You read his piece. You heard the outcry. You read his response. Now hear it right from the horse’s mouth. About the only interview former Guns & Ammo technical editor Dick Metcalf has granted is this one with Tom Gresham on Gun Talk Radio. Listen for yourself above and let slip the dogs of righteous retribution below.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

34 COMMENTS

  1. Dick, you still needed to get fired, for saying something that would enable the anti’s..
    end of story..
    now STFU and go away, we’re sick of you mewling about “how you were unjustly handed your A**”

  2. Heard this on Sunday. Obviously I don’t agree with the man, but props to Dick for taking this interview. Hopefully all the backlash will help him see where he went wrong.

  3. I do respect Guns & Ammo for taking decisive action on all this and accept their apology, but I no longer care what Mr. Metcalf has to say anymore and have long since moved on.

  4. Wow.
    I don’t really car that he didn’t pick or name his column, it was the meat of the column that was all Mr. Metcalf.
    Just another Fudd… “I believe in the Second Amendment, but…”
    Give the man his Gabby the meat puppet and mda membership cards.

  5. I’ve heard this from anti’s. But the truth is ANY regulation will never be enough for the anti. So I say none shall be given freely and I seek to have all rescinded is the only way to keep the rights WE have.
    Give them an inch they (YKWTA) will take a mile.

  6. When Sarah Brady writes a op-ed thanking Metcalf for his article at this point he had to have known he was toast.

  8. “We wanted to start a conversation,not a riot”.

    What?…Is…There…to DIScuSS?

    Here’s the conversation Dick Metcalf should have provoked with his column.

    “Gun Restrictions:How to Repeal Centuries of Systematic Infringement”.

    The fact that CNN and the mainstream media’s picked this up is exactly what he and his bonehead editor wanted.What better way for an over-the-hill writer and a retiring Editor in Cheif-who’s still the VP, BTW-to make a mark then to sell us down the river for personal fame.

  9. In the adult world, the word “COMPROMISE” means that each side in an issue, gives something up they value in order to meet in the middle and resolve the issue.

    So the question to the anti gun nuts and Elmer Fudds like Metcalf is rather simple 2 parts:

    1) what have you given up in compromise that you valued for all the previous 22,417 gun control laws implemented?

    2) what right do you value that you intend to give up for these new proposed laws?

    Some fantasy made up right doesn’t count in the real world, a right affirmed in the BOR and the reason must be measurable in real math and GOVT. evidence and not in some wacked out Kenyesian fantasy math!

    Since you anti gun nuts and Elmer Fudds don’t value the 2A, you can’t lie and say that is what you give up.

    After all, if we who are pro-gun give up in compromise the same as anti gun nuts have, which is nothing, how then can we in any sense of the word be called unreasonable?

    Love how the anti gun nuts and Elmer Fudds like Metcalf refuse to compromise and give up anything they value to get gun control.

    In fact history has show everyone how words, the freedom of speech, can be abused. We see how religious beliefs have been the greatest intiator of wars in all of history, one person god having a bigger tallywhacker than the other guys god, over 800 million killed.

    Then we see how the next most dangerous idea, based on a collection of words to form a belief called socilaism, has led to over 200 million deaths in the last century or so, because many civilians resisted such attempts.

    So based on irrefutable history words and beliefs, allowed by the use of freedom of speech, is the greatest danger to safety of our children.

    In the spirit of comrpomise, we suggest the Anti gun nuts and Elmer Fudds give up some of their 1st amendment right.

    They would be required to be licensed every 4 years.

    They would be open to random inspections by the govt.

    They will be required to pay a tax for everytime they use their freedom of speech in a public forum.

    A paper work error in their submitting for more use of said right will be construed as a felony.

    Letting a family member borrow their portion of that right, will require a background check before they receive permission to exercise their right.

    They will not be allowed to lie in their exercise of their right.

    Three time offenders will be deemed incurable and jailed for life.

    Every different media forum they wish to exercise their right will require government permission, and further taxation.

    Any and all electronic devices will be registered and audited at any time the government so chooses.

    If one person in a household abuses that right and breaks the law, everyone in that family and household loses their rights and are guilty!

    See, you really wouldnt be giving up your right, you would just be infrgined upon a little, this year, a little more the next year, and the year after, and the year after.

    But its for the safety of the children.

    • Jahead, while I understand the point ou are trying to make there is one important fact that you and many others miss:

      Those men who wrote and later ratified the 28 or so natural, civil and ultimately Constitutionally protected rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights knew that these were rights belonging to each individual by right of birth and endowed to each individual by their creator or by the simple fact of creation, whatever source you may care to attribute that to. Those rights are held from the moment of birth, possibly from the moment of conception, and remain until the moment of death. They are NOT rights given, granted, allowed, licensed, or otherwise controlled in any way by any other person or government entity.

      Therefore, NO ONE can give you those rights nor agree to take any of them away WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. They cannot be negotiated away in any legislative action. They cannot be curtailed or limited by any court order or ruling, even SCOTUS. They do not belong to you by means of any consensus, nor can any consensus tale them away. They are not subject to repeal or revision based on any democratic process.

      Since these rights are INDIVIDUAL rights and natural rights there is only one person who can agree to give them up, ever, and that is YOU. If anyone else tries to take these rights, without your explicite agreement, then they are violating your rights and they are violating the Constitution, in that order.

      Metcalf, Schumer, BHO, the entire SCOTUS voting unanimously, NOBODY can take away or negotiate away any portion of these rights. To attempt to do so puts them in violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and would render any such action not only null and void, but treasonous.

      (Gosh, I hope the NSA isn’t tracking these comments!)

      • Well said; Cliff H, the scarey part to the “obviousness of the truth” is that so few people actually believe let alone live it.

        I feel despair at times in seeing over 6 billion people denied the lawful practice of the right to KABA. The despair is that the great majority of those people being held in servitude as well as outright slavery is that most would agree that only the government should have a monopoly of force. People seem to run and embrace enslavement; until it becomes to painful, then they overthrow the tyrant, simply to put another, even worse tyrant into power.

        We truly have been a beacon of freedom to the world, while the statists work tirelessly to enslave us all; Democrats/Republicans; two heads of one monster.

      • If most gun owners, even just gun owners, would understand what you wrote then “gun control” would end by the morning and those laws would be repealed by the afternoon.

        I swear, it’s like a twisted Wizard of Oz story. The Wizard can’t grant anything.The individual posses the rights but they keep looking externally for government privileges to call rights.

      • Did I really have to put sarcasm symbols all over that, really, LOL!

        I know that wonderful docoument AFFIRMS MY RIGHTS, just as I know the anti gun nuts will never give up anything, I just intend to pizz em off and see em sputter and spew, it is cheap entertainment!

        • I was not intending to criticize you or your comment, sir, only hoping to expand on it since the clarity of purpose behind the Bill of Rights often tends to get lost in some sort of alternate universe where politicians seem to think they are things to be bartered for power and position.

          The whole point is that only you can agree to give up those rights.

          One other point – once those rights are lost, individual action CANNOT bring them back. We must unite with a purpose and fight to get them back from the tyrants who would keep them from us.

  11. I agree with the Gun Talk host, this is a culture war and in war you can’t compromise or reason with the enemy.

    The anti folks are using his article to fuel their agenda, whether he wants to believe it or not, he didn’t simply start a discussion, he gave the enemy ammo.

  12. I will say what others said when this was first posted. Sometimes we hyper-ventilate with emotions like the anti-gun crowd and in many gun forums we our own echo chamber.

    I believe that Tom Gresham’s was on point. The issue remains, there is no compromise. One side takes and the other side gives which is really the issue. Also, he is also right. He took a position against his own readership and the article title started it off wrong and many probably did no even bother to read what he actually said.

    • “The issue remains, there is no compromise. One side takes and the other side gives which is really the issue.”

      The fact is that there can be NO compromise. If one side takes or the other side gives BOTH sides are taking or giving something they have no right to negotiate over. This is an INDIVIDUAL right, as are all the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The ONLY person who can agree to any limitation on any of those rights is the individual and no other person or group or entity has any authority to do so in your name and especially against your will. These rights are not subject to sociological or democratic revision and even a democratically (not Democrat) elected majority STILL has no authority to take them from you.

      No portion of the Bill of Rights is a political bargaining chip.

  13. F*ck Dick. I really appreciated Intermedia firing that ass clown. I wasn’t really looking forward to canceling all my subscriptions to their mags – however I was ready to.

  14. He’s a legend in the industry. Been around for ages. Which is his problem. He’s old, and beginning to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome…

  15. Gee, what a nice guy that Metcalf is. I think there were nice guys like that in Germany who would help old women and children into the freight cars.

    • I listened to about half earlier and so far he just doesn’t get it. He said that he read and re-read his own words and can’t see what people are upset about. I say that he needs to read what everyone else is writing because simply reviewing his own stuff isn’t going to enlighten him after that many re-reads of his own article. He also postulated that gun owners that don’t speak out for a ‘reasonable discussion’, or some such, are afraid of giving the antis ammo but would otherwise like to ‘compromise’. He had all of these news outlets calling him up for an interview and he was surprised at that. Here’s a clue: when the liberal media wants to talk to you as a ‘gun guy’, you might have written or said something they can use for their agenda… either to demonize & ridicule your words or to put your words at the front of their latest charge against rights. In this case, it was the latter. Somewhere in there it seemed like he was using media’s focus on this being a 1A issue as perhaps a way to flip blame. But, the host derailed that so far in the audio. I’m listening to the rest at a later time.

      My take so far is that he simply doesn’t get it and probably doesn’t understand: 1) The nature of rights 2)The meaning of “shall not be infringed” 3) The Constitution limits federal government 4) The nature of the assault on the RKBA 5) In order to ‘compromise’, BOTH sides need to posses something the other side wants 6) How necessary the un-infringed RKBA is to the security of a free state There are probably more than six but I’m short on time right now and wanted to give you a little summary from my POV.

    • The second half was better than the first.

      The first half Dick was allowed to give his side of the story, which affirmed that he isn’t sorry he wrote the article, he is only sorry he was fired. He also tried deflect by blaming the editor for giving the article a bad title.

      The second half was great though because host just blasted him the rest of the time, basically calling him a turncoat, good times.

      • Thank you for posting that second half preview. I wasn’t much motivated to listen to the second part until I read your comment. I had stopped right as Dick Metcalf was talking about compromise to get concealed carry law in IL. I hadn’t even hear where the host set him straight about taking a license to exercise a right. I’m now listening to the rest. There’s a good probability that I wouldn’t have without your summary.

  18. Setting aside his ignorance of the second amendment, he doesn’t understand the First Amendment either. He whines that he lost his job for speaking out, as though that were a violation of his right to free speech. The First Amendment states that the government may not pass laws to abridge his right to free speech…and he is, in fact, legally allowed to be an idiot. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that your employer may not terminate you for being an idiot.

    Just for fun, Id like to hear Dick’s interpretation of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments. The guy is soft in the head.

  19. Tom Gresham framed the problem very well. Dick Metcalf and others would be wise to pay heed. He stated that this is a war and in war you do not give ground. It’s not like you give up territory and the enemy is going to return in kind. They are going to keep that ground, defending it, and continue to fight for more. Mr. Metcalf, listen to him and understand.

    A question I often get from ‘I support the 2A but…” crowd in response to ‘shall not be infringed’ is, “How do you eat an elephant?” The problem is that we aren’t eating an elephant by giving ground, we are creating one. Every millimeter that we concede acts as an approval to government that it is okay to infringe. Once the People appear to agree to infringement in even the smallest degree, the government considers ‘shall not be infringed’ to be a guideline and not a strict prohibition on government actions. The courts then seem to rule along the lines that since the People have allowed some infringement, it acts as an estoppel against further claims by the People against those long established infringements. If a property owner knowingly allows a squatter to remain on his land, over time that squatter gains ownership through this mechanism because the property owner’s claim is considered to have been estopped. If the property owner doesn’t proactively take measures to eject the squatter from his land; the property owner is thought by the courts to have agreed to the new terms. This is the way of contracts and a constitution is precisely that; a contract through which the People agreed to be governed. When the People challenge things through the courts as unconstitutional, they are essentially claiming a breach of contract on the part of government. I strongly think that this is the reasoning in the back of the minds of judges when looking at infringements upon the RKBA. For example, courts uphold background checks as constitutional because the People have complied with those infringements for so long that judges, even if subconsciously, consider claims against background checks to be estopped. This is a path of least resistance for the courts; rule along the status quo even if it’s unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.