Dick Metcalf responds

From the article:

What, exactly, did the NRA have to do with any of this? This is just another example of the anti-2A goons using whatever means they can dream up - even if patently false - to try to vilify the NRA.

 

Metcalf seems to forget that he was fully capable of excersising his first amendment rights, HOWEVER, just cause someone can do that doesnt mean that they are immune from the CONSEQUENCES that arise from making stupid and harmful statements.

I'm glad he's gone and I hope he disappears from the industry altogether and doesnt pop up on the anti-gun side.

 

Like every other MSM news article I've read, it says that gun rights advocates (or just "gun advocates" in this case) are reacting angrily to the general idea that we have to be responsible in exercising our rights. Obviously that is a gross misrepresentation and downright libel, but they're running with it anyway, and now in the eyes of the general public we all look like a bunch of wild-eyed, out-of-control fanatics.

 

Dead on!

I support in theory the idea of firearms training, but what might be the consequences if congress passed and the president signed a bill that required all gun owners/users to go through some kind of training - and the specifications of this were left to the current Justice Department to write?

I suspect that when they were done even Mr. Metcalf - with his background, experience and knowledge couldn't score high enough to pass.

When one considers the kind of people we are dealing with, and the mainline media that backs them, this old saying holds true:

Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

 

That cannot be helped. It is not terrily consequential. Those who would think that, thought that anyway.

It is a slightly distasteful result of our community policing itself and doing something that HAD to be done.

As I look back over the last few years and see this event, the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show event, the CO recalls, the failure of the Administration to accomplish ONE SINGLE national law change after Sandy Hook, the Zumbo event, and on, and on, I see a fantastic, uplifting, and greatly heartening record we can hold up to our legislators and the nation. No, acting against people doesn't make you look pretty. It doesn't make you look friendly.

But looking friendly and pretty doesn't get you respected in the world of rights and politics. I WANT every political entity, from my township supervisor right up to our congressfolk and the President himelf, to have every day in the back of their minds, "Don't mess with those people unless you're willing to risk EVERYTHING over it."

 

Yellow journalism is alive and doing fine! Don't forget it.

 

Old Fuff

Or that other old saying, so appropriate for anti-gun people:

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

CraigC, I believe the Heller decision in fact left the door open for regulation of firearms at the state level within the bounds of the US Constitution. Heller established that owning a firearm is an individual right rather than a collective right (militia) and established that the US Constitution rules ultimately in terms of the Second Amendmant. It's a tangled mess.

This hasn't stopped NY, CO, MD, CT from enacting more restrictive gun control laws. According to the NYT article (from another thread), Metcalf was instrumental in the fight for concealed carry in IL.

 

He doesn't "get it?", well he has a lot of time to think about it now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame our community for righteously reacting as we did, and yellow journalism aside I don't even blame the antis for taking full advantage of the situation--I place the blame squarely on Metcalf's inexcusable ignorance (for the position he was in). The fact that he doesn't even seem to realize why he was canned shows that he is ignorant about a lot more than the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Sure, those who are supposed to represent us and are placed in a position of influence and power in order to do so should get booted, hard, whenever they clearly do not represent us. The nation as a whole should treat our politicians more like how the gun community just treated Metcalf. The only regret I have is that overall Metcalf has fought the good fight, and the act of tearing him down is unpleasant, but he brought it on himself when he helped our opponents by effectively speaking--and even thinking--as one of them. One of our own misrepresenting the meaning of the Second Amendment in a major firearms publication is shocking and inexcusable.

 

In some ways I hate to enter this thread for a number of reasons, but here goes.... It appears that some of the posters have a poor understanding of constitutional law.

Please show me where in the constitution the supreme court is granted the right to interpret the Constitution. I will gladly agree with you once you show me that clause.

That is factually correct. Soooo... The Supreme Court decided on it's own it could interpret the constitution. To say it is constitutional is incorrect.

Please read Jefferson's thoughts on the Supreme Court.

We now have a group of appointed individuals who have decided on their own they can interpret the constitution.... I will leave you all to your own thoughts.

On topic. I think Mr. Metcalf has a right to his own opinion and should be able to express it freely. However, I also agree the magazine has a right to choose to employ him or not.

I for one, have never been his fan, read through a number of articles he has written, and if you are a hunter, shooter, outdoors-men, as most of us are.... see if your experiences correlate with his.

Iwill not miss him... However, I agree we all have a right to express our personal opinion. I do, however, not agree that expressing your opinion has no consequences. I just feel that we should not be regulated.

 

(NYT is paywalled so editorial not read)

What did the NRA have to do with it? As an organization nothing (yet), but do we (pro gun people) not say the power of the NRA is its members? At least some of those members are quite upset.

The NRA is an abstracted target generally used as a way to say "pro gun lobby" or "pro gun people". Saying NRA instead of pro-gun people hides the fact that there are people, voters, that compose the NRA.

Initially with the first article published I thought he was speaking only of concealed carry but speaking broadly. He has had his chance to clarify, narrow his statements, and has not. Training is a good idea but just because it is a good idea does not mean it should be mandatory.

 

I didn't have any trouble reading it, and I haven't paid anything. I just clicked the link and waited until their ad went away.

 

With all due respect to Mr. Metcalf, I'm finding some flaws in his characterization of "Well Regulated" under the 2A.

In regards to his home state of Illinois, which he refers to in his article, I have to ask a question.

Is Chicago "Well Regulated" in regards to the 2A?

I would agree that it is "Highly Regulated", but "Well Regulated"?

In regards to 16 hours of mandatory training, why don't we just watch and see what kind of RESULTS we have after this has been implemented for a while in Illinois, before we rush to make a new requirement, just because a state with a very poor 2A record decides to try it as a solution.

 

It's unfortunate to see a person like Mr. Metcalf "double down" on the statements he made in the G&A article.

When I read the article, and the response, I see a lot of out of context, half truths that are not helpful to the preservation of our constitutional rights, which are currently under attack from many directions in the current political situation this country is in.

To quote from the Miranda statement, "Anything you say can be used against you..."

There is no question that the government, under it's present leadership, is using any and all statements they can find, from any and all public figures, against the 2A constitutional rights of the country, in order to increase the size and scope of the government's power over us.

There are so many statements in Metcalf's G&A article that can be quoted in a destructive way against our freedoms. As a voice of the American shooting public, for many years, he should have known better...

...but that's just what I think.

 

you can commit a felony by downloading a song from the internet. read the book 3 felonies a day that is what most people commit without knowing it. Patrick Henry said -it is the object that all men be armed

 

anyone that thinks mandatory training is a good idea is seriously misinformed. letting the govt who reason for existence is to waste money and expand set the requirements and expecting them not to add to it every year making it harder and more expensive is how they will make people give it up

 

Most (but not all) on here understand what Metcalf obviously doesn't. His yelling fire in a theater analogy is extremely flawed. Infringing upon the 2nd is like saying that one might be allowed to regulate the 1st on the grounds that someone might be capable of yelling fire in a theater. Until it is used to infringe upon the rights of another person there is no basis to infringe upon the 2nd.

 

Explain the reason that Mr. Metcalf does not "get it". I read his piece and found I agreed with some of it, but viewed it as an opinion piece and that is as far as it goes. I oppose mandatory training and licensing to own a firearm. My state (TN) requires training prior to be granted a carry permit. Thought the "training" was a bit useless, but I complied.

As far as mental competence or mental disorders, that is a very difficult matter to nail down in terms of firearms and prefer things just remain as they are with prehaps better reporting within a defined framework which is publicly known.

Is it his use of the term "regulated" to indicate restrictions the issue? Explain it to me. Most people view the term regulated to mean that there are govenmental regulations that apply to the issue of some kind not regulated to mean operationally precise.

I have read much of a couple of threads on the subject and what I get out of it is "noise".

 

Because only a fool can think he's never wrong.

 

Any laws other than those providing penalties for the misuse of guns are unconstitutional infringements, Dick.

That doesn't mean they were right, Dick.

 

Go back to the Master's debacle and you will see that Metcalf has always been "right". I used to make it a point to find one factual error in each of his columns when he tried to take over after Skeeter Skelton died. I respectfully pointed out the errors, cited the real source and snail mailed it in. Never got an acknowledgement nor did he ever print a correction. Check with Roy Jinks, Jeep, or the "winners" that never got their checks. It is history. Put him to rest. Originally I used to read his stuff with an open mind but now I just wish he'd fade into the sunset, along with his 3" 200 yard Taurus Raging Bull groups.
Oh, yeah. If I offended anyone, I apologize....sound familiar?