Frank Ettin
Administrator
You are wrong.NWPilgrim said:
Politically correct:
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?
- Thread starter NWPilgrim
- Start date
- Status
Politically correct:
Does anyone seriously expect us to take what they have to say as a valid opinion, when they start their opinion off with a totally false premise?
There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot.
After quoting the 2A, Metcalf then writes:
You really want me to believe that we are going to have another discourse on the militia thing again? We all know, or at least we all should know, that "regulated" did not have the meaning then, that we use today. Heller put that one to rest. I suppose Metcalf just didn't do his due diligence with regard to this landmark case. But I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief and read on?
Sorry. Whatever else might have merited a read, Metcalf did something naughty with the pooch. And right from the gate!
The fact that Jim Bequette, in order to save G&A from a RECOIL fiasco, responded so quickly (even to owning up on passing the Op-Ed by retiring early), shows several things. Not the least of which is Metcalf was out and out wrong headed in the way he tried to present necessary regulation.
Sounding like an uneducated anti-gunner with his first two paragraphs, was not the way to do that (the second paragraph with the "Fire!" canard - and yes, I'm well aware of what Justice Holmes was referring to).
One cannot have rational discussion, when the discussion was predicated upon falsehoods to begin with. I therefore disagree with those of you that are calling for anything other than Metcalf's proverbial head. We now have that. Good riddence.
There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot.
After quoting the 2A, Metcalf then writes:
Dick Metcalf said:
You really want me to believe that we are going to have another discourse on the militia thing again? We all know, or at least we all should know, that "regulated" did not have the meaning then, that we use today. Heller put that one to rest. I suppose Metcalf just didn't do his due diligence with regard to this landmark case. But I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief and read on?
Sorry. Whatever else might have merited a read, Metcalf did something naughty with the pooch. And right from the gate!
The fact that Jim Bequette, in order to save G&A from a RECOIL fiasco, responded so quickly (even to owning up on passing the Op-Ed by retiring early), shows several things. Not the least of which is Metcalf was out and out wrong headed in the way he tried to present necessary regulation.
Sounding like an uneducated anti-gunner with his first two paragraphs, was not the way to do that (the second paragraph with the "Fire!" canard - and yes, I'm well aware of what Justice Holmes was referring to).
One cannot have rational discussion, when the discussion was predicated upon falsehoods to begin with. I therefore disagree with those of you that are calling for anything other than Metcalf's proverbial head. We now have that. Good riddence.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I'm sorry I missed this earlier, and I agree.Aguila Blanca said:
Much of the reaction to Metcalf has been a knee jerk response to perceive heresy. A more reasonable reaction would have been to rationally call him out on his specious reasoning.
And yes, that is much more to the point. Metcalf based his argument on a faulty foundation.Al Norris said:
Actually I am correct. If you go beyond the simplistic M-w.com definition and look into its origins.
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
"Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly in terms of attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely to try to make older ones taboo. "
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Origin isn't necessarily equivalent to current usage. So you're still wrong.NWPilgrim said:
That is a problem. The fact that a lot of what he said was consistent with SCOTUS rulings is virtually cancelled out by the fact that he supports his comments with a clearly fallacious basis.
"Well regulated" in the context of the amendment had nothing to do with regulation in the legal sense, making his use of regulated to support regulation an equivocation fallacy. On top of that, "well regulated" in the amendment clearly refers to the militia, not explicitly to the possession or use of firearms which means that even without the equivocation fallacy, there's still a problem with his reasoning.
Metcalf said the unthinkable and gets crucified.
Most of you seem to be saying it was the quality of his argument, but the average gun person is neither a Constitutional scholar nor even reads these articles.
Even if Metcalf or some author had perfectly made the point that you can't control a conversation that you refuse to have, the howling masses would have still been calling for blood. It is a lot like the way Communists lie to themselves.
This whole thing reminds me of parents who is think their kids wont get AIDS or pregnant if they keep them out of health class.
We've just seen proof that gun people aren't adult enough to admit that EVERYTHING is regulated. So the decisions about how guns are regulated will be made by people who don't have their heads in the sand.
Most of you seem to be saying it was the quality of his argument, but the average gun person is neither a Constitutional scholar nor even reads these articles.
Even if Metcalf or some author had perfectly made the point that you can't control a conversation that you refuse to have, the howling masses would have still been calling for blood. It is a lot like the way Communists lie to themselves.
This whole thing reminds me of parents who is think their kids wont get AIDS or pregnant if they keep them out of health class.
We've just seen proof that gun people aren't adult enough to admit that EVERYTHING is regulated. So the decisions about how guns are regulated will be made by people who don't have their heads in the sand.
What he said wasn't that unthinkable at all, in my opinion. It was probably ill-advised and his reasoning wasn't sound even if a lot of what he said was true. Not unthinkable--it just made some very vocal people angry and they were able to mobilize an effective attack.
Nothing he said warranted firing him in my opinion. And I'm not even a Dick Metcalf fan.
Furthermore, in my opinion, he wasn't fired for what he wrote. He was fired because G&A didn't think it could weather the fallout of standing behind him. Maybe that's a fine distinction to some, but it's an important one from my perspective. What I'm saying is that I don't really believe G&A was outraged at what he said and got rid of him because of their outrage/indignation/whatever. They threw him under the bus to save themselves when the fallout from the article turned out to be much worse than they anticipated.
Nothing he said warranted firing him in my opinion. And I'm not even a Dick Metcalf fan.
Furthermore, in my opinion, he wasn't fired for what he wrote. He was fired because G&A didn't think it could weather the fallout of standing behind him. Maybe that's a fine distinction to some, but it's an important one from my perspective. What I'm saying is that I don't really believe G&A was outraged at what he said and got rid of him because of their outrage/indignation/whatever. They threw him under the bus to save themselves when the fallout from the article turned out to be much worse than they anticipated.
Does it matter what GA owners think? The point is that an article like this isn't going to be tolerated. Whether one guy gets fired or one magazine goes under, the thought police are going to shut up pundit from our side that doesn't deify 2a.
This is the same reason the GOP is killing itself. It's a suicide pact.
This is the same reason the GOP is killing itself. It's a suicide pact.
It is whatever you say it is Frank! Historical origin less than 100 years ago is important to me. But it is a small point that is a distraction from the thread.
Getting back on topic...
Metcalf is the one who brought up gun regulation and used terrible examples and explanations to make his point. It was a disservice to gun owners and is already being used by the antis in their public statements. We have a ton of regulations already, and Dick implied we need more. He was not trying to have a discussion. He talked disparagingly of other gun owners as unsafe rubes and held himself up as a Constitutional scholar. That carries responsibility.
Metcalf set the stage himself, it is not the responsibility of those he insulted to try to make lemonade of it for him. If he had been respectful, used good references and explored ideas I think we would have read his article differently.
I can't for the life of me think of one more regulation we need about guns. Can you?
Well said! Very important distinctions.
Aguila Blanca said:
The right to "keep" and "bear" arms includes the implied right to use those arms. And the right to use arms is necessarily limited when it endangers others. Indeed, endangering others could arguably be the litmus test for determining whether laws infringe on the RKBA.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
IIRC, I watch Metcalf on the G and A TV show try to differentiate an semi M4 ish carbine from a military full auto M4. The former was a modern sporting rifle and the latter was a weapon of war.
I thought the piece was totally ineffective and he didn't understand the issue.
In fact, his piece was convincing to ban all of them - if I was an antigun person.
I thought the piece was totally ineffective and he didn't understand the issue.
In fact, his piece was convincing to ban all of them - if I was an antigun person.
I had to re read my G&A magazine to see what all the controvery was about. I have never been a Metcalf fan thus, I pass on most of his articles.
When I did read the last page, I was surprised G&A allowed it to go to print. I do not think I can say or add anything that had not been posted other than I will call G&A and cancel my subscription. As long as Metcalf is an employee there I an done.
When I did read the last page, I was surprised G&A allowed it to go to print. I do not think I can say or add anything that had not been posted other than I will call G&A and cancel my subscription. As long as Metcalf is an employee there I an done.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The most important thing here, to me, is that Mr. Metcalf broke ranks in a very public way.
The same way Jim Zumbo did.
The same way Smith & Wesson did.
And he's paying the same price.
The anti-gunners WANT a schism, a deep one, a public one, in the ranks of the gunowning public.
They want to be able to divide and conquor. Why do you think the Bradyites posted a big smoochy kissy thank you to Metcalf?
Because he gave them exactly what they wanted - the crack into which they can hopefully jump to start splintering us into smaller, more easily defeated groups.
We all know that finding unity in such a diverse group is very difficult. Unity, or at least the projected perception of unity, is crucial.
We don't need our own breaking that shell of unity, thus making it easier for the anti-gunners do what they want to do.
For his crime of breaking ranks in a very public and dangerous fashion, Mr. Metcalf has proven to be a cancer to the movement and must be, and has been, excised.
The same way Jim Zumbo did.
The same way Smith & Wesson did.
And he's paying the same price.
The anti-gunners WANT a schism, a deep one, a public one, in the ranks of the gunowning public.
They want to be able to divide and conquor. Why do you think the Bradyites posted a big smoochy kissy thank you to Metcalf?
Because he gave them exactly what they wanted - the crack into which they can hopefully jump to start splintering us into smaller, more easily defeated groups.
We all know that finding unity in such a diverse group is very difficult. Unity, or at least the projected perception of unity, is crucial.
We don't need our own breaking that shell of unity, thus making it easier for the anti-gunners do what they want to do.
For his crime of breaking ranks in a very public and dangerous fashion, Mr. Metcalf has proven to be a cancer to the movement and must be, and has been, excised.
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
Although I agree with your basic premise, I would point out that lawful armed self-defense involves endangering others by its very definition.gc70 said:
I believe that many gun control proponents view self-defense by individual armed citizens as either morally unjustifiable, or not valuable enough to offset the perceived trade-offs of increased crime, accidental deaths, and social disorder. Therefore, justifying the RKBA in terms of not endangering others can be a shaky proposition.
I prefer to put it this way.
The individual RKBA was granted primarily to ensure that citizens may keep and bear arms for lawful self-defense, defense of the home, and sporting purposes. Additionally, in extreme cases, a lawfully armed citizenry may be necessary to maintain general public order, or to defend against tyranny.
If infringements on that right are necessary, they must serve a clear and demonstrable public good, in the most fair and least cumbersome manner as is practical.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Chiefr - Metcalf is done at G&A. Whether cancels is another matter.
I don't subscribe, so I don't have to worry about it. I found them pretty repetitive.
I don't subscribe, so I don't have to worry about it. I found them pretty repetitive.
carguychris
New member
+1 Glenn and Tom; I got bored with G&A and let my subscription lapse several years ago. Also, I was getting tired of the constant junk mail! 
To take this discussion in another direction... the general-interest gun-mag field is rather crowded in my estimation, and several of the mags have VERY similar (and often borderline banal!) editorial content.
I'm confident that Metcalf's speedy sacking was prompted by the publishers' perception that subscribers will rapidly jump ship to a competing magazine if nothing was done to mitigate the situation.
To take this discussion in another direction... the general-interest gun-mag field is rather crowded in my estimation, and several of the mags have VERY similar (and often borderline banal!) editorial content.
I'm confident that Metcalf's speedy sacking was prompted by the publishers' perception that subscribers will rapidly jump ship to a competing magazine if nothing was done to mitigate the situation.
- Status