As predictably as the sun rising in the east, Guns & Ammo editor Jim Bequette issued an apology yesterday for Dick Metcalf’s poorly conceived December issue column and promised that Dick would no longer be penning anything more for the magazine. The problem is that I don’t really buy it. G&A should have known better. Or rather, I think they did know better. Editor Bequette was on his way out (or up) at the end of the year anyway, so it seems he had little to lose letting this anti-2A nonsense fly. Basically this whole thing has the fragrance of the Fulton Fish Market dumpsters to me . . .
Let’s be frank, Bequette not being able to guess how Metcalf’s article would be received speaks volumes. Either he’s tremendously naive or he thinks that his audience is. This is especially true given the absolute flogging that RECOIL Magazine suffered when one of their editors made the (much less serious) mistake of suggesting that a particular gun was too dangerous for us mere civilians. It was a big issue, don’t get me wrong. But having an article that could have been written by someone from the Brady bunch appear in G&A under Metcalf’s name is far worse.
Had this sort of thing happened in, say, Outdoor Life or some other hunting “lifestyle” publication, it still would have been bad, but not to this degree. After all, there are more than a few (misguided) hunters out there who think that there’s a big difference between themselves and “those concealed carrying, AR-swinging, screaming-about-guvmint-overreach gun nuts.” A magazine that caters to that crowd may very well have found some sympathetic ears among its audience.
G&A, though, is different. They are (and have been for many years) the dead tree gun magazine for enthusiasts. Sure, they may run the occasional hunting article and their influence and circulation rates aren’t what they were pre-internet, but generally speaking, their readership tracks pretty close to the heart of the 2A crowd. The pages of G&A aren’t the place for concessions to civilian disarmers. I don’t expect to see a 2A-critical statement in G&A any more than I expect to see a pro-CCW treatise from the Bradys or read about how Shannon Watts tagged two home invaders with her concealed carry GLOCK 36. The anti-gun crowd aren’t interested in sitting down and trying to solve the violence problem (no matter what they may claim). Instead, they’re trying to solve the “gun problem” which means no guns for you, bubba.
While I can’t explain Metcalf’s intentions in writing it, the fact is that Bequette, a short-timer editor, had very little to lose and lots to gain had this olive branch to civilian disarmers been better received by G&A’s readership. This looks to have been a trial balloon floated to test the waters. Why they though that would be a good idea given the year that gun owners just had is a mystery. Still, if the reception had been at all positive (or even neutral), G&A would have looked like a thought leader in bringing “reasonable discourse” to this issue of gun regulation. Instead, they got bulldozed (surprise!), they tossed Metcalf to the wolves and moved on.
As a result, I have to strongly question either Bequette’s supposed dedication to the Second Amendment or his intelligence. In either case, it makes me think that G&A is moving away from its core constituency as it apparently no longer seems to understand it. And I’m about done with them.
On behalf of the readership of the gun mags, let me say this to their editors: we do not want to see any more of this sort of dreck in your pages. RECOIL at least had the excuse of being relatively new to the game. They were the first to trespass and made amends by tossing their editor and replacing him with a truly stand-up guy, someone with unimpeachable 2A cred. They still got slapped pretty hard, but they’ll probably make it.
G&A is going to pay a higher price because they clearly should have known better, their transgression was more serious and the head editor was already on his way out. It’s going to take more than a lame-ass apology from a short-timer to restore my faith. In the mean time, the rest of you are on notice. No more “misjudgments” and no more apologies. Toe the 2A line or take up writing about knitting or something. If you want to publish articles to bridge the gap, then get someone from the Brady organization to write a pro-gun column for you.
Here’s a message for the left-leaning media who are having a field day with this “crazy gun people going after one of their own” meme: children, get over it. If Bloomberg published a piece in the Huffington Post suggesting that it would be a great idea for the residents of Chicago to be allowed concealed carry in order to defend themselves, your crew would be stripping his carcass clean before the next news cycle. We’ve come to expect expect this “reasonable restriction” malarkey and misreading the Constitution from you guys. Not from our own who should know better.
Finally, I’m not interested in what you think the Second Amendment means. Most civilian disarmers are idiots. Highly educated idiots perhaps, but idiots nonetheless. People far brighter and better educated than you have already decided what the Second Amendment means. It’s called settled law. Specifically D.C. v. Heller which found (among other things):
- (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
-
- (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
-
- (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
-
- (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
-
- (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
-
- (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
-
- (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
I’m not sure that the editor read the column before they published it. It sounds like he was just being lazy.
No. He read it. In fact, he refers readers to it in the letters section of the very same issue, as a reason that G&A did not alert gun owners to important legislation.
It’s unlikely that an editor won’t read everything that gets published, specially such an important piece. Why did he publish it? He probably forgot that old media is dead. The days of getting a few nasty emails to the editor are gone, now if you screw up offline, it goes online.
http://sellingthesecondamendment.com
Work with me here, if we replaced the “Sporting proposes” line in the 68 GCA with ” common use for lawful purposes” or something like that, would that makes things better or worse for the people of the gun? Note: not having the GCA is not an option here, so don’t say that for now, ok?
I would think it’d be a huge improvement. The antis would still get all sphinctery about what a lawful purpose really is, but it would be a big step closer to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.
I have no problem with “sporting purposes” in theory.
3-Gun is a sport. IDPA is a sport. There is, as far as I know, no government body that legally defines gun sports. The problem is that nobody is pressing that issue. The Feds arbitrarily cite “no sporting purpose” without legal resistance. Aren’t there any gun-loving lawyers who can file suit to lift import bans on rifles that are most certainly suited for various competitions?
The ATF determines what constitutes a “sporting purpose” and IDPA/IPSC/3 gun do not qualify according to them.
G & A has definitely given a citation for the gun ban lobby. They can say, see even a major gun magazine agrees that the 2nd Amendment provides for gun regulation. The most major regulation of course is full out bans.
While I disagree with the specific conclusions Metcalf reached about the 2A and a training requirement, his essential point – that the 2A does not protect an unlimited, unbounded right for anyone, anywhere, to do whatever they want with any gun – is completely correct and should be unremarkable to anyone who’s actually read the _Heller_ opinion.
The fact that this sends pro-gun people into screaming fits of hysteria should be regarded as an embarrassment, not a point of pride.
We can disagree about the exact boundaries of permissible regulation – and that’s happening right now in trial courts and lower appellate courts all over the country – but the idea that any constitutional right is absolute is a complete non-starter to anyone familiar with constitutional law, and suggestions to the contrary are as ridiculous and credibility-deflating as the gun-haters’ suggestions that “expanded” background checks or magazine limits will stop mass shootings, or that barrel shrouds or bayonet lugs make some rifles more dangerous.
Pro-gun people who put their fingers in their ears and shout “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!” when confronted with the idea that the RKBA isn’t absolute (nor is any other constitutional right) are doing themselves and our cause a great disservice – that argument goes nowhere in a courtroom or a legislative floor, and if the two competing arguments are “no regulation, ever, of any sort” and “let’s just make a few common-sense rules to try to save some lives”, it should be crystal clear which side will win, every time. And if the common-sense rules are written by people who think violence can be avoided by wishing/legislating it away, we’ll end up like our brethren in the UK and AU.
Very naive. No court, not even the SCOTUS, has the final say on the US Constitution. It stands alone and what is clearly says is “shall not be infringed”. Simply because some legislation in this area has been passed does not make it correct or right.
Actually, the SCOTUS does have the final say.
Nine (Arguably senile) individuals are NOT the final say. At one point they put their stamp of approval on slavery, just to cite an obvious example where they got it terribly wrong. We the people are the final say. And the three boxes are how we have it.
Not always. Remember the Dred Scott ruling? What about the Tellico Dam ruling over the Snail Darter in the 1970s? Congress did an end run on the ruling and Jimmy Carter signed it into law.
mdfalco you are either ignorant of the very basic tenants of this government or are suggesting revolution. If it’s the former, read about Marbury v. Madison. If the latter, put up or shut up.This silly circle jerk about how your (and every other layman’s) individual interpretation of an eighteenth century document render’s the supreme court impotent is about as useless as it is incongruous.
This article amuses me… the anti-gunners can’t stand dissent, that’s true. But instead of criticizing their close-mindedness, a large portion of the gun rights crowd- including the author of this article- decide that they should be just like them. If you can’t deal with disagreement, your arguments suck. If you need a publication to regurgitate your own views without any hint of disagreement, you’re intellectually stunted. And the more you can’t deal with hard truths (like an analysis of caselaw that doesn’t mindlessly slave to your aspirations), the more confused you’ll be when these verdicts come down. ” But how could they decide that way?!?! All my magazines and forums tell me there’s no debate here!”
I’ll be more optimistic about the gun community’s chances when they step slowly away from the echo chamber and start trying to build an intellectual and legal framework that can actually influence the courts… because the way things are going, regional legislative victories aren’t enough.
I don’t think that it’s an issue of the people of the gun
refusing to debate or even think about whether there
should be limits. For many, they’ve learned the hard way
that if you give up so much as an inch the anti-rights
crowd takes a mile as it becomes doubtful that you’ll
ever get see our encroached upon liberties again.
They also see the dangers of allowing any chance to
change the narrative. Just look at the previous article
about Mystal. The narrative about gun rights and
ownership has been changed and re-written to the
point where very few even know the history of gun-
control. By agreeing to various shades of grey we
open ourselves to the never-ending pattern of the
anti-civil rights establishment bringing more shades
for the sole purpose of slivering away our freedom.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand on the subject:
We refer to Black and White – black is bad, white is good. If you add a little bit of white to the black, it is a little less bad, but if you add a little black to the white it is no longer good.
The better analogy that she used is of adding a thimbleful of raw sewage to a barrel of wine.
Exactly! and this guy has given The Gun Ban lobby fuel for the fire in print in a Gun Magazine no less and it can be cited for the next 100 years.
Except he is utterly and completely ignorant of bill of rights and basic legal concepts by using the “Fire in a crowd theater” as an example.
1) that cite from the supreme court was for curtailment of political speech deriving around in laws that were in force for half the 20th century including making criticism so the military draft a crime not protected by the first amendment.
2) that “can’t yell fire” actually has only been invoked in and upheld POST USAGE harm cases. It has never — ever — been applied to prior restraint (which is what gun control laws are).
What the Metcalf did was take POST HARM sanctions and say they are equivalent to gun control. Bu11s41t.
Gun rights advocate are not using the second amendment to protect shooting your husband. Libel, slander and “shouting fire in a crowded theater” are post-action sanctions on HARMING people. The laws regarding harming someone with a gun are assault laws, murder laws, reckless endangerment laws, etc. They already exist.
“THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!!”
“I’m finishing my coffee! Enjoying my coffee…”
“…the 2A does not protect an unlimited, unbounded right for anyone, anywhere, to do whatever they want with any gun – is completely correct and should be unremarkable to anyone who’s actually read the _Heller_ opinion….”
Dawg, the operable term in the first cut is “Heller opinion.” It is just that, an opinion, handed down by five out of nine MEN, fallible just like the rest of us. The fact that there is no higher court to appeal this to DOES NOT render it as irrefutable fact. And SCOTUS had been wrong before, and reversed by later courts.
“The fact that this sends pro-gun people into screaming fits of hysteria should be regarded as an embarrassment, not a point of pride…”
Anyone who simply accepts an obviously wrong legal opinion just because SCOTUS published it as a majority opinion should be regarded as an embarrassment by all patriotic Americans who hold the Bill of Rights to be natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights. (There, how did that feel?)
“We can disagree about the exact boundaries of permissible regulation…”
And if you read the MAJORITY of comments (opinions) on TTAG you will discover that many people here disagree with you on that point. I proudly count myself in that group. The Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America gives the EXACT boundaries of permissible regulation. If you will, “A well regulated militia…” and finally, “…shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is 27 words long. I’m pretty sure if the lawyers and politicians who wrote and debated this amendment had wanted to include some qualifiers they would have found the space to put in a few more words. They did not. In their minds this issue was clear and simple: The government has no authority to repeal, rescind or regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To grant any government body, organization or branch the authority to decide who can or cannot exercise a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms AUTOMATICALLY and without question turns it from a right into a government granted, administered and regulated privilege. THAT is exactly the opposite of what the founders intended when they demanded that this amendment be included before they would agree to sign the new constitution.
Yeah, and if I go read a gun-hater blog, they’ll tell me that Heller is wrong, too, except wrong in the other direction.
If we’re going to live under the rule of law, we’re going to have to agree that one person, or some people, get to have the final say about what the laws are. If we’re each going to make up our own laws, or make up our own idiosyncratic interpretations of the laws, there’s little point in having laws in the first place.
And we’re probably not all going to like every bit of what those final decider(s) say about the law.
But it’s still a long sight better than announcing that the law is whatever the most powerful want it to be; or that the law is “do whatever you can get away with.”
“If we’re going to live under the rule of law, we’re going
to have to agree that one person, or some people, get
to have the final say…”
WRONG! The ONLY ones who get the final say is
the citizenry. Even then the public can overrule itself.
This is why we have the ability to create/annul
Amendments. We live by the rule of law only by general
agreement. When we want something changed, we do
so first via elections then, if necessary, by public
referendum. Those that disagree with a law and
cannot change it (yet) use their 1st Amendment rights
to speak out then if need be use civil disobedience.
At no point are we forced to accept any rule in any
form as unchangeable, including the Constitution
itself.
The Constitution is actually a pretty simple document. The intent was that any reasonably educated person should be able to read and understand it. The states and the people were to be the final arbiters of what is or is not constitutional. The Marshall court usurped that power (nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the supreme court the exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution).
Here are some common misconceptions:
If the Constitution doesn’t say government can’t do something, they can.
The Constitution defines the federal government and grants Congress the authority to perform 16 specific tasks. The Tenth Amendment then expressly states that any power not explicitly granted to Congress, or prohibited to the states, goes to the states and people. So unless the Constitution says Congress can do something specifically, it cannot.
If a right isn’t in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t exist.
The Constitution, as mentioned above, grants specific, limited powers to the feds (the enumerated powers). The Bill of Rights is a further restriction for those rights that are essential. The Tenth Amendment reserves all non enumerated powers (such as healthcare) to the states and people.
Article One specifically states that the powers of Congress are explicit and finite, while the Ninth Amendment specifically states that the rights of the people are not restricted to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, grant rights to the people.
The people have rights from god, nature, or whatever it is that creates sentient life. The Bill of Rights is a further check on the power of the federal government.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute.
If it’s not absolute, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. The wording of every Amendment in the Bill of Rights is absolute (e.g. “Congress shall make no law”, “shall not be infringed”, or “shall not be construed”). There are no exceptions listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
blakdawg, the intense adverse reaction to Metcalf’s article had little to do with the passage you cited, as you constructed a spurious position to attack, one actually held by few gun owners, that critics of Metcalf believe no regulation whatever is justified. Most of us have read the case. It was emphatically Metcalf’s attempt to read out of Heller the historically correct parsing Heller asserts of the initial clause, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,….,” which caused universal repugnance. It was Metcalf’s writing itself which betrayed any claim on his part to be familiar with the text of Heller. What most of us abhor is the creeping regulation which fails even intermediate scrutiny, and whose purpose is quite simply the derogation of the right. Regulation is in many ways already excessive, so that the general view of gun owners, especially those focused on the essential self-defense right, is that the overreaching infringements should be rolled back.
You refer to pro gun people as if you are not one of them. As usual, it depends on who’s ox is being gored, and I’m sure there is some right that you consider inviolable and not open to compromise.
When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no “judicial review” in this country. I doubt that the Founders, for all their wisdom, could have guessed that later on a court would come along and overturn everything they tried to do.
Don’t defend the judicial tyranny that has arisen, and is fully capable of taking every right we have.
Geez G&A has had some rotten luck lately…… Richard Venola charged with murder (whatever happened with that one?), J Guthrie ieing suddenly, and now this debacle,,,,, hope they straighten out and fly right with the 2nd, they always seemd to have the best mix of articals Vintage, modern, hunting, reloading. of any on magazine…. lets see what the new Management does to attone for this last issue.
2 mistrials and charges were dismissed – http://kdminer.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=55514&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=797&S=1
thank you sir!
Im putting Guns & Ammo right up there with Cheaper then Dirt.
You cant make a U-Turn on my corner.
Then say you didn’t see the sign.
No more of my business, never period no more.
Might I suggest: it is better to convince a former enemy to become a friend than it is to ensure that an enemy can never become a friend. The former allows for an increase in the number of friends; the latter ensures that one never loses enemies.
This looks to have been a trial balloon floated to test the waters. . . . [I]f the reception had been at all positive (or even neutral), G&A would have looked like a thought leader in bringing “reasonable discourse” to this issue of gun regulation.
I was all for kissing and making up with G&A because it had always been upright for 2A. But the instant I read the paragraph I just quoted, the little lawyer hairs on the back of my neck stood straight up.
I think that Jim is absolutely correct. We’ve been played.
See my Ayn Rand comment above. If G&A had any sense they would have understood that they only exist so long as they are lily white (no racism intended). Most everyone thought they were the good guys (White hats), they allowed in just a little bit of black. Sorry, you can’t wash that out, you will be forever just a little bit gray, no matter what you do.
I agree whole heartedly with Jim and Ralph. This was a trial balloon that exploded in their faces.
The old unintended consequences…
Since it is not possible that either Metcalf or Bequette was ignorant of the debate surrounding the “well-regulated” clause and Heller’s treatment of it, the article was obviously an attempt to restart the pre-Heller view and build support for it. This is an ideological campaign. If the Court’s composition changes next year, the campaign to undermine the Heller rationale will only receive more funding. Leo Hinery is a smart, pragmatic anti-gun businessman active in supporting gun-grabbing politicians. While he wouldn’t, I suppose, wish to destroy G&A (that would leave him with no instrument to manipulate future discourse), I doubt he values it as anything but an open door to the minds of gun enthusiasts. I see it no differently than Burkle’s exploratory foray via Recoil. It isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a straightforward attempt to control the gun media and affect its content by people whose views on the debate are known. I’m frankly surprised anyone sees it otherwise. Why ignore the obvious facts? No conspiracy theory is needed and no assumption of incompetence is plausible. That leaves only the trial-balloon thesis.
I agree and I agree with Jim.
“I, [Bequette] made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and ask your forgiveness.”
A healthy exchange of what ideas? The idea that the constitution doesn’t mean what it really says? Idea’s that directly contradict statements made by the founding fathers at that time in regards to interpretation of “well regulated?”
Looks bogus to me. I bet Bequette and Metcalf had plans of departing anyways, and upper management dropped this experiment in our laps.
There is simply no way that a magazine titled “guns and ammo” would publish this unknowingly. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I’ve said it many a time, that the only litmus test of 2A support is 2A support. Not gay marriage, the drug war, abortion, or anything else. That said, it is the litmus test, and G&A failed it.
No backsies, no forgiveness for surrender-monkeys. You declared your side, now defend it. We don’t need “support” from people who will sell us out the first time they think it will get them a head pat from the media. Fuck that.
Drive them into bankruptcy. It worked on S&W.
INTERMEDIA owns this rag AND RECOIL…they are hanging by a thread for gun rights
the only one that I want to read is shotgun news..but I can always “browse” that walmart and record the ads I like with my smart phone so they DONT make the sales, and I still get my intell
I honestly think this was more of career suicide by cop, except in this case ‘cop’ means ‘customer base’. He knew he was on the way out and he went out with a bang to make sure he had the street cred to get in with a more mainstream rag.
Not a G&A subscriber, but for this guy to get crucified for stating the obvious (that gun ownership can be regulated) is ridiculous. I don’t live in a state with mandatory CCW training and don’t care for the notion, but I respect Metcalf’s opinion and agree that it is lawful for states that want that. Jeez, I’m stating not opinion but present and obvious fact.
Whit, his examples mean that he supports prior restraint on the first amendment.
Gun control laws being proposed are pre harm, “pre-crime” laws applied to the entire population.
Wheat he is suggesting is not analogous to post harm sanctions such as assault laws, and libel laws, but registering for exercise of the first amendment and a regime of limiting, prior restraining, all bill of rights for all persons based on the actions of hose who have committed a harm.
He used the most spurious and staliniod logic to “state the obvious.”
“…stating the obvious (that gun ownership can be regulated)…”
Well, it is pretty obvious, considering the many THOUSANDS of laws on the books, that gun ownership CAN be regulated. Hell, the government(s) have most of the guns and have written laws allowing them the right to use them against YOU (us). Then they write more laws regarding your gun ownership and enforce those laws with THEIR guns. So yes, gun ownership CAN be regulated. What we are arguing/discussing here is that regulating guns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If governments never wrote regulations or laws that were in violation of the Constitution SCOTUS would be pretty much out of a job. And even they can get it wrong. They are, after all, just another branch of the government. The Second Amendment does not say, “…shall not be infringed, except by majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
If we believe that ALL of these laws and regulations, and MOST of the opinions from SCOTUS, are unconstitutional and wrong, and I do, then we must continue to fight until we are defeated and subjugated, or we prevail.
I agree with most of what Metcalf said. It’s reflective of legal reality. No rights are absolute. They are all limited in some fashion. Shame the gun people must turn on its own and purge people who hold views that are in fact widely held but don’t jive with the purist ideology some have. We need to stick together and not try to get people fired who don’t agree with every jot and tittle.
“…No rights are absolute. They are all limited in some fashion…views that are in fact widely held but don’t jive with the purist ideology…We need to stick together and not try to get people fired who don’t agree with every jot and tittle.”
Gary, some rights ARE absolute. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (in some renderings, the pursuit of property). THOSE are absolute and no government has the right to take those away. If you are a criminal and stand against the society, then the society has the right to defend itself from you by depriving you of those rights, but our Bill of Rights guarantees that you must be judged by a jury of your peers, NOT the government.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to attempt to enumerate those RIGHTS which the founders determined, in their wisdom, of which they had plenty, were absolute in that they belonged to the people and were not granted by the government nor subject to regulation by the government. The fact that the government has seen fit to regulate some of them anyway dos not change this fact, only illustrate the failure of the people to hold their government accountable for unconstitutional over-reach.
We need to stick together and get every single person in any position of respect, authority, or media who does not agree with this position, “every jot and tittle” fired, banned and black-balled. We have stood by for too many years allowing the camel to stick its nose under the tent flap. It’s time to put on a very heavy boot and give all of them a swift and solid kick in the snoot.
Metcalf posted that crap so he can have a shot at nudging me aside for first dance and drink with Shannon Watts(TM). I see you MotherF**ker! I see you!
I smirked.
I quit reading G&A when Col. Cooper passed. I don’t have any plans to restart.
The ignorance of both Bequette and Metcalf citing regulation in the text as the go ahead for the government to get involved in limiting possession of firearms is disturbing.
Regulated in the 18th century meant equipped. The founders knew that the country needed its militia, and that’s all of us, to be able to defend against all threats. That means I should have access to the same arms as the military.
Wasn’t the determining factor in allowing a ban of sawed off shotguns was that the SCOTUS deemed it wasn’t of normal military utility? By that logic I should be able to own an M4.
Jim Bequette, Editor Guns & Ammo Magazine, admitted that he approved Metcalf’s Column. I don’t understand why he was not also fired.
That said, firing Metcalf, is BIG. He was a bigwig at G&A for decades as well as having major involvement and their new TV programs. Much of the taping was done at his property.
The problem is not that our 2nd Amendment right can not or even should not be restricted. The problem is that there are way too many laws on the books, such that there are way too many restrictions on the right. The only restrictions that are Constitutional, are related to crimes committed with a gun, AFTER the crime has been committed. There are already laws against murder, maiming, property damage, and against threatening to do any of those. Every other restriction that regulates guns or gun owners, seeking to PREVENT crime before it happens, is unconstitutional. The only additional “common sense” (actual common sense, not the way the Antis use the term) restriction that is acceptable is a prohibition against people who have shown (and continue to show) that they can not handle a dangerous weapon without hurting other people with it (Convicted violent criminals, the severely mentally ill, and young children). No other restrictions. Period.
We need to respond to that argument in that way.
A few new names appear in the comments section, and on one side of the controversy.
Metcalf’s (and Bequette’s) egregious and sly ploy lay in positing a false pre-Heller definition of the Second Amendment’s “well-regulated” clause, and then building on that false interpretation as support for their view of proper future arms regulation, whether related to training or other aspects. The rest of the article is trivia. The use of a firearm for home defense in fact (and historically) requires very little training, and field service with a militia is not the essence of the individual right. See Heller.
Well, it’s not only too late, but the apology and the reason behind it is really lame considering the current climate. I cancelled my subscription the same day I read about this issue. I’m sorry, but I expected much more from Guns & Ammo. Col. Cooper would not have been pleased at all.
And gun owners will continue to be baffled by legal findings that seem to be out of left-field, because “all my magazines and the forumz say ‘shall not be infringed!’ ZOMG!”
A community that cannot tolerate even a debate of legal principles will never foster the sort of minds and experience needed to win in the courts.
Apparently Editor Jim Bequette resigned: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/guns–ammo-editor-resigns-after-gun-control-column/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I quit reading G&A years ago. I got tired of paying for a magazine that was half ads and where every gun review was a paid advertisement. I am surprised there is anyone left that still reads it.
1. I haven’t read G&A in years. Decades, actually. Since the mid-80’s. I saw even back then that their “reviews” significantly diverged from reality, and that was back when I was a mere gun buyer who could take the occasional gun apart completely and put it back together after cleaning it. Today, with my training and experience, I see most gun rags are filled mostly with utter nonsense on stilts. G&A leads the pack in this regard.
2. Given Metcalf’s history at Yale and Cornell, we have a workable explanation for his perspective in his column. He knows better than we unwashed masses because, “I’m Ivy League, screw you.” The SCOTUS is completely controlled by Harvard and Yale graduates. The US Congress has more graduates from Harvard and Yale than any other schools. Even Stanford pulls in third. The Obama administration is riddled from end to end with Harvard and Yale graduates.
These clowns like to think they run the world based on competence. It is closer to the truth to say that they’re a beneficiary of who mommy chose to shag.
These people are perfectly happy to sell your rights, your country and your property down a river for their own personal enrichment and benefit. Do not mistake these people for being interested in what benefits America or Americans.
If Metcalf chose to write those words, he did so out of a cynical and deliberate choice: “viability” within his Ivy League milieu. By penning those words, he’s now considered “serious” and “thoughtful” by his educational cohort, many of whom are busily selling our nation down a river. What you little people think is of no import to these people, and Metcalf’s dismissal is a mere bump in the road.
3. The management at G&A are pulling a very slick dodge. They no doubt saw what happened to others in this area and are getting ahead of it before it really hurts ad sales.
But make no mistake. They’ll hire some other hack writer, who will also eventually dissemble and waffle on other people’s rights. These types of people are true to a form, and they never deviate far from it. I agree with Jim’s assessment that Bequette is either dumb as a stump or being mendacious and dissembling about not expecting this blowback.
I will further predict that Metcalf and Bequette will turn up later at other for-pay writing gigs, where they can wear this episode as a badge of honor among their statist brethren.
Does anyone know how too get a refund. I’d like to cancel my sub but nobody seems to have an idea how w/o just giving this bunch of losers my money. I hunt, fish, camp and also sport many of the so-called assult weapons ( still not really clear on just what they are:) ) I had already become unhappy with the many, many, many articles from G&A extolling the virtues of the AR-15 platform above all other types of weapons. I’d like a refund and will buy a sub to “recoil” since they seem to be up and coming and have a clue about their subscriber base.
I have used an HK-91 or an FN-FAL for elk for the past 10 years. The reason was because of the crap weather near Flagstaff Arizona or Showlow during elk season. Legal mags and solid performance in bad weather make them a great choice. Flat Black Barbacue paint, steel wool and oil make them look like new after a hunt: Try that with your Colt Sauer or pre-64 model 70. I am not a bolt gun fan, yep I have several but they have never created a love affair. I do however have a “thing” for single shots: couple Browning High wall copies, a couple of Ruger No.1 rifles, a P.O.Ackley custom and a bunch of lever guns Savage, Marlin and Browning. If the weather is good I use the single shots or levers or maybe a BSA Monarch bolt in .308. The problem with G&A was they quit publishing much that did not center around the AR platform. I love my AR’s I have at least 4 plus an AR-10 but damn! can we see something else. Pages and pages of AR drool then this twit explaning how anyone who uses an assult rifle is somehow not fit for public consumption… Hypocraicy of the greatest magnatiude.
GREAT article, Mr. Barrett (and I agree with you). I’m putting the link up on my Facebook page and News Feed, right now!
Hypocrisy Jim.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/jim-barrett/confessions-2a-non-absolutist/
Comments are closed.