jr_watkins
Member
tag line
Tirod...sort of the point of my tag line.
Tirod...sort of the point of my tag line.
Metcalf is crying again
- Thread starter Yo Mama
- Start date
- Status
JRH6856
Member
My only disagreement with Metcalf's article is his interpretation of "well-regulated" in the text of the 2nd amendment. In the context of the times, well regulated generally meant well trained and Metcalf doesn't make that clear. But then, the regulation he later writes about is one requiring training so maybe that is what he meant after all. A longer article would have allowed for more clarity. A reguirement for training is not an infringement per se, but it can be used to infringe if the requrements are to onerous or impossible to comply with.
I don't think the law should require a set amount of training, because the amount needed differs from person to person. But I have seen enough at the range to know that there are many people carrying guns who know just enough about them to be extremely dangerous. They can pull the trigger and make it go bang, but where the bullet may go they have no clue. Nor do they appear to have any idea of safe handling.
An isolated individual may act in complete freedom, but when two (or more) individuals are in close proximity, each must accept some limits upon his/her freedom to accommodate the others. That is just the way society works.
If someone wants to own a gun, that is their right. If they want to carry it when no one is around, that's fine. But if they want to carry it around other people, they have a social responsibility to learn to do so safely, and society has a right to require a demonstration of that knowledge before accepting the presence a potential danger.
A requirement that an applicant demonstrate adequate proficiency with a handgun is not onerous. Defining proficiency as firing 50 shots into a 1" goup at 50 yards would be onerous and a clearly intended infringement. I think something like this may be what Metcalf wishes he had had the room to say.
I don't think the law should require a set amount of training, because the amount needed differs from person to person. But I have seen enough at the range to know that there are many people carrying guns who know just enough about them to be extremely dangerous. They can pull the trigger and make it go bang, but where the bullet may go they have no clue. Nor do they appear to have any idea of safe handling.
An isolated individual may act in complete freedom, but when two (or more) individuals are in close proximity, each must accept some limits upon his/her freedom to accommodate the others. That is just the way society works.
If someone wants to own a gun, that is their right. If they want to carry it when no one is around, that's fine. But if they want to carry it around other people, they have a social responsibility to learn to do so safely, and society has a right to require a demonstration of that knowledge before accepting the presence a potential danger.
A requirement that an applicant demonstrate adequate proficiency with a handgun is not onerous. Defining proficiency as firing 50 shots into a 1" goup at 50 yards would be onerous and a clearly intended infringement. I think something like this may be what Metcalf wishes he had had the room to say.
Field Tester
Member
This isn't a 20/80% issue though. It's not like I disagreed with him on which 1911 is better, which method of preferred carry of CCW, which .22 rimfire is best, etc... You get the point.
When someone goes against something that defies the core values of our rights we should never be forgiving and always stand unwavering.
Last edited:
He had a chance to clarify his initial article, refine and narrow his broad statements. He didn't do that so deserves his fate.
The initial article was in the context of CC. I think if he had come back and said that he meant "In order to carry a firearm daily a person should have some training to use that firearm." he could have gotten some discussion. His broad statement that in order to have a gun at all some training could be required was far too much to even entertain a discussion.
The initial article was in the context of CC. I think if he had come back and said that he meant "In order to carry a firearm daily a person should have some training to use that firearm." he could have gotten some discussion. His broad statement that in order to have a gun at all some training could be required was far too much to even entertain a discussion.
JRH6856 said:
The wording of the Second Amendment includes "well-regulated" and you're right that there are people who are far from safe when handling guns. I don't know how to work that out to make it not be eventually misused as an infringement though. In a place like NYC, they'd just set the bar so high that no one could ever be "safe."
And aside from that, it puts us back in the area of citizens applying to the state for permission to exercise a right. If you have to do that, it's no longer a right. It's a privilege. It's like requiring a literacy test to vote. Once you impose a "test" you put it within the power of the state to deny a right.
Even when it seems reasonable I just can't get on board with that.
At any rate, Metcalf could have brought this up as a question and invited responses from readers. He could have noted disparities in how states deal with CCW, from the permitless carry of VT and AK to the stringent requirements of IL, and invited discussion to find common ground. A discussion is generally more educational than a lecture anyhow.
But he didn't. He lectured instead. Now he is unemployed. That's that.
My issue with Metcalf is that as a matter of constitutional law and interpretation he is not stating the law of the land. In Heller, the Supreme Court majority said that militia is to be interpreted broadly as to prevent the national government from preventing states from having citizen militia (at the time all males capable of bearing arms) through disarming them. Regulation does not mean regulating guns and individual possession but the Congress setting the conditions of militia service as part of the Armed Forces.
Exactly, once you set a restriction, another hoop to jump through to exercise your Right it is an infringement, and it makes it easier to tighten that restriction down the road. We can't give up any more ground or one day it WILL be 50 rounds in a 1" hole at 50 yards.
The Constitution doesn't GIVE us our Rights it only GUARANTEES what we already had. As to the 80/20 comment, if a traitor during war time only leaked 20% of the information would you still consider him an ally? I say this columnist got what he deserved.
Vern Humphrey
Member
First of all, I can't do anything about how others feel about Mettcalf.
Secondly, he has an absolute right to express his opinions.
Third, I have an absolute right not to subscribe to any magazine that publishes his dreck.
Secondly, he has an absolute right to express his opinions.
Third, I have an absolute right not to subscribe to any magazine that publishes his dreck.
Ryanxia said:
While I understand the sentiment, this isn't quite the same.
I have no doubt that Metcalf mostly votes for pro-gun candidates and probably largely supports RKBA. I'd still rather have his support 80% of the time than none of the time. Really, after years of engaging in these discussions on THR, I think that even agreeing with someone 80% is a miracle sometimes.
Having said that, I think Metcalf's opinion is based on ignorance and out of touch with the reality that a lot of people live in.
He was living a somewhat easy life with G&A paying him for his articles, having as many new guns as he could shoot, and having extra cash and time to go get himself a permit from IL. It didn't seem like a big restriction to him to pay the fees and blow 16 hours getting a permit.
I think for him to understand my point of view, he needs to go work a minimum wage job for a month or live for a month on the budget of an elderly person on Social Security. Maybe he should live in an impoverished, crime riddled area while doing this. Then he should try to squeeze out the extra money for the state-mandated training and hope he can get his permit before someone kills him with a blunt object for the last $27 in his wallet. Maybe once he sees that world he'll understand.
Even here in my state, with no training requirement, I was only able to get my first permit back when I was 21 because my boss was supportive of what I was doing and willing to let me leave work an hour early (without pay) to go to the courthouse (which is only open when many people are working) to get my permit. Without that, I'd have had to choose between a minimum wage job that I sorely needed at the time and the ability to bear arms in my own defense.
I don't hate Dick Metcalf and I respect his right to his opinion. But I do think he's an elitist and I refuse to contribute to his employment.
Last edited:
Hardtarget
Member
I stopped reading G&A so long ago I don't remember the last one I read/looked at. I don't even flip through them when at the magazine stand.
I have more fun reading gun stuff here on The High Road!
Mark
I have more fun reading gun stuff here on The High Road!
Mark
HankB
Member
The Duck Dynasty guy was suspended when a vocal group of activists representing a very small segment of the populace objected to his views - he was reinstated once the powers-that-be realized that this small segment was NOT part of the show's viewership or likely consumers of Duck Dynasty-branded and endorsed gear. Fans of the DD guy rallied, made their views known, and once a little financial calculation was made, the DD guy was reinstated.
Someone figured out that continuing to cater to the hurt feelings of a few members of the lunatic fringe was going to prove expen$ive.
On the other hand, it wasn't a bunch of "non-readers" who Metcalf offended, it was core readers and core consumers - the very people who were spending money on the mag and its advertisers' products, not a bunch of NON-customers. So . . . he got to follow Zumbo into a new job search.
(Would that we could get rid of RINOs as easily . . . )
And as for the loss of his perks and freebies . . . aww, gee, cry me a river.
Someone figured out that continuing to cater to the hurt feelings of a few members of the lunatic fringe was going to prove expen$ive.
On the other hand, it wasn't a bunch of "non-readers" who Metcalf offended, it was core readers and core consumers - the very people who were spending money on the mag and its advertisers' products, not a bunch of NON-customers. So . . . he got to follow Zumbo into a new job search.
(Would that we could get rid of RINOs as easily . . . )
And as for the loss of his perks and freebies . . . aww, gee, cry me a river.
TRX
Member
It was Metcalf's *customers* he offended.
targetshooter22
Member
As far as I am concerned, 99% of gun writers are a bunch of freeloading cry babies. They expect free or discounted gear and supplies, and seldom write much that is really critical of the products. If they want to be taken seriously, they should operate more like Consumer Reports and buy the stuff on the market and compare products on a tough, but fair scale.
Dick shot his mouth off, and his audience responded quickly and decisively. The fact that he just doubles down proves what an out of touch and arrogant guy he is. Good riddance to rubbish in an already crowded field.
Boards like this are about 100 times more useful than the likes of Dick Metcalf; I take opinions and informal reviews here and on other boards much more seriously. At least in this forum there is some kind of challenge to dubious claims of awesomeness compared to the long wet kiss reviews seen in gun rags, and frequently some very good critical thinking applied to the hardware in question.
Dick shot his mouth off, and his audience responded quickly and decisively. The fact that he just doubles down proves what an out of touch and arrogant guy he is. Good riddance to rubbish in an already crowded field.
Boards like this are about 100 times more useful than the likes of Dick Metcalf; I take opinions and informal reviews here and on other boards much more seriously. At least in this forum there is some kind of challenge to dubious claims of awesomeness compared to the long wet kiss reviews seen in gun rags, and frequently some very good critical thinking applied to the hardware in question.
From the Breitbart piece: His only regret is that the article "was too short" to capture the full nuances of his beliefs.
Uh, yeah - digging the hole deeper would have made everything right with the world again. He was spoiled by manufacturers to get decent coverage on their products and it went to his head. He's just upset that he had further to fall and it hurt more when he hit the ground. Noise.
Uh, yeah - digging the hole deeper would have made everything right with the world again. He was spoiled by manufacturers to get decent coverage on their products and it went to his head. He's just upset that he had further to fall and it hurt more when he hit the ground. Noise.
SharpsDressedMan
member
Is he a retired police officer? Is he enjoying the special privilege of "anywhere, anytime, concealed carry" that 2nd class citizens don't have? That might explain some of lack of understanding over what regular folks deal with in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
wow6599
Member
Sure does. He also has the right to bite the hand that feeds (fed) him. And he did. And he's gone.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,193
The NY Times article suggests HE contacted them: "Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices. He says he is still contemplating how a self-described 'Second Amendment fundamentalist' who keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach has been ostracized by his community."
If this is indeed the case and he initiated contact with the NY Times to whine about his plight then he truly doesn't get it.
targetshooter22
Member
Hi Denis,
It's hard, but if there is to *not* be a conflict of interest, it's the only way to go. If CS can exist for their purpose, why can't the same concept work in our favorite area? If it can't, maybe the whole model should change.
Respectfully yours,
TS22
JRH6856
Member
So, did he invite the reporter on his own accord or did the reporter first request an invitation?
Target,
Think it through.
I'll make it easy starting out.
Yesterday I picked up a $2700 sample rifle shipped to my dealer for T&E.
You think, somehow, that I should tie up $2700 of my own money to buy a test rifle that I have no personal use for, so I can write it up & sell the resulting article for far less than half that?
Just in the gun alone, not counting time, ancillary supplies like targets & gas, and so on, you think I can stay in business by taking a $2000 loss on this one article I'm starting?
What? Sell the rifle when I'm done?
Assuming I could get 60% of its new value as a used gun, I'm still losing money.
Not counting the time it'd take to list it somewhere, the local dealer's cut for showing it on consignment, or the Internet auction site's cut if I listed it there.
Added to which would be the time required to drive to the nearest UPS or FedEx facility to ship it if it sold. In my case, a 50-mile round trip.
The $2700 guns are relatively few, but I've done a $2800 custom 1911 from one fantasy shop, a $2500 pistol from Wilson, and a $4800 custom pistol from Cylinder & Slide, among others.
Tell me, laying it out clearly, how I can make any money by buying a $4800 pistol and selling the article for far less than a grand.
Most of the guns I cover range from $500-$900.
I write over 30 articles a year. Some involve more than one gun, but one gun or ten, I get paid the same.
Average out the money tied up in buying new guns when I don't keep most, the money lost in buying new & selling used, and the time (which would come out of time I'd ordinarily be using to move on to the next article) wasted in listing, selling, and shipping across those 30 articles annually, and describe to me how I can stay in the game.
You think we're multi-millionaires? You think we have thousands of dollars to just throw away so you can read an "un-biased" write-up? You think we have hundreds of hours each year to waste on record-keeping and maintaining a buy-high sell-low business model?
Really- lay it out for me, how can your idea possibly work?
Consumer Reports is a relatively large business & doesn't require its writers to spend their own money on products to write up.
The vast majority of us are freelancers, most of us are in it to make money, and we're not non-profit charitable organizations.
Denis
Think it through.
I'll make it easy starting out.
Yesterday I picked up a $2700 sample rifle shipped to my dealer for T&E.
You think, somehow, that I should tie up $2700 of my own money to buy a test rifle that I have no personal use for, so I can write it up & sell the resulting article for far less than half that?
Just in the gun alone, not counting time, ancillary supplies like targets & gas, and so on, you think I can stay in business by taking a $2000 loss on this one article I'm starting?
What? Sell the rifle when I'm done?
Assuming I could get 60% of its new value as a used gun, I'm still losing money.
Not counting the time it'd take to list it somewhere, the local dealer's cut for showing it on consignment, or the Internet auction site's cut if I listed it there.
Added to which would be the time required to drive to the nearest UPS or FedEx facility to ship it if it sold. In my case, a 50-mile round trip.
The $2700 guns are relatively few, but I've done a $2800 custom 1911 from one fantasy shop, a $2500 pistol from Wilson, and a $4800 custom pistol from Cylinder & Slide, among others.
Tell me, laying it out clearly, how I can make any money by buying a $4800 pistol and selling the article for far less than a grand.
Most of the guns I cover range from $500-$900.
I write over 30 articles a year. Some involve more than one gun, but one gun or ten, I get paid the same.
Average out the money tied up in buying new guns when I don't keep most, the money lost in buying new & selling used, and the time (which would come out of time I'd ordinarily be using to move on to the next article) wasted in listing, selling, and shipping across those 30 articles annually, and describe to me how I can stay in the game.
You think we're multi-millionaires? You think we have thousands of dollars to just throw away so you can read an "un-biased" write-up? You think we have hundreds of hours each year to waste on record-keeping and maintaining a buy-high sell-low business model?
Really- lay it out for me, how can your idea possibly work?
Consumer Reports is a relatively large business & doesn't require its writers to spend their own money on products to write up.
The vast majority of us are freelancers, most of us are in it to make money, and we're not non-profit charitable organizations.
Denis
JRH6856
Member
Denis, you forgot to mention that buying and selling that many guns a year would probably require an FFL with the associated expenses and record keeping.
No, I deliberately left out that I'd be exposing myself to scrutiny by ATF for conducting essentially a firearms "business" without an FFL.
It would require, at some point, getting an FFL myself, and that would, as you point out, cost additional money and add additional headaches that I just don't need.
Denis
It would require, at some point, getting an FFL myself, and that would, as you point out, cost additional money and add additional headaches that I just don't need.
Denis
TCB in TN
Member
Couple of problems for Mr. Metcalf, and the comparison to Mr. Robertson.
1st issue is that he overvalued his worth to his company. He assumed (and was way wrong) that his personal opinion on a touchy subject was worth enough to risk making his base customers angry. Now that kind of arrogance isn't that rare, but it is always amusing to see.
2nd issue is the comparison between He and Mr. Robertson. There are several flaws in the comparison. To start with Phil did not put out his opinion on A&E or during the show. He was interviewed outside of the purview of the show and his statements were not a reflection of the show, he was "penalized" for stating his opinion on his own time. Metcalf's opinions were published in the magazine he was paid to write for.
The next issue is the customer, Phil's message is honestly right in line with the feelings of most of the "Bible Believing" traditional family value viewers that make up the prime demographic for DD. While Metcalf's opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinions of a huge segment of his customer base. Phil's stance didn't really hurt business, Metcalf's has.
3rd is their responses to the "backlash" Phil's response was simple. He basically said I believe what I believe, was willing to deal with any and all problems that arose, and that was it (it doesn't hurt that he is in the position of power). Metcalf on the other hand has whined, cried, and done his best to do all that he can except take actual responsibility and accept the consequences of his actions.
Now, I do not think Phil would change his actions if given the opportunity to go back and re-do. Metcalf on the other hand would likely put that article in the trash in a hurry.
1st issue is that he overvalued his worth to his company. He assumed (and was way wrong) that his personal opinion on a touchy subject was worth enough to risk making his base customers angry. Now that kind of arrogance isn't that rare, but it is always amusing to see.
2nd issue is the comparison between He and Mr. Robertson. There are several flaws in the comparison. To start with Phil did not put out his opinion on A&E or during the show. He was interviewed outside of the purview of the show and his statements were not a reflection of the show, he was "penalized" for stating his opinion on his own time. Metcalf's opinions were published in the magazine he was paid to write for.
The next issue is the customer, Phil's message is honestly right in line with the feelings of most of the "Bible Believing" traditional family value viewers that make up the prime demographic for DD. While Metcalf's opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinions of a huge segment of his customer base. Phil's stance didn't really hurt business, Metcalf's has.
3rd is their responses to the "backlash" Phil's response was simple. He basically said I believe what I believe, was willing to deal with any and all problems that arose, and that was it (it doesn't hurt that he is in the position of power). Metcalf on the other hand has whined, cried, and done his best to do all that he can except take actual responsibility and accept the consequences of his actions.
Now, I do not think Phil would change his actions if given the opportunity to go back and re-do. Metcalf on the other hand would likely put that article in the trash in a hurry.
- Status
