Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column stirs

A 2nd Amendment discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
akblackdawg
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 2969
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:53 am
Location: Wasilla, ALASKA

Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column stirs

Post by akblackdawg »

I'm not trying to stir things up with this, just don't really understand. I own 3 guns i think, my wife has a couple more. We are not anti gun, but I will admit I am more concerned about freedom of speech then I am gun control. I don't understand how/why the ultra right gun lover can get so fired up over this that Metcalf and Bequette lose their jobs over it. Somebody please explain. Bud


Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column stirs outrageBy SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA
Los Angeles TimesNovember 8, 2013
2013-11-09T21:41:02Z
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA Los_Angeles_Times

It was a magazine column designed to generate a discussion of gun rights."Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement," the column said. "The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, all need to be."Titled "Let's Talk Limits," the column was published in the December issue of Guns & Ammo, the well-known magazine based in Florida, and written by longtime contributing editor Dick Metcalf.And it enraged readers.Over the last few days, opposition to Metcalf's stance reached a boiling point. On Wednesday, the magazine's editor, Jim Bequette, posted an online letter of apology that addressed Guns & Ammo readers and announced that both he and Metcalf would no longer be working at the magazine.Although he had been planning to step down Jan. 1, Bequette announced he would resign immediately, hastened by the outcry.In his apology, Bequette wrote that he had thought the column would "generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.""I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and ask for your forgiveness."In the column, Metcalf makes the argument that there is a difference between infringing on rights, and regulating them. All constitutional rights, including those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, are regulated to some degree, he wrote."Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated. People who don't like you can't gather an 'anti-you' demonstration on your front lawn without your permission."Readers immediately went to the magazine's Facebook page to vent their anger:"Good bye to your mag Thanks to Metcalf and his article!""I will not be buying Guns & Ammo anymore. Mr. Metcalf's editorial could have been summed up as, 'I am from an anti-gun state. I don't know what freedom means.' I will not support a gun magazine that publishes talking points from the Brady Campaign.""I've cancelled my subscription and I'm NEVER coming back, and I have been a reader since 1964 and a subscriber since 1970. It is unconscionable for a GUN magazine to publish this kind of dribble that Metcalf spread!"Bequette yielded to that anger, writing in his apology, "Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gun writer, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended."A response from Metcalf was posted on the website The Outdoor Wire:"If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and Internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause."Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?"Bequette, in his letter of apology, said that Metcalf's views directly opposed the tradition of what the magazine supports, and clearly conflicted with the readers' ideas also."Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached.""In publishing Metcalf's column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine - nor, most important, Guns & Ammo's either.""I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing," he wrote.Many expressed sharply differing reactions to Bequette's letter on Twitter:You knew Guns & Ammo was going to back down to the gun nuts & fire Dick Metcalf, but kudos to him for speaking truth to the insane asylum.-Hussain Rahim (@HuRa) November 7, 2013Dick Metcalf needs to remember who his audience is when writing in Guns & Ammo. #2A-JP (@flyhooks) November 7, 2013The common-sense article which got Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf fired. Guns aren't the problem; gun nuts are. http://t.co/xBNX0CMV3K-K.W. Leslie (@KW - Leslie) November 8, 2013

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/11/08/3166898/g ... rylink=cpy
:alaska: If you ain't living on the edge, you're taking up to much space.

15x8 Alumatech hull, with enclosed cab, aluminum cage, LS 3, 6.2 aluminum block ffi, 2.7 Balistic Box, sensinich superwide 3 blade. Built for year around riding in Alaska
User avatar
Whitebear
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 16555
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Palm Bay, Fl
Contact:

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by Whitebear »

Bud I am going to make a stab at answering your question.

I guess first we must assume that ole Ben Franklin had it right when he said: "A government that governs best, governs least". That is not a call for no government, its an admonition to govern as little as is possible.

Now, the second amendment is the cornerstone of all of our other enumerated rights. It is the only means of enforcing them all against tyranny. This is especially true since the government has chosen to use force as its means of making us follow their will. It is the supreme means of ensuring that the government fears the people and not the people fearing the government.

Ok lets look up the definitions of Infringe and of Regulate.

infringe:
1. To violate or break a law, an agreement, etc.
2. To encroach or trespass

regulate:
1. To adjust the amount of heat, sound etc., as required; control.
2. To adjust (an instrument or appliance) so that it operates correctly.
3. To bring into conformity with a rule, principle, or usage.

So by definition to regulate one must infringe. Unlike what our Supreme Court has found in error. I subscribe that they in fact are in error, because I know of no way to regulate without infringement.

I am not addressing the need for some degree of regulation, only the terminology.

When an amendment says "Shall not be infringed" That is a statement of how it is and how its going to be. Like it or not. Read it and weep. Shall not be infringed is the supreme law of the land. it applies to all of our enumerated and un-enumerated rights. It is absolute.

I see no other way to read it without adding interpretation to it. I read the words as they are written and add nor subtract anything.

Well this is my poor attempt to make a rational answer. It likely falls short and given a lot of time I might do better. Anyway a poor answer maybe is better than no answer.
"The Constitution is not so the government can restrain the people, it is so the people can restrain the government." Patrick Henry
The government cannot give anything --
that they have not first taken from someone else.
User avatar
BluByU2
Site Supporter - II
Site Supporter - II
Posts: 842
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:17 am
Location: Spring Hill

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by BluByU2 »

My feelings are that we should never, ever compromise on our RIGHTS...period! I agree that also includes our First Amendment, but when you're employed as a gun writer as Metcalf, then you're also bound by company policy which may dictate that you cannot say anything in their publication which could be construed as weakening their defense of our Second Amendment rights. I say "may" because I don't know their policy. If he chose to make these comments outside of the magazine, he may not have crossed the line...again I don't know their policy. It seems to me the editor could have removed the controversial statement before publication.

I, for one, agree we should NEVER compromise on our rights because there will eventually be a domino effect. We have to be on guard especially today with this current administration which is doing everything possible to destroy our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Agree or not...this is my opinion!
needcoffee
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 12:02 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by needcoffee »

Bud,

First of all. Rights are not granted to us by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

These rights are ours by the very fact that we are free men.

The Contstitution and the Bill of Rights are to limit the power of government to "regulate, impose, or infringe."

When discussing the Bill of Rights you must first remember the men who wrote it. Then look at the essays they wrote discussing their views.

This is all very well documented in the Federalist papers and other literature published by the founders.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
akblackdawg
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 2969
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:53 am
Location: Wasilla, ALASKA

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by akblackdawg »

But why would they fire those guys just for bringing up talking points for their magazine. Are the right wing gun supporters really so over the edge that they don't believe that some "regulation" is required. Do you guys really think that every crazy person should be entitled to a weapon. That every home should be entitled to having a fully automatic maching gun for its protection, or to advocate its beliefs. What about school kids, should they be entiled to carry guns in school. There are so many examples of where this can and has been abused in the world today and in the past. What regulations are justfied by the extream right gun toters and what are not. Bud
:alaska: If you ain't living on the edge, you're taking up to much space.

15x8 Alumatech hull, with enclosed cab, aluminum cage, LS 3, 6.2 aluminum block ffi, 2.7 Balistic Box, sensinich superwide 3 blade. Built for year around riding in Alaska
User avatar
Tomo
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Hernando, Florida

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by Tomo »

needcoffee wrote:

These rights are ours by the very fact that we are free men.
Not even getting into the gun thing but anybody who still says we are FREE really needs to look around only a small bit. A man can not even live on his land and mind his own business without paying a tax to the king! Want to build something, nope not allowed, the king doesn't like it or if he likes it you have to pay a tax so you can build it.

(sigh) We are so far from free my friend, so very far.

I own lots of guns. I would not regulate them one bit. I would prefer everyone open carry a side arm instead of just the criminals. We need to be taking the lives of these people who will commit these crimes. We need to stop telling kids their winners when they are really losers and need to work harder. We need to quit feeling sorry for every damn lazy person that doesn't want to work. Let them starve and freeze to death in the streets. I bet it wouldn't happen to many. With modern medicine we allow people to live that nature never would have and then we let them breed. The gun is not the problem it is our society. You can not regulate a totally safe world.

NeedCoffee this is not meant towards you in any way. I agree with most of what you say. I guess maybe it could be cause the king sent his yearly tax bill to me and it always works me up a bit.


Tom
There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get off the thing that he was educated in.
Will Rogers
User avatar
DDSBC
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:28 am
Location: HOLLYWOOD, FL

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by DDSBC »

Bud I will address a couple comments in your original post. First I noticed that you said you "think" you own three guns. Please figure that out and return whatever guns that aren't yours lol. Also you said you must admit that you're more concerned about freedom of speech then gun rights. I believe that the second amendment is the only thing securing the rest of them, including the 1st. Lastly without even getting into weather or not the writer's article should or shouldn't have agitated the subscribers to the magazine the fact is it did and I'm not sure what part of a magazine firing a writer for writing something that caused them to loose subscribers is a violation of the 1st Ammendment? You can be upset that the article didn't initiate open dialog because that's your opinion and right, however getting on here and saying you're not trying to stir things up but attempting to make the situation look like a violation of someone free speech seems a little fishy to me....

Note: Bud I can be a very opinionated person sometimes so please fire back at will I can handle it.
Micah Smith

BCAHCC, KRVSA and lifetime NRA member
12x7 Diamondback w/ rivited on poly, double rear driver double front passenger, full cage, 285 hp IO-520 swingin a 74" Whirl Wind Whisper Tip.
Dirtman
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:08 pm
Location: St.Cloud FL

Re: Guns & Ammo editor steps down after gun rights column st

Post by Dirtman »

Bud don't know why you are trying to stir the pot evryone knows that the Founding Fathers sat down and thought about the Rights when they were writing the Constitution. In fact Thomas Jefferson thought long and hard on it while he was cleaning his fully auto AK47 that he had just got off the internet with no background check :banghead:
IO520 on a 12"6" Lazer with a 72" Q #20814
Build in progress: 14x7'9" JB w/ GSO540 &80" Razor
Post Reply

Return to “Gun Rights”