The mainstream media has now officially taken notice of the Guns & Ammo/Metcalf controversy. The Complementary Spouse was watching ABC's
Jim Shepherd, publisher of The Outdoor Wire, in a rather classy move asked Dick Metcalf to respond. He did and Jim has published his response. I will leave it to you to read rather than summarizing it.
After reading his response I'm still not clear on what Metcalf hoped to accomplish with his original column. As to why he wrote it, I'm voting for Stockholm Syndrome.
UPDATE: The Metcalf response has drawn some equally strong counter-responses.
Bitter at Shall Not Be Infringed does an excellent job at taking it apart bit by bit.
It’s as if he doesn’t even comprehend that those “voices” are the very customers and readers of Guns & Ammo and purchasers of the firearms products advertised in the pages. Not everyone may be a subscriber, but they are all part of the target market.
The industry is shifting. The markets are adapting. The audience, as a whole, is more sophisticated. I think the evidence suggests that it’s Metcalf who isn’t ready to have a serious discussion on these topics, not his audience.
Michael Bane terms it lame.
This is not, as Bitter so lucidly notes, a "free speech" issue. Let me go a step farther than that...as I noted in my earlier post, we have been having a "dialog" about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I've been alive. IMHO, the "dialog" ended when the war began.Lest it be forgotten, Michael was in the front lines of this war in Colorado. He has seen the Big Lie used against those of us who believe in freedom time and time again.
Let me say this again...we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.
Bob Owens at Bearing Arms notes that Metcalf's response seems more incoherent than his original column.