. Is it not possible that someone might think that some portions of the line should be moved slightly in a more restrictive direction without wanting to move the line to some truly absurd place?
Second, I don't know that the echo-chamber effect serves us well. It's very easy and tempting to completely tune out sources and opinions that don't accord with our own views. And if the opposing views are so absurd as to be nonsensical, that may be a legitimate choice. But to say that a position that is, say, a 10% variance with our own is not just to be ignored, but affirmatively silenced? That risks leaving us completely isolated from what others not in the community think.
OTOH, I understand the political/PR use that can be made by gun-grabbers of an article by "even a Guns & Ammo writer says we need more restrictions" line of argument. When the other side is eager to capitalize on any "admission," it does kind of hamper a free and open discussion about policy. It's a shame that there are so many eager looking for any advantage, which, I suppose, necessitates some extra vigilance. But living under a siege mentality is not a great long-term plan.
What a mess.
MachIVshooter
Member
Thing is, the extremes define the middle. Whether or not one agrees with some regulation, we have to take the hardline stance to oppose the anti gun crowd. The banners certainly are not going to loosen up; if we move further toward the existing center, then the center will move further toward the anti-gun agenda.
Look at the current political state in this nation for a painfully lucid example. The right has moved toward "center", the left has gone further left. So instead of republicans and Democrats, we now have socially conservative Democrats and progressive liberals.
Yeah, I realize that now. Currently I only subscribe to one Intermedia magazine and I just sent them a letter stating my intent to cancel if Bequette remains a VP (or stays at any level) with the organization.
I think I understand Metcalf's intent... but those guys are supposed to be smart enough to calculate the response of such content.
peacebutready
Member
Reviews of products
Does anyone trust the reviews of this mag?
Does anyone trust the reviews of this mag?
SleazyRider
Member
Thomas Jefferson is oftentimes quoted on gun boards as having said and written things he hadn't; but he really did write this:
"… error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Apparently he---not to mention folks like RC---feel that we should tolerate each other's opinions, an idea that was revolutionary in Jefferson's time and not as widely accepted today as one might think. I'm not sure how Metcalf's firing supports this ideal, especially when G&A readily publishes opinions to the contrary. I've always considered The High Road as a place for the exchange of ideas as well.
After all, you have not converted a man because you have silenced him (Morley), be it firing or shouting him down on an Internet forum.
"… error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Apparently he---not to mention folks like RC---feel that we should tolerate each other's opinions, an idea that was revolutionary in Jefferson's time and not as widely accepted today as one might think. I'm not sure how Metcalf's firing supports this ideal, especially when G&A readily publishes opinions to the contrary. I've always considered The High Road as a place for the exchange of ideas as well.
After all, you have not converted a man because you have silenced him (Morley), be it firing or shouting him down on an Internet forum.
does anyone trust the reviews of any magazine that is reviewing any product that it accepts advertising money or free product from? there cannot be a whole lot of people that naive.
Bequette shares the responsibility, and the blame, for running the piece.
If he & Metcalf are both gone, I'd think that should handle the situation.
Short of blood, what else would you want? Two heads have rolled & we've gotten a public apology from the editor involved.
Denis
If he & Metcalf are both gone, I'd think that should handle the situation.
Short of blood, what else would you want? Two heads have rolled & we've gotten a public apology from the editor involved.
Denis
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked