Home› A Moving Train

Guns & Ammo Editor Preaches Responsibilty ... Promptly Fired

Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
edited November 2013 in A Moving Train
An editor, Dick Metcalf, wrote an op/ed were he preached responsible gun ownership and suggested a 16 hour training course for obtaining a concealed carry permit. And of course readers completely freaked out.

He was fired within two days.

He had worked for them since 1976.

:fp:

The funny thing is that Guns & Ammo made an apology that basically told their readers that they do not have the ability to have rational discussion ...

I 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.

Again, it was only an article about responsible gun ownership. It was seen as a vicious attack on the 2nd amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/breaking-guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-for-2a-betrayal/
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    :fp:

    same thing plays out here on the AMT! ...
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    God forbid people get angry. Over an editorial, yet. An opinion.

    And then terminate someone after 37 (!!!) years of employment.

    Coincidence? :think:

    Amazing to me how others keep their jobs (and pensions) when committing actual termination-worthy acts.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    I was reading the comment section on "The Truth About Guns" link listed above (which is quite amusing and disturbing at the same time, and it took about 250 comments before I got to a post that would even come close to what would be considered defending the article ...

    Chris says:

    Yeah, fuck everyone who thinks differently from us!

    Reply

    David Kachel says:

    People who think differently, have their place to voice their opinions, on virtually every news site and editorial page in the mainstream media. They have all the exposure they could ever possibly want or need. They DO NOT need it in the pages of the gun magazines they would dearly love to bring to an end. This is not a free speech issue. It is a Trojan Horse issue.

    A trojan horse that was instituted in 1976 and waited until 2013 to hatch his diabolical plan about being responsible.

    :fp: :lol:
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    There is a reason why America cannot have a reasonable discussion about guns.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • goingtoveronagoingtoverona Posts: 616
    as a gun owner i really wish fellow gun owners weren't so close minded. this is very disturbing, essentially shutting down free speech which is so ironic given how much the second amendment is used as an argument for gun possession. it's so hypocritical. at the end of the day it comes down to money though. they must have had enough people saying they would cancel their memberships if something wasn't done about the guy and article.
    if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    goingtoverona wrote:
    as a gun owner i really wish fellow gun owners weren't so close minded. this is very disturbing, essentially shutting down free speech which is so ironic given how much the second amendment is used as an argument for gun possession. it's so hypocritical. at the end of the day it comes down to money though. they must have had enough people saying they would cancel their memberships if something wasn't done about the guy and article.
    ...
    I believe yours is the voice of the majority of gun owners. I know many gun owners and the vast majority advocate responsibility and accountability as a keystone to gun ownership.
    The unreasonable opinions are more of a vocal minority that see any reasonable discussion as personal attacks upon their freedoms.
    Gun ownership is a right protected by our Constitution. But, with those rights comes responsibility... and responsibility comes from knowledge and understanding... which comes from education by skilled individuals. I believe that a thorough understanding of the lethal aspects of modern day firearms and the legal and moral ramifications of their use and misuse... is probably a good thing.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Cosmo wrote:
    goingtoverona wrote:
    as a gun owner i really wish fellow gun owners weren't so close minded. this is very disturbing, essentially shutting down free speech which is so ironic given how much the second amendment is used as an argument for gun possession. it's so hypocritical. at the end of the day it comes down to money though. they must have had enough people saying they would cancel their memberships if something wasn't done about the guy and article.
    ...
    I believe yours is the voice of the majority of gun owners. I know many gun owners and the vast majority advocate responsibility and accountability as a keystone to gun ownership.
    The unreasonable opinions are more of a vocal minority that see any reasonable discussion as personal attacks upon their freedoms.
    Gun ownership is a right protected by our Constitution. But, with those rights comes responsibility... and responsibility comes from knowledge and understanding... which comes from education by skilled individuals. I believe that a thorough understanding of the lethal aspects of modern day firearms and the legal and moral ramifications of their use and misuse... is probably a good thing.

    i dunno ... i mentioned this in another thread ... my buddy is a hunter and he is part of a forum where he has been rendered a lurker because they can't tolerate his "responsible gun" position ...
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

    and this is reasonable in what way?
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.
    There are already limits established. No full auto. No bazookas. etc. etc, etc .... Of course there are limits.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,095
    Don't you people know, the first thing tyrannical dictatorships do is preach about responsible gun ownership! Wake up!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Jason P wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.
    There are already limits established. No full auto. No bazookas. etc. etc, etc .... Of course there are limits.


    And many people believe that those are unconstitutional at the level they are now.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    unsung wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    There are already limits established. No full auto. No bazookas. etc. etc, etc .... Of course there are limits.

    And many people believe that those are unconstitutional at the level they are now.
    Well all I can say to that is thank christ that the right to driving a car wasn't an original constitutional amendment.

    Too bad the right to be responsible wasn't included.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Jason P wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    There are already limits established. No full auto. No bazookas. etc. etc, etc .... Of course there are limits.

    And many people believe that those are unconstitutional at the level they are now.
    Well all I can say to that is thank christ that the right to driving a car wasn't an original constitutional amendment.

    Too bad the right to be responsible wasn't included.
    So many issues would be resolved if simple common sense were employed.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    Jason P wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    There are already limits established. No full auto. No bazookas. etc. etc, etc .... Of course there are limits.

    And many people believe that those are unconstitutional at the level they are now.
    Well all I can say to that is thank christ that the right to driving a car wasn't an original constitutional amendment.

    Too bad the right to be responsible wasn't included.
    AND yet the FIRST amendment has its limits too now doesnt it? Which right is more important? I go with speech.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • vant0037vant0037 Posts: 6,116
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

    There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.
    1998-06-30 Minneapolis
    2003-06-16 St. Paul
    2006-06-26 St. Paul
    2007-08-05 Chicago
    2009-08-23 Chicago
    2009-08-28 San Francisco
    2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
    2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
    2011-09-03 PJ20
    2011-09-04 PJ20
    2011-09-17 Winnipeg
    2012-06-26 Amsterdam
    2012-06-27 Amsterdam
    2013-07-19 Wrigley
    2013-11-21 San Diego
    2013-11-23 Los Angeles
    2013-11-24 Los Angeles
    2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
    2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
    2014-10-09 Lincoln
    2014-10-19 St. Paul
    2014-10-20 Milwaukee
    2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
    2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
    2018-06-18 London 1
    2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
    2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
    2022-09-16 Nashville
    2023-08-31 St. Paul
    2023-09-02 St. Paul
    2023-09-05 Chicago 1
    2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
    2024-09-15 Fenway 1
    2024-09-27 Ohana 1
    2024-09-29 Ohana 2
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    vant0037 wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

    There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.


    Those aren't real rights then.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Jason P wrote:
    Too bad the right to be responsible wasn't included.
    ...
    There is the inclusion of 'Well regulated' in the Second amendment right.
    If individual gun owners consider themselves as part of an armed militia... they are supposed to be well regulated.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    These citizen gun owners are supposed to provide the security of our free State by being a well regulated Militia... right?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung wrote:
    Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.
    ...
    Then... if that is the case... shouldn't the citizen gun owners be organized and trained as a regular security force?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    unsung wrote:
    vant0037 wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

    There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.


    Those aren't real rights then.

    Get serious. Yes they are.

    A 'right' doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please... because that would mean their uninhibited rights would have the potential to trample all over someone else's rights.

    For example, one person in a residential neighbourhood might say, "I have the right to own 20 dogs in my backyard." Well that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that the stench of dog shit and the barking of 20 dogs just might disturb the rights one's neighbours have towards having some semblance of peace and quiet for their homespace. So... to provide balance... regulations are placed into effect limiting the extent to which one might exercise their right.

    A balancing act is necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all. Rules and regulations maintain the balance.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • vant0037vant0037 Posts: 6,116
    unsung wrote:
    vant0037 wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

    There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.


    Those aren't real rights then.

    Sure they are. States' rights are limited to those powers not delegated to the federal government, and vice versa.

    Surely states' right are real, right?
    1998-06-30 Minneapolis
    2003-06-16 St. Paul
    2006-06-26 St. Paul
    2007-08-05 Chicago
    2009-08-23 Chicago
    2009-08-28 San Francisco
    2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
    2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
    2011-09-03 PJ20
    2011-09-04 PJ20
    2011-09-17 Winnipeg
    2012-06-26 Amsterdam
    2012-06-27 Amsterdam
    2013-07-19 Wrigley
    2013-11-21 San Diego
    2013-11-23 Los Angeles
    2013-11-24 Los Angeles
    2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
    2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
    2014-10-09 Lincoln
    2014-10-19 St. Paul
    2014-10-20 Milwaukee
    2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
    2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
    2018-06-18 London 1
    2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
    2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
    2022-09-16 Nashville
    2023-08-31 St. Paul
    2023-09-02 St. Paul
    2023-09-05 Chicago 1
    2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
    2024-09-15 Fenway 1
    2024-09-27 Ohana 1
    2024-09-29 Ohana 2
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    Cosmo wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.
    ...
    Then... if that is the case... shouldn't the citizen gun owners be organized and trained as a regular security force?
    like a militia? Or in modern times the national guard which are state militia? Hmmmm.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    vant0037 wrote:

    Sure they are. States' rights are limited to those powers not delegated to the federal government, and vice versa.

    Surely states' right are real, right?

    I'm speaking of the individual. The 2A is the only amendment that states, shall not be infringed, yet it happens. That doesn't sound like a right to me, that sounds like a privilege that changes based on geography.

    As far as 10A, if it isn't covered under art 1 sec VIII, then it is left up to the state. Well, it is supposed to be. In a country run by banks and the military industrial complex we don't pay much attention to the Constitution anymore.

    Somehow I think you know this.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.
    ...
    Then... if that is the case... shouldn't the citizen gun owners be organized and trained as a regular security force?
    like a militia? Or in modern times the national guard which are state militia? Hmmmm.


    Nowhere have I found that the Founding Fathers called any militia the national guard.


    Besides they are too busy patrolling the borders of some foreign nation right now anyway.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Just me, but don't rights come with at least SOME responsibility resting on the shoulders of the person(s) exercising those rights?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:


    Get serious. Yes they are.

    A 'right' doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please... because that would mean their uninhibited rights would have the potential to trample all over someone else's rights.

    For example, one person in a residential neighbourhood might say, "I have the right to own 20 dogs in my backyard." Well that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that the stench of dog shit and the barking of 20 dogs just might disturb the rights one's neighbours have towards having some semblance of peace and quiet for their homespace. So... to provide balance... regulations are placed into effect limiting the extent to which one might exercise their right.

    A balancing act is necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all. Rules and regulations maintain the balance.


    People should be able to do whatever they want as long as others are not being harmed/defrauded/violated. If that happened then they must be prepared to face the consequences.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    hedonist wrote:
    Just me, but don't rights come with at least SOME responsibility resting on the shoulders of the person(s) exercising those rights?


    Absolutely.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    guess you missed the "modern times" part. Whatever. Free speech and all.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    I still want to get down to the matter of the fact ... This editor has spent his entire career devoted to firearms. Obviously he was well respected throughout his career or he would have been ousted years ago. He loves guns.

    He writes one article on gun responsibility and now he is branded as an Obama plant. WTF?

    Instead of an intelligent thought out debate it immediately turned into a 2nd amendment witch hunt and he had to take the drowning test, even though he was well respected.

    Lets focus on that aspect.

    It's like if Rush made a comment that making it illegal for insurance companies to deny previous conditions was good and his base flopped on him.
Sign In or Register to comment.