Guns & Ammo Pro Gun Control Editorial - Update

[Joe Kent]

cmort666, Small Arms Review still comes as a regular magazine and for me, it is one of the better ones. Joe.

 

[jack the toad]

Dick Metcalf pulled a "Zumbo".
The only words of consolation I can offer Dick Metcalf are, "Well....Bye!"

IMO, more like good riddance...

 

[cmort666]

cmort666, Small Arms Review still comes as a regular magazine and for me, it is one of the better ones. Joe.

It says on the website that it's available in print, but I've NEVER seen a copy.

I presume you have to subscribe.

 

[Texas Star]

It says on the website that it's available in print, but I've NEVER seen a copy.

I presume you have to subscribe.

I think I've seen it occasionally in Barnes & Noble.

 

[finesse_r]

All I read is "The American Rifleman".

Buying a gun magazine and writing anti gun articles or even progressive articles seems like a money losing proposition. Not only will subscriptions drop, but it damages the credibility of the magazine and makes it hard to sell later.

It is worth it to those that do it. They have plenty of money and can always write the loss off their taxes to minimize the loss. Buying politicians is even more costly, and that does not bother them much either.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Why did G&A print the article? Surely they have proof readers? By releasing the article for printing, they must have agreed with it?

Shawn. (And all). Did Richard Metcalf put his foot into it? Yes he did. Did he do it on his own? NO he didn't. He was told to write a 2nd Amendment/Gun Control story (by the Editor that also resigned). He warned the Editor that it would be a "controversial" article. I think it has exceeded his expectations. When you speak about the history of Richard Metcalf, think about the 30+ years of excellent articles and TV footage he has produced. His contributions FAR FAR outweigh his misguided article.

Good points. Which begs the question... Does the article accurately reflect Mr Metcalf's beliefs?

Perhaps I missed it, but I found not one original thought in the article. It perfectly followed the gun control advocate's script that anyone paying the slightest attention would immediately recognize. So what was guiding Mr Metcalf's keyboard? Was it a disingenuous troll-like act to stir the readership in an effort to please the editor, or was it some kind of cathartic public outing of his true "misguided" beliefs? Perhaps both?

I found Mr Metcalf's response to his termination equally misguided, characterizing his termination as a freedom of speech issue. He lost his job, not freedom of speech. What was noticeably absent was any recognition that there is no right to be paid to speak. It is the readership and advertisers who PAY for the magazine to continue to exist. Aparently, there was sufficient free speech from the readership and advertisers that they were not going to pay for such baloney, resulting in his termination of employment. That IS free speech.

As far as the point about mandatory training... If Mr Metcalf wanted to have an intelligent dialogue about mandatory training for the good of public safety, he might have started by comparing Tennessee and Georgia which have very similar gun laws with one notable exception-- Georgia does not require mandatory training for a carry permit. He could have then answered the question: Is there any higher frequency of gun related accidents or improper use of firearms among Georgia permit holders as a result of no government mandated training compared to Tennessee? I have asked that question to others with a similar views to Mr Metcalf's... all have failed to give any answer that would support mandatory training. Perhaps Mr Metcalf might have thought about doing some research and coming to an informed conclusion to share with the readership. Doing so would have differentiated the article from the typical gun control advocacy claptrap that dominated it.

 

[153]

"Dick" who?

I've read a lot of gun rags over the past five decades and don't remember anything memorable by this guy. I guess he finally made his mark.

Too bad Metcalf doesn't understand that gun ownership is a right. Regardless of the benefits, the State should not be in a position to require someone to be "trained" in order to enjoy a gift from God.

 

[rburg]

Treason is the word that comes to my mind.

I think you're far too generous.

 

[RobbW]

If Mr Metcalf wanted to have an intelligent dialogue about mandatory training for the good of public safety, he might have started by comparing Tennessee and Georgia which have very similar gun laws with one notable exception-- Georgia does not require mandatory training for a carry permit. He could have then answered the question: Is there any higher frequency of gun related accidents or improper use of firearms among Georgia permit holders as a result of no government mandated training compared to Tennessee?

This is a great question--I assume that since you asked it you know the answer and the answer is "none"?

My local issuing authority requires a 16-hour course before issuing a LTC permit. I am fortunate enough to have had the money, time, and access to the S&W Shooting Sports Center to have passed this requirement. Now that S&W has closed down their range, there is only one other range in the entire state that my issuing authority will recognize, and it's nearly 3 hours from my home. It's an undue burden, IMHO, and sets the bar even higher now that S&W is closed down.

Yet, that is the outcome of Mr. Metcalf's fantasy.

 

[cmort666]

I think I've seen it occasionally in Barnes & Noble.

I used to regularly buy it at Barnes & Noble or Books a Million, but ONLY until they went mostly electronic. I haven't seen a copy since.

 

[zzzippper]

Apparently an editor of "Guns and Ammo" magazine, Dick Metcalf, has written an editorial for their December issue calling for gun control? He ridiculously compares the right to keep and bear arms with needing a license to drive an automobile.

I don't recall the Constitution addressing automobiles or their legal operation.

 

[zzzippper]

This is a great question--I assume that since you asked it you know the answer and the answer is "none"?

My local issuing authority requires a 16-hour course before issuing a LTC permit. I am fortunate enough to have had the money, time, and access to the S&W Shooting Sports Center to have passed this requirement. Now that S&W has closed down their range, there is only one other range in the entire state that my issuing authority will recognize, and it's nearly 3 hours from my home. It's an undue burden, IMHO, and sets the bar even higher now that S&W is closed down.

Yet, that is the outcome of Mr. Metcalf's fantasy.

Is MA a "shall" issue or a "may" issue state?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

This is a great question--I assume that since you asked it you know the answer and the answer is "none"?

My local issuing authority requires a 16-hour course before issuing a LTC permit. I am fortunate enough to have had the money, time, and access to the S&W Shooting Sports Center to have passed this requirement. Now that S&W has closed down their range, there is only one other range in the entire state that my issuing authority will recognize, and it's nearly 3 hours from my home. It's an undue burden, IMHO, and sets the bar even higher now that S&W is closed down.

Yet, that is the outcome of Mr. Metcalf's fantasy.

There was a pretty lively discussion about it here. http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/314974-mandatory-classes-ccw.html . IIRC, some data was offered that indicated Georgia actually had fewer incidents, but I'm not sure that was of any definitive measure. Of course I'm not trying to mandate things upon others. The burden of proof should be on those who advocate these things.

Notice the polling in the thread favored mandatory training. This is why I say that Mr Metcalf could have had an intelligent discussion and a more receptive audience. Instead, most of the article read like something that a Junior member of the Sarah Brady Fan Club might have posted in an AOL Anti-2A chatroom. Can't scream fire in a movie theatre... religions can't perform human sacrifices... automobile drivers license... on and on... sophomoric anti-2A rhetoric. Certainly not what I would pay to read.

 

[RobbW]

Is MA a "shall" issue or a "may" issue state?

Haha. MA is a "nay" issue state. lol

It's a "may" issue state and issuing is different from town to town. My neighboring towns don't have the same 16-hour requirement. Yet ironically once you get the LTC-A here, there are fewer concealed-carry prohibitions than even strongly pro-2A states. MA adds only 3 prohibitions to the Federal list of 7: 1) Public & Private schools (unless you have written permission from the head or head of security), 2) Any stadium or sporting event with metal detectors, 3) Courthouses. Oh, and if you travel on a steamship here, you have a duty to report to the Terminal Manager and present your license--and then the Captain or Vessel Security Officer before your board.

You can carry in restaurants and bars here (I don't drink so bars is a non-issue for me). You can even carry in PDs, unless there is a town bylaw prohibiting it (there is no state-prohibition). We do have a duty to retreat, but I'm often surprised when I visit other states and find they can't carry where I can at home. We do have magazine limits, though, so it's not all rosy when you get the LTC.

 

[RobbW]

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't aware of research, but I would guess there is no difference between states, or at most a small difference that is attributable to something else. Regular training and practice is one thing, but I can't see that taking a one-time beginner course would make a difference in safety or proficiency. I feel that if you want to be good, it's something you have to commit to and regularly train your mindset and muscles to prepare.

There was a pretty lively discussion about it here. http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/314974-mandatory-classes-ccw.html . IIRC, some data was offered that indicated Georgia actually had fewer incidents, but I'm not sure that was of any definitive measure. Of course I'm not trying to mandate things upon others. The burden of proof should be on those who advocate these things.

Notice the polling in the thread favored mandatory training. This is why I say that Mr Metcalf could have had an intelligent discussion and a more receptive audience. Instead, most of the article read like something that a Junior member of the Sarah Brady Fan Club might have posted in an AOL Anti-2A chatroom. Can't scream fire in a movie theatre... religions can't perform human sacrifices... automobile drivers license... on and on... sophomoric anti-2A rhetoric. Certainly not what I would pay to read.

 

[perrazi]

Metcalf badmouthing smith&wesson on the ruger show is funny. he bragged many times in the past how roy jinks had special guns made up for him when jinks was in production at smith. I have met Metcalf on several occasions over the years at different functions and his attitude has always been the same. elitist, and of the opinion that he should have something when others shouldn't. anything is ok as long as he gets his.

 

[G-Mac]

I haven't read Guns & Ammo since Jeff Cooper passed away...

Same here...gotta love a guy that called the AR-15 a "poodle-shooter"!

 

[Malpasowildlifer]

We don't need a license to speak, or worship the God of our choice, or write a letter to our members of Congress. Why would we need one to exercise our right to defend ourselves and our country?

This fight will never end.
Jim

Very well said, Jim!

 

[Straightshooter2]

This is where you show a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the Social Contract of our nation.

I as an individual cannot possibly violate the Constitution. No one can b/c the Constitution isn't a document binding The People, it is a document meant to bind the State. Constitutional rights do not define the relationship between two members of our society, they define the relationship between each individual and their government.

There's not a single word in the entire Bill of Rights spelling out what individuals can and cannot do to each other. It singularly spells out what government can and cannot do to The People. If I beat you up to keep you from speaking your mind I am guilty of assault, not violating your First Amendment rights.

So I cannot "violate the Constitution". Only government can do that as only government is constrained by it.

Your argument seems to be that if I accept and operate within a law I consider unconstitutional I somehow am an accomplice in that law an by extension part of the violation.

The first problem with that view is that the violation is the existence of the law itself, regardless of whether I participate. My permit doesn't expand the law, my ignoring it doesn't reduce it's scope. How did I further the law or expand it's unconstitutionality by getting a permit? Who else is prevented from carrying if I get a permit?

I suppose we could make some Thoreau civil disobedience obligation of morality to oppose laws we find unjust even to the point of prison, the idea that complying with a law you find unjust is immoral and must be opposed, as Thoreau refused to pay taxes to finance any part of the Mexican War, which he considered immoral and unjustified.

I don't support the actions of the NSA, I think they are violating our constitutional rights, but I continue to pay my taxes. Is your argument that I must refuse to pay taxes and go to prison else I am as a co-conspirator of some sort actually violating everyone's civil rights?

Excellent point, sir. My sincere compliments. Anybody taking a political science class right now? With bluegrassarms' permission, this looks like an solid basis for a paper on Article Two of the Bill of Rights or even the entire Bill of Rights.

CW

 

[nick93]

Metcalf badmouthing smith&wesson on the ruger show is funny. he bragged many times in the past how roy jinks had special guns made up for him when jinks was in production at smith. I have met Metcalf on several occasions over the years at different functions and his attitude has always been the same. elitist, and of the opinion that he should have something when others shouldn't. anything is ok as long as he gets his.

I remember reading an article he wrote on the then new wsm cartridges. Winchester paid for them to hunt and he was so proud to be the 1st to kill something with the new cartridge ,the pic he took with the deer had the smuggest look on his face. As far as bombing on s & w when he wrote in Shooting Times he was like their own Minister of Propaganda.