Guns & Ammo Editor Says Some Regulation Might Not Be So Bad, Readers Flip Out

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Dick Metcalf is an editor at Guns & Ammo. In the latest issue, he made the mistake of writing a column suggesting that some common sense gun regulation might be a good thing. Now he's gone and made the gun people very, very mad.

In Metcalf's column, which is extremely basic and mild by "sane person" standards, he gently notes that it is not true that any regulation of guns is automatically an infringement of the Second Amendment. Sample line: "I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself. But that's just me."

So, how did Guns & Ammo readers respond to this bit of editorializing? Not well! Ad Age characterizes the backlash as "stiff." I might characterize it as "indicative of the scary insanity present in the minds of many of those Americans who also, unfortunately, own guns."

A small sampling, for your pleasure. From Breitbart's Awr Hawkins:

Metcalf misses the point. The 2nd Amendment protects a natural right; that's why it is not to be infringed. Owning and operating a vehicle is not a natural right, so comparing it to gun ownership is like comparing the ability to own and operate an airplane with the rights to freedom of speech and religion.
Owning and operating guns is a "natural" right. Owning and operating a vehicle is not. That's because guns grow from seeds, which god bestoweth upon mankind, in his glory. From Robert Farago at TheTruthAboutGuns.com:

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! [...]

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.
This clown Metcalf thinks "well-regulated" has to do with regulation? Idiot! He is an enemy of "The People of the Gun." DUN DUN DUN.......

And some choice comments from the Guns & Ammo Facebook page:

This bell cannot be unrung and will cost us dearly. For reasons such as this it is obvious why traitors have the most harsh punishment...an example should be made.

Someone forgot to take their "anti" dumb*** pills !n I am so done with my prescription !

Fire Dicl Medcalf!
Guns & Ammo listens to its readers: editor Jim Bequette has published an "apology," and announced that Dick Metcalf has been fired.

Thank god everyone involved in this is heavily armed.

These gun nuts are a hoot, one of their own says this and is crucified and loses his job. "Merica!

 

[NickNitro]

Why clearly go against everything your magazine stands for though? He should of quit his job and written a huge self published article in the news paper regarding his feelings.

Thats like a Republican reporter on Fox saying Abortion isn't such a bad idea. They'd do the same exact thing.


ohhh and.... 'Merica!

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

It really is funny to me, you know deep down they know a little regulation would be good for the country they are just afraid if they give an inch then the Gov will take a mile so they are dug into it as deep as possible

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Could someone explain to me, like a sane person, why guns are a "natural" right? For the record I'm not directly contesting it, I'd just like an exclamation beyond nonsense like "guns grow from seeds from god" or whatever the hell that person meant.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Because as we all know DS our caveman forefathers wouldn't have survived without their crude guns

 

[NickNitro]

Could someone explain to me, like a same person, why guns are a "natural" right? For the record I'm not directly contesting it, I'd just like an exclamation beyond nonsense like "guns grow from seeds from god" or whatever the hell that person meant.

Who knows, ask Washington/Jefferson/Madison/Franklin etc.

But really, the founding fathers did not think Government should have such a grip on their people as they felt it did in England. They built this country around the people, and felt that they had a right to protect themselves, even if that meant from their own Government. It seems silly now, with how militarized our countries are, but 300 years ago I could see how thinking a family that owned fire arms could protect their family from foreign and domestic enemies.

 

[Stikmann]

Could someone explain to me, like a same person, why guns are a "natural" right? For the record I'm not directly contesting it, I'd just like an exclamation beyond nonsense like "guns grow from seeds from god" or whatever the hell that person meant.

I was actually wondering the same thing. How is owning a gun a "natural" right?

 

[NickNitro]

Its a natural right when the laws of nature change. When we were cave men and fought with sticks and stones, those were the most advanced ways to protect yourself, now its guns. Fighting evil with evil is never right, but gives you a chance to survive.

 

[KevanG]

From what I've heard about natural rights, it's a 'god given' right to have them because we made them and that makes it natural for us to have weapons. Or something like that. The people who try to explain it to me are usually not understanding anything they explain themselves.

 

[Teelie]

Then how long before I have the right to mount a defensive missile battery on the roof of my home? Or to procure nuclear weapons? Where is this right to defense deemed excessive or out of control?

Guns are not a "natural" right. They're a right granted by the Constitution, which is a part of the government so many gun advocates forget. If you become a convicted felon you lose that right and yet I don't see too many people demanding that they regain that right either.

This man suggested compromise and common sense restraint and was fired for it. What does that tell you?

 

[NickNitro]

I see your point. I've misinterpreted "natural right".

What does it tell me? It tells me that right wing fanatics will never be able to be compromised with. But who doesn't know that.....

 

[KevanG]

It's illegal for those things but in most states (which may have updated from my sources from a few years back) you can own a civilian legal minigun, a flamethrower and thermite.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I think a civilian should have the right to a standard firearm to protect their home, pending a psyche evaluation and being tested for competency. I do no, however, see why a civilian should have access to automatic weapons.

 

[KevanG]

I feel that automatic weapons should be with the armed forces and certain sections of the police. Not in homes with kids.

 

[NickNitro]

Then what about hunters? I think its a no brainer to have an evaluation process when purchasing a firearm but what about all these stories of children taking their parents weapons and shooting up a school?

In my mind its like the drug war, you never truly find a 100% fix for the worlds problems. Evil people will always find a way to do what they must.

 

[Teelie]

I have many hunters in my family. I know of none of them who hunt anything requiring an automatic or even semi-automatic weapon to kill a deer. Or much of anything else for that matter.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I think a civilian should have the right to a standard firearm to protect their home, pending a psyche evaluation and being tested for competency. I do no, however, see why a civilian should have access to automatic weapons.

I feel that automatic weapons should be with the armed forces and certain sections of the police. Not in homes with kids.

How many of you know anyone with a legally owned automatic firearm? How many legally owned automatic firearms do you think are in the hands of private citizens?

I have many hunters in my family. I know of none of them who hunt anything requiring an automatic or even semi-automatic weapon to kill a deer. Or much of anything else for that matter.

What do they hunt with, then? Bolt action? Lever action? Just curious.

MANY hunters use semi-automatic firearms to hunt deer. I personally know several people (including my next door neighbor) who hunt deer and wild hogs with Ar15s...its is actually very common in Georgia.

 

[Teelie]

They use rifles of various types but none are assault style. A few even bow hunt.

 

[mrvlknight21]

They use rifles of various types but none are assault style. A few even bow hunt.

What do you mean by "assault style?"
A Ruger 10-22 is a semi-automatic rifle that many kids are taught to shoot with. It fires 1 round every time that you pull the trigger. Is that an assault style rifle, in your opinion?

I personally dont hunt, but would probably appreciate the "challenge" aspect of bow hunting more than using a firearm.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I learned how to use a bow and arrow when I was growing up and I was certified to hunt because of classes i took. I don't think you should be able to purchase and use firearms without taking some courses and getting education about them. You don't get dropped into a car and let loose on the road without education and testing

 

[mrvlknight21]

I learned how to use a bow and arrow when I was growing up and I was certified to hunt because of classes i took. I don't think you should be able to purchase and use firearms without taking some courses and getting education about them. You don't get dropped into a car and let loose on the road without education and testing

You and I usually are at opposite ends of most arguments; however, in this case, I agree to an extent.

 

[Teelie]

What I mean by assault style is a weapon that fires (or can fire) bursts of bullets with a single trigger pull. Even if they are illegal it doesn't take much alteration to "fix" them into fully automatic rifles.

What I don't get is why people feel the need to be able to fire off two dozen rounds in a few seconds. In hunting I think it's already enough you have a gun to kill the animal. They're not going to fire back. Shooting it full of holes doesn't make sense to me and ruins the challenge.

But that's me. I don't know the logic behind some of the ways people hunt and I find some of them are offensive but that's not the issue here and I'm not saying most hunters are offensive.

Gun regulation is considered a dirty term because it's been ingrained that any kind of regulation is bad and unwarranted. I've found it's never fruitful to argue that regulation does not equal banishment or even comprehensive restriction on gun ownership when someone is adament it means otherwise. Usually the response is throwing the same rhetoric about the Second Amendment over and over with no real understanding behind it.

 

[mrvlknight21]

What I mean by assault style is a weapon that fires (or can fire) bursts of bullets with a single trigger pull. Even if they are illegal it doesn't take much alteration to "fix" them into fully automatic rifles.

What I don't get is why people feel the need to be able to fire off two dozen rounds in a few seconds. In hunting I think it's already enough you have a gun to kill the animal. They're not going to fire back. Shooting it full of holes doesn't make sense to me and ruins the challenge.

But that's me. I don't know the logic behind some of the ways people hunt and I find some of them are offensive but that's not the issue here and I'm not saying most hunters are offensive.

Gun regulation is considered a dirty term because it's been ingrained that any kind of regulation is bad and unwarranted. I've found it's never fruitful to argue that regulation does not equal banishment or even comprehensive restriction on gun ownership when someone is adament it means otherwise. Usually the response is throwing the same rhetoric about the Second Amendment over and over with no real understanding behind it.

Well, you are correct that a true "assault weapon" fires multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. That said, an AR15 is not an assault weapon. An Ar15 fires one shot each time that you pull the trigger.
Yes, there are homemade versions and modifications that can turn firearms into fully automatic firearms. Making those modifications is a crime as well.

It takes an EXTREME amount of money and multiple government approvals for a private citizen to legally purchase a fully automatic assault weapon. There has only been one murder ever reported that involved such a firearm, and that was in 1988 and that crime (murder) was committed by a law enforcement officer.

I agree that a hunter does not need to shoot his prey multiple times (unless, perhaps, he wounds it and it flees and he is attempting to finish it off...but that would be a case-by-case basis).
I also have NEVER met (or heard of) a hunter who did such as you described ("shooting it full of holes").

 

[Ant-manic]

Why clearly go against everything your magazine stands for though? He should of quit his job and written a huge self published article in the news paper regarding his feelings.

Thats like a Republican reporter on Fox saying Abortion isn't such a bad idea. They'd do the same exact thing.

they can't and keep touting themselves as fair and balanced.

 

[Vid Electricz]

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.