Skip to comments.Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns (consider the source)
Posted on 01/05/2014 6:04:38 AM PST by Olog-hai
The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the countrys pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.
In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled Lets Talk Limits, which debated gun laws. The fact is, wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be. The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.
Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said in no uncertain terms that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Slow day and he had a hard time dreaming up some spin.
Yeah; heaven forfend that he actually works on reporting real news.
Doesn’t he have it backwards here? all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.
Isn’t the constitution to regulate government not the other way around?
all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.
Inalienable Rights! Not Granted By Government!
IMHO Dick was being used by Leo Hindery, Jr. Managing Partner of InterMedia Partners (guns and ammo, shooting times etc) as a feeler to see how the shooting community would take to modifying their stance on gun control
Hindery is an Obama bundler and an anti gun POS who has caused me not to renew my subscriptions to intermedia gun mags.
Richard is right --- Dick is wrong.
Just like A&E, they could fire him or keep him, subject to the people that pay the bills opinion. The Reader and/or the Viewer.
Metcalf lost. Phil Robertson won. Both for the same reason.
Good to know.
I firmly believe that sponsors of programs (such as Metcalf’s WAS) do pay attention to what their customers say and do. If you hit them in the pocket book via boycotts and bad press, they will drop you like a hot potato.
From the article: “Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced.”
And, rightly so. To allow any encroachment on these rights is to invite the libtards to take even more, and more. That is precisely why we are in the state we are, today. Creeping socialism.
The dhimmicraps well understand ‘death by a thousand cuts’, and they are content to play that game to advance their socialist utopian goals.
The “shout fire” analogy doesn’t work, no one is proposing to surgically remove vocal cords.
Not that I don't believe the NYT (cough), but I'd like to see documentation of said death threats; followed by documentation that these threats were received from actual subscribers to G&A.
History shows that the Left tends to create "events" that support their narrative. Of course, this is due solely to the fact that we racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc. conservatives don't behave in the manner in which we are characterized and the agenda must be advanced, regardless.
A comment by Metcalf: Compromise is a bad word these days, he said. People think it means giving up your principles.
Well, if your argument starts from a firmly principled stand, then the spirit of compromise demands that you move away from that principled stand and toward the position taken by your adversary. So, to that extent, at least, compromise does entail giving up some incremental element of your principles.
In the current political environment, it will be best that true conservative, Constitutional voices remain quite firm and NOT compromise. If that results in gridlock, so be it.
This is not a time for pastels, as has been said.
Absolutely. Mainly, because there is no such thing as a Constitutional right. We have certain unalienable rights that are protected by our Constitution. It is the first line of defense against those who would try to subjugate We The People.
Even without the Constitution, we would still have them.
This article is front page center, directly below a picture of a starving Afghanistan boy being held by a completely black burqua-clad cypher (a person or thing of no value or importance; nonentity).
Hey Ravi, why don’t you write a column criticizing abortion, affirmative action or fag marriage and see how fast the NY Slimes boots your dot headed ass out the door.
Good review of the Slimes article here:
THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS.COM
New York Times Champions Dick Metcalf And Reveals The Truth About Gun Reviews
By Robert Farago on January 5, 2014
The New York Times article Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns exposes gun journo extremism. Its based on an unsurprisingly sympathetic profile of Dick Metcalf. You may remember Mr. Metcalf as the Guns & Ammo writer given the old heave-ho after writing a column suggesting that government regulation of gun rights isnt necessarily a bad thing. Suffice it to say, Warren Zevons Poor Poor Pitiful Me. More specifically, this: Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices . . .
He says he is still contemplating how a self-described Second Amendment fundamentalist who keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach has been ostracized from his community. Compromise is a bad word these days, he said. People think it means giving up your principles.
Yes. Yes they do. Keeping in mind Senator Barry Goldwaters famous quote extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Now for the juicy bit. In its effort to diss gun journalism in general, the Old Gray Lady reveals that Guns & Ammos reviews are bought and paid for . . .
You are so right.
That's where the battle begins and ends.
Right now we're losing it, and badly.
Just for those that have not followed the controversy:
Shakeup at Guns & Ammo after gun control column backfires
FoxNews.com ^ | 11-8-2013 | Joshua Rhett Miller
Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 8:06:15 PM by servo1969
"...shall not be infringed.
