Topic: Guns & Ammo editor pens article supporting gun control

[Glock32]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/03/guns-and-ammo-editor-supports-gun-control-in-editorial-feature-for-december-issue

and

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/jim-zumbo-redux-ga-editor-goes-full-retard-supports-gun-control/

[Libertas]

A Quisling's fate is rarely a nice one...and I reckon this traitor's chances of a happy ending are somewhere between infinitesimal and zero.

Way to go douchebag!  Dick Metcalf...a well-regulated servant of the Ruling Class elites!

ESAD and BIHFAE asshole!

[Dan]

I wish I hadn't dumped this subscription already, cuz I'd like to do it again!

[ToddF]

 

This pic will always be relevant, as long as there are leftists destroying once great publications.

[Glock32]

He must be like one of those Elmer Fudd gun owners, you know, the type who believe "sporting purposes" are the only real reason anyone should own a firearm. They're basically museum curators, fondling their engraved and gold inlaid over/under duck guns, looking down at the loud rabble with their "assault rifles" and semi-auto pistols.

It's another element of the neo-feudal social and political order that has sprung up around us, this "guild" mentality. You see it everywhere. Self-serving credentialism, designed to keep certain pursuits monopolized and accessible only through their graces.

He and others use the reduction-to-absurdity argument in favor of gun control: "So you'd be fine with convicted felons owning guns then? That's a type of restriction too you know." As if this is the same as restrictions on the wider law abiding citizen. The convicted felon has already abrogated the responsibilities that come with rights; the law abiding citizen has not. Besides, if a convicted felon is determined to acquire a gun he will. I think there's a philosophical issue with this too -- I'm a bit uneasy with the willingness of people to accept virtually any imposition if it's targeted at some despised group, such as felons. In theory hasn't a felon paid his debt to society after his prison term? If he cannot be trusted to resume life as a citizen, then perhaps he hasn't really paid his debt to society? Once people are comfortable with this or that exception, it just means they'll start broadening the scope of who's a felon.

[Libertas]

Yeah, that latter part is way too slippery to suit me...especially in latter-day America where the people making these calls have extremely contaminated/un-American ideas rattling around their noodles looking to ooze out onto our statutes!  I think I would rather take my chances with an armed felon in a nation where anybody can have and carry a gun than a nation where only the government can have and carry a gun...I at least stand a better chance with the felon!

I suspect the reason why the Founders were silent on explicit restrictions was for this very real fear of an armed state lording over an unarmed populace.  America was founded as a rabid gun-owning nation with people willing to die to keep their right than surrender it.  It was and should forever be the ultimate check against tyranny from without or within!  Well past time present day people re-connect with their Founders!!!

[Pablo de Fleurs]

I’m get a lot of weird looks in public & @ church when I remind folks that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to:
•   Keep
•   Bear, and
•   Discharge

Our firearms in the direction of tyranny.

When they ask for clarification, I ask them if they cherish their freedoms (esp. religious). When they answer “yes”, I remind them that George Washington didn’t talk the British to death or read them choice bits of Scripture…

…he shot the bastards, dead.

(at which point the conversation usually turns to sports) 

[Libertas]

To Washington et al!!!   

[warpmine]

Yeah, that latter part is way too slippery to suit me...especially in latter-day America where the people making these calls have extremely contaminated/un-American ideas rattling around their noodles looking to ooze out onto our statutes!  I think I would rather take my chances with an armed felon in a nation where anybody can have and carry a gun than a nation where only the government can have and carry a gun...I at least stand a better chance with the felon!

I suspect the reason why the Founders were silent on explicit restrictions was for this very real fear of an armed state lording over an unarmed populace.  America was founded as a rabid gun-owning nation with people willing to die to keep their right than surrender it.  It was and should forever be the ultimate check against tyranny from without or within!  Well past time present day people re-connect with their Founders!!!

Must have fallen into the trap of using modern definitions and terms to apply to writings 230 years old. Dumb ass douche bag

[Libertas]

Yeah, that latter part is way too slippery to suit me...especially in latter-day America where the people making these calls have extremely contaminated/un-American ideas rattling around their noodles looking to ooze out onto our statutes!  I think I would rather take my chances with an armed felon in a nation where anybody can have and carry a gun than a nation where only the government can have and carry a gun...I at least stand a better chance with the felon!

I suspect the reason why the Founders were silent on explicit restrictions was for this very real fear of an armed state lording over an unarmed populace.  America was founded as a rabid gun-owning nation with people willing to die to keep their right than surrender it.  It was and should forever be the ultimate check against tyranny from without or within!  Well past time present day people re-connect with their Founders!!!

Must have fallen into the trap of using modern definitions and terms to apply to writings 230 years old. Dumb ass douche bag

Oh, most definitely!  "well regulated" does not mean 21st century "regulate", it meant the bearer of arms ought to know how to use the damned things!

This editor needs a kick in the teeth!

[Pandora]

Besides, if a convicted felon is determined to acquire a gun he will.

Precisely.  Criminals don't care about the law, that's what makes them criminals.

I think there's a philosophical issue with this too -- I'm a bit uneasy with the willingness of people to accept virtually any imposition if it's targeted at some despised group, such as felons. In theory hasn't a felon paid his debt to society after his prison term? If he cannot be trusted to resume life as a citizen, then perhaps he hasn't really paid his debt to society? Once people are comfortable with this or that exception, it just means they'll start broadening the scope of who's a felon.

Absolutely, as we've seen.  The list of what qualifies as a felony already grows ever longer.

[Glock32]

BOOM!  G&A editor is history!

[warpmine]

 
Still hard to believe that he published the op-ed.
We should suggest to the new editor that they provide some education about the constitution in terms of history and meaning using definitions from the time period that it was written. Whole it may be slightly off the subject, the readership could certainly benefit from the views out Founders had.

[Libertas]

It's a start.  Jim stood up and admitted his error, but in the end it was his call to publish this and get a debate going, now, how hard is it to foresee the shape of that debate given the nature of the editorial he let run?  I still cannot shake the notion that somewhere inside Mr. Bequette lurks the notion that a little gun-control here and there ain't such a bad idea...I disagree, little bad ideas have a way of becoming big bad ideas...I say this is a nice start to repairing trust, but only about 75% of it, I say we need to keep an eye on this guy and be ready to pounce on him over the slightest backsliding!

[warpmine]

Gun control is very important and I'm not alone regarding this but our idea of control usually means holding it on target while gently pulling the trigger.

[Glock32]

It's a start.  Jim stood up and admitted his error, but in the end it was his call to publish this and get a debate going, now, how hard is it to foresee the shape of that debate given the nature of the editorial he let run?  I still cannot shake the notion that somewhere inside Mr. Bequette lurks the notion that a little gun-control here and there ain't such a bad idea...I disagree, little bad ideas have a way of becoming big bad ideas...I say this is a nice start to repairing trust, but only about 75% of it, I say we need to keep an eye on this guy and be ready to pounce on him over the slightest backsliding!

I agree. But I'm willing to accept -- for now -- that they've been sufficiently chastened by a readership smackdown. When does the Left ever have people in their ranks playing devil's advocate, or saying some of their own positions might be too strident? I don't know that any with such a mentality exist among the Left at all, and if they did you know exactly what sort of shelf life their thoughts and opinions would have.

Yet our side seems to constantly have these people willing to toss rhetorical life rafts to the other side. Maybe they think it's the hallmark of "reasonable" but really it's usually just the fallacy of the middle ground, the idea that the halfway point between competing ideas is magically endowed with greater legitimacy.

I'm also a bit disturbed to hear that Hornady more or less came out in support of Metcalf.  They've since released some statement saying they disagree with his argument, but this was preceded by an email they sent a complainant wherein they assert there's nothing at all wrong with what Metcalf argued.

[Weisshaupt]

Still hard to believe that he published the op-ed.
We should suggest to the new editor that they provide some education about the constitution in terms of history and meaning using definitions from the time period that it was written. Whole it may be slightly off the subject, the readership could certainly benefit from the views out Founders had.

The real question was how was he leaned on, and which friends and family members were threatened.

[AlanS]

So once again, Free Market reigns. He had his first amendment right to his opinion, and the public had the right to cancel their subscriptions. Money talks. Go figure.

[Libertas]

It's a start.  Jim stood up and admitted his error, but in the end it was his call to publish this and get a debate going, now, how hard is it to foresee the shape of that debate given the nature of the editorial he let run?  I still cannot shake the notion that somewhere inside Mr. Bequette lurks the notion that a little gun-control here and there ain't such a bad idea...I disagree, little bad ideas have a way of becoming big bad ideas...I say this is a nice start to repairing trust, but only about 75% of it, I say we need to keep an eye on this guy and be ready to pounce on him over the slightest backsliding!

I agree. But I'm willing to accept -- for now -- that they've been sufficiently chastened by a readership smackdown. When does the Left ever have people in their ranks playing devil's advocate, or saying some of their own positions might be too strident? I don't know that any with such a mentality exist among the Left at all, and if they did you know exactly what sort of shelf life their thoughts and opinions would have.

Yet our side seems to constantly have these people willing to toss rhetorical life rafts to the other side. Maybe they think it's the hallmark of "reasonable" but really it's usually just the fallacy of the middle ground, the idea that the halfway point between competing ideas is magically endowed with greater legitimacy.

I'm also a bit disturbed to hear that Hornady more or less came out in support of Metcalf.  They've since released some statement saying they disagree with his argument, but this was preceded by an email they sent a complainant wherein they assert there's nothing at all wrong with what Metcalf argued.

I think we're in agreement here, didn't know the Hornady angle, that bears watching too, as long as folks stay vigilant that's all that matters...we lose what voice we have and the progs will roll over us in a heartbeat!

[Glock32]

So now this goofball is playing some sort of victim card, persecuted by what his NY Slimes interviewer smugly describes as "Second Amendment absolutism":

The New York Times published a jeremiad Saturday about former Guns and Ammo writer Dick Metcalf, whose "Let's Talk Limits" article published in December is the reason for the "former" in his Guns and Ammo employment status. The NY Times article is titled "Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns," and portrays Metcalf as a victim of not just "Second Amendment absolutism" (as if "Second Amendment relativism" is appropriate in advocacy of that which shall not be infringed), but of gun industry money suppressing the expression of his views.

    Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

Those manufacturers were entirely within their rights in taking that position, being under no obligation to support with their advertising dollars a publication advocating a position entirely anathema to the beliefs of their customer base. It would also be difficult to dispute the fact that their self-interest was served by their ultimatum--not, contrary to the anti-gun zealots' contention that "squelching the debate" about more draconian gun laws is part of a cynical plot to protect gun industry profits--but because angry readers of Guns and Ammo had already threatened to boycott any company that continued to associate with any publication that continued to associate with Metcalf.

The NY Times then quotes Metcalf at his self-pitying, "victim card"-playing best:

    “I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here, about 100 miles north of St. Louis, surrounded by snow-blanketed fields and towering grain elevators. “Now you see him. Now you don’t.”

Yep--he went there. He compares losing his job as a writer, after writing a piece that deeply offended the vast majority of his target audience, to being snatched by the KGB, tortured and executed in the Lubyanka Building, and disposed of without explanation, or even acknowledgement to family and friends.

The NY Times clearly has no objection to the grandiose scale of Metcalf's persecution complex, although the author favors images of dogmatic religion, rather than totalitarian government:

    Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.

Even a Guns and Ammo former editor who appears to have no objection to Metcalf's dismissal offers what is at best a rather backhanded defense of those of us unwilling to retreat one more inch from our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms:

    The time for ceding some rational points is gone.

So says former G&A editor Richard Venola, as if there are any "rational points" for us to cede. As if it's "irrational" to refuse to ask permission to exercise a fundamental human right.

Metcalf, by the way, calls himself a "Second Amendment fundamentalist," because he "keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach." By that standard, U.S. Senator Dianne "Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn 'Em All In" Feinstein (D-CA), who once enjoyed the use of one of the very few, nearly unobtainable, concealed carry permits in San Francisco, is a "Second Amendment absolutist."

Metcalf had every right to state his views as he did last month. Likewise, though, those of us who find those views as reprehensible as those promoted by NAMBLA have every right to let anyone who continues to do business with him know that we will no longer be doing business with them, and they have every right to dissolve that business relationship.

This is what frustrates me to no end about the inexplicable desire by people on "our side" to make a point of flaunting how oh-so reasonable and non-dogmatic they are. It's so insipid and formulaic: "I know! I'll go on a surprising and unsolicited tangent against the grain -- and the irritation expressed by my erstwhile allies will prove to the media just how goshdarned open minded and reasonable I am!"

Instead -- as always, as ever -- it merely provides grist for the Left's propaganda mill. "Why, even so-and-so thinks these people are nutjobs," and the prejudices and conceits of the erudite Philosopher Kings along the DC-Boston corridor are thus reaffirmed with snark and derision.

With a hat tip to Sipsey Street Irregulars