Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Metcalf fired?

Hey guys I know you missed me. I was reading rolling stone magazine this afternoon and a small footnote said a G&A editor was fired for an anti gun column. Did Metcalf get the boot? I skimmed the other thread but didn't find a definitive answer. -Kyle :fiddle:
«1

Replies

  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,088 Senior Member
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
  • kmeierskskmeiersks Member Posts: 121 Member
    Thanks That's a shame really to see such a good writer made such a mistake.
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    I still say his firing was BS.........all he commented on was that requiring to carry concealed should have some training attached in order to be "well regulated" which I read as "trained"......you go through training to drive a car or an airplane, why not something that has the potential to take a life and ruin yours if you do it wrong? I would have accepted the debate.......but the masses went rabid and thought it was "gun control".........to me gun control means controlling your weapon with your hands......not stupid hoops and laws which have no effect outside of what is already been established. Gun restrictions have no need save for what is already listed on 4473, but I'm all for training.......and that goes back to the basic rules of gun safety and common sense, however some ijits out there lack common sense.......so there is a "need" for some people. Most of us grew up with firearms and have that healthy dose of respect for them......we've taken life whether hunting or while on duty, and it's a profound moment of maturity in a person's life. So we have respect for the awesome power of a tool that we wield. There's the responsibilities inherent to firearm ownership......like locking it up when you're not around it......you don't need magna-rings, or "smart guns"...you need to use the safety between your ears and keep it away from children playing with them while loaded, and locked up so that they don't get stolen from you. That's common sense gun control.......not whatever filth is spewing from the mouth of Socialists.......

    For his boss to fall on his sword is amicable and seems honorable.........the man was stepping down anyway.......so his action was sped up by a few months.......whatever, what's done is done.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • kmeierskskmeiersks Member Posts: 121 Member
    Totally in agreement. There are a whole lot of people I know that I wouldn't want carrying around a gun at least not without training. I think even responsible gun owners can take it too far. As has been proven here. We are all human and entitled to an opinion. I agree with Metcalf wholeheartedly. We for the most part respected him and his writings for many years, all he did was try to find a middle ground between the left and right wings. I know it's just the opinion of a young boy (in comparison to some of you more well seasoned members) and the numbers aren't exactly on my side but I would like to see him reinstated.
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    Speaks the married man.......compromise.......you eat it every day. I had no middle ground and I got canned, try it the way you speak it and you would be too, not a happy place.....This wasn't a play for politics, it was a writer's view, and you have to take that with a grain of salt, not as Gospel. You've never had to be a diplomat with a rifle in a foreign country.....so I'll take your vitriol with the same amount of salt. To me, it seems there's a lack of objectiveness clouding our might to reason with what we read......and that's why WE get labled as far right conservatives and as Gun Nuts. We are smarter than the Socialist, we expound the reality of truth, and we eat our own when they say wrong.......I don't think Metcalf did that here. This was a Salem style burn the witch cause we don't like it response.........very stupid of us. Jim Zumbo screwed the pooch when he said he didn't see a purpose for AR rifles in the field, and he was proven wrong rightly so. I think G&A cowed to the mass in order to keep their subscriptions going, and to me that speaks of another cowardice......not standing your ground and backing your troops even when they eff-up and tick off a lot of people.........Jack O'Conner and Elmer Keith didn't have to worry about offending anyone........so why does everyone get their panties bunched up over Dick Metcalf? Craig Boddington can speak of liking the .270 as a flat shooting cartridge but he doesn't get raked over the coals? Granted he's a man of my heart and likes his .30s more......but are you gonna cancel cause he doesn't cotton to your preferred cartridge? The article in question wasn't about gun control in a legislative sense, it was taken way out of context by people who couldn't comprehend what he was saying........People got passionate for the wrong reasons........that's why I say it was BS.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The problem with regulation is the people regulating it. There are no people running any government bureaucracy that don't have a personal ax to grind. Maybe there was a time when very dedicated public servants endeavored to obey the spirit of the Constitution and could be trusted to regulate in a fashion that was reasonable to all, or most. But, I doubt it.

    As anyone should now be able to see, after 5 years of this headlong dash into socialism, the purpose of rules, regulations, and even legislated laws is to give the government the power to not enforce against those who will do their bidding. That is real control, and we are seeing that being put into place every day. People like this cannot be allowed to tinker with any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, and those who help them make their arguments are either fools or traitors...in my opinion. There is no room for moderation on this subject, because an armed populace is the only thing that government still fears, and when they no longer fear the people they govern, the people are royally and forevermore screwed.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The only things that are found in the middle of the road are roadkill possums and RINO politicians!
    Jerry
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,543 Senior Member
    I agree that there just can't be any more ground given on gun control. Too much has been given already. Enough is enough, and Metcalf should have kept his equivocations to himself.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 7,826 Senior Member
    kmeiersks wrote: »
    Hey guys I know you missed me. I was reading rolling stone magazine this afternoon and a small footnote said a G&A editor was fired for an anti gun column. Did Metcalf get the boot? I skimmed the other thread but didn't find a definitive answer. -Kyle :fiddle:

    Why are you reading that Libtard rag??
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    bobbyrlf3 wrote: »
    I agree that there just can't be any more ground given on gun control. Too much has been given already. Enough is enough, and Metcalf should have kept his equivocations to himself.

    :agree::agree::that:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    So you disagree with training. So how do you feel about Hunter Safety Courses that are required in many States before you can obtain a Hunting License? In the Military you are required to be trained with firearms, before you are given one to use or carry.

    I agree comparing a drivers license is not the same, as it is not a given Right, but the principle relating to safety is comparable. When I lived in CA. I was required to take a 12-15 hr. safety class as a requirement to obtain my CCW. I encompassed gun safety, knowledge about firearms an shoot, no shoot scenarios regarding the law and justification for using deadly force. CA also required evidence of Liability Insurance of $500K in the event you shot an innocent person. Along with this you had to qualify with the firearm you wanted to carry, to demonstrate basic marksmanship and you could hit what you were shooting at and not hitting innocent bystanders.

    Now I suppose many would disagree with this to obtain a CCW, but IMO it might prevent some that have never taken a safety class, and learned the legalities of when you can use deadly force. I have seen many people with firearms that I would not want to be near they if they decided to use their firearm as some are are as unqualified as some of the criminals that shoot randomly never carrying where the bullet will stop once it leaves the barrel.

    I thoroughly understand the 2nd Amendment and the Right to own and bear arms, but to safely use firearms requires training, as it is not a knowledge you are born with and even with training some people are still incompetent to be around with loaded firearms, IMO.

    I guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to expressing ones opinion on this subject. I read Metcalf's article and didn't see a problem with his opinion. Of course I am aware of the Right to Vote and often think there should be a requirement to understand what you are voting for before you cast your vote. Based on many elections it seems that many have no clue. So call me what you want, but this is my opinion.
  • KENFU1911KENFU1911 Senior Member Posts: 1,052 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The problem with regulation is the people regulating it. There are no people running any government bureaucracy that don't have a personal ax to grind.

    People like this cannot be allowed to tinker with any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, and those who help them make their arguments are either fools or traitors...in my opinion. There is no room for moderation on this subject, because an armed populace is the only thing that government still fears, and when they no longer fear the people they govern, the people are royally and forevermore screwed.

    Well said...and when "THEY" decide the proper training to have and or carry a gun is,,,

    course 250

    Cost: $1539
    Duration: 5 Days
    Prerequisite: None
    Ammunition: 1,000 rounds of training ammo, 50 rounds of frangible for simulators

    course 350

    Cost: $1795

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: 250 Defensive Pistol

    Ammunition: 1,000 rounds ball, 200 rounds frangible.


    course 499

    014 Course Dates: Jun 9-13, Oct 6-10

    Cost: $1949

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: 350 or expert rating in “250” within previous year.

    Ammunition: 1,100 rounds of training ammo, 250 rounds of frangible for simulators

    And then CQP course

    2014 Course Dates: June 16-20

    Cost: $1759

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: “250”

    Ammunition: 1000 rounds of training ammo, 200 rounds of frangible

    Slippery slope anyone............Ken
    My idea of a warning shot is when the 2nd bad guy watches his 1st buddy go down....
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    His former family farm is one of the finest shooting facilities in the state!

    Building #1 in this diagram labeled PASA Manor is Dick's home. The former Metcalf family farm made a transition
    in the mid 80's into one of the two finest shooting facilities in the state. They have hosted all Masters shooting championships
    from 1986 to present. Many IPSC championships have been held there as well.

    So why is it surprising that he's all for a rigorous training requirement? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    http://www.pasapark.com/stuff/PASA%20Park%20map.pdf

    This is Dick's sandbox and he's a.o.k. with training courses.......

    http://www.pasapark.com/
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    KENFU1911 wrote: »
    Well said...and when "THEY" decide the proper training to have and or carry a gun is,,,

    course 250

    Cost: $1539
    Duration: 5 Days
    Prerequisite: None
    Ammunition: 1,000 rounds of training ammo, 50 rounds of frangible for simulators

    course 350

    Cost: $1795

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: 250 Defensive Pistol

    Ammunition: 1,000 rounds ball, 200 rounds frangible.


    course 499

    014 Course Dates: Jun 9-13, Oct 6-10

    Cost: $1949

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: 350 or expert rating in “250” within previous year.

    Ammunition: 1,100 rounds of training ammo, 250 rounds of frangible for simulators

    And then CQP course

    2014 Course Dates: June 16-20

    Cost: $1759

    Duration: 5 days

    Prerequisite: “250”

    Ammunition: 1000 rounds of training ammo, 200 rounds of frangible

    Slippery slope anyone............Ken
    That is how they (antis) do it without blatantly violating our Constitution. Ban lead (through EPA), Place a $10 per round tax on ammunition, outlawing anything but single shot (when the Constitution was ratified all firearms were single shot). Totally illogical? Logic is unimportant and so "last century". If we end up with plenty of firearms and no ammunition What then? Many have 1,000s of rounds but "they" have billions. We need to use the weapon we still have NOW! Our vote. After we are vanquished there will be no votes.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    I’m all for training. I believe that it is the biggest reason that accidental deaths from firearms are down. But who is in charge of the training? The people that make the law. That is the government. And since firearms ownership is a right under the Constitution, that means giving them the green light to put training as a stipulation for firearms ownership and/or ccw permitting is to give the government a license to kill. So as much as I love safety training, I say allowing the government to stipulate it as part of our rights, is to potentially give up those rights. So as much as I like training I say no and disagree with Metcalf. I don't know if he should have been fired because this was his opinion. But when you work for a magazine that is supposedly a mouthpiece for the 2nd Amendment, he was upsetting the apple cart and was tempting fate.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    I still say his firing was BS.........all he commented on was that requiring to carry concealed should have some training attached in order to be "well regulated" which I read as "trained"......you go through training to drive a car or an airplane, why not something that has the potential to take a life and ruin yours if you do it wrong?

    Well, like cpj I have to disagree, and here is why: Yeah, I think it is a great idea to get training. No, I do not think it's a great idea for my government to require it, or to define what constitutes training, how much of it is 'enough', nor who should be allowed to teach the courses, how much they cost or where they can be taught. 'Reasonable' is a nebulous term at best and it's definition is often left to the least reasonable in our society.


    I would have accepted the debate.......but the masses went rabid and thought it was "gun control".........

    Since debate isn't possible in that format, accepting debate would have been pointless. Had Metcalf's views been posted on this or another forum and offered up for discussion, this would be a different story. Instead, they were submitted by him, printed AND distributed by his employer and then later proselytized by the very folks who would sooner confiscate guns than 'regulate' them. When somebody does that to their country, it's called treason. When somebody does that to their customer base, it's called stupidity.

    to me gun control means controlling your weapon with your hands......not stupid hoops and laws which have no effect outside of what is already been established. Gun restrictions have no need save for what is already listed on 4473, but I'm all for training.......and that goes back to the basic rules of gun safety and common sense, however some ijits out there lack common sense.......so there is a "need" for some people. Most of us grew up with firearms and have that healthy dose of respect for them......we've taken life whether hunting or while on duty, and it's a profound moment of maturity in a person's life. So we have respect for the awesome power of a tool that we wield. There's the responsibilities inherent to firearm ownership......like locking it up when you're not around it......you don't need magna-rings, or "smart guns"...you need to use the safety between your ears and keep it away from children playing with them while loaded, and locked up so that they don't get stolen from you. That's common sense gun control.......not whatever filth is spewing from the mouth of Socialists.......

    The problem with common sense or reasonability is who decides? Sauce for the goose is not always the same for the gander. Again, the folks who get to decide are often those with the least reasonability, and they almost always operate so far outside the boundaries of common sense that you can't get there from here.

    For his boss to fall on his sword is amicable and seems honorable.........the man was stepping down anyway.......so his action was sped up by a few months.......whatever, what's done is done.

    To my thinking, the editor's 'firing', while necessary, was mostly symbolic. Regardless, Metcalf's was not only necessary for G&A, but wholly appropriate.

    .
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,397 Senior Member
    I think shooting ranges and firearms dealers are missing out on a golden opportunity. Too many shooting ranges are 'elitist' and also require a huge membership fee to join. Too many dealers sell to non shooters wanting to get into shooting without any concern past the cash register. Which leads me to this.

    Dealers and ranges should work together to have a system whereby new shooters receive a coupon for range time AND personal instruction at the range. The range should provide both shooting AND safety instruction. And if someone is going to be going for CCW, then the States should make available pamphlets with ALL applicable rules and law for doing so. The ranges could easily administer any shooting test, for example 50 rounds slow fire and 50 rounds rapid fire at ranges to 10 yards. The testing for the CCW license could easily be done there, also. This would have the effect of more sales of guns and ammunition, keep the government at arms length from the process, and properly executed, make it easier to find a place to shoot and learn. And with many more people going to the ranges, the ranges could be expanded, fees lowered, and more people employed to train in both shooting and in the rules for CCW. What's not to like?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • topguntopgun Member Posts: 128 Member
    I still say his firing was BS.........all he commented on was that requiring to carry concealed should have some training attached in order to be "well regulated" which I read as "trained"......you go through training to drive a car or an airplane, why not something that has the potential to take a life and ruin yours if you do it wrong? I would have accepted the debate.......but the masses went rabid and thought it was "gun control".........to me gun control means controlling your weapon with your hands......not stupid hoops and laws which have no effect outside of what is already been established. Gun restrictions have no need save for what is already listed on 4473, but I'm all for training.......and that goes back to the basic rules of gun safety and common sense, however some ijits out there lack common sense.......so there is a "need" for some people. Most of us grew up with firearms and have that healthy dose of respect for them......we've taken life whether hunting or while on duty, and it's a profound moment of maturity in a person's life. So we have respect for the awesome power of a tool that we wield. There's the responsibilities inherent to firearm ownership......like locking it up when you're not around it......you don't need magna-rings, or "smart guns"...you need to use the safety between your ears and keep it away from children playing with them while loaded, and locked up so that they don't get stolen from you. That's common sense gun control.......not whatever filth is spewing from the mouth of Socialists.......

    For his boss to fall on his sword is amicable and seems honorable.........the man was stepping down anyway.......so his action was sped up by a few months.......whatever, what's done is done.

    At a minimum, he got what he deserved. I wish there was more that could be done, but it is what it is.
  • dbrowndbrown Member Posts: 45 Member
    I have talked to Dick Metcalf a few times at the USPSA Single Stack nationals. Nice guy. I normally like what he writes I didn't agree with his view. I figured he spends too much time in Illinios. Or he was tanked when he wrote it. But it seemed he was wanting to stir the pot on the subject. Well, he did that didn't he. You know, he lives on a gun range, in a county that he grew up in and probably knows all the cops & polititions. the gun laws don't apply to him. Just like Missouri, You got KC on one side- St. louis on the other and a whole lot of Alabama in the middle. Good ol'boys have carried guns in thier car since they started driving. I got my first car gun at 16 when I bought my car. No one ever told me I can't have it.
    I doubt that Dick is super rich. He probably needs the $ he got from that job. I'll have mercy on him. My answer would be "Oh BS Dick, you are out of touch with what us city folk have to deal with." Wake up.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,398 Senior Member
    KENFU1911 wrote: »
    Well said...and when "THEY" decide the proper training to have and or carry a gun is,,,


    Slippery slope anyone............Ken
    You forgot one part, WHEN you don't pass, do you get to have a firearm? ANY firearm? You have just proven yourself incompetent to use one IAW the "training" so why should you be allowed to have one?

    It would be easy to build a course that 1 in 1000 would pass, if they could afford it.

    I am all for training, and think PA's LTCF is the best out of any state that requires a LCTF. Background check + 20.00 = LCTF. You are an adult, if you feel you need training, then get some.

    FYI, LCTF and Hunters Safety are two different things that cannot be compared. LCTF is for adults who have taken the decision to take responsibility for themselves. Hunters safety is about teaching 11 year olds to carry a weapon during a supervised activity, and going over the points to be careful during that activity. Teaching tree stand safety, blaze orange requirements and track recognition has nothing to do with firearms.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,152 Senior Member
    Here is an illustrated post (from an excellent writer: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/) as to why we have to have zero tolerance for any more "reasonable restrictions"

    http://hsgca.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/compromise_v21.png

    compromise_v21.png
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    I didn't get upset about Metcalf's article ... it may have been improper to construe the Second Amendment's "well regulated" to regard requiring training for concealed carry, but it seems more improper to construe the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" to mean that all gun laws are unconstitutional, and I think was the point ... my main problem with the article is that it seemed to be holding gun owners in disdain ... as if it said "a lot of stupid gun owners oppose all regulation, but I disagree and I really know about this stuff" ... I sometimes feel that way myself ... but it appears that Guns and Ammo magazine is not the proper place to be dissing gun owners.
  • Nitroram10Nitroram10 New Member Posts: 4 New Member
    Amen, Metcalf needed to go. His liberal "middle ground" has no place. I too am glad he got canned, and I am proud to be part of the rabid masses.
  • Nitroram10Nitroram10 New Member Posts: 4 New Member
    The cake thing is exactly how the liberals work. If you do not see things their way, you are wrong. We do not need compromise. We need and want our cake back!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,923 Senior Member
    This isn't anything new....any of you recall the "literacy tests" used in the South in order to register to vote?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    I didn't get upset about Metcalf's article ... it may have been improper to construe the Second Amendment's "well regulated" to regard requiring training for concealed carry, but it seems more improper to construe the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" to mean that all gun laws are unconstitutional, and I think was the point ... my main problem with the article is that it seemed to be holding gun owners in disdain ... as if it said "a lot of stupid gun owners oppose all regulation, but I disagree and I really know about this stuff" ... I sometimes feel that way myself ... but it appears that Guns and Ammo magazine is not the proper place to be dissing gun owners.


    Thank you Hugh, that is what I've been saying all along. Crapping where you eat is usually a bad idea and something to be avoided. I would liken Metcalf's actions to Cam Benty or Brock Yates extolling the virtues of lowering the national speed limit to 35MPH, or Paula Deen and Rachel Ray breaking bad on butter, sugar, cream, sodium, eggs and bacon. Any of the folks mentioned would be well within their rights to do so, but the consequences will likely be unpleasant. Same/Same.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    A few years ago one of the writers or editors came onto the forum and was referring to people who did not see things his way as "stupid" ... I find myself wondering if that was Metcalf.
  • JamesAPrattIIIJamesAPrattIII Member Posts: 156 Member
    My advise to Metcalf. He needs to get back to writing how bad gun control is ect. If RS contacts him for a reply he should say this: It is a federal felony for a habitual drug user to own or pocess a firearm. No doubt there are people who work for RS and the people they write about who fall into this category. In NYS according an old article by Metcalf if a person in a vehical has an illegal firearm everyone else in the vehical is equally guilty even though they didn't know it was in the car. RS staffers need to remember this when they are riding in cars with their gansta rapper pals and get stoped by the police in NYS because guess who's going to get more jail time? it's not the rapper or the guy carrying the gun.
    RS I believe has in a number of articals blasted the wall street fat cats for the US's economic meltdown. They are furious that none of these people went to jail ect. I have read that some of these same fat catsgot NYC carry concealed permits in record time right after the meltdown.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Who is RS?

    Likewise who is Dick Metcalf? We've all forgotten him already.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Mmm. Give me Paula Deen. That would be a helluva "after action" breakfast.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement