Dick Metcalf responds
- Thread starter Flfiremedic
- Start date
- Status
Queen_of_Thunder
member
So very true.
Ughhh, no sir, I'm not confusing anything. You are losing something between the reading and comprehending phase. What I originally said was: "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."
No, you are allowed to behave as a hypocrite if you choose. I just find it in extremely poor taste and an embarrassment to the gun community.
You may have the last word now. I've expressed my point.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,840
The Constitution is a legal document in that it is an expression of a philosophical and moral position framed as the basis for a national government. While it is the basis for our system of law, and thus absolutely a 'legal document', it is more than a 'legal document' as that term is generally used.
Seriously? You're (were) in the publishing business and you can ask that question with a straight face? Of course they do! The customer is always right, even when they call for your head.Metcalf said:
Metcalf said:
The Constitution does not regulate private conduct, Dick. Shouldn't a scholar such as yourself know that?
GA prints the article. Instantly it is passed from forum to forum, blog to blog. Millions see it and it creates a reaction. Wacks and hypocrites start complaining and calling for a lynching, GA then appears to cave and caters to the wacks and hypocrites. The wacks and hypocrites then feel accommodated and talk shifts to "GA is one of us...they are on our side...we like GA...we'll buy a subscription to support a publication who is on our side...GA for president...hip hip hooray."
Look at all the lip service they received from this. When was the last time this many people mentioned GA in a 48 hr period?
Metcalf was leaving anyway.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Or better put, why would so many people think that the First Amendment has ANYTHING to do with the restrictions of ANY form of speach imposed by ANY agency other than the government?
If THR says "thou shalt not use abusive language on this site", then that is NOT an example of infringement on our First Amendment right to free speach. Likewise, the public expressions of people (such as Dick Metcalf's column) or any resulting criticisms by people in response (like towards Dick Metcalf) are NOT examples of infringement of our First Amendment right to free speach.
So many people seem to forget that the intent AND the wording of the First Amendment is to protect CITIZENS from GOVERNMENT suppression of free speach. It has absolutely nothing to do with any restrictions/suppressions by individual, corporate, or other non-govenment organizations/agencies.
Sorry...a pet peeve of mine. Feel free to criticize me for jumping in.
Last edited:
Field Tester
Member
Read post 64. The Editor is getting a promotion with the parent company as I understand itRealy ? And it is meant to favor G&A by doing
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9190280#post9190280
Now tack that on with them holding off on Metcalf responding until they would see the reaction and I think it's quite clear.
I don't 100% believe it myself, but it makes the most sense.
Field Tester
Member
Metcalf wasn't leaving, the Editor Bequette was the one who was getting a promotion. Read my post above that links to the previous discussion.
Edit, sorry I was attempting to quote Rooter.
Edit, sorry I was attempting to quote Rooter.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Rooter, that is true, however, as I said elsewhere, editorial pages have always been places where those in positions of some prominence in the popular press of their area of expertise air out their views and try and influence people. It isn't actually "promoting dialog" or any such noise, it is trying to stir the faithful to join an opinion or a movement.
The key point here is that an editor of a high profile publication is not MERELY an individual, expressing his or her opinion. Every person has that right, and we would have no reason to revile them for merely floating an hypothesis for debate.
But no, an editor writing on the 2nd page of a (or THE?) major subject-matter periodical is more than an individual expressing himself. He holds a of leadership and representation of those who read his periodical and all those interested in his area of subject matter.
While he is not elected and certainly does not officially represent any of us, he TACITLY absolutely does, as a high-profile illuminatus of our sphere. As a representative, he can be, should be, and MUST be held to task for upholding the best and most virtuous of our specialized society's principles. As with a Congressman or other political actor, if he fails to represent us, we have a mechanism by which he may be replaced. The mechanics are different here than in the voting booth, but the effect is the same. And sometimes most gratifyingly speedier!
And the effect is completely appropriate. We do him (or ourselves) no disservice if we use the power of our purses to ask that he no longer so represent us -- that he no longer hold a position of prominence in our sphere of interest. We don't have to hate him, or wish him ill. But we DO have to remove him from his place of representation of us, if we have the clout. Fortunately, it turns out WE DO!
(Yaaay, US!)Every man and woman has the right to express their views. No man or woman is granted any right in any way to be immune from the social consequences of that expression. Not a plumber, not a doctor, not an artist/performer, not a senator, not a president, not an editor. When someone takes on a role (elected, official, or unelected, unofficial) of being a representative and leader of others the consequences that may come from representing those people poorly may be more weighty than what would befall the average man who says something asinine -- or merely opinionated in an unpopular direction.
Ahhh, hypocrites! And wackjobs! And quislings! And traitors! And false friends, false flags, and fifth columnists! Closet-antis! Fudds! Ducks Unlimited members! They're out there, man, I tell ya -- gotta watch your enemies and your friends too!
Just happens that everyone has a different definition for each. Fortunately, we're moving the line toward the right end of the field and that makes me happy. I can live with a few "wackjobs" if that's what it takes.
EDIT:
Rooter, double check the definition of the word you're using there. Hypocrite doesn't mean what it seems you're implying it means. If someone in a position of leadership/representation uses his position to promulgate a theory that is opposed to my interests and views, I am within my rights to express my displeasure by voting him out of that position. In this case that is effected by contacting his employer and expressing that he is the reason I won't purchase their product or service. There is nothing at all hypocritical about that.
I still FULLY support his right to believe and say all the things he said. As a private citizen, that's his right. As another private citizen -- and consumer -- it is MY right to attempt to ensure that "private citizen" is the only title he holds from now on.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yup! Those guys'll GIT ya!
JDBoardman
Member
Pizzapinochle:
The Supreme Court was established by the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws. They are the ONLY authority under the constitution that can make that determination.
That statement is factually incorrect. The power to rule on the constitutionality of laws was a usurpation BY the Supreme Court in the Marbury v. Madison case in the early 1800's. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution defines the Judiciary , and states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" Section 2 of Article III .established the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, and nowhere is the "power" to determine the constitutionality of a law, act, treaty bill or executive order given to the Supreme Court. Since Marbury v. Madison, we have accepted the Supreme Court's rulings on constitutionality, but it is a de facto acceptance, not a de juria acceptance. Thus, you cannot say as an absolute, that if the Supreme Court has ruled X then it is or is not constitutional.
The Supreme Court was established by the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws. They are the ONLY authority under the constitution that can make that determination.
That statement is factually incorrect. The power to rule on the constitutionality of laws was a usurpation BY the Supreme Court in the Marbury v. Madison case in the early 1800's. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution defines the Judiciary , and states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" Section 2 of Article III .established the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, and nowhere is the "power" to determine the constitutionality of a law, act, treaty bill or executive order given to the Supreme Court. Since Marbury v. Madison, we have accepted the Supreme Court's rulings on constitutionality, but it is a de facto acceptance, not a de juria acceptance. Thus, you cannot say as an absolute, that if the Supreme Court has ruled X then it is or is not constitutional.
Ric
Member
Metcalf has his opinion, not a problem. He could express it on his blog, to friends or family, at work just like I can.
To express it in a major firearms mag is not the best way to have an open conversation about it and probably hurts the cause of gun rights by giving the political opposition a talking point to twist and blow out of proportion.
If he was having the same conversation on this forum then no one would fault him for his own thoughts on the issue. As we can all speak as near equals and brothers on the basics of gun rights.
Talking about this or gun choices, shooting, ammo, calibers is fine in a gun shop or on the range. But may not be what to discuss in an airport or at a political rally. (Might scare the sheep)
And become a farther reaching problem than it should be, like now.
To express it in a major firearms mag is not the best way to have an open conversation about it and probably hurts the cause of gun rights by giving the political opposition a talking point to twist and blow out of proportion.
If he was having the same conversation on this forum then no one would fault him for his own thoughts on the issue. As we can all speak as near equals and brothers on the basics of gun rights.
Talking about this or gun choices, shooting, ammo, calibers is fine in a gun shop or on the range. But may not be what to discuss in an airport or at a political rally. (Might scare the sheep)
And become a farther reaching problem than it should be, like now.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Continuing the point: If Dick Metcalf is a computer programmer, or plumber, or janitor, or owns an office supply store, or whatever else he might do for a living -- and he expresses these opinions, fine. That's his right and while I might not care to do business with him depending on how strongly and stridently he expresses that point, I wish him no ill. I don't want to see his business fail or him lose his job. We can debate the issue as friends. Maybe I'll convince him, maybe he'll sway me. It's all good and all part of a society of fellow citizens.
When Dick Metcalf steps behind his lectern (by writing something in his national column) he becomes a "prominent member of the pro-gun press" -- a position of representation and leadership. He writes the things that gun folks want to know. He says the things that gun folks believe. He is one of the faces of the gun culture -- and a very highly placed one. Now his professional writings are not the inconsequential expressions of a member of an internet forum, or the opinions of one of your pals at the bar or over the lunch table. He is writing to, and FOR, us all. Whether you agree with him or not, or for that matter even if you've never heard of him, that's his position and role in society.
It is sad and unfortunate that his vocation is tied to his role as representative. If we could remove him from that position without harming his livelihood, I'm sure we all would do so. But his job depends on, relies on, and benefits from that publicity and public persona, and so has no choice but to suffer when he is "unelected" from that office due to publically mis-representing his constituents.
Again, this is no more -- OR LESS -- an affront to his 1st Amendment rights than is your decision to vote against your local elected official -- or President Obama for that matter! Someone is employed to publicly represent you, and they've failed to do so in accordance with your views. It is your right and duty to ATTEMPT -- striving with all the other citizens with their similar and disparate views -- to remove that poor representative in favor of a better one.
c.latrans
Member
A classic case of denial. The man knows exactly why people are mad, but much like our elected elite, his opinion overshadows us, the mere peons who wait with baited breath for his next bout of brilliance to effervesce. To those who appointed this clown arbitror of the opinion of the unwashed masses involved in the shooting sports.....take note.....you have bosses as well. Enjoy your new position with the Brady Bunch, Dick. You have earned it. And tell Zumbo we said "hey".
Old Dog
Member
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 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.
jerkface11
Member
He lost his job at a gun magazine because he was in favor of gun control. What did he think would happen?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