No, that's why they have all those other right-wing columnists at the NYT, to provide the kind of balance Guns & Ammo mag has so egregiously abandoned.
Wait a minute...
Dick Metcalf went pfffft.
I fail to see the problem here.
See, to me, compromise is when 2 sides argue their points and willingly trade off equal points to achieve a goal that both partys can walk away feeling like they gained as much as they gave up. This new meaning of compromise just doesn't fly with me... the one where your opponent demands you give up 10 things that they don't want you to have and you "compromise" by only letting them have 5 while getting nothing in return. This is the sticking point for the magazine readers and all 2nd Amendment proponents alike... we've played this game too many times and "compromise" just never seems to work out for us in what we consider a fair manner. Therefor, we ain't buyin anymore "compromise".
Sorry, I read something like this and one thing will get stuck in my craw and I just can't get past it. There is no "compromise" any longer... be it regulation/restriction of the 2nd Amendment or any other increase in government, taxes or regulation. Our real problem is how few people have come to realize that the brakes are out and we are heading towards a steep grade... and they will never recognize it until we have crossed the point of no return.
A 67 year old guy in the writing game how long and suddenly it seems he come out with something which, presumably, he failed to come out with previously> Hmm.
That said, the government has no more right restrict your ability to purchase, own, borrow, rent, store, transport or carry any firearm (much less any box with a spring in it) than to restrict your right to own a telephone or laser printer.
Wow, he sounds like Scalia.
My proposed “compromise” is that we agree to background checks being mandated for all purchases (seller is civilly and criminally liable for acts of buyer if a check would have indicated ineligibility), but in exchange, all background checks are conducted without disclosing any information about the gun being purchased (or whether a gun is being purchased, it could be a check to see if your new babysitter is a criminal).
two major gun manufacturers had said in no uncertain terms that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors... if he continued to work there.
***The shout fire analogy doesnt work,***
But, what if You shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater because there IS a fire?
I wonder what Metcalf's opinion would be regarding a requirement for 1600 hours of training?
In Arizona and Vermont there is no permit required and no training requirement. Is there blood running in the streets there? No.
How then does Metcalf determine that a requirement for ANY training is not an infringement? Does he simply think that, because he considers the infringement minor, that it is then not an infringement?
I think you are absolutely correct.
Metcalf supposedly talked about retirement prior to the whole debacle and I feel that he was a sacrificial goat.
Hindery is a rabid dem and a definite obama-lover and has no love for guns, in spite of his media holdings.
He gambled...he lost.
I predict that the bloodletting at the magazine is not over.
I care not, I cancelled my subscription back in November.
I enjoyed the section on old guns, but I was also getting tired of Boddington telling me that unless I spent $3000.00+ on a rifle, I had no hopes of killing a deer.
Gun snobbery sucks and they are good at it.
We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment, said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. The time for ceding some rational points is gone.
Gun owners know that you cant be “rational” with irrational antigunners. They lie, cheat and will do anything to completely disarm Americans. As soon as they make a gain they demand another, then another. Negotiating with them is like negotiating with an arsonist about how much gasoline he can pour in your home before lighting it.
Gun snobbery sucks and they are good at it.
I love the old guns best. that is what I buy when I buy.
my most accurate big game rifle is an 1903 A3 Springfield that I bought from a NYPD cop. he had it and never fired it. whoever had it before him butchered a fine military rifle by cutting both stock and barrel. I paid $50 for it around a decade ago. I shot it with military sights and it would put all into a 1.5” group. I put a scope on it and found it would shoot half groups all day and way under 2” groups at 200 yds. it is my backup hunting rifle.
I carry a 1977 vintage Marlin 336 lever gun in .35 rem. caliber.
it is short, light, easy to carry and swing and almost as accurate as the ‘03. and yes...it will (and has)take deer for much less than Craig Boddingtons $3000 overkill gun. it has killed almost as many deer for me as a $100 sears roebuck pump shotgun in 12 gauge that I was forced to use in a shotgun slug only county....that one harvested dozens of deer.
I wonder if Cosmopolitan, or Vogue magazines, or the TV programs like The View or Ellen would be open for an editor or producer to bring out a reasonable discussion about the moral arguments against, or even for abortion (if you could find one) and see how long that person stays employed...
Liberals are all about fairness, and freedom of speech and information right???