Guns & Ammo Network


Collapse bottom bar
Subscribe

Our Response to the December 2013 Backpage Column

by Jim Bequette   |  November 6th, 2013 819

From Jim Bequette, editor, “Guns & Ammo” Magazine:

As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s “Backstop” column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning “Guns & Ammo”’s commitment to the Second Amendment. I understand why.

Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers such as Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and a voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, “Guns & Ammo”’s. It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with “Guns & Ammo” has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.

Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of “Guns & Ammo” on January 1. However, these recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new “Guns & Ammo” editor will be Eric R. Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications, such as “Book of the AR-15” and “TRIGGER.” You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.

“Guns & Ammo” will never fail to vigorously lead the struggle for our Second Amendment rights, and with vigorous young editorial leadership such as Eric’s, it will be done even better in the future.

Respectfully,

Jim Bequette

  • FatGuyWithA45

    opinions are like assholes, you don’t pull em out in public.

    • Joel Blayney

      Put your asshole away then.

      • FatGuyWithA45

        what i stated was a fact

        • FatGuyWithA45

          but we’ll never know what that fact was, wtf.

  • micko77

    And how will this apply to Dick’s activities with Shooting times, and the various television programs such as Ruger, G&A, etc?

  • Jamie JJ

    I didn’t read the editorial in question, but I do question your decision to fire the writer. Its not like he did anything sneaky and slid the story into print.

    You stated it was your decision to include and print it. So for your bad decision a man loses his job?

    This I do not agree with. Along with protecting the 2nd Amendment rights, what about the 1st as well? An editorial article is just that. An editorial, an opinion, and an expression of a persons free speech.

    You hoped it would generate discussion, etc. It obviously generated some discussion, but not the kind you were hoping for.

    Again, I have no clue what was stated, but on just the principle and from the information you stated that it was ultimately YOUR decision to print it, why punish the writer?

    • Joel Blayney

      His rights didnt include employment by a company whos views he doesnt share. Thats no in the constitution. They fired him because he doesnt believe in the fight we are all undertaking. Its like a cancer and it became malignant.

    • Pam Flory Burkholder

      There’s a big difference between offering and opinion based on facts and offering fallacies up as the truth. Please read the article – your commenting on this is very similar to Metcalf’s article – it doesn’t know it’s opinion because it doesn’t know the facts.

  • RetiredGrunt

    What consequences will you face Jim ? From your response ” I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a
    healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and
    simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.” You made the mistake of publishing the article, not Dick. If his article was so far off of your Magazines standing on gun control-should you also be let go?

    Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2jvgn78rZ

    • Joel Blayney

      Or maybe you should just shut up. Hes owning up to his mistake and corrected it by eliminating a person whos views were unhealthy to the fight for our rights. His intent was to start a discussion. He didnt want or intend for it to be taken as “Their opinion on gun rights”

      • the man

        The point is it should have NEVER gone to print in the first place. Such a sin cannot be forgotten. That absurd decision should be the end of the publication just to teach him a lesson.

        • John Baker

          Yeah, god forbid anybody ever say anything different than exactly what you want to hear. God you people are total wussies. SMH

          • wtfiswrongwithyoupeople

            Don’t you know anything? The second amendment is the only one that’s written in stone. That free speech one, where people are supposed to be able to talk about things openly – yeah, that’s not important. It was a “sin that cannot be forgotten” to acknowledge the other side of the debate and attempt to have a healthy discussion about it. What the hell is wrong with gun people?

          • Wayne Atchley

            John Baker, your Democrat registration is showing. Go away; you’ll be much more comfortable making your comments at the Huffington Post or the New York Times – you total wussy.

          • John Baker

            lol, ooh how clever

            Pathetic. You can’t cope with an argument without stamping your little feet and crying about “Democrats”.

          • Kent Straith

            It’s a weird quirk you people have that whenever anyone disagrees, you say “go back to the Huffington Post”. It’s like a psychological tic or something. Alternative suggestion: How about we let anybody talk anywhere they like and if you disagree, then disagree clearly and not just call them stupid.

          • John Baker

            And the funny thing is I hate Huffington Post because PC ninnies drive me nuts and subscribe to G&A.

            Or did subscribe to G&A anyhow.

          • Fred Beloit

            So your point is that the Muffington Post has never censored nor banned anyone? Is that the sxxt you are selling?

          • Kent Straith

            No, they probably have. I just think it’s weird that hard core conservatives seem to think HuffPo is just the height of liberalism and that liberals all cluster there. I’m strongly for a LOT of gun control and I have never once visited Huffington Post. I mostly forget it exists.

          • Jacob S

            Ad hominem.

          • PaulT

            I did not pay my money to read an editorial in favor of gun control. I can hear all that crap on the nightly news for free.

          • No Pretense

            I guess you paid to hear what you already think? What’s the point of that?

          • 2A

            what a bunch of fucking assholes. Your attitudes is what is going to cause the loss of rights for gun ownership. You even go so far as to nominate Tea Party assholes, who are costing this country billions.

          • Fred Beloit

            Thanks for stopping by there, Nopre. Now I see what this is. This is one of those librul flash mobs that happens every so often. They call it free speech and I guess it is, but free speech doesn’t exclude Leftist and anti-constitutional propaganda and doesn’t protect anyone from being fired; it only protects one from government action. Can you say Nick the Greek?

          • John Baker

            I don’t pay for G&A for being spineless PC whiners. I could get that for free all over the web.

        • Kent Straith

          Are you advocating the end of Guns & Ammo Magazine, in the effort to push forward the 2Am agenda? Here here! Make it so!

      • RowdyD

        Healthy discussion??? I appreciate him owning up to the mistake, and the heartfelt apology. But this kind of damage can not be undone. The Gun Grabbers are taking this and running with it…Yahoo has generated over 3,000 comments in the last few hours…Here is one I just grabbed 14 seconds ago (i think it is great that the right wing is taking an active stance and starting to see what is really taking place in america. great article.)

        The last thing we need is more gas on the fire…The people in here posting about 1st Amendment rights are most likely from the same gun grabbing crowds….Restrictions on 1st Amendment rights, are there any??? I doubt it…I sure hope Guns & Ammo does some follow ups on supporting our 2nd Amendment Rights…

        • Paul Angel

          Most of use who realize that the 2nd amendment is complex and open to discussion are NOT trying grap anyone’s guns. We just want to have a rational discussion of what the amendment really means and what laws make sense. Do you think you should be able to own a rocket launcher?? A nuke? Likely not. Therefore you believe in some limits. I am against gun bans, completely. But I do agree with licensing. It does NOT infringe on your rights.

          • Dan

            I think we should be able to own rocket launchers.

          • wess2500

            Hell ya. Me as well. And if you shoot it at people, well then give them the death penalty. But, I would love to own one to be able to go to a range and shoot it.

          • Leigh Rich

            You realize it would cost you the price of a good used car to buy and shoot one round.

          • 61Deacon64

            Not really, Leigh. Just say you are a Moslem and Obama will give you some.!!

          • williamdiamon

            Or Mexican.

          • JPhilB

            And if I have the means to afford that, do it safely, and stimulate the economy by doing so, who are you to tell me I cannot?

          • Leigh Rich

            Be catefull JPhill. You might get arrested for shooting the mexican no mater what your means!!

          • kneezer5555

            Licensing infringes UNLESS it is MUST ISSUE to people who pass scrutiny of their mental and criminal history. If some scumbag appointee or politician is given discretion to deny on their whim, you have just been enslaved.

          • Tannim

            Why do I need a license to buy, own, or use private property anyway?

          • NRApatriot

            I asked my Sheriff why I needed a permit to excersise a constitutional right and the democrat just gave me a stupid look!

          • Wayne Atchley

            Dan, I think you should be able to own a brain, but obviously that’s just not gonna happen.

          • sensrbtch

            the problum is oweninbg them? the problum is gitin them! a 1 use tool, why own 1, use 1!

          • Kent Straith

            That’s why debate is important. I’ve talked to Second Amendment activists just as passionate as yourself who say the Amendment clearly says arms, and arms mean guns with non-explosive projectiles, and anything involving explosives is fair game for regulation.

          • Jinete Largo

            All the dictionaries I’ve ever seen, including Black’s Law, define the word “arms” as used in the Constitution as – Weapons considered collectively. That would be rocks to rockets! And the Second is the ONLY law in the Constitution where it warns that it, “shall not be infringed.”

          • Kent Straith

            The Constitution also says “well regulated”. What regulations are you prepared to accept?

          • Mit

            In the late 1700s the word regulated meant supplied not controlled. The usage of the word has changed over the years. That is why soldiers who were supplied by the government were called regulars. If a store keeper kept a well regulated establishment it was well stocked or well supplied. substitute the modern word supplied for the word regulated and we bring the second amendment into perfect focus in the year 2013.

          • Kent Straith

            Perhaps it has. Perhaps the meaning of the word has changed since 1787. Do you also, therefore, accept that another thing that’s changed since 1787 is guns. The standard rifle of today can fire 100X as fast as a colonial musket, with three times the muzzle velocity. Why are the same words applied to the arms of then applied to arms of now, and do you think it’s possible that the Founders might have wanted some laws in place had they been able to envision a weapon three hundred times as destructive as any they had ever seen?

          • Mit

            I think it highly likely that the Founders would have wanted the people armed with the same weapons as their oppressors would be armed with. What do we do when the M-4 becomes obsolete? Remember the little part about the security of a free state?

          • Kent Straith

            I don’t think the Founders envisioned a day when law enforcement is viewed as “oppressors”. I don’t view them that way today, though I realize there’s some push-back on that from various segments of society. The only oppression they knew came from an occupying force representing an empire they had no voice in. Law enforcement, i.e. those hired by our representative democratic government(s) to enforce the laws We The People create, are not oppressors. No, the average citizen should not have the same time of weaponry as is available to law enforcement. It’s a recipe for disaster and tragedy to suggest otherwise. Our society venerates public servants like police officers, and to ask them to put their lives on the line to keep us safe, while ensuring that every encounter with bad guys could be a “fair fight” is lunacy.

          • Mit

            You kind of lost me there. I would hope law enforcement would be on the side of the people. Actually we don’t live in a representative democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. What it boils down to is that the Constitution is actually a contract between you and I as to how we will govern each other. We are equals therefore we must have equal power to defend ourselves. Anything less and one of us is a slave to the other. Have a great night! Later!

          • Concerned

            This has been a interesting read with you two folks.

            My only bone to pick here I tend to disagree with Kent’s comment’s on law enforcement. If you look back into some of the things that occurred when New Orleans was hit with a hurricane you would understand that some in law enforcement really don’t understand the constitution and it raises a question as to rather they were ever sworn to upheld it or if they even really understand the fundamental principles behind it. I also think that the media these days tend to embellish far too much in an blind desperation for ratings. (You would understand if you ever paid 100k or better for a commercial or advertisement.) Politicians in that particular case reacted poorly and added to the problems there because they were worried about who which party would end up looking good at the end of the day. (This is happening to this day by the way and while I frown at the public relations machine politics have fully become these days. Political PR machines will say laws be damned if it doesn’t look or ‘feel’ good that day, week, or month. BOTH parties are guilty of this.)

            Furthermore while it isn’t well known or talked about in many circles look at when either political party comes to your town for a convention. Typically LE have been ordered in the past to trample all over the rights when it comes to detainment of folks either walking on the edge of the law or simple looked at as lesser beings because their homeless. This has been talked about over a radio station in MN a while back in which a prior NYC officer who retired but was a metro talk show radio announcer for a while. (To bad his name slips my memory at the moment.)

            Still there have been many instances where even the 1st amendment have had their rights trampled on and the folks involved have gotten these instances on film. Which to me is very odd behavior on the officers since just about every car they have has a camera in it these days along with some level of conversation recording gear.

            But while we should be wary of these things, it really goes to show that while most officers out there are taught fundamental laws some may not fully understand nor will be willing to challenge a order passed down from a superior. Still rather your talking about another countries ‘empires’ or not, superiors still passed down orders to those people essentially enforcing that country’s law (aka their version of Police,) in which they followed and in some cases blindly so which led to oppression in ways that resulted in some in the populace fleeing and building early America in the first place.

            My apologies for the lengthy reply and any grammar errors I have made. I’ve been up all night working on trying to keep my own dreams alive.

          • MWhite

            If you read Federalist Paper 46, you’ll see that oppression from within was a danger in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.

          • Smithfriend

            So what? The means of delivery of verbal and text communication have changed over the course of two hundred years, too. There is the risk that with one computer and an internet connection, a single person can slander and threaten thousands of people all over the world.

            Using your logic, that means that people should ask permission from the government before they type something on a web page. Or maybe the government should restrict the number of words that they type each day to around seven or so. That way it will cut down on all of the slander and threats out there.

          • Kent Straith

            Using your logic, are you saying that being slandered or threatened is equal to being killed? That we as citizens should be equally afraid of words as we are of bullets? That slandering or mass insults to people is on some kind of moral plane with spray shooting a high school basketball game or theatre, and should have the same level of protection against it? I want to be clear on this.

          • brent

            KENT
            you might want to re consider the position you take about words…the language of America is broken….in the pursuit of external power [ie; money, possessions , prestige,etc] guerella marketing has taken the top seat,and supplanted the moral guidance that is necessary for society to exist.The new truth is anything a particular person or group of people want to say, cause theres enough people to buy it so it will sell,doesn’t matter if its true of not,just SPIN it. You’ve got to look no further than politics of the last 20 years or the “news” of the day, or even these very comment pages……your spin,good luck wth it.Just one more noise in the deafening din as”SMART” society is sucked into the black hole of narcistic impotence.

          • Kent Straith

            I have only a vague idea what you mean, and no idea at all how it applies to me or this situation, but thanks for not calling me a commie or a libtard.

          • Sirius Blaque

            Does the phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword” ring a bell? nowadays it is possible to rouse a bevy of misguided followers across time zones and even oceans with the stroke of a mouse. One shooter may “spray a basketball court”, but several dozen zealots carrying weapons of varying types can just as easily kill HUNDREDS at the bidding of one mastermind on a computer. But no one is advocating “reasonable” or “common sense” limits to the First Amendment.

          • Kent Straith

            Two things:

            – Yes, I suppose you’re right about the army of zealots killing on the whim of a mastermind at a computer. But, when has that ever happened? Or anything close to that ever happened? Outside of a G.I. Joe cartoon? Stay in the real world.

            – The First Amendment DOES have limits. Speech is forbidden which presents a clear and present danger to the people. Slander, libel, sedition…we have all kind of limits on the First Amendment. Its the Second that people seem to think must have no limit anywhere on anything.

          • John W. Chapman

            Tell that to George Zimmerman who faced the frikkin death penalty because of “slander”.

          • Kent Straith

            George Zimmerman did not, at any point, face the death penalty. Frikkin or otherwise. His second degree murder charge in Florida did not carry capital punishment as a possible penalty. For him to face the death penalty, he would have had to have been charged with a federal hate crime, which did not happen. If you’re complaining about penalties from charges that were never levied, then I could say of you that you currently face 30 to life for child molestation…it’s just that nobody has brought any charges.

          • NickyD

            That is part of the point, We the People are supposed to have access to the same armament as police and military as they did back then.

          • Tannim

            Uh, hate to break it to you, but the First Continental Congress was approached about letting a contract to produce an early machine gun…see Josep Belton, circa 1777. They knew about higher-velocity arms even back then.

          • Kent Straith

            Since the Puckle gun was designed to be mounted on ships, and the Gatling gun was patented in 1862, and not in wide use until the 1870s, my guess is, no, the Founders did not envision a self-contained, easily transportable, easily concealable weapon capable of dealing death to a hundred of people inside a minute.

          • Tannim

            You’re confusing the Puckle Gun, which was invented in the late 1710s in Britian, with Belton, who offered to make musket rifles full auto some 70 years later in Philadelphia.

          • Sirius Blaque

            The musket was state of the art at the time. To claim that the Founders only wanted people to be armed with obsolete or antiquated weapons is specious at best, wishful thinking at worst. And if you agree with the notion of a “well-regulated militia”, why would the Founders want sub-standard weapons available to those called upon in time of emergency?

          • Kent Straith

            When is the general populace ever called upon in the time of emergency? Those civilians who are called upon in the time of emergency are organized into “well regulated militia”, AKA, the National Guard. The Founders did not anticipate and did not set up a standing military force. We now have well regulated militia to patrol and protect our external borders, and to rise up and assist in time of emergency. If that means Gary down the street doesn’t get to have his personal arsenal, well, I hope that doesn’t hurt Gary’s feelings. You want to be a hero when the crap hits the fan? Join the Guard.

          • Flash Gordon

            kent, you’re clever, but you are missing the point, my man. The guard has been used to murder striking workers within the last hundred years, and harass and murder people at protests, suppressing the 1st amendment, and obviously our even more primal rights of self-determination and fair treatment. We’re supposed to be equals, and a part of that means equal access to equal might, FOR THE OCCASION of UNequal ethics, opportunity, or odds.

            People can be heroes without taking up a second career in the military, guard, guns, whatever. The reality is: people with access to better weapons will have and inevitably USE an advantage over other people – thereby maintaining inequity and encouraging injustice.

          • Kent Straith

            Yeah, well…so be it, I guess. This isn’t the Wild West anymore and if you have a fetish for street justice, you’re free to buy the Death Wish box set on Amazon.

          • Ben

            No one is denying that firearms have changed. Few people, though, have noted that violent crime, including murder, has become less commonplace whereas firearms have become more commonplace. Hell, if having a 30 round magazine in a semi-automatic rifle is so dangerous, why aren’t the Swiss people drowning in rivers of their own blood? It’s the failure of the system and the degradation of humanity that cause these mass school shootings to happen.

          • big banana

            Should freedom of the press still apply in todays internet age?

          • yahoo

            The word “regulated” encompassed in the second amendment applies to the “militia” not a firearm.

          • big banana

            It means well equipped militia. That means people should have access to weapons to equip a militia force.

          • Kent Straith

            I’ve been talking to gun rights advocates all day who say it means “well trained and equipped.” The writer in question here advocated training, and was put out with the trash for that.

          • big banana

            He was discussing governemnt deciding who can and cannot own a weapon based on the guise of approved training programs. It is not up to the government to make that decision and he should be put out for it.
            The second amendment is the ultimate control on government. Shall not be infringed means what it says. This is crystal clear when reading what our founding fathers wrote at the time.

          • Kent Straith

            “Shall not be infringed” is indeed crystal clear, but I’m not going to entertain one more word from people who cling to the second half of the Amendment, without acknowledging the first half and what it means. The founders intended that owners of weapons be held to the standards of an army in terms of training.

          • big banana

            My marksmanship is in excess of that required for Army training. The training discussed in the article is classroom lecture, not military training. You seem like another gun grabber that clearly does not wish to acknowledge the language and intent of the 2nd.

          • Kent Straith

            I’m confident in my interpretation and understanding of the Second Amendment. And I’m glad you brought up your marksmanship. So you’re saying you’d endorse people who’s marksmanship is not up to snuff or military standards not getting a gun license? What other reason could there be to talk about your excellent marksmanship?

          • big banana

            You brought up the topic of training. You may be confident in your understanding but you are also wrong. You don’t even remember introducing the topic of military training?

          • Kent Straith

            I believe your military training (if that’s what you’re hinting at) makes you more than up to snuff. I also believe that far from every gun owner has military training. What I’ve been hearing when I bring this up is that “training is the responsibility of the gun owner and we don’t need enforcement.” Should the same theory not apply to speed limits? Safe driving is the driver’s responsibility, after all. There’s just nothing we can do in terms of enforcement.

          • big banana

            You introduced training as a discussion point. Government controlled mandatory training would be merely a way to prevent citizens from owning weapons if the government chose to do so. This is obviousl and indisputable. Enough has been said on this topic.
            The topic of driving is a canard. There are too many differences between the fundamental right of self defense and the privilege of driving on community built roads to even bother with this topic.

          • Kent Straith

            You’re arguing from the end you’d like to achieve, namely that everyone can have whatever gun they want without any interference. But that’s not what the Constitution says nor what it means. It refers to gun owners as a militia, and in the 1700s, being in the militia meant you were at the beck and call of the Colonial government or after ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Army. The Army has rules you must follow. The Army has standards you have to meet to stay in it. The Army has mandated training before you’re allowed to carry a weapon. Yes, it’s perfectly Constitutional to have the government control training and standards for who carries and weapon and who doesn’t.

          • big banana

            No. You are 100% wrong. It states that a well regulated (well equipped) militia is vital. Therefore the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The government is violating our rights in 2 areas. # 1 they are infringing on our right to bear arms. # 2 they have squashed any militia and have declared a monopoly on force. We aren’t even supposed to have a standing army and now our military is acting as the world police. Our Consitution has been trashed. Our nation is deeply in debt. We have more people in prison than anyone else. These issues are all tied together.

          • Kent Straith

            Perhaps. I know that the first politician who says he’s going to make gun control a priority has my vote. No matter what.

          • big banana

            Fools like you do not deserve my time.

          • Kent Straith

            I must admit, not being worthy of the time of someone on the internet named Big Banana isn’t the worst thing that’s ever happened to me. Or the worst thing today. Or, well…ya know.

          • Damien Leimbach
          • NRApatriot

            And Howitzers too as long as you follow the laws pertaining to its use!

          • Nukeroid

            I wouldn’t mind owning a nuke ;-)

          • dsd1

            how would you feel if that all the same second amendment rules applied to the first amendment?

            you would need to apply for and pay a government license before you can speak in public. some states may require 8 to 20 hours of “sensitivity training” and anger management classes to be able to apply. some states may ban public speaking outright or make their state license “may issue” depending on someone in power to decide if you get that right. you could be charged with a felony if you say something that i don’t like in public, or worse if you speak in public without a government license.

            if you don’t think “words” are dangerous, look in the news about all the “bullying” talk – kids are committing suicide over what other kids say to them on public forums, or at school etc. i see this as the groundwork being laid for the coming next step and that will be “common sense speech” discussions no different then they are with the second amendment. soon someone in politics will demand some solution to all the bullying and hurt feelings… hmm why not license and regulