Skip to comments.New York Times Laments Gun Companies Ending Freebies for Pro-Gun Control Authors
Posted on 01/06/2014 12:23:38 AM PST by servo1969
On November 5th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf used his G&A column to argue that all constitutional rights have and need regulation, including 2nd Amendment rights. The outcry against Metcalf was immediate and his firing swift. On November 7th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf had been fired by G&A.
According to NYT, Metcalf's life changed completely thereafter his television show was ended, "gun companies... stopped flying him around the world," and they've also stopped sending him samples of the newest guns to review.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Don’t let the door hit your A$$ on the way out, Metcalf.
Have fun with your new friends!
Didn't read the column but guessing here that he used the standard argument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
One major problem is that if a right is regulated, it's important to see who's doing the regulating or it will quickly become throttling.
Interesting how it's always the Right's issues that need regulation or control, never the Left's. Just talk about reducing spending, welfare or abortions and out come the pictures of the oppressed masses crying rivers of anguish and despair.
Let the left take care of you. We don’t want to hear your tale of woe. I think this dude thought he would be a leftist superstar.
Yep, he sure did, as well as "driving is a privilege."
If a right can be regulated, is it a right at all?
No, then it becomes an allowance. As in, we’re allowed to say what we want, as long as it’s within certain bounds.
I look forward to his obituary also.
Remind me of one thing... which right in the BILL OF RIGHTS has a clause that states clearly, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?
That’s the problem I have with this mentality. Regulation of the rights implies government control over them, their extent, when and where and how they can be exercised. That is complete BS. The very reason these rights were spelled out in the Bill Of Rights was to prevent exactly that kind of government control. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple, even the NYT ought to be able to figure that one out. Well maybe with a little help.
George Soros will fly him around. Watch.
“Dont let the door hit your A$$ on the way out, Metcalf.”
Let the sum-bitch rot.
It was a test case.
To be honest, I think the reaction surprised them. The elite figured that the proles would be for gun confiscation by now.
From the article:
“His only regret is that the article “was too short” to capture the full nuances of his beliefs.”
This is why he will stay disappeared. His regret ought to be that he wrote an article about the way he “feels” on the back page of a gun magazine. And this “nuances” stuff is purely an oft used leftist word.
Next thing you know he will be “outed”.
Never cared for Metcalf’s column nor his TV show, in fact I would turn the channel when his show aired. Stopped reading his column long before G&A dumped him. Personally I will not miss him. He will probably surface somewhere else after the heat dies down, perhaps in some college once again. He can preach all he wants there.
“Didn’t read the column but guessing here that he used the standard argument about yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.”
In his damning column metcalf did use the “fire” in a theater argument.
Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is abuse of one’s right to free speech to cause a safety issue. That is criminal. Abusing one’s right to bear arms to cause a safety issue is also a crime. No regulation of either right is needed to prosecute the crimes that are committed by the abuser of those rights.
VERY LAME argument indeed. The use of that argument alone as an example of regulation is ignorant and should get him booted just because of his lack of understanding the language.
However, once the government has infringed upon my ability to own firearms I'm done. If I need a firearm I will not have time to obtain permission from the government to get one.
In other words, in order to have the right I must, well, have the right. I do not have the right if I must go obtain it from some other entity. I must be responsible for if, when, where, and how I exercise it. If some other entity is determining that, then I no-longer have it.
Metcalf and his buddies were always babbling that “modern sporting rifles” line.
I hate that term!
A rifle is a rifle, no matter what it looks like.
I know a couple of people who use AR type rifles for hunting but most folks I know use a more traditional style weapon. This does not mean I think they should be used for that purpose, is is the fact that we have allowed the left to make a distinction just by the looks of the gun.
I can purchase 10-round mags for my Remington 742 30-06 and make someone's day a lot more miserable than with a 5.56 NATO round. If that is the case then what is the difference between that more traditional looking rifle then one of my ARs?
Personally, I wish that gun companies would be more outgoing with their customers, mostly because they have a truly friendly customer base. This is not to say that they are in any way discourteous or unfriendly, but in effect, that they have “fans”, just like celebrities, who really appreciate it when they take the time to say “Hi!” and wave.
An excellent example is the annual SHOT show in Las Vegas, not open to the public. Granted, with just industry people there, they have crowds in excess of 50,000, but with the public allowed, just to look if not buy, since there are no sales at the show, the crowds would be ginormous, and hot new guns could get thousands of pre-orders, to give manufacturers a heads-up for production.
They would likely need to subdivide it into regional shows, but even then the crowds would likely be very large.
Thank a Liberal for Americas Gun Ownership
Townhall.com | 1-6-2013 | Michael Schaus
Posted on 1/6/2014 12:43:06 AM by servo1969
On November 7th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf had been fired by G&A.
I have a dream. That one day we live in a world where the outcry is just as loud nationwide, against those who attack any of our inalienable rights, just as with the G&A readers that one day in November. I have a dream.
To anyone who suggests any relation at all between gun control and shouting "Fire" in a theater, I'd propose that the way to make them really equivalent is to require that duct-tape be put on the mouth of anyone who enters a theater. (If that doesn't bother them, perhaps cutting everyone's vocal cords would cross the line for them.)