Guns & Ammo Pro Gun Control Editorial - Update

[Herknav]

Bitter dissects Metcalf's apology: Dick Metcalf Response to His Firing from Guns & Ammo | Shall Not Be Questioned

On a side note, I haven't picked up a G&A in years. Not that it was ever intellectually stimulating (in my lifetime), but the last time I opened one, I was surprised to find it was an ED brochure disguised as a gun magazine.

 

[rwsmith]

Dick Metcalf fired from 'Guns and Ammo'

Metcalf wrote an article arguing the the 2nd amendment is subject to regulation including compulsory licensing for concealed carry. Editor Jim Bequette said that this was not in keeping in with Guns and Ammo's stance and was wrong for publishing the article.

 

[Harrison]

His opinion was more along the line that the 2d amendment was what the courts said it was, not what the founders wrote and intended. That was my take. I will not miss him.

 

[usm1rifle]

I read that article the other day and wondered when he went left, seemed out of character for both him and G&A. I did not think it belonged in the magazine. Looks like I'm not the only one...

 

[SMSgt]

And Bequette made a hasty exit also for allowing the article.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I do not wish ill for anyone, but I see Mr. Metcalf these days mostly as an advertiser for Taurus and Ruger in his supposedly journalist capacity in both print and on the various gun-related TV programs.

He went so far on the Inside Ruger program recently, when discussing revolvers, to dredge up some of the old unfounded criticism of S&W revolvers in comparison to the Ruger GP100.

Sorry, but were I in authority at S&W, as J. Edgar Hoover once said of Chief Jesse Curry, Mr. Metcalf's "privileges should be revoked." He visits S&W, heaps praise upon Herb Belin for the redesign of the 1911 into the E-Series, then visits Ruger and points out the tremendous advantages of the solid frame GP, lacking a sideplate, and even says that the Ruger Security Six was the first solid-frame revolver (I suppose he forgot that the High Standard Sentinel, introduced 15 or 20 years before the Ruger, had the same feature). You can hardly trust him to do anything in print or TV apart from solid praise of whoever is "passing the guns and ammo that day."

For the record, the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment, after having spent a decade or so kicking out the Brits, obviously wanted the people (not the National Guard) to be able to do the same with any subsequent government in the event this new type of government got "too big for its britches."* Hence, they wanted all of the people to be able to keep and bear their own personal arms which were suitable for such purpose.

*This phrase is American, and first originated in 1835 in "An Account of Col. Crockett's Tour to the North and Down East," written by Davy Crockett. Speaking about Andrew Jackson, Col. Crockett said, "But I liked him well once: but when a man gets too big for his breeches, I say Good bye."

EDIT: As I do not subscribe to Guns and Ammo (they lost most of their really good writers years ago), I had to go and look up the column. I am amazed at the high degree of illiteracy apparent in Mr. Metcalf's column. Mr. Metcalf seems to believe that the "well regulated" phrase of the 2nd Amendment has something to do with "regulation" in the sense that we understand the term today, i.e. "rules and regulations." In actuality, his column betrays his misunderstanding of his subject matter and is somewhat embarrassing for someone who used to teach in college classes and who used to write the "Firearms Law" column in Shooting Times. Mr. Metcalf is not a lawyer, by the way, so why he was writing the Firearms Law column is a mystery and always has been. That said, the term "well regulated" at the time of the writing and adoption of the 2nd Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with passing rules and regulations to limit or to encourage conduct. In modern terms, the amendment is perhaps better understood by substituting the phrase "well trained" in place of "well regulated." You still hear the phrase that one's sights are "well regulated" which means the weapon hits to point of aim.

 

[EvilBetty]

For Mr Metcalf's response, go to: http://www.shootingwire.com/

To answer his questions...

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?

Absolutely - If they have served the sentence they were given and are now free on the streets with no wants or warrants. Then why not. If they are they are still a threat then why are they released? If they are that prone to committing another crime, why are they not committed or declared mentally incompetent? Fix the criminal system and you will have solved that problem.

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

Probably, but this one doesn't bother me because it's a permit to carry in public places. Not in my own home or property.

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

Yes, just as I would have a tax stamp for my brand new MP7 if the laws were not written to prohibit even that. Just because I comply with the law doesn't mean I agree with it. It just means I'm not ready to further trade my freedom for it at this point.

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

How am I violating the constitution by having a CCW permit?

 

[mkk41]

Aside from Garry James articles on classic guns , G&A is pretty much worthless. It's ad flack , bought and paid for by the manufacturers. Have they ever given a bad review? They even gushed about how wonderful a Hi-Point was!

 

[shawn mccarver]

Speaking of gun-journalist integrity, it seems that people either love Col. Jeff or they do not, and there seems to be not much middle ground. That said, does anyone remember that American Handgunner ran a very early article about the M9 Beretta just after the military adopted it. At the beginning of the article, Col. Jeff said something to the effect that the Beretta was completely reliable and that it came in a "nifty" carrying case. He then said, "that is the end of the good news" or words to that effect. He proceeded, in the rest of the article, to criticize almost everything about the pistol from its 16 pound double action trigger pull to its other features that have proven to be problematical in its design, and its underpowered 9mm ball ammo, etc. He summed it up by comparing the M9 to the 1860 .44 caliber Army and said that, based upon stopping power and the realistic use to which a pistol would be put in today's warfare, he thought the 1860 Colt was a better choice.

In the first place, he had the integrity to tell the truth as he saw it no matter where the chips fell, and in the second place, American Handgunner actually ran the article. I am not sure they would today.

In any event, times have changed in the gun magazine business, and not for the better.

I keep mentioning Phil Engeldrum and his magazines. I know some of you remember him. Don't you wish for someone to shake it up and tell it like it is?

Unfortunately, telling the truth to a ninny seems to hurt his feelings, and he writes in threatening to cancel his subscription. And companies making substandard products seem to threaten to pull advertising dollars. Thus, everything gets watered down.

It seems Col. Jeff was right. In the age of the wimp and the ninny, the truth seems like "Another Country."

 

[mkk41]

I've always taken Col. Cooper , Ken Hackathorn and all the other so-called "combat gurus" with a grain of salt. I mean just how many life threatening situations and/or actual gunfights has he been in on his Gunsite ranch? Granted , he was in combat while in the military and I'll respect that. But that was what, WWII? Korea?
Other than that , how many real world street encounters have they had?

They're only out to sell their philosophy articles in magazines.

 

[JJEH]

Well, I read it too and I even sent him an email.

In my original email I said that I mostly agree with him, but that's not what I meant. I meant that I understand where he's coming from.

Here's the rest of my email:

Here's the nasty aftertaste of laws, rules and regulations. It only affects law-abiding citizens! And as we know the law-abiding citizen is not the problem. The crooks are, but they couldn't care less about L,R&R.

Of course, if somebody takes CCW serious it's only in that persons own interest to be effective and safe with his/her weapon of choice. It's called maturity. But we need to stay focused on the problem, not the solution. Problem being crooks that want our stuff, solution being the law abiding citizen that protects his/her family and property.

What America needs is not more gun control and/or restriction. We need to allow CCW in all 50 states as well as D.C.! Sounds ridiculous? I don't think so.
I'm all in for a reciprocal agreement that would allow a nationally recognized concealed carry permit (which would automatically allow to open carry as well). No worries about traveling interstate anymore. Also, some people happen to be at the right place at the right time. Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere at all times, that's a fact. If a law abiding citizen happens to stop a robbery, attempted rape, breaking and entering, car theft, you name it, then everyone is happy, right?! Minus the crook of course.

I'm not radical in the way how I see gun ownership. There are good guys and there are bad guys. Yes, do a background check if you want to purchase a firearm. Yes, do fingerprints to get a CCW and/or FFL. But don't let this current administration slowly take away certain kind of firearms and even magazines. That is ridiculous. It's time to change the course of action. Time to aim at the criminals and not our good people out there. Everything else would be preposterous!

 

[M29since14]

They're only out to sell their philosophy articles in magazines.

You're oversimplifying, but that's OK - and it is always wise to take anything written with a grain of salt unless you personally know the writer and his credentials.

Jeff Cooper was not the ordinary "gun writer" and I don't think he really cared much to be thought of that way. A writer, yes - a gun writer, probably not. Those who knew him better than I can correct me if I am wrong. I, for one, miss him and presently don't see anyone coming along to replace him. And yes, Shawn, the past does seem like another country, when one looks around today and tries to understand what is going on - and why.

 

[mkk41]

You're oversimplifying, but that's OK - and it is always wise to take anything written with a grain of salt unless you personally know the writer and his credentials.

Jeff Cooper was not the ordinary "gun writer" and I don't think he really cared much to be thought of that way. A writer, yes - a gun writer, probably not. Those who knew him better than I can correct me if I am wrong. I, for one, miss him and presently don't see anyone coming along to replace him. And yes, Shawn, the past does seem like another country, when one looks around today and tries to understand what is going on - and why.

True I didn't know him personally , but I did enjoy much of what he wrote and how he wrote it. I do think he was much like a John Wayne sort in trying to portray and probably live up to the ideals of a renaissance-type of man.

I also have no doubt that if ever faced with a potentially violent 'social encounter' on the street , he would have stood tall and practiced what he preached. Though I hate to think of how he would have been painted by todays pathetic , liberal press.

 

[bluegrassarms]

Can I play too??? This is too much like shooting fish in a barrel to pass up...

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?

You've confused the issue. Laws against felons owning guns are laws placed specifically on individuals who have lost protection of the social contract, and the Constitution, by violating their rights and responsibilities under the contract.

A man in prison for murder does not have the freedom to leave prison and assemble as he pleases. That does not mean the Constitutional freedom of assembly has been violated. If the law is applied to those who are still, through the social contract, afforded its protections, THEN we have violated the contract (Constitution).

Stripping an individual of his specific rights based on his actions against the community is not in the same sphere of philosophy as stripping those who have done no wrong of a right by reducing the scope of that right for all.

Otherwise prisons are unconstitutional, which is silly. This is a non argument that shows a lack of clear thinking about how the Rights of Man are derived and lost. It was established from the outset that the many states reserved the right to decide which rights may be revoked and for how long for an act of criminality, the Founders took it as a given such action could be taken but ONLY against those guilty of crimes.

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

It's open for debate for certain. It's completely clear there should be no license for carrying a gun in any fashion on one's own property. The only question for concealed carry is its public nature, but it's not clear there should be restrictions on this for law abiding citizens.

The offsetting public interest is simply safety, that fools aren't carrying guns in unsafe manner and ideally that they understand the law of deadly force.

The "shall issue" process seems to be a reasonable compromise that does not infringe the Constitution in the outcome. You have to jump through a hoop or two but you cannot be denied the right for capricious or arbitrary reasons.

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

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?

Fairly extreme position on your part, but the only position I see in your comment that makes any sense.

I would hope this discussion could continue.

--Dick Metcalf

That depends. You're going to need to think through your position better if these are to be your analogies of Constitutional balance of the rights of the individual. This set is deeply flawed.

I suspect the first thing we need to do is back up to the critical first assumption that all these rights are derived from Nature, not from the government, and the BIll of Rights is simply a document that tries to make it clear these rights a) exist, and b) are to be respected by the State.

The Founders didnt' get together and write down what rights we were to have, they were trying to describe the rights we were born with and how to protect them from the necessarily evil of government, whose job it would be to then see that we didn't deprive each other of them.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Like most of the long ago people who had fights with guns, Jeff did not talk much about his except to his closest associates. Bill Jordan never would. Even Charles Askins (the younger) only did so at a very advanced age.

The details of Col. Jeff's three personal shootings that he had with pistols have been well documented and they are there if anyone cares to read them. As has been said about Col. Jeff, his record is "better than most."

Jeff saw himself, however, not so much as a gunfighter, but as a teacher, pulling together a better system that would help others survive such encounters. Perhaps the best part of the "Modern Technique" is the mindset piece. He always gave credit where it was due, and thus, he never felt it reflected poorly upon him to give credit to Jack Weaver, John Plahn, Elden Carl, Ray Chapman, Thell Reed or any of the other of the originals for their contributions or ideas that were incorporated into the Modern Technique of the Pistol.

Naturally, Clint Smith and Ken Hackathorn both had career stints as operations managers or whatever title they had then at Gunsite under Cooper himself, and Cooper absolutely NEVER allowed any instructors or other persons to teach in any capacity at Gunsite unless they had "seen the elephant."

I would always be very happy to have Cooper, Smith or Hackathorn at my side in a bad incident. I doubt they would feel the same about me given the experience disparity.

I certainly cannot come close to matching any of their individual experience, and each of them have far better experience than about 99.9% of career law enforcement officers. That said, however, as DeNiro's character said in the motion picture Ronin, "I hurt somebody's feelings once."

 

[Mickey D]

Then there's Mike (self proclaimed Duke) Venturino...

 

[gregintenn]

We sure could use another Elmer Keith of three.

 

[moosedog]

Another "gun guru" gone. Dime a dozen. Never cared much for his articles or editorials anyway.
If you start caving in to these socialists in the slightest, you've lost.

 

[cbvanb]

True I didn't know him personally , but I did enjoy much of what he wrote and how he wrote it. I do think he was much like a John Wayne sort in trying to portray and probably live up to the ideals of a renaissance-type of man.

I also have no doubt that if ever faced with a potentially violent 'social encounter' on the street , he would have stood tall and practiced what he preached. Though I hate to think of how he would have been painted by todays pathetic , liberal press.

I did know him personally, and I think it would be true to say if he lived up to any ideals, it was duty, honor, country. He was a Marine to the bone, and it's difficult to say if the standards of a Marine officer were designed specifically for Col.Cooper, or if Col. Cooper was born to live by those standards, but either way, they were meant for each other. He wouldn't have given much thought to what label you or anyone else chose to describe him, he was more interested in original thought and interesting ideas.
In any event, he was the last of his generation of truth telling gun writers. What we get now is nothing more than paid hacks who trumpet whatever the advertising clients write for them. I learned within a few years of the beginning of my law enforcement career that most of the gun writers whose names you would recognize, were full of ****, and writing about things they knew little about.
Metcalf probably believes even more strongly in gun control than he was willing to say in his article, and now he will spend the rest of his life stabbing us in the back. He is a pretty typical representative of his "profession", from what I've seen in the last 30 years.
As for Col. Coopers tally of gun fights, you know about the events he chose to share. He spent decades traveling the world as an instructor, in places most of us would refuse to go, and my guess is nobody really knows how many times he tested his theories on gunfighting and choice of handgun calibers. It's far more comprehensive than just the time he spent at Big Bear, refining competition techniques.

 

[shawn mccarver]

As for Col. Coopers tally of gun fights, you know about the events he chose to share. He spent decades traveling the world as an instructor, in places most of us would refuse to go, and my guess is nobody really knows how many times he tested his theories on gunfighting and choice of handgun calibers. It's far more comprehensive than just the time he spent at Big Bear, refining competition techniques.

I couldn't have said it better. And then there was his time and involvement in "clandestine" matters and operations, the details of which were probably shared only with those having a "need to know."