Quantcast

Dick Metcalf responds

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Flfiremedic, Nov 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    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.
     
  2. Hondo 60
    • Contributing Member

    Hondo 60 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,002
    Location:
    Freeport, IL
    I'm sorry, I disagree.
    RKBA is a "Right" that some lose by their unforced actions.
    A felon is a person that has perpetrated an act egregious enough to have those rights removed.
    I think those rights should be restored only on a case by case basis.
    I don't want someone who used a gun to commit a crime to have that right restored unless they PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that they have reformed.

    To just automatically restore rights after prison/probation IMHO is reckless.
     
  3. borrowedtime69

    borrowedtime69 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    419
    Location:
    Denver CO area
    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.
     
  4. Manco

    Manco Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    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.
     
  5. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    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? :eek:

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

    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.
     
  6. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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."
     
  7. 50 Shooter

    50 Shooter member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,499
    Location:
    SoCal PRK
    Yellow journalism is alive and doing fine! Don't forget it.
     
  8. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    IMHO, justice was served and I'm glad the editor resigned too because he was also at fault. I never cared one bit for Metcalf and anyone who thinks "...a well-regulated militia..." means that firearms laws ("regulations") are constitutional is a first class moron. It would be the only piece of the Bill of Rights protecting the government's ability to generate laws. Stupid.
     
  9. bannockburn

    bannockburn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    20,416
    Old Fuff

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

    Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
     
  10. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,751
    Location:
    TN
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2013
  11. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    Texas
    He doesn't "get it?", well he has a lot of time to think about it now.
     
  12. Manco

    Manco Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    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. :mad: One of our own misrepresenting the meaning of the Second Amendment in a major firearms publication is shocking and inexcusable.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2013
  13. Charles S

    Charles S Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,026
    Location:
    North East Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2013
  14. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    (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.
     
  15. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    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.
     
  16. Guns&Religion

    Guns&Religion Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    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.
     
  17. Guns&Religion

    Guns&Religion Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    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.
     
  18. itsa pain

    itsa pain member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    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
     
  19. itsa pain

    itsa pain member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    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
     
  20. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    Middle, TN
    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.
     
  21. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,751
    Location:
    TN
    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".
     
  22. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    Because only a fool can think he's never wrong.
     
  23. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,717
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    Any laws other than those providing penalties for the misuse of guns are unconstitutional infringements, Dick.

    That doesn't mean they were right, Dick.
     
  24. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,609
    Location:
    Virginia
    If I may hazard a guess, I'd say that Metcalf was spending most of his time around gun people, and came to assume that the pro-gun position was the prevailing one. Therefore, he felt comfortable postulating a contrarian view, perhaps merely for the sake of discussion.

    What he didn't understand was that gun owners (at least the aware, activist ones) see themselves as an embattled minority. The gun issue has become tribal and polarized, and it's "us" against "them." By writing this ill-advised column, Metcalf has taken himself out of the "us" category and gone over to "them." When a group has its backs against the wall, you're either for us or against us. No middle ground.
     
  25. PapaG

    PapaG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Il
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice