PDA

View Full Version : December Guns & Ammo


Nevada Hudson
11-03-2013, 8:32 AM
On the back page of December's Guns & Ammo magazine, Dick Metcalf supports more gun control and regulation. He compares it to driving a car and getting a drivers license. Please let him know how you Really feel about this at backpage@imoutdoors.com

testtube805
11-03-2013, 10:19 AM
I saw that. He also states well regulated means regulated with laws. What!?

Simi-Surfer
11-03-2013, 10:50 AM
Just UNLIKED on facebook and canceling my subscription. Posted on their facebook and they keep removing it.

morfeeis
11-03-2013, 12:05 PM
On the back page of December's Guns & Ammo magazine, Dick Metcalf supports more gun control and regulation. He compares it to driving a car and getting a drivers license. Please let him know how you Really feel about this at backpage@imoutdoors.com
I tried to send over an email, but that address bounces back as invalid....

Nevada Hudson
11-03-2013, 1:36 PM
That's the right e-mail according to the magazine.

pitbull30
11-03-2013, 4:03 PM
Another post in OT has the article.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=846576

TacticalPlinker
11-03-2013, 4:07 PM
Happy to know I did not renew my subscription. Any pro-2a/gun entity, be it a magazine, company, organization or even an individual, that supports more gun control legislation does not deserve our support (however it comes and in whatever form). Period.

roger1022
11-03-2013, 4:22 PM
This sounds similar to the Recoil magazine controversy from last year. In this case, the editor is not doing us gun people any favors.

HUTCH 7.62
11-03-2013, 4:24 PM
:dupe::dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=846576

drew3630
11-03-2013, 4:30 PM
I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

I won't be subscribing to G&A

Johnny_Utah
11-03-2013, 4:33 PM
I'm willing to bet they just lost a good number of subs and RIGHTLY so. I just sent an email to let them know that I would never give one cent towards a magazine of theirs, ever.

wjc
11-04-2013, 7:20 PM
Thanks for the tip, OP!

Nevada Hudson
11-06-2013, 6:32 PM
Just heard that the Editor of Guns & Ammo and Dick Metcalf have been fired! :oji:
Horray!:D

LoneYote
11-06-2013, 7:19 PM
Just heard that the Editor of Guns & Ammo and Dick Metcalf have been fired! :oji:
Horray!:D

Where?

Johnny_Utah
11-06-2013, 7:35 PM
I wrote to them and I just got this email:


Dear Reader,

Dynamic changes for “Guns & Ammo” have been in development for many preceding months, and were to first appear in the March issue. Given recent events, we will move forward and begin implementing these changes effective immediately.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended.

The February issue will mark the introduction of Eric R. Poole as the new editor of “Guns & Ammo” magazine. Eric has previously written features with “Guns & Ammo” on new products and has contributed to the “Modern Sporting Rifles” column every other month. He’s known for his passionate advocacy of Second Amendment rights, and continues to be a lifelong student of all things related to firearms. Most recently, you may recognize him for having been the editor-in-chief of special interest publications produced by “Guns & Ammo,” including “Book of the AR-15,” “SNIPER,” “Surplus Firearms,” “Book of the AK47,” “TRIGGER” and many others since 2009.

Eric Poole is himself a long-time reader of “Guns & Ammo” and brings with him a fresh vision for the magazine and digital products. In the coming months he will introduce new contributors carrying credible backgrounds, thoughtful content and a new style. He is a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, a Marine combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a smallbore and highpower rifle competitor, gun collector, as well as a marksmanship instructor. During his formative years, he worked for four years at the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. He views the opportunity to lead “Guns & Ammo” as the ultimate achievement in his shooting career, which began decades ago with his father, himself a retired police officer and gun enthusiast.

Every reader is extremely important to Guns & Ammo magazine and we value our relationship with you. I ask you personally to maintain your support of Guns & Ammo magazine and give Eric Poole the opportunity to continue the prominence that “Guns & Ammo” has had in promoting all types of firearms, firearm sports and – firearm rights – since it was first published in 1958.

Sincerely,
Chris Agnes
Publisher, Guns & Ammo
www.gunsandammo.com (http://www.gunsandammo.com)

Fjold
11-06-2013, 7:40 PM
http://www.thebangswitch.com/guns-ammo-official-response-to-metcalf-article/

VegasND
11-06-2013, 7:49 PM
The world has changed.

Publishing the opinion was a bad choice. Given the sorry state of this market and the declining interest in paper magazines, G&A will probably never recover.

SaltyDogUSMC
11-06-2013, 8:02 PM
Just bomber their FB page along with thousands of others. They apparently fired Metcalf, but the Editor who agreed to publish it needs to go, too. Douche

ja308
11-06-2013, 8:56 PM
Good to know they fired the gun grabbing shill !

I have not subscribed to G+A since the passing of Jeff Cooper, not sure why. The magazine just seemed to feature a new 1911 every issue and became boring.

Every month I pick up a copy of Shotgun News, maybe its time I reviewed the new G+A, just to keep myself current :D

Does anyone recall the gun writer fool who said AR rifles are not suitable for hunting and should be banned? I think his last name began with a Z ?

mag360
11-06-2013, 9:39 PM
ja308 that was jim zumbo, he now says that he advocates for hunting with ar15's, the nuge set him straight, and that while he understands we will never forgive him, he wants to have our support in convincing others that AR's are good to hunt with.

I mean the guy (Jim zumbo) called AR's terrorist guns.

morfeeis
11-06-2013, 11:33 PM
ja308 that was jim zumbo, he now says that he advocates for hunting with ar15's, the nuge set him straight, and that while he understands we will never forgive him, he wants to have our support in convincing others that AR's are good to hunt with.

I mean the guy (Jim zumbo) called AR's terrorist guns.
How is the hell did he keep his job?

Foulball
11-07-2013, 5:11 AM
How the hell did he keep his job?

He didn't.

ja308
11-07-2013, 8:08 AM
ja308 that was jim zumbo, he now says that he advocates for hunting with ar15's, the nuge set him straight, and that while he understands we will never forgive him, he wants to have our support in convincing others that AR's are good to hunt with.

I mean the guy (Jim zumbo) called AR's terrorist guns.


Thanx Mag, for the recollection :)

Regarding the Metcalf article, it would appear he used some poor choices of words to justify 16 hours of training for a Illinois CCW. The article wasn't quite as bad as I originally thought.

His biggest mistake was saying " well regulated " means govt control, when in reality it meant " working well " as a clock that keeps time was well regulated .

Unforgivable ? Yeah probably, we don't need misinformation this bad for antis to use against us .

Michael_Js
11-07-2013, 8:17 AM
Yup...all gone! http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/breaking-guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-for-2a-betrayal/

flyer898
11-07-2013, 8:42 AM
Language changes over time. In 1787 well regulated meant well trained in the context of militia. I gave up on G&A a long time ago because their articles had become little more than thinly veiled advertisements.

Nevada Hudson
11-07-2013, 11:48 AM
Canceled my subscription which is for 5 more years, and they will refund the difference.They said that a lot of people are calling and canceling.
Maybe Bloomberg will give the fired editors jobs!

stilly
11-07-2013, 12:12 PM
Thanx Mag, for the recollection :)

Regarding the Metcalf article, it would appear he used some poor choices of words to justify 16 hours of training for a Illinois CCW. The article wasn't quite as bad as I originally thought.

His biggest mistake was saying " well regulated " means govt control, when in reality it meant " working well " as a clock that keeps time was well regulated .

Unforgivable ? Yeah probably, we don't need misinformation this bad for antis to use against us .

Forgive my ignorance here please but rather then just see it, where can I read about the WELL REGULATED part?

I read the article and I did not get all upset like others did and I thought that well regulated, well, after thinking, I agreed that militias are regulated by the govt I GUESS. I did not really give it much thought before. I DO have the attitude that I am sick of new regulations and I am SICK of laws based on one incident and laws that restrict ME for others actions. But where can I learn more about what that little "Well Regulated" statement means?

Yes, I have been living under a rock for the past 20 years...

vincewarde
11-07-2013, 2:21 PM
I really hope that everyone, on all sides of this issue, will actually take time to read what Dick Metcalf wrote. Most gun control advocates would consider him a pro-gun extremist!

I am a life long pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues - and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those "in common use" by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called "assault weapons" being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS - and in practical terms, that is what matters.

If you think that the 2nd Amendment really is going to be interpreted to secure that right of all law abiding citizens to carry concealed without a permit, vs. the right of all law abiding citizens to obtain a permit with reasonable training and background check requirements - dream on. It's not going to happen. IMHO, the same can be said of NICS checks. As Metcalf points out, no constitutional right is absolute - and all of his examples are valid and on point.

Folks, I am a retired minister and as such I see the same destructive pattern here that I have seen in the church from time to time. Anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion on, say the age of the earth, is labeled as one who has departed from the faith. Never mind the fact the they still hold to the essentials of the faith, just disown them as a traitor to all you hold dear. That is never good for a church, and this is not good for the pro-gun rights movement. Metcalf is no traitor to the pro-gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment movement because he suggests that some regulation is allowed. Disagree with him, debate with him, dialog with him all you want. At the end of the day, he is simply addressing issues we must face - and he is still pro-gun rights.

If we continue to participate in a circular firing squad, we are going to miss opportunities to advance and maybe even loose the next fight.

Oliver_Charles
11-07-2013, 2:25 PM
***

hadjin
11-07-2013, 3:07 PM
Yahoo covered the profuse apology and immediate resignation by the Editor, and Dick Metcalf's firing

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-apologizes-194505783.html

vincewarde
11-07-2013, 4:44 PM
Yahoo covered the profuse apology and immediate resignation by the Editor, and Dick Metcalf's firing

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-apologizes-194505783.html

Yes they did - in a way that makes all of us look like extremists, of course.......

TempleKnight
11-07-2013, 4:49 PM
Forgive my ignorance here please but rather then just see it, where can I read about the WELL REGULATED part?

I read the article and I did not get all upset like others did and I thought that well regulated, well, after thinking, I agreed that militias are regulated by the govt I GUESS. I did not really give it much thought before. I DO have the attitude that I am sick of new regulations and I am SICK of laws based on one incident and laws that restrict ME for others actions. But where can I learn more about what that little "Well Regulated" statement means?

Yes, I have been living under a rock for the past 20 years...

So you think the 2A says "we need a lot of rules and regulations so we can encroach upon the people in a way that violates law or their rights"? That just makes no sense. If you say "because we need a well-equipped citizenry, the RIGHT to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed" it makes sense.

FISHNFRANK
11-07-2013, 5:24 PM
I agree. I've had some serious reservations about some of the trends I've seen among gun owners. I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons. While I've always supported folks right to own them, but I also know that a small percentage are buying them because they have a revenge fantasy and want to go to a public place and create mayhem. Should we give more scrutiny to those purchases? I've always felt we should.

So now you guys can let it rip. Guess what - there are those among you, gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters that may be okay with some regulations. Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do. What you'll end up with is a smaller and smaller circle of hard core supporters. You should invite dissent, not suppress it

Frank



I really hope that everyone, on all sides of this issue, will actually take time to read what Dick Metcalf wrote. Most gun control advocates would consider him a pro-gun extremist!

I am a life long pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues - and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those "in common use" by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called "assault weapons" being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS - and in practical terms, that is what matters.

If you think that the 2nd Amendment really is going to be interpreted to secure that right of all law abiding citizens to carry concealed without a permit, vs. the right of all law abiding citizens to obtain a permit with reasonable training and background check requirements - dream on. It's not going to happen. IMHO, the same can be said of NICS checks. As Metcalf points out, no constitutional right is absolute - and all of his examples are valid and on point.

Folks, I am a retired minister and as such I see the same destructive pattern here that I have seen in the church from time to time. Anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion on, say the age of the earth, is labeled as one who has departed from the faith. Never mind the fact the they still hold to the essentials of the faith, just disown them as a traitor to all you hold dear. That is never good for a church, and this is not good for the pro-gun rights movement. Metcalf is no traitor to the pro-gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment movement because he suggests that some regulation is allowed. Disagree with him, debate with him, dialog with him all you want. At the end of the day, he is simply addressing issues we must face - and he is still pro-gun rights.

If we continue to participate in a circular firing squad, we are going to miss opportunities to advance and maybe even loose the next fight.

Johnny_Utah
11-07-2013, 5:30 PM
I agree. I've had some serious reservations about some of the trends I've seen among gun owners. I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons. While I've always supported folks right to own them, but I also know that a small percentage are buying them because they have a revenge fantasy and want to go to a public place and create mayhem. Should we give more scrutiny to those purchases? I've always felt we should.

So now you guys can let it rip. Guess what - there are those among you, gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters that may be okay with some regulations. Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do. What you'll end up with is a smaller and smaller circle of hard core supporters. You should invite dissent, not suppress it

Frank


Battle weapons....hey where have I heard that before? That's as bad as "assault weapons". I couldn't disagree with you more. Just you wait, as soon as they get my AR and AK they will come for your bolt action rifle, old timer. You and people like you are what is wrong with our movement. You don't care about regulations as long as you are not impacted. What if I said "I don't care about the lead ban because I don't hunt".

Boy, I have a bad taste in my mouth from some of these replies. WE HAVE ENOUGH REGULATIONS AS IS. TOO MANY. The 2nd amendment has NEVER had anything to do with hunting. If I may suggest, MAIG is that way ---->

kaligaran
11-07-2013, 5:33 PM
Forgive my ignorance here please but rather then just see it, where can I read about the WELL REGULATED part?

I read the article and I did not get all upset like others did and I thought that well regulated, well, after thinking, I agreed that militias are regulated by the govt I GUESS. I did not really give it much thought before. I DO have the attitude that I am sick of new regulations and I am SICK of laws based on one incident and laws that restrict ME for others actions. But where can I learn more about what that little "Well Regulated" statement means?

Yes, I have been living under a rock for the past 20 years...

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

feel free to fact check it, that's the best I can do:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

problemchild
11-07-2013, 8:04 PM
'Guns & Ammo' Apologizes, Fires Editor for Arguing to Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights


On November 5, Breitbart News reported (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/05/Guns-Ammo-Editor-All-Constitutional-Rights-Need-Regulation-2nd-Amendment-Included) on an editorial in which Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf argued that all constitutional rights need to be be regulated, including the 2nd Amendment.

On November 7, Metcalf was fired, and Guns & Ammo Magazine has apologized to readers for the things that he wrote.
Gun & Ammo editor Jim Bequette issued a statement (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/) apologizing to readers for the article and announcing that Metcalf's "association with 'Guns & Ammo' has officially ended." The full text of the statement can be read below: As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.
No excuses, no backtracking.
Dick Metcalf’s “Backstop” column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning “Guns & Ammo”’s commitment to the Second Amendment. I understand why.
Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers such as Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and a voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.”
In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, “Guns & Ammo”’s. It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.
Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with “Guns & Ammo” has officially ended.
I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.
I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.
Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of “Guns & Ammo” on January 1. However, these recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.
Your new “Guns & Ammo” editor will be Eric R. Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications, such as “Book of the AR-15” and “TRIGGER.” You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.
“Guns & Ammo” will never fail to vigorously lead the struggle for our Second Amendment rights, and with vigorous young editorial leadership such as Eric’s, it will be done even better in the future.
Respectfully,
Jim Bequette

Kokopelli
11-07-2013, 8:19 PM
I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons.

I'm in my 60's at thought like you until I built one. You see, I hunt rabbits and prefer a quick follow up shot ability. The accuracy of my Mini 14 was poor and the AR accuracy is excellent. So, I switched and I'm not going back. It is a joy to build for those of us who like to work with our hands. Think "big boy's erector set."

The AR/M4 platform is as American as lever action rifless and apple pie. It is indeed "America's rifle."

:oji:

drew3630
11-07-2013, 9:28 PM
Frank,

I'm with you - I agree that crazy people should not have access to guns (or any other weapon). And I'm fine that you don't like ARs. But you lost me with your reference to ARs as "battle weapons".

I don't know of any military in the world, and certainly not ours, that use guns that are limited to 10 round magazines that cannot be removed without the use of a tool. Granted, the ARs and other "assault weapons" owned by thousands, if not millions, of law abiding citizens resemble the guns used by the military. But the resemblance is only skin deep. These guns are not "battle weapons" except in looks.

I agree. I've had some serious reservations about some of the trends I've seen among gun owners. I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons. While I've always supported folks right to own them, but I also know that a small percentage are buying them because they have a revenge fantasy and want to go to a public place and create mayhem. Should we give more scrutiny to those purchases? I've always felt we should.

So now you guys can let it rip. Guess what - there are those among you, gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters that may be okay with some regulations. Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do. What you'll end up with is a smaller and smaller circle of hard core supporters. You should invite dissent, not suppress it

Frank

mag360
11-07-2013, 9:36 PM
Frank can you tell me a gun you own that isn't a "battle weapon"?

Any army/navy revolvers you might own?

How about a 1911? Bet you have one of those?

Or maybe an M1 garand?

how about a M1903?

maybe a lee-enfield?

All of those are battle weapons or "weapons of war" I'm not sure what you are trying to say. What is wrong with "battle weapons". To me the whole point of owning guns is to be able to protect my well being. Whether is self, family or country. I want the best damn guns that are available for that.

vincewarde
11-07-2013, 10:18 PM
Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do.

It's worse than that - Metcalf is a long time supporter of the 2nd Amendment who has been in the fight for longer than many people posting about him have been alive. Just do an internet search and you will see how hard he has worked to promote gun rights. He is one of us, not some Bloomberg agent out to subvert the cause.

Although I think he is totally wrong in his interpretation of "well regulated", I don't think he is far off in his conclusions. The chance that SCOTUS, when it takes a concealed carry case, is going to rule that anyone who is not a prohibited person can carry a firearm without a permit or training is basically zero. The only other issue he raised was that of felons and the severely mentally ill, and my friends, that is straight out of Heller.

I wonder if the people arguing for 50 state constitutional carry have any idea just how extreme that sounds. I wonder of they have ever thought out what would happen if by some fluke the high court ever handed down such a decision? IMHO, what would happen would be the revision or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of people in the US would be terrified by the idea of people carrying loaded guns without training - including many people who are supportive of concealed carry. Yes, there are states where the culture is such that this is not an issue - but they are in a minority. There is such a thing as loosing because you overreach - and that is what can happen if we push for 50 state permit free carry. Just consider what happened here as a result of the open carry movement pushing things. Did we win or loose?

Even worse is the ground we lost today with the general public. Again, even people who support concealed carry in principle are afraid of people being able to carry without a permit and training. The fact that a leading gun writer lost his job for arguing that requiring training before someone is permitted to carry a loaded gun in public DOES NOT help our cause. It allows the opposition to portray all of us as extremist nuts - which is exactly what they have been doing all day.

arsilva32
11-08-2013, 2:08 AM
a law abiding citizen should be able to own any rifle, even a top of the line full auto battle rifle. any other attitude is completely unacceptable. we are talking about law abiding citizens here,not criminal or mentally ill, having weapons like these will not turn people into liquor store robbing killers.if law enforcement can have it then so should law abiding citizens. its people with compromising attitudes that are the problem,as we saw with the first AWB and hunters that were ok with it.its ok as long as it is not affecting your gun of choice. foolish thinking as you will be next on the list.

StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca
11-08-2013, 3:17 AM
I really hope that everyone, on all sides of this issue, will actually take time to read what Dick Metcalf wrote. Most gun control advocates would consider him a pro-gun extremist!

I am a life long pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues - and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those "in common use" by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called "assault weapons" being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS - and in practical terms, that is what matters.

If you think that the 2nd Amendment really is going to be interpreted to secure that right of all law abiding citizens to carry concealed without a permit, vs. the right of all law abiding citizens to obtain a permit with reasonable training and background check requirements - dream on. It's not going to happen. IMHO, the same can be said of NICS checks. As Metcalf points out, no constitutional right is absolute - and all of his examples are valid and on point.

Folks, I am a retired minister and as such I see the same destructive pattern here that I have seen in the church from time to time. Anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion on, say the age of the earth, is labeled as one who has departed from the faith. Never mind the fact the they still hold to the essentials of the faith, just disown them as a traitor to all you hold dear. That is never good for a church, and this is not good for the pro-gun rights movement. Metcalf is no traitor to the pro-gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment movement because he suggests that some regulation is allowed. Disagree with him, debate with him, dialog with him all you want. At the end of the day, he is simply addressing issues we must face - and he is still pro-gun rights.

If we continue to participate in a circular firing squad, we are going to miss opportunities to advance and maybe even loose the next fight.

