Skip to comments.Former Guns & Ammo columnist speaks out on becoming 'a pariah'
Posted on 01/05/2014 4:33:04 PM PST by driftdiver
The ex-Guns & Ammo Magazine writer fired after penning a column in favor of limited gun control is speaking out, bitterly saying, Ive been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you dont.
Compromise is a bad word these days, Dick Metcalf, 67, told The New York Times of what he believes is the unyielding, give-no-ground ethos adopted by Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. today. People think it means giving up your principles.
Metcalf, a longtime writer on firearms and U.S. gun culture, saw his association with Guns & Ammo terminated in November -- he also had a T.V. show co-produced by the magazine -- after he wrote a column titled, Lets Talk Limits: Do certain firearm regulations really constitute infringement?
The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.
- Dick Metcalf
Metcalf, a former history professor at both Yale and Cornell, argued in the piece that, way too many gun owners believe any regulation of the right to bear arms is an infringement prohibited by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Funny how the guy who is trying to “disappear” stuff like the word “inalienable” when it comes to rights complains about being “disappeared” when he’s evidently out there with the media giving him a soapbox.
All rights have limits but Metcalf’s argument was for infringement.
No one says you should be able to pull your gun and point it at someone for the fun of it.
What Metcalf supported was clearly an attack on the right to keep and bear arms not some reasonable regulation.
“If you only cut off my foot, it’s not like you cut off my leg.” Chip, chip, chip. Glad they chunked his dumbazz.
"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Their reasonable regulation is always a one way dead end street.
That's the point right there, and that's why this is different from the Phil Robertson controversy. Robertson wasn't advocating the scaling back of any "right." But Metcalf was.
Like my grandfather told me, “boy, you don’t poop where you eat.”
it is true, but he did not say poop.
Yep, a compromise is when both sides give up something.
Unfortunately too many times the gun owner’s representatives think compromise is giving them less than they ask for. All they have to do is demand even more the next time, then take less again. They never give up anything, just take less each time until they get it all.
No negotiating with the Constitution, buddy.
I can compromise on preferences. If I compromise on principles, they were never principles, but also preferences.
And that's a good thing.
Too bad, so sad.
This is the second story on this today. I don’t recall the source of the first, e.g, if it was FoxNews, but this is a two month old story. Bottom line is simple ... the bill of rights were written to protect the people from the Federal government, not the government from the people and not from people from each other. If you lose track of that while you are writing to a constitutionally informed audience, they will turn on you. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did he not understand? F him.
Clearly does not understand that rights are not granted us by the Constitution. How this doofus ever got to be a writer for a conservative publication is beyond me. He obviously doesn't grasp the basics of conservatism, let alone the right to keep and bear arms.
Dick thinks that 30,000 gun laws aren’t enough. All we need is one more law and everything will be so much better.
Compromise means "give and take" - it means both sides give concessions in order to achieve a mutual goal. We haven't seen compromise in decades - it's always the left taking and the spineless on the center-right giving.
The constitution, the second amendment, was written clearly and purposefully. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Period!
The left doesn't want compromise - they want absolute power over the people. And the only thing standing between them and absolute power IS the second amendment.
A year later, and he still sounds All Shook Up. Some bridges stay burned.
Well the article I linked is new. Sorry if it offended you.
Don’t worry, buddy, you’ll have a lot of new friends soon, the libs love conservatives who’ve ‘grown’.
Why, there's your problem right there, right out in the open. Who thought that this fellow-traveler would be a good hire, anyway?
No offense AT ALL. This happened two months ago, and only today the media are picking up on it. I am pretty sure that FoxNews wasn’t the first to report it today, so it seems they are following others in the media ... big surprise, huh?
libs can get away with no compromise. wonder why we can’t.
if you’re right, and standing for the truth, there’s no reason to depart from that point. only friggin idiots compromise off what they believe is right.
This guy really “screwed the pooch”, to use that unlovely phrase.
He should have used the 13th Amendment test on his ideas before publishing them. That is, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. So he should imagine approaching an (intelligent) black person, to ask them how they would feel about “making some ‘common sense’ changes to allow a little slavery again.”
Would he truly say that he opposes the “unyielding, give-no-ground ethos adopted by 13th Amendment slavery opponents in the U.S. today?”
“People think it means giving up your principles” to support ‘limited’ slavery.”
Metcalf, a former history professor at both Yale and Cornell, argued in the piece that, “way too many” people believe any regulation permitting slavery is an infringement prohibited by the Constitution.
Following Metcalf’s dismissal, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action to Bring Back Slavery in America, told FoxNews.com Metcalf “absolutely did not” deserve to lose his post.
“If he suggested enslaving all black people, then I would understand that reaction,” Watts said. “But to say a fair exchange of ideas on how to stem the deaths and murders in this country because of emancipated black people is an act of heresy just reeks of no tolerance.”
It is estimated that there are between 22,000 and 30,000 gun laws on the books in America.
Hard to believe there is that many nanny laws.
“Guns & Ammo” lost me as a subscriber right after I read this column. I called and told them to refund my subscription fee and they did.
And I won’t be back, either. I don’t trust them anymore.
“Shall not be infringed...” is a phrase that is above the comprehension of most professors, especially those from Ivy League and Progressive Universities.
Uh, asshat boy? The good guys have been "compromising" for decades and have NOTHING to show for it. So for this to be a real "compromise", viewed over the entire period, tyrant busybodies have to give us stuff we want and get nothing in return for the next 80 years. I'm up for it. Are they?
I got my refund too.
Did you notice the check was from some outfit in New York? I had never heard of them.
Some mens pride never fades. They are wrong and and die on a hill and the yell from the grave.
Nothing like speaking and removing any doubts about whether he is a dumbass.
Surprised me too. I never imagined a retired professor from those liberal cesspools would be writing for G&A.
Tripling down on the stupid. First the oped, then the "apology" now this.
Yer damned right!
Compromise is what Neville Chamberlain wanted. And we got WWII.
Compromise is what the RINO's in the US Government wanted. And we got the stealing of promised benefits from our retired veterans.
Shall I continue?
Compromise is what liberals always want when they know they can't win.
Compromise is the emasculation of conservative values...just so we can all get along.
Go to hell, Mr. Metcalf, and take your compromise with you.
In fact, take it to the unemployment office...maybe they'll grant you two and half years of benefits for it.
Don’t do it.
Simple, really, Dick.
Too many on the pro gun side are sometimes soft headed. Any training being required to exercise the 2A also requires the trained exercisers of said 2A to then be on a list, and they are in essence; registered. THAT, my FRiends, is registration.
Dick Metcaff will remain disappeared until he stops insisting that it being unlawful to shout “fire” in a crowded theater is regulation. It is not regulation, it is a crime to abuse one’s protected right to free speech to cause safety issues. It is also a crime to abuse one’s protected right to be armed to cause safety issues.
“Metcalf, a former history professor at both Yale and Cornell...”
That says it all...leftist is as Leftist does...equals ‘Pariah’.
Yes, a compromise IS both sides giving up something.
But the fallacy is that on many issues (the 2nd Amendment is a great example), one side (the gun-grabbers) has nothing to give up, so ANY compromise benefits them; conversely, pro-2nd Amendment folks HAVE something, and any compromise takes away some of that something, so they always lose.
That is an excellent point.
But...He Pooped...$hit on him, not on us...
Yes, the check came from some outfit with the name “Media” in it. Never heard of them, either.
Exactly. Dick says all the Bill of rights are regulated. That is true, in a sense, because the Rights can be abused in criminal ways. What he conveniently fails to mention is that the second amendment has been over-regulated for over a century. We need to scale back on the massive over-regulation that has taken place. We could do away with 90% of the gun laws, and the second amendment would still be over-regulated.
The reasonable analogy to “Shouting Fire! in a crowded theater” when there is no fire, is firing a gun in crowded theater when there is no legal justification to do so.
You are close. But, the “gun grabbers” have plenty to give up. They could give up the Lautenberg amendment. They could give up the Gun Free School Zone act. They could give up the 1986 ban on registering more automatics than currently exist. They could give up the insane regulation of gun mufflers and short barrelled rifles and shotguns.
They refuse to consider any of those reasonable compromises because the MSM refuses to mention them.
It is a war of definitions, with the liars in the MSM the gravest enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.