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.