Very well said! :) I was expecting some of the same rhetoric as Jumbo from what everyone was saying. Then I read what he said. Yea he said some things that the antis could possibly use but I do not believe he is a traitor to the cause. He is nothing even close to a Jumbo and it is unfortunate to see him cannibalized the way he was.

FISHNFRANK
11-08-2013, 7:41 AM
I see I got everybody a little hot. I've always been my own man and I've always been able to see both sides of an argument. The vitriol and take no prisoners approach that some of you exhibit is exactly why the pro-gun movement in this state is viewed as extreme (evidence the geniuses that got open carry banned)

By the way. The lead ban doesn't bother me much at all. Several of my guns shoot better with copper. A 5 year transition is fairly reasonable. As a duck hunter I've been shooting with non toxic for years. I'm still duck hunting

Frank

jorgyusa
11-08-2013, 7:53 AM
http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228230

Foulball
11-08-2013, 8:05 AM
This is why Dick got fired. Just like Zumbo, his stature and comments will be used against us. To those of you who say no big deal, remember that Zumbo actually ended up testifying in front of Congress against the AR platform.

Brady Campaign Says ‘Thank You’ to Guns & Ammo’s Dick Metcalf
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/daniel-zimmerman/brady-campaign-says-thank-guns-ammos-dick-metcalf/

http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/brady_campaign_gunsnammo.jpg

kalimus
11-08-2013, 8:12 AM
http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228230

A little absurd. His argument for carry is basically that it's ok to utilize licensing and training because there is a law that requires it. He's comparing carrying legally to carrying illegally... not comparing requiring a license to not requiring a license. He's also saying that he doesn't agree with certain rulings, but it doesn't matter because it's law. It DOES matter.

On the other side, SOME of his concerns about regulation are valid. As is present on this forum constantly... so many people support keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable for example... but are completely against any legislation that attempts to do so. Not only are they against it, but they offer no alternatives in which to fix messed up legislation to allow that to happen. There are times when I'm utterly confused at what it is that gun owners truly want.

If there really is something that the gun community supports, then why are we not helping create legislation to get that accomplished? We are the subject matter experts! If this community wants to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill, then why are we not offering a solution to make that happen without screwing ourselves over? People all over this website can find holes, vagueness, and ways around so many laws... but we can't find a way to fix crappy legislation?

Or is it that there is no fix? We want to keep guns away from the mentally unstable, but there is just NO WAY to do that without screwing the rest of us? Is that the case?

ja308
11-08-2013, 12:36 PM
Forgive my ignorance here please but rather then just see it, where can I read about the WELL REGULATED part?

I read the article and I did not get all upset like others did and I thought that well regulated, well, after thinking, I agreed that militias are regulated by the govt I GUESS. I did not really give it much thought before. I DO have the attitude that I am sick of new regulations and I am SICK of laws based on one incident and laws that restrict ME for others actions. But where can I learn more about what that little "Well Regulated" statement means?

Yes, I have been living under a rock for the past 20 years...


It's ok stilly :)
This is from Tom Gresham, I cannot do justice to the well regulated discussion nearly as well as Tom .

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/
This may be the exact link
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/c/5/4/c542d328114fc365/Metcalf_podcast.mp3?c_id=6381094&expiration=1383947263&hwt=c8d01a3afbeb32d6102b6e4ce073ec4e

The well regulated part starts at the 2 minute point of this 7minute bonus podcast dealing specifically with Dick Metcalf .
Listeners to gun talk may enjoy this coming Sundays interview with Metcalf to get his thoughts on why he wrote this garbage piece for G+A

furyous68
11-08-2013, 3:27 PM
On MSN: http://news.msn.com/us/at-guns-and-ammo-the-second-amendment-comes-first

I personally am all for background checks. But not regulation. The way our government wants to do it, you are basically put on a list. There needs to be a way of doing background checks that didn't require a reason for the check. It could be for a firearm purchase, or a job application. Registration should be thrown in the trash. Only info on record should that of any criminal history... or lack thereof.

They also need to make it mandatory that all LEO agencies follow up on reports of people being unstable. I know this could be a very fine line. But, at least 4 of the mass shooting suspects from the last few years were people reported to be unstable & nobody doing anything about it. If they had been evaluated, adjudicated by a judge... (and it actually be reported to NICS) then maybe it would have been more difficult for them to carry out their fantasies. It probably wouldn't have stopped them completely (they still could have bought stolen weapons, or stolen them themselves), but it would have done what so many of these feel good gun control laws fail to do- make it harder for them.

It should also be law for local agencies to follow up on & prosecute (no matter how annoying) any and all reports of felons lying (or not lying if they're that dumb) on their 4473's. Wait, it already is... so maybe the fed's should prosecute local agencies when they don't.

TempleKnight
11-08-2013, 4:41 PM
I agree. I've had some serious reservations about some of the trends I've seen among gun owners. I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons. While I've always supported folks right to own them, but I also know that a small percentage are buying them because they have a revenge fantasy and want to go to a public place and create mayhem. Should we give more scrutiny to those purchases? I've always felt we should.

So now you guys can let it rip. Guess what - there are those among you, gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters that may be okay with some regulations. Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do. What you'll end up with is a smaller and smaller circle of hard core supporters. You should invite dissent, not suppress it

Frank

We're not losing support, we're gaining. The growth in firearms ownership is in AR15s, carry guns and gun sports in general, not the one-box-of-shells per year duck hunters. Your notion about revenge fantasies is absurd. The only recent scenario that fits your post was the guy with 12 gauge pump shotgun.

TempleKnight
11-08-2013, 4:46 PM
I see I got everybody a little hot. I've always been my own man and I've always been able to see both sides of an argument. The vitriol and take no prisoners approach that some of you exhibit is exactly why the pro-gun movement in this state is viewed as extreme (evidence the geniuses that got open carry banned)

By the way. The lead ban doesn't bother me much at all. Several of my guns shoot better with copper. A 5 year transition is fairly reasonable. As a duck hunter I've been shooting with non toxic for years. I'm still duck hunting

Frank

Yeah, as long as you can hunt ducks, all's right in the world. I wonder who your friends are if you think the pro-gun movement is extreme.

AggregatVier
11-08-2013, 4:55 PM
Incredible how many of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. You're falling for the straw argument about training without recognizing his biggest error is about "well regulated". That's where he becomes a saboteur putting dynamite in the dike.

-hanko
11-08-2013, 5:30 PM
I agree. I've had some serious reservations about some of the trends I've seen among gun owners. I'm not an "old guy" per se, I'm 50. I'm mainly a hunter. But I've never warmed up to the whole AR craze. They are battle weapons. While I've always supported folks right to own them, but I also know that a small percentage are buying them because they have a revenge fantasy and want to go to a public place and create mayhem. Should we give more scrutiny to those purchases? I've always felt we should.

So now you guys can let it rip. Guess what - there are those among you, gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters that may be okay with some regulations. Beating the crap out of a writer who doesn't support unfettered firearm ownership rights alienates people who agree with most of the points you do. What you'll end up with is a smaller and smaller circle of hard core supporters. You should invite dissent, not suppress it

Frank
Try reading why the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, and why they thought the country needed it.

Hint...it has ZERO to do with hunting. ;)

Second hint...liberals enjoy legislating what you need or don't need.

You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution.;)

Nevada Hudson
11-08-2013, 6:49 PM
I really hope that everyone, on all sides of this issue, will actually take time to read what Dick Metcalf wrote. Most gun control advocates would consider him a pro-gun extremist!

I am a life long pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues - and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those "in common use" by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called "assault weapons" being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS - and in practical terms, that is what matters.

If you think that the 2nd Amendment really is going to be interpreted to secure that right of all law abiding citizens to carry concealed without a permit, vs. the right of all law abiding citizens to obtain a permit with reasonable training and background check requirements - dream on. It's not going to happen. IMHO, the same can be said of NICS checks. As Metcalf points out, no constitutional right is absolute - and all of his examples are valid and on point.

Folks, I am a retired minister and as such I see the same destructive pattern here that I have seen in the church from time to time. Anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion on, say the age of the earth, is labeled as one who has departed from the faith. Never mind the fact the they still hold to the essentials of the faith, just disown them as a traitor to all you hold dear. That is never good for a church, and this is not good for the pro-gun rights movement. Metcalf is no traitor to the pro-gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment movement because he suggests that some regulation is allowed. Disagree with him, debate with him, dialog with him all you want. At the end of the day, he is simply addressing issues we must face - and he is still pro-gun rights.

If we continue to participate in a circular firing squad, we are going to miss opportunities to advance and maybe even loose the next fight.

See how far you get if you give a speech against gay marriage and abortion at the Democratic Convention.

LoneYote
11-08-2013, 7:32 PM
I wonder if the people arguing for 50 state constitutional carry have any idea just how extreme that sounds. I wonder of they have ever thought out what would happen if by some fluke the high court ever handed down such a decision? IMHO, what would happen would be the revision or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of people in the US would be terrified by the idea of people carrying loaded guns without training - including many people who are supportive of concealed carry. Yes, there are states where the culture is such that this is not an issue - but they are in a minority. There is such a thing as loosing because you overreach - and that is what can happen if we push for 50 state permit free carry. Just consider what happened here as a result of the open carry movement pushing things. Did we win or loose?

Can you imagine what would happen if the high court made a ruling out of no where that women have the RIGHT to have an abortion? Worse... imagine if they made a ruling that you can't segregate blacks in school. How extreme those ideas are.... the majority of America would be horrified. It could not possibly lead to anything but a complete review of the entire bill of rights!!!

problemchild
11-09-2013, 9:22 AM
Can you imagine what would happen if the high court made a ruling out of no where that women have the RIGHT to have an abortion? Worse... imagine if they made a ruling that you can't segregate blacks in school. How extreme those ideas are.... the majority of America would be horrified. It could not possibly lead to anything but a complete review of the entire bill of rights!!!


So woman can murder CHILDREN if a guy in a black robe says its OK?

AND.....

Democrats can FORCE children to be bussed to other schools outside where they live so the racial "Grass is greener" will suit the libtards desire to build a Utopia?

LoneYote
11-09-2013, 2:26 PM
So woman can murder CHILDREN if a guy in a black robe says its OK?

AND.....

Democrats can FORCE children to be bussed to other schools outside where they live so the racial "Grass is greener" will suit the libtards desire to build a Utopia?

Try reading my post a little more carefully... including the quote...

Nevada Hudson
11-09-2013, 4:59 PM
I see I got everybody a little hot. I've always been my own man and I've always been able to see both sides of an argument. The vitriol and take no prisoners approach that some of you exhibit is exactly why the pro-gun movement in this state is viewed as extreme (evidence the geniuses that got open carry banned)

By the way. The lead ban doesn't bother me much at all. Several of my guns shoot better with copper. A 5 year transition is fairly reasonable. As a duck hunter I've been shooting with non toxic for years. I'm still duck hunting

Frank

They will ban duck hunting next!

2761377
11-09-2013, 6:39 PM
this thread is an example of the process by which we will lose our right to be armed, which is supposedly guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. we have weak sisters who, by a willingness to compromise, will gradually cede point after point in the mistaken belief such action can assuage the enemy. the enemy uses these people and their high minded intentions deliberately.

this subject could use a lenghty, footnoted thesis paper but for now let me say unless 2A absolutism becomes unequivocally accepted as the only strategy in the 2A fight we will lose. actually, we will probably lose no matter the strategy but a united front will stand the longest.

Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me

and, yes, with skill and experience steel shot can kill ducks as well as lead but that ignores the reality of the lead ammo ban- it is incrementalism at work.

proper conjugation of the verb to lose-

lose

lost

as an adjective-loser

ja308
11-12-2013, 11:56 AM
Here is the latest interview with Dick Metcalf by guntalk
Interview starts at the 8 minute mark .
Based on the interview Metcalf was sandbagged by the editors choice of title .

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/4/1/8/418091a06165514f/131110guntalkA.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5 089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08335d8ca5c655f&c_id=6391316

REH
11-12-2013, 2:38 PM
Thanks for the link. Metcalf was not sandbagged, his article could have overridden any provocative title. In this case it did not.

ja308
11-12-2013, 3:45 PM
Thanks for the link. Metcalf was not sandbagged, his article could have overridden any provocative title. In this case it did not.


After hearing the interview I'm not as admant against him as I was :)

Tom didn't give him much of a pass either !

vincewarde
11-13-2013, 1:53 PM
Can you imagine what would happen if the high court made a ruling out of no where that women have the RIGHT to have an abortion? Worse... imagine if they made a ruling that you can't segregate blacks in school. How extreme those ideas are.... the majority of America would be horrified. It could not possibly lead to anything but a complete review of the entire bill of rights!!!

Guess what - neither of your examples directly were seen as directly threatening people's lives. Such a ruling would be seen in exactly that way. I'm not saying that's right, or that the fear is reasonable. I'm just saying that such a ruling, out of the clear blue sky, has the potential to be a disaster for us.....

In the same way, if Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment and they reverse Heller/McDonald, it could very well be a disaster for the other side - because it would be seen as purely political and with at least 40 pro-gun rights states, a new pro-gun rights amendment would be passed via the "alternate method" bypassing the federal government entirely.

vincewarde
11-13-2013, 1:59 PM
I have written a defense of Metcalf's conclusions (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-gun-laws-are-compatible-with.html) - although I totally disagree with the way in which he arrives at them. It is not based upon what I think the interpretation of the Constitution should be, but on current precedents.

I welcome your feedback. Show me where I am wrong in my reasoning.....

-hanko
11-13-2013, 2:10 PM
I have written a defense of Metcalf's conclusions (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-gun-laws-are-compatible-with.html) - although I totally disagree with the way in which he arrives at them. It is not based upon what I think the interpretation of the Constitution should be, but on current precedents.

I welcome your feedback. Show me where I am wrong in my reasoning.....
It looks great to me.

Other than the fact that you still do not mention WHY our Founding Fathers reaffirmed the right our Creator gave us to bear arms.

I think more thought and homework is needed, but good try.

-hanko

vincewarde
11-13-2013, 3:53 PM
It looks great to me.

Other than the fact that you still do not mention WHY our Founding Fathers reaffirmed the right our Creator gave us to bear arms.

I think more thought and homework is needed, but good try.

-hanko

Thanks, I did try not to give the impression that our rights are granted by government for exactly that reason. The Constitution secures pre-existing rights - which I firmly believe come from our creator. Included among them is the right to keep and bear arms.

-hanko
11-13-2013, 5:13 PM
Thanks, I did try not to give the impression that our rights are granted by government for exactly that reason. The Constitution secures pre-existing rights - which I firmly believe come from our creator. Included among them is the right to keep and bear arms.
So, asking a bit differently...Why did the Founding Fathers pay particular attention to the Second Amendment?

Not hunting.

Not making sure that we kept a standing civilian army reporting to the government.

While you ponder that stuff, Meyer did not recognize that states with the easiest to get carry permits tend to have lower rates of gun violence. He was also unable to explain how any sort of training would prevent criminals from getting weapons. He couldn't make a causal relationship between training and gun violence, training and negligent discharges, or training and anything else.

Once again, it was typical nanny-state liberal pandering to the readership with yet another feel-good legal requirement. Good ol' "reasonable, common-sense gun control".

-hanko

vincewarde
11-14-2013, 1:04 AM
So, asking a bit differently...Why did the Founding Fathers pay particular attention to the Second Amendment?

Not hunting.

Not making sure that we kept a standing civilian army reporting to the government.

If you read my long blog post (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-gun-laws-are-compatible-with.html), you will note that I raise the question: Does the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" language require that the 2nd Amendment be accorded even more protection than other "first tier" constitutional rights? Is there something above "strict scrutiny"? Ultimately, SCOTUS will decide this.


While you ponder that stuff, Meyer did not recognize that states with the easiest to get carry permits tend to have lower rates of gun violence. He was also unable to explain how any sort of training would prevent criminals from getting weapons. He couldn't make a causal relationship between training and gun violence, training and negligent discharges, or training and anything else.

That argument could indeed be made against CCW training, but in the courts it will be an uphill battle for sure - and this is exactly what both Metcalf and I were addressing. NOT the political battle.

I happen to believe that Metcalf's reasoning regarding the 2nd Amendment is flawed, and ignores basically the entire past 10 years of legal victories we have won. Ironically, as I outline in my post, he arrives at basically the correct conclusion regarding the extent of the 2nd Amendment right.

Just because the courts may find CCW training constitutional, that does not make it mandatory. It also does not open the door to unlimited training requirements - because in order to regular a right protected by strict scrutiny the purpose must be compelling AND the method used to accomplish that purpose must be the least intrusive possible.

Once again, it was typical nanny-state liberal pandering to the readership with yet another feel-good legal requirement. Good ol' "reasonable, common-sense gun control".

-hanko[/QUOTE]

Just because a law might be constitutional that does not mean that we simply allow it to be passed. For most of my 59 years we fought on one battlefield - the political battlefield. We won many victories there and we must continue to fight on that battlefield.

Only in the past 10 years or so, have we begun to win battles on the legal battlefield. In fact, the NRA was so afraid that the 2nd Amendment would be found to be a "collective right" they did not bring any cases on 2nd Amendment grounds. Then we won Heller, and everything changed. However, that was only five years ago, and the full extent of the 2nd Amendment right is still being decided.

IMHO, it would be a terrible mistake to overestimate how the Supreme Court is going to rule on the 2nd Amendment. I highly doubt, based on the rulings we have seen that we are going to get all we want in the courts. In fact, when you look at the cases that have gone our way, it becomes very clear that the Supreme Court may very well rule that much of what we do not want passed, is indeed constitutional. That's why we need to keep fighting on all fronts.

vincewarde
11-14-2013, 1:38 AM
See how far you get if you give a speech against gay marriage and abortion at the Democratic Convention.

To stick with your analogy - the Dems are not so stupid as to drive from the party anyone who believes that states can require that abortions be performed by licensed doctors, or that parents should be notified if their 12 year old wants an abortion - or even those who are out and out pro-life.

They also don't drive from the party ministers who refuse to do gay weddings on religious grounds. (That would really cost them in the Black community!)

Why? Simple: Because someone who is in 90% agreement with you and 10% disagreement can still be a valuable ally.

Dick Metcalf has fought hard for many gun right measures for years. He agrees with us on almost everything. ALthough, as I have said, his reasoning is flawed here, I have not forgotten all his positive contributions. He is not our enemy. He is someone who went off the reservation once, likely because he didn't put enough time into studying for his article.

I want to believe that is he had reached his conclusions the way I did - with many quotes from the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions - and made it clear that he was talking about how much protection the 2nd Amendment affords IN PRACTICE - that people would be more understanding.

Sadly, I wonder if I was wrong. Would I like the 2nd Amendment right to be found to be unlimited, or nearly so? Yes. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way. Does this really mean anything? Does it affect how SCOTUS will define the extent of the right protected by the 2nd Amendment? Not one bit!

The reality is that the Supreme Court is going to tell us what the 2nd Amendment means and how far it's protect extends. We can believe what we want and argue all day and all night. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Not in practical terms.

We need to be realistic about how the high court is likely to rule - and the best way to predict that is to read how they have ruled. That is what I tried to do in my long blog post (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-gun-laws-are-compatible-with.html).

One more thing. Am I willing to negociate with the other side? Sure - when they come up with a list of gun laws they are willing to repeal, and some new pro-gun rights laws they are willing to support, then and only then, should we talk about any new gun laws. Am I willing to give and inch or two? Sure, as long as we get several yards in return. Trust me. I am not holding my breath!

Is there a chance that some on the other side realize that they are never going to get rid of all guns? Maybe. Are there some who we can work with? Maybe. But they need to prove that they realize they have lost the battle - both legally and politically. They need to come to the bargaining table as our defeated foes, not our political and legal equals. I don't ever expect them to do that..... but if they do, well the best time to make deals is when you are in a position of strength.

Tom Gresham
11-19-2013, 1:42 PM
After Metcalf did the interview with me on Gun Talk Radio (his only interview), I had a few thoughts, which I shared here.

http://guntalk.com/site.php?pageID=15&newsID=580

marcusrn
11-20-2013, 12:30 AM
Well spoken Rev Warde.

I am not offended by the article.

It appears in many ways we are involved in self sabotage or circular firing squads as you say.

CalBear
01-04-2014, 9:51 AM
The NY Times just did a feature on Dick Metcalf:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?_r=0

x90
01-04-2014, 4:25 PM
The right to hunt shall not be infringed!

"You don't need an AR-15 with a 30rd magazine to shoot 6 deer" -- Dick

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/01/05/us/SUB-JP-GUNS/SUB-JP-GUNS-articleLarge.jpg