Thanks for the email address. Just contacted them.
I do think it would be cool to have a Civilian Marksmanship Program (sounds familiar), where after taking a firearms course (designed to teach safety, marksmanship-basic and higher level) you get (as in receive for the cost of the course only) a mil-surp rifle (garand, bolt gun, AR, whatever) to use in defense of yourself, home, family, and country.
But hey that would require the country and its leadership to be pro gun.
Instead they ship guns the Sinaloa Cartel to give firearms a black eye, and in hopes of having federal agents and local law enforcement officers killed.
I’d love to see the CMP integrated with high school and college rifle teams to a much greater degree.
I’d also love to see the NRA Eddie Eagle program in every elementary school and day care center in this country. I’m incredibly sick of hearing “Iz fur de childrenz!” while they simultaneously prevent basic safety education.
After all, why would you ever let hypocrisy get in the way of preventing tragic accidents?
Metcalf could use his vast knowledge of law and politics to do that, right?
What’s the major objection to his article?
I’m an avid pro-2nd Amendment. I have a CHL, carry everywhere I go, own a variety of pistols and rifles. I shoot a lot. Gunfire is better than music to me.
That said, I’m don’t see what Dick Metcalf had to say to be a stealth anti-gun piece. And for what it’s worth, I don’t particularly find the guy very appealing, long before he wrote this article.
However, I’m not going to knock the guy because he doesn’t appeal to me. His article simply doesn’t make me think he’s anti-gun.
So, what am I missing?
He doesn’t have to be anti-gun to do damage to the pro-gun side. By merely spouting his drivel, he gives ammunition to the antis. It’s a “lie with dogs and you’ll get fleas” moment.
Besides, Guns & Ammo is one of the worst in a long line of terrible gun rags. I can’t believe anyone still reads them. 
I don’t see where anyone called him anti gun. The only thing often worse than someone who truly is anti gun/Anti 2A/Anti Liberty, is gun owner who does not “get it”
That person potentially does even more damage. I find it’s invariably a hunter who thinks gun ownership and the 2A has any relationship to hunting.
I have friends who are avid hunters and often take that idiotic “people don’t need an A 15 to hunt” stance. :bad:
WillBrink,
I hear ya.
I don’t think he’s a Fudd.
Hew’s loves AR’s.
I don’t know where the disconnect is…
The main problem I have is he tries to correlate gun ownership and carry (passive, non violent activities themselves) with harmful ACTIONS such as yelling Fire! in a theatre. This is the big lie the statist fascists spout and Dick Metcalf buys right into it. He doubles down with not only saying the state should control CCW permits, but insist Illinois is a model to emulate for “reasonable restrictions”. Gag! Illinois, really?!
Yes, if you believe gun ownership and carry should be restricted but not typewriters or computers then you are antigun and ant liberty. If you believe guns and typewriters should both be restricted than you are just anti liberty.
BTW, we already have restrictions on harming others via assault, murder, stalking, abuse, etc. no need to restrict the tool and especially single out just guns.
Let’s not forget that this is not just Metcalf having spasmodic brain activity “when he is worn out from a ling hunt” posting on an unsupervised blog, like the faintly remembered Zumbo. This is like the purposeful, EDITED and printed article as happened in RECOIL magazine. Not only Metcalf should be dumped, but the G&A editor and possibly the entire magazine and cable show.
Understood, but I was just using the AR as a classic example of the usual disconnect.
That alone show’s he clueless and all credibility to articulate a reasonable framework for the discussion gone.
Done deal. Thanks.
My anti-gun brother used Mister Metcalf’s arguments regarding “regulating Constitutional rights” in defense of passing the President’s proposed firearms legislation into law this past spring.
So, no, he’s not anti-gun. Just like Diane Feinstein isn’t anti-gun. She’s perfectly pro-gun. So long as they’re her guns (and guns in the hands of people she approves of).
He fundamentally misunderstands “well-regulated”, which as I never tire of pointing out to wrong-headed critics, means “well-trained and drilled”, not “thoroughly legislated”.
I sometimes cringe when I see people calling for the head of a dissenting gunwriter. We should be encouraging discussion with these folks for the sole reason of chasing down the actual need for regulation so they can see that it’s pointless and counterproductive.
Remember: We have nothing to fear from these types of discussions because calmly talking about these matters will ALWAYS lead to our side of the issue being proven right. The only people who fear discourse are those who are afraid people will realize they’re lying.
From the article I did get the impression that Metcalf was interested in a discussion. It sounded more like the elite “I helped write gun laws” professor lecturing his hillbilly barefoot students. Rather condescending implying those who want minimal or no regulation are lumped in with the unsafe yahoos at his range.
Gun owners and readers of gunwriters made their point rather explicit with Zumbo and Recoil. Metcalf is either dumber than bricks or arrogant enough to believe he is above the fray.
Pretty much what I saw. The important thing is he needs a new job with something like Better Homes and Gardens. I wish somebody would hire me as a gun writer.
I’d have articles like:
Artillery: Yes it can be done legally and yes it is your right if you can afford to make it happen.
Suppressors: Why Gun Grabbers oppose safety devices that protect from hearing loss and shouldn’t the NFA tax be covered under your health insurance?
The CMP stuck in neutral: Either make those NFA M-14s and M-16s available or work with Colt to make their semi auto rifles available through the program to members.
Gross Incompetence: Why anyone who suggests a double barrel shot gun for home defense and compounds this stupidity by suggesting it should be fired blindly from inside the home at unknown individuals simply isn’t fit to hold elected office.
Bizarro world: Exactly how, when and why did the militia become mischaracterized as fringe, dangerous radicals and the Black Panther Party presented as nothing more than civil rights enforcement?
You got the job !! HK for dumbasses ? The stupidity of the Judge ?
I will buy every issue when it comes out.
S.M.
I’m failing to see what “discussion” he thinks can be had honestly. This is a pretty black and white issue. Maybe I’m just jaded tho:rolleyes:
ETA - Steyr, at the very least start a blog man, their free! I think… atleast then when someone somewhere says something stupid a link to a article can be produced and their face caved in with knowledge comparable to the mass if a backhoe.
For those of you that have FB here is the G+A page. Let your voice be heard here as well.
https://www.facebook.com/GunsAndAmmoMag?hc_location=stream
S.M.
This is the same magazine that hails the Ruger SR9 and Taurus 24-7 as workable handguns.
…who reads that mag, anyways?
-brickboy240
Well 400,000 some supporters on Facebook, I left my message with about 20 others but that isn’t near enough! I want there to be so many comments that it crashes their page!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk