Dick Metcalf responds

[Sam1911]

But there is no way to have a "debate" with someone who can publish whatever he wants as a representative of the shooting community in his protected, high-profile billboard of the most well-known gun magazine's editorial page. There is no equal time and space to present our facts and our opinions to counter his. No chance to sway him and "bring him back into the fold," while he retains his position. He had the bully pulpit and used it as he saw fit. His constituents (the readers -- US) responded and have unelected him from his prominent position of representing us. That is fair, and right, and just.

Now, he is utterly and completely free to be swayed and to listen to reason and to debate with us all as equals. Just as his 1st Amendment rights have not been infringed, neither has his opportunity to be educated and informed.

He just can't stand up on his "grand poobah of gun guys" dais in front of American society while he does it.

...

And that IS a good thing. We earn ourselves NOTHING by showing just how willing to "compromise" we all are. We DO earn something by standing firmly together and showing the antis, the public, and the politicians that if they want to assail our rights the costs will be dire. We are indivisible, cohesive, HIGHLY motivated, and effective.

In politics you're either predator or prey, and we don't do ourselves on once of benefit looking undecided, weak, and conciliatory.

 

[JERRY]

I find it disheartening that somebody whom I thought was as well read as Metcalf would be so inclined to align himself with the government machine bent on reducing our rights even further.

 

[BobTheTomato]

"He shouldn't be bastardized or ostracized for exercising his right to free speech and sharing his opinion any more than you should be for exercising your 2A and carrying."

His first amendment rights do not trump our first amendment rights. We have the right to tell a company we wont do business with them if they employ someone. When people say really stupid offensive things and get called on it they tend to get upset just like he has. Metcalf reminds me of most other RINOs or fake conservatives.

 

[SuperNaut]

FUD from a Fudd.

 

[stressed]

Some on this forum, and others, have indicated that the Metcalf situation is some sort of victory for RKBA ...

I think not. We still lose, no matter how it's spun. Just another high-profile instance of how quickly those in the gun rights community turn on each other.

With the antis, even when one is publicly discredited, there's virtually no nationwide publicity, and another quickly pops up to replace the one who disappeared.

What we look like is simply a bunch of such hard-core absolutists who shall brook no compromise, no actual discussion, no questions ... Does this latest situation gain us any ground with those out there that might be undecided on gun rights issues? We don't debate with those that waver, attempting to bring them back into the fold with facts, logic, reasoning, history and scholarship ... No, we simply exile them, casting them out with the accompaniment of shrill, extremist venom.

Let's all just sit around, patting ourselves on the back while creating more media opportunities for the antis. Shame on us.

I would say he was the first to turn on us by writing and publishing such an article. As are the ones who agree with him by saying there are too many "wackos" and "gun nut jobs" drawn to the gun community. Maybe a moderate would label a gunsmith a wackjob because he essentialy lives and breathes firearms. At least that "wackjob" stands with me in support of our rights instead of joining the left and calling for more regulation when we are being choked as it is.

 

[Tipro]

I feel as if I understand and agree with some of what Mr. Metcalf wanted to say, and perhaps he didn't do it exactly as I would have liked. I'm no writer and am not very eloquent, and if he can't do it I probably can't either. But here goes...

We, the gun community, feel threatened. And rightfully so. Our rights are under attack at the Federal level, and many of us have lost huge in State politics recently. Our response has been to become more absolutist. There is no middle ground, the issue is black or white. You are with us all the way, or you are against us.

It's my opinion that we need to re-learn that giving up an inch isn't giving up a mile. Going through a background check and getting some training to receive a shall-issue concealed carry permit is an inch. Yes it's annoying. But being able to go to any number of stores (or private individuals) and leaving 20 minutes later with a new handgun and as much ammunition as you can buy is the mile. That is the core of the 2A, and that's the battle I want to fight.

My mother always taught me to pick my battles, and in this scenario I think it makes sense. Although the most vocal people are often the one's with the most extreme positions, most people reside happily in the middle. By focusing on the core of the 2A, as opposed to its outer fringes, we can bring in more people to our fold. Otherwise, if we isolate others by taking extreme positions (and to most people, our being unable to tolerate a man who believes gun training is an acceptable prerequisite to carrying a Glock into a McDonalds play place will be seen as an extreme position) we risk marginalizing ourselves, risk losing people who agree with us on core issue, and risk losing what is most valuable.

Finally, I encourage you to re-read the Bill of Rights, and look for the word "shall." I'll save you the time - it appears in every amendment but the 10th. That's because our Amendments are commandments, and are absolute. "Congress shall make no law." "The right of the people to be secure . . . shall not be violated." "The accused shall enjoy the right to a public and speedy trial." These are rights, not negotiable terms.

The problem is that it isn't so clear what a "right" is. As Metcalf noted, you cannot deliberately and falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that is not "speech" for the purposes of the 1A. Neither is child pornography, nor are threats against the President's life.

This view is historically grounded and long-accepted. Now if we really care about the Constitution and the Founders, shouldn't we be open to the possibility that they didn't really mean all guns can be owned and carried by all people at all times and in all manners, just as we accept that "speech" doesn't mean every word you utter in every place and at ever time?

Just food for thought.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

He lost his job at a gun magazine because he was in favor of gun control. What did he think would happen?

Who knows what he was thinking but I'm sure he didn't expect the response he got which is the crazy part.

 

[browningguy]

Sorry folks, but Metcalf is not "one of them", and the fact that the great majority of gun owners on this and other boards don't even want to allow a discussion is just sad. You apparently don't think you can have a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn't believe in absolutism.

As Metcalf pointed out, guns are already regulated, for better or worse, and these regulations have been held to be constitutional. Anyone heard of NFA firearms? How about NICS checks? Age restrictions? Import bans on particular firearms?

Do I need to keep going? Did anyone even really read the original or follow up article, or are you all too busy bashing him for daring to have an opinion that differs even slightly from yours?

Do you also support Taliban operatives having the right to preach in America? Isn't that covered by one of those pesky amendments? If one is going to be absolute then all the others have to be, and that leads to a very dangerous place.

 

[Inebriated]

How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

Dick, you did not open a discussion. You gave your opinion. I don't know what kind of "discussion" you think can be had by writing an article in a magazine, but I don't think you'll be seeing this.

The internet is comprised of people, who without it, would be sending G&A letters, instead of emails. We're the same people that buy the magazines, and the same people that hold the future of G&A. So yes, business deicisions are made based off of the responses of PEOPLE, not HOW the people get those responses across.

And we believe in Freedom of Speech and Press as much as anyone. You clearly do not understand the scope of the First Amendment. You got your money's worth out of it. The fact that you lost your job over it is because you are EMPLOYED to make money. You cost G&A money. You were not fired for saying anything, you were fired for costing your company money. If you do not get the difference, do not begin to question the Second Amendment.

Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.

At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.

Of course they are, and no pro-2A individual should be happy about it. You made the assumption that I'm okay with how the laws are, and that is not the case. Every single legislative session, I and every pro-2A person I know, is pushing to get rid of a lot of those restrictions. Just as gun control works little-by-little, regaining the Constitution works little-by-little.

Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

I would hope this discussion could continue.

--Dick Metcalf

1. If I can't trust them with a gun, why do I trust them to be out of prison?
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No, I just don't see the use in starting a full revolution over something that we can work to remove from legislation.

In short, get your head out of your ass.

Sorry folks, but Metcalf is not "one of them", and the fact that the great majority of gun owners on this and other boards don't even want to allow a discussion is just sad. You apparently don't think you can have a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn't believe in absolutism.

As Metcalf pointed out, guns are already regulated, for better or worse, and these regulations have been held to be constitutional. Anyone heard of NFA firearms? How about NICS checks? Age restrictions? Import bans on particular firearms?

Do I need to keep going? Did anyone even really read the original or follow up article, or are you all too busy bashing him for daring to have an opinion that differs even slightly from yours?

Do you also support Taliban operatives having the right to preach in America? Isn't that covered by one of those pesky amendments? If one is going to be absolute then all the others have to be, and that leads to a very dangerous place.

Brother, you, just like Dick, do not "get it".

 

[jerkface11]

Where did the nonsensical idea that we have to respect everyone's opinion come from? Metcalf is just another FUD with ideas about what " common sense" gun laws we need. He has no place in our community and only serves to strengthen the other side.

 

[Rockwolf66]

It's my opinion that we need to re-learn that giving up an inch isn't giving up a mile. Going through a background check and getting some training to receive a shall-issue concealed carry permit is an inch. Yes it's annoying. But being able to go to any number of stores (or private individuals) and leaving 20 minutes later with a new handgun and as much ammunition as you can buy is the mile. That is the core of the 2A, and that's the battle I want to fight.

As a former Californian I can say from first hand experience if you give an anti gunner an inch they will try to take as many miles as they think they can steal. The only solution that works against them is to Give them nothing and to take back as many rights as one can.

People called for Dick Metcalf's job not because he had a totally wrong opinion but he just handed the antis the political equivalent of a cannon and a truck of shells.

 

[Prophet]

CoRoMo and stressed nailed this thread. Metcalf's only chance at saving his hind end would have been a heartfelt apology. Now his name will only come up when used as an oath to describe any person in the firearms industry whose representation of US gun rights is less than satisfactory.

Basically, if somebody is "so bad" that we as a society must deny them rights, constitutional or otherwise, then for crying out loud...KEEP THEM IN PRISON! If the individual has served their time and are declared "safe" to walk among free men and women, then all of their rights should be restored. If that's the right to get a decent job or own a gun...so be it.

Thank you! I agree with you 100%. But realize that historically the best and most efficient means to deny rights to citizens is simple; increase the number of criminals via more laws. I'm currently reading a biography of Russian soldier, novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn right now. He was a fascinating individual who was imprisoned in a Russian gulag for eight years after he and a colleague criticized Stalin while fighting the Germans in WWII. It's an interesting read and illustrates how the Russian people allowed themselves to be subjugated via imposition of a crushing number of laws and illegalities.

It's amazing how many different ways you can become a felon in the US today. The more felonies we add to the list, the easier it becomes for each of us to lose our rights with one conviction. Folks like Metcalf who advocate for the already ridiculous amount of laws and regulations pertaining to firearms in this country let alone an increase of such don't seem to "get" this.

but he just handed the antis the political equivalent of a cannon and a truck of shells.

This was actually my major gripe when the article first came out. The media eats stuff like this up, and it's harder on our cause than the anti movement itself because it targets our main area of concern; the undecided.

you cannot deliberately and falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that is not "speech" for the purposes of the 1A.

Maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but you "can". That is to say, no measures are going to be taken in an attempt to keep you from doing so. No one is going to slap duct tape on your mouth or make you present a permit verifying your attendance of a speech class that specifically taught you not to shout "fire" in a crowded theater prior to your entering. You're innocent until proven guilty.

 

[JERRY]

he should go to the L.A. Times, theyre great at shutting down anybody who does not agree with them.

 

[XD Fan]

Tipro said:

The problem is that it isn't so clear what a "right" is. As Metcalf noted, you cannot deliberately and falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that is not "speech" for the purposes of the 1A. Neither is child pornography, nor are threats against the President's life.

These are poor analogies. Gun restrictions are like being concerned that someone might shout, "Fire" in a theater, so we sew their mouths shut before they go in the theater so they can't possibly shout. Gun restrictions are also like preventing someone buying a camera (or requiring training before they can snap pictures, for that matter) so they won't create child pornography.

Tipro's analogies are things punished after someone has done something wrong, not before.

 

[SuperNaut]

Here ya go, the NYT's most vocal anti-Constitutionalist takes the ball and runs with it.

When people like me read an article like that, it seems momentarily possible that gun advocates and gun control advocates might be able to find some common ground. Much in the way that many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment — something that hasn’t always been the case — here was a man on the other side of the divide saying that some sensible regulation didn’t necessarily lead down a “slippery slope” to confiscation. If we are ever to have a sane gun policy, we desperately need people from both camps to meet somewhere in the middle.

Thanks Dick...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

His first amendment rights do not trump our first amendment rights. We have the right to tell a company we wont do business with them if they employ someone. When people say really stupid offensive things and get called on it they tend to get upset just like he has. Metcalf reminds me of most other RINOs or fake conservatives.

Again, there IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AT ISSUE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Dick could say anything he wished (which he did) and he reaped the consequences in the public backlash against him and the magazine and lost his job as a result. At no time was the First Amendment EVER at issue here.

Yes, we do indeed have "the right to tell a company we won't do business with them".

The problem is that it isn't so clear what a "right" is. As Metcalf noted, you cannot deliberately and falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that is not "speech" for the purposes of the 1A. Neither is child pornography, nor are threats against the President's life

The issue of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment, though it's been cited as an example of a limitation on our First Amendment right. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre may, indeed, have criminal repercussions but it STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with the First Amendment, which is there to protect CITIZENS against GOVERNMENT suppression of free speech.

Child pornography is another poor analogy. It isn't a speech/press issue with respect to political activism for or against the government.


Those people who have to go off the deep end of hyperbole on other Amendments in order to do battle against the clearly worded phrasing of the Second Amendment are on more than shaky grounds with their ideology.

 

[12131]

But there is no way to have a "debate" with someone who can publish whatever he wants as a representative of the shooting community in his protected, high-profile billboard of the most well-known gun magazine's editorial page. There is no equal time and space to present our facts and our opinions to counter his. No chance to sway him and "bring him back into the fold," while he retains his position. He had the bully pulpit and used it as he saw fit. His constituents (the readers -- US) responded and have unelected him from his prominent position of representing us. That is fair, and right, and just.

Now, he is utterly and completely free to be swayed and to listen to reason and to debate with us all as equals. Just as his 1st Amendment rights have not been infringed, neither has his opportunity to be educated and informed.

He just can't stand up on his "grand poobah of gun guys" dais in front of American society while he does it.

...

And that IS a good thing. We earn ourselves NOTHING by showing just how willing to "compromise" we all are. We DO earn something by standing firmly together and showing the antis, the public, and the politicians that if they want to assail our rights the costs will be dire. We are indivisible, cohesive, HIGHLY motivated, and effective.

In politics you're either predator or prey, and we don't do ourselves on once of benefit looking undecided, weak, and conciliatory.

Thank you, Sam, for this. Still, many on here still insist that "we" want to shut him up, without a debate. :banghead:
Hey, Dick, you're free now. Come on, sign on, to any gun boards on the internet and let's have debate. We're on equal footing, now. Let's duke it out, shall we?

 

[larryh1108]

We earn ourselves NOTHING by showing just how willing to "compromise" we all are. We DO earn something by standing firmly together and showing the antis, the public, and the politicians that if they want to assail our rights the costs will be dire. We are indivisible, cohesive, HIGHLY motivated, and effective.

In politics you're either predator or prey, and we don't do ourselves on once of benefit looking undecided, weak, and conciliatory.

Of everything written here, this sums it up the best. I believe we are all tired of having our rights attacked every time we turn around. If we show the decision makers that we are fed up and will not accept it any more then maybe they'll think about their vote. This was swift and decisive.

The CO example of removing state reps was also a strong message. I believe we've been pushed so far back that there is no where else to go and we are tired of it. Time to show them we are not taking it any more with our votes, emails and letters. I believe they woke a sleeping giant and now it's time to show them how strong we are.

 

[itsa pain]

Sorry folks, but Metcalf is not "one of them", and the fact that the great majority of gun owners on this and other boards don't even want to allow a discussion is just sad. You apparently don't think you can have a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn't believe in absolutism.

As Metcalf pointed out, guns are already regulated, for better or worse, and these regulations have been held to be constitutional. Anyone heard of NFA firearms? How about NICS checks? Age restrictions? Import bans on particular firearms?

Do I need to keep going? Did anyone even really read the original or follow up article, or are you all too busy bashing him for daring to have an opinion that differs even slightly from yours?

Do you also support Taliban operatives having the right to preach in America? Isn't that covered by one of those pesky amendments? If one is going to be absolute then all the others have to be, and that leads to a very dangerous place.

yes guns are being over regulated and you seem to want to add to it. that is the way the antis will win an inch at a time.it took them 50 years to turn this country inside out. they are very patient and because of that they always win

 

[itsa pain]

As a former Californian I can say from first hand experience if you give an anti gunner an inch they will try to take as many miles as they think they can steal. The only solution that works against them is to Give them nothing and to take back as many rights as one can.

People called for Dick Metcalf's job not because he had a totally wrong opinion but he just handed the antis the political equivalent of a cannon and a truck of shells.

exactly

 

[Neo-Luddite]

NYT Editorial on Metcalf situation-just FYI

As said, just FYI; the NYT spin was just as expected.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/opinion/when-a-gun-advocate-dissents.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

 

[Neo-Luddite]

NYT Editorial on Metcalf situation-just FYI

As said, just FYI; the NYT spin was just as expected.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/opinion/when-a-gun-advocate-dissents.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

 

[SuperNaut]

Update:

There are now 200+ comments on the NYT article. There should be no longer be any debate about whether or not Dick's G&A article and his follow-up were valuable fodder for Anti-Constitutionalists.

Here's a sample that parrots Dick's weak-tea defense:

So it turns out that the great defenders of the Second Amendment aren't so hot on the First Amendment.

Thanks Dick.

 

[donato]

Quote:
The Second Amendment does not allow for regulation of the RKBA.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Even Scalia admits that reasonable regulation is allowed.

Exactly my point in another thread. The 2nd Amendment only provides the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about the use and regulation of the arms - it does not provide the right to unrestricted use of firearms.

But in the case of concealed carry permits, where I think (as an example) the 2nd Amendment is violated is when there is a cost/charge for the training required to obtain the permit - even the cost of the permit itself. That is an infringement on the 2nd because it keeps some people from having the right to bear arms - can't afford the cost.

 

[22-rimfire]

Exactly my point in another thread. The 2nd Amendment only provides the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about the use and regulation of the arms - it does not provide the right to unrestricted use of firearms.

But in the case of concealed carry permits, where I think (as an example) the 2nd Amendment is violated is when there is a cost/charge for the training required to obtain the permit - even the cost of the permit itself. That is an infringement on the 2nd because it keeps some people from having the right to bear arms - can't afford the cost.

One could use your first statement to justify the requirement for training and fees for carry permits. But I do agree that carry permits essentially transform a right into a privilege.

I think Dick Metcalf is a strong supporter of gun rights and he just made a mistake and essentially said that the government has the right or ability to regulate the sale and use of firearms. It is a question of how much is enough in terms of regulation and the effectiveness of said regulation in achieving the goals of the government. The objective should be reducing crime, not controlling people for the sake of controlling people. As one doctor on Fox said about using meds on a patient... not working, so stop the treatment. Same applies to firearms in terms of crime prevention. There will always be nuts just like there seems to be an abundant supply of terrorists who are willing to give their lives to a cause.