Guns & Ammo's Dick Metcalf goes anti-gun

[O2HeN2]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...s-gun-control/

Only good news here is the last line.

============================

Click here to download a pdf of Guns & Ammo‘s column Let’s Talk Limits. Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .

Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:

Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”

You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!
Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.
Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.

I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.
I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .

I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.

More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.
Equally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Wikipedia defines the term thusly:

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

I have a major issue with the word “unwarranted” (wikipedia won’t let me delete it). But the point is made: Americans have a civil right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by . . . wait for it . . . the Constitution. Specifically, the Second Amendment. This despite the fact that . . .

Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

So civil means natural, and natural means inviolable. Except by people who support their violation. People like Dick Metcalf, who ends his pro-gun control polemic by asserting that Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”
“But that’s just me . . .” Metcalf closes. Yes it is. And I believe that anyone who supports a gun magazine that prints this kind of anti-gun agitprop is supporting the diminution and destruction of our gun rights. Or is that just me? [h/t b0b]


[UPDATE: BREAKING: Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal]

[BPTactical]

Aaaannnndddd unemployed:

From that other site:
As you all know Dick Metcalf recently wrote an article in Guns&Ammo which was intended to be controversial.
It was more than that, and in my opinion crossed over the line.
In our fight for our rights, there is only black and white, there is no shade of gray.
You are either wholly with us, or you are against us.
Since that article was published many have vocally protested it.
Some have done it on the internet.
Other have done it behind the scenes.

The end result is Mr. Metcalf is no longer with Guns&Ammo
In addition
The editor who published it, Mr. Jim Bequette is stepping down and his position
will be taken over by Eric Poole.

Eric Poole served our country as a Marine in Iraq. He is as staunch a supporter of
our rights as anyone. He is a good fit for this position. The official announcement will
be posted shortly on the Guns&Ammo website.

David M. Fortier
InterMedia Outdoors
Be Ready

[Zundfolge]

Mr. Metcalf, meet Mr. Zumbo ... Mr. Zumbo, meet Mr. Metcalf.

[BPTactical]

Mr. Metcalf, meet Mr. Zumbo ... Mr. Zumbo, meet Mr. Metcalf.

Stupid is as stupid does.....

[O2HeN2]

You'd think the fudds would learn to keep their mouths shut. But, I guess that's what makes them fudds.

Unfortunately the damage is done. When the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (no, I'm not going to supply a link) links to your article, It should be a clear sign that you really F'd up.

O2

[ChunkyMonkey]

Dick got dicked for being a dick!

[Bailey Guns]

Frankly, I think it was the right thing to do to publish the Metcalf piece. If I were in charge I would've included a disclaimer that Metcalf's opinions didn't reflect those of the magazine. But publish the article to show readers Metcalf's true colors. Then fire the SoB when the complaints came rolling in.

I quit subscribing to any/all gun magazines probably 20 years ago so I don't really care what happens to G&A.

I applaud G&A for firing him so quickly.

[Ah Pook]

That has to be one of the hardest articles I've ever read. WTF is he writing and what is conjecture. Is this the Metcalf or G&A throwing the rest of the firearm enthusiast crowd under the bus? The comments are more relevant...

[spqrzilla]

Dick Metcalf has been in the gun writer business for many decades. Frankly, I think his mental edge is gone. I wasn't really that angry at Metcalf, but the editor was the one who should have caught it. He was obviously Retired On Duty.

Eric Poole is cool people IMO.

[CO Hugh]

People forget the starting point is it is a natural right.