Guns & Ammo Magazine Supports Gun Control


I wouldnt put the entire magazine in the category of believing in Gun Control, instead, I would suggest the columnist or writer has some objective views. I havent read the entire article, simply dont have the time, but i personally dont feel like they believe in gun control.
 
Then why publish such garbage at all? Leave it to crap sites like CSGV or MDA or CtU or BradyCampaign.
 
Guns & Ammo learned nothing from the Jim Zumbo fiasco of several years ago.

Zumbo,one of the top gun writers of the past two generations, never recovered his mojo. Neither will the hapless Metcalf.
When Jeff Cooper died, my G&A subscription died with him.
 
That you don't like it doesn't make this correct legal statement wrong, and G&A publishing it hardly makes it pro-gun control: “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 you don't like it doesn't make this correct legal statement wrong, and G&A publishing it hardly makes it pro-gun control: “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.”

Utter and complete nonsense. Please provide cites/quotes from founding-era revolutionaries who created the documents that acknowledge those rights, and who also believed they have "always" been regulated and "need" to be. Best of luck with that.

ETA: From the same article that you quote Metcalf, comes the answer to my above challenge to you.

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 Link Removed that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

I know, I know....it's immature or sophomoric or intellectually lazy or discounts the authority of SCOTUS (whatever your latest cliche is this week) to actually rely on the words of the Constitution and BoR and believe they meant what they said. To the extent that any of that *might* be true, it is many times worse for someone to believe your government-loving tripe about anything.

Blues
 
That you don't like it doesn't make this correct legal statement wrong, and G&A publishing it hardly makes it pro-gun control: “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.”

You're under the mistaken impression that your rights are granted to you by the government.
 
That you don't like it doesn't make this correct legal statement wrong, and G&A publishing it hardly makes it pro-gun control: “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.”

I didn't know that we had one of these aboard. I thought this was a 'troll free zone". Maybe we need a bigger sign.
 
I didn't know that we had one of these aboard. I thought this was a 'troll free zone". Maybe we need a bigger sign.

Are you kidding? That guy is one of the worst trolls I have seen here in a couple years.
 
Poor old Dickie metcalf, couldn't get into law school at Yale and it took him all these years to show us why.
 
In the lexicon of the 18th century, "well regulated" did not mean controlled by the government or anyone else. It simply meant well trained. The founders never wanted a standing army. In fact they were extremely afraid that if a standing army existed, it would be used by government to subjugate the citizens. Therefore the citizen militia had to be trained if an emergency occurred. It wasn't merely a right of citizens to be armed; it was an important duty. This citizen militia had the duty to protect the country against not only a foreign threat but domestic tyranny.

The NRA itself was started after the Civil War by Union generals who realized that the Confederates did so well initially because their men were superior marksman. They grew up hunting. The initial purpose of the NRA was to produce well trained citizen marksmen if the government needed to form an army in the future. In other words they attempted to comply with the "well regulated" militia clause of the second amendment.
 
I can't grasp the total stupidity of this whole thing. Is common sense that lacking in this country? It's not just Metcalf. I read Jim Bequette's "reason" for doing this. He said, and I quote, "I thought it would generate a healthy exchange on gun rights." How? What kind of reaction did he actually think this would create, other than the one it got?


That makes about as much sense as kicking a guy in the nuts, to see if he's over his laryngitis. I just can't believe the stupidity I'm seeing in some people today. Are they that desperate to get subscribers? That's one hell of a way to do it. The whole Jim Zumbo incident wasn't that long ago. Didn't they learn a thing from the "reaction" that got? Not even Ted Nugent could save the dumb ass. Now this.


This is going to hurt them big time. That magazine has been getting weaker and thinner for years. Metcalf was a mediocre gun writer at best, lousy in fact. Now he has destroyed what little of a career he had left, and in the process destroyed a good portion of that magazines readership. He's probably walking around in a daze, not understanding what everyone got so mad about. As they say, the dumbing down of America continues.
 
I threw my renewal card in the trash a long time ago. They are fully in the pocket of the FG and believe in a regulated "permit" system. A lot of their contributors have been very outspoken against OC & constitutional carry.


-
 
**** Metcalf is no longer employed with Guns and Ammo.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

nothing about the content of your post, but it's funny to see rights being argued in a place where the censorship is to a point that you cant say a person's name or the name of a well-known sporting goods store.
 
nothing about the content of your post, but it's funny to see rights being argued in a place where the censorship is to a point that you cant say a person's name or the name of a well-known sporting goods store.

With the way conversations tend to go here, I would say that less than a quarter of the time the word is used for a sporting goods store or formal name. The rest of the time it is used to call someone a Richard head.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
With the way conversations tend to go here, I would say that less than a quarter of the time the word is used for a sporting goods store or formal name. The rest of the time it is used to call someone a Richard head.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

richard cranium....got it.
 
[h=1]The Editorial That Got a Longtime Writer at the ‘World’s Most Widely Read Firearms Magazine’ Fired[/h]Nov. 7, 2013 7:43pm Dave Urbanski
After Guns & Ammo magazine ran contributing editor **** Metcalf’s piece advocating gun control for the December 2013 issue, social media exploded — and Metcalf was fired from the “world’s most widely read firearms magazine.”
**** Metcalf (Image source: The Truth About Guns)
“Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” Metcalf wrote in the controversial “Link Removed” editorial.
“The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
“All U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms,” he added, “but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.”
Not surprisingly the Guns & Ammo Facebook site was inundated with denunciations and notices of soon-to-be cancelled subscriptions from gun-rights advocates.
But another reactionary contingent was getting fired up about the editorial, too: The gun-control crowd.
In fact the Washington Times wonders if the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — one of the most prominent gun-control groups — inspired what’s become a large swath of kudos from supporters of stricter gun laws by sharing a link of the editorial on its wall stating that the “the editor (sic) of Guns & Ammo makes an argument for gun regulation.”
And after word got out Wednesday night that Metcalf was fired from his Guns & Ammo technical editor gig over his gun-control editorial, again gun-rights advocates took to social media and said that was the right thing to do; some even said too much damage had been done to warrant forgiveness in the form of renewed subscriptions.

Link Removed
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top