GUNS & AMMO EDITOR: ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEED REGULATION, EVEN 2ND AMENDMENT

[TNinfidel]

Dick Metcalf, a contributing editor at Gun & Ammo, And his twisted view of the 2nd Amendment.  This fellow is one of the jokers that helped draft the 1986 Volkmer-McClure FOPA.  Being true to his Illinois roots, he believes government should dole out your rights as it sees fit.  Metcalf also completely misinterprets (on purpose or sheer ignorance I don't know) the meaning of "A well regulated Militia".  

 

Unbelievable they have a gun control advocate writing columns at G&A.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/05/Guns-Ammo-Editor-All-Constitutional-Rights-Need-Regulation-2nd-Amendment-Included

 

 

Edited November 6, 2013 by TNinfidel

[Chris]

Yep. Cancelling my subscription.

This guy is a quisling and needs to have his platform taken away from him.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He is so far off on his premise. Constitutional rights, and/or God given rights are never to be regulated. They are in the

Constitution expressly to prohibit regulation.

[Guest Razz]

The Bang Switch just had a good article comparing a few writers/editors who have gone this route...

[KahrMan]

People who think Metcalf is anti gun are off base.  Here is a reasonable response from Hornady who is standing behind him.

 

 

 

Well Dick Metcalf is no more anti-gun than Wayne LaPierre. His words are being taken 
out of the context of the whole article , the thrust of which is that regulation may 
mean infringement to some people. The supreme court ruled that all of the rights 
granted by the constitution can be regulated or restricted in certain ways. It is 
naïve for some supposed pro-gun rights individuals to take the position there can be 
absolutely no infringement of the 2nd Amendment, whatsoever. Of course there can, we 
don't legally allow felons or the mentally ill to have access nor do we allow 
law-abiding citizens access to nuclear bombs. So, there is infringement. And always 
was and always will be. The question of degree enters into it and Dick Metcalf will 
fight as strenuously as anyone for the right of law-abiding citizens the unfettered 
right to access to firearms. 
If you are not buying anything from any company that advertises in Guns and Ammo, 
and its sister pubs, Petersen's Hunting and Shooting Times I guess you've decided to 
give up hunting and shooting altogether because EVERYBODY in this industry 
advertises there at some time. 
If you have issues with what he said write him or the magazine and ask him to 
explain his position more clearly so you can understand it."

[jacob]

The issue is not regulation to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill or felons that is the problem as those laws are already in place. I also dont think our founders would take issue with those regulations.

The problem is that most gun control does not prevent gun crime. Gun control hampers the law abiders ability to freely exercise their rights and to have access to arms and accessories that pretty much any company in the industry would deem as standard and commonplace....

[TNinfidel]

People who think Metcalf is anti gun are off base.  Here is a reasonable response from Hornady who is standing behind him.

 

Perhaps you should read the column he wrote in Guns & Ammo.  While he may not be completely anti-gun, he is definitely anti-liberty.  In spite of the elitist credentials he touts in the article, he still doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "well regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment.  Instead he spews "progressive" talking points as to why government should tell you what Rights you should and should not be allowed.  By his logic, the right to keep and bear arms should be limited to only those who can afford to pay the fees the state may impose.  

 

I would hardly call Hornady's response reasonable especially with the silly analogy of firearms and nuclear weapons.  They are just enabling more of the progressive statist philosophy that is destroying this country.

[Chris]

These gentlemen express my thoughts in a more articulate manner than I am capable of:

 

http://lonelymachines.org/2013/11/04/the-metcalf-thing/

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/guns-ammo-supports-gun-control/

 

And the brietbart article that puts it most succinctly:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/05/Guns-Ammo-Editor-All-Constitutional-Rights-Need-Regulation-2nd-Amendment-Included

 

I'm not boycotting advertisers, but I am cancelling my subscription to G&A while explicitly citing the editorial as the reason. G&A can print anything they want, that's their right, but I won't purchase a publication that, to my eyes, is providing "ammo" for our opponents.

[Guest Razz]

I can't believe Hornady played the nuclear bomb card in a 2A debate. Shame, shame.

[Dolomite_supafly]

For those cancelling your subscrictions or other actions be sure to let them know why. If enough people let them know their revenue is going away they will change how and who they hire.

 

I have not read it but I bet he is one of those who believe a shotgun or bolt action is all you need types.

[mikegideon]

Piss on that guy.

[RED333]

When the Brits came for the guns in Concord, it was not the rifles or pistols they were after it was the cannons!

The Brits wanted the ships as well, so when the citizen solider has to defend their freedom they have to have arms that match or be better

than the tyrannical Brits that wanted to disarm the people.

So what is the difference between a pistol, rifle, full auto, semi auto, tank, plane, ship or nuke?

There is none, The 2ND does not define "ARMS" it just says we have right given by God to have them!!!

No I dont want a nuke, plane or tank, but if push comes to shove I will wish for them.

The 2ND has been stepped on for far to long, started when the government said we could not have full auto and has

gotten worse as time has gone by, and we let it happen!!!

[tartanphantom]

Both Metcalf AND Hornady need a lesson or three in Constitutional history and structure. The Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It protects specific extant rights which are acknowledged as being "granted" by one's creator.

Edited November 6, 2013 by tartanphantom

[Chucktshoes]

When the Brits came for the guns in Concord, it was not the rifles or pistols they were after it was the cannons!
The Brits wanted the ships as well, so when the citizen solider has to defend their freedom they have to have arms that match or be better
than the tyrannical Brits that wanted to disarm the people.
So what is the difference between a pistol, rifle, full auto, semi auto, tank, plane, ship or nuke?
There is none, The 2ND does not define "ARMS" it just says we have right given by God to have them!!!
No I dont want a nuke, plane or tank, but if push comes to shove I will wish for them.
The 2ND has been stepped on for far to long, started when the government said we could not have full auto and has
gotten worse as time has gone by, and we let it happen!!!

Speak for yourself, I want a tank. :D

[mikegideon]

Speak for yourself, I want a tank. :D

 

Doesn't need to be a tank, but it does need to hold up a mini gun without wobblin'.

[Chucktshoes]

Doesn't need to be a tank, but it does need to hold up a mini gun without wobblin'.

That too would be acceptable.

[GuitaRx]

People who think Metcalf is anti gun are off base.  Here is a reasonable response from Hornady who is standing behind him.

 

That response from Hornady was about as condescending as it comes.. can't believe they wrote something like that...

[DaveTN]

Doesn't need to be a tank, but it does need to hold up a mini gun without wobblin'.

A Suburban will do that.
I been wanting to put one of these on the wifes Suburban for some time now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-uaFNGY_ug

[bersaguy]

I would take one of these if I had my choice................... :rock:

 

[URL=http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc190/softbaitmaker/Misc/Videos/president_car_zpsdaa246fd.mp4][/URL]

[bersaguy]

A Suburban will do that.
I been wanting to put one of these on the wifes Suburban for some time now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-uaFNGY_ug

Good minds think alike.............Dave. I was just posting that same thing at same time............lol

[R_Bert]

So... G& A fired Metcalf (who was leaving anyway).  Hornady...??  Maybe fire your PR guy, too ?

[Steelharp]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/breaking-guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-for-2a-betrayal/

[TNinfidel]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/breaking-guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-for-2a-betrayal/

Wow, great news they stepped up and canned his sorry statist ass earlier than planned.    Thanks for the link!

Edited November 7, 2013 by TNinfidel

[Chucktshoes]

G&A handled it the way a screwup of this magnitude should be handled. They owned the problem, corrected the problem and apologized for it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

People who think Metcalf is anti gun are off base.  Here is a reasonable response from Hornady who is standing behind him.

His premise is still wrong and that response is unreasonable. What's really funny is this piece of that response from Hornady:

"If you are not buying anything from any company that advertises in Guns and Ammo, 
and its sister pubs, Petersen's Hunting and Shooting Times I guess you've decided to 
give up hunting and shooting altogether because EVERYBODY in this industry 
advertises there at some time."

 

I have only picked up a Guns & Ammo at the Dentist's office and that was seldom. Hornady is full of crap to make a statement like that. They're

sounding about like the GOP and Karl Rove to a Tea Party candidate. That sucks.

Makes me want to go out and buy a Dillon press.