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.
Metcalf's response only provides confirmation that I was right to be angry with him. His argument seems to be that regulations which infringe upon the 2nd Amendment are OK, because they already exist. Huh? This falls right into the vein of the pro-Obamacare argument that "it's the law of the land." Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, Dick. Slavery was once the law of the land, too.
ReplyDeleteGood riddance to Dick Metcalf. We're better off without him.
I read the piece in my recent issue, and his response from the link. I believe that Metcalf has the right to make statements concerning his views. I, like many, also understand that any infringement leads to more and more restrictions with our rights. One should not yell, "Fire!", in a crowded theater? We do not gag people with cloth and duct tape before we allow them into a theater. One should not be able to possess certain firearms, because the government has determined that we do not need them? I can buy a 396 Camaro SS and drive it down the road...people may feel that I do not need a 396 Camaro SS, and that it might be pretty dangerous for me to drive one, but I can get one if I desire. Mandatory training? I believe we should be trained, and should practice. The government should not demand it of us, though. Metcalf should not have been fired, or forced to resign. He should have been shunned, and made to face the fact that he is buying into the 'Chamberlain' attitude of appeasing tyrrany in hopes that it will leave us alone...
ReplyDeleteMetcalf is an asshole. He says he knows what "well-regulated" means and then calls for regulation. How about saying "restrictions" instead? No, he didn't say that because he is caught up trying to make sure he gets invited to the right parties in sociall acceptable circles versus saying without question that "shall not be infringed" is clear and all regulations are an infringement.
ReplyDeleteScrew him. At least he can apply for healthcare now. or now.
-Dirk Diggler
Of course he goes to the "Don't you like free speech??!?" argument. But that's not at play here- its a private company and we are paying him his salary. He can start a blog if he wants to argue this point.
ReplyDeleteThen he talks how about he believes in an absolute RKBA, and yet he doesn't even understand the phrase well-regulated in the amendment. And he mentions how each amendment is regulated differently- but that's our point- they SHOULDN'T be regulated differently. They should all have the same standard- strict scrutiny. Just because the courts haven't ruled that way, and have, for example, eviscerated the 4th amendment, doesn't mean its right!
And so let's answer his questions:
1. We can actually debate this one, but this is the same as "well do you believe nukes are covered? HUH? HUH?". I think that violent felons and the mentally ill being banned from owning guns would pass strict scrutiny- its narrowly tailored and there is a major public safety aspect to it. It applies to people who have been violent or shown violent tendencies only and does not affect law abiding and non-violent people.
2. Yes, actually. We have 5 states that have shown that constitutional carry isn't some scary thing like CCW licenses were called by the anti-gunners. Having a license or not having a license has no public safety interest and because of the requirements affects all non-prohibited persons and can inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms.
3. Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? Just because I believe it violates my rights doesn't mean its worth fighting right now. But do I sometimes violate the law about where to carry? Yes, because its might life.
4. No I am not, and that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The GOVERNMENT is violating the constitution- I am only following the law so I won't be in jail and can continue to fight in other ways. The courts are highly unlikely to overturn CCW, because GUNS really, so I will work within the legislative process, like 4 states have already done, to implement a ConCarry scheme.
The crux of the matter isnt training, as metcalf seems to imply as to why we need regulation. Restrictions on fire arms are not going to solve his percieved problem... it is how we deal with crazy people.. a different problem. Crazies can kill in a multitude of ways, and always will, no matter how egredious the anti gun laws become. Basically, this misguided person is barking up the wrong tree. Stockhom indeed!
ReplyDeleteMetcalf said he wanted to start a discussion. It's too damn bad the the gunnies HELL NO!! wasn't to his liking.
ReplyDeleteHow hard is it to understand the Bill of Rights restricts GOVERNMENT.
Dick, go rot in anonymity or hell...I really don't care which.
"I'm still not clear on what Metcalf hoped to accomplish..."
ReplyDeleteRemember to check back and see who his next employer is.
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
ReplyDeleteYes and yes. If someone is a violent offender, they need to be put in a cage until they can either play nice with others or they die. Their choice. As David C. says, if you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted without a custodian.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
Yes. Why do I need permission from some bureaucrat to exercise a God given right.
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Yes. It't the law and it keeps my ass out of jail.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
Technically, yes. I shouldn't need permission to exercise a God Given right. The states that have Constitutional carry have gotten it right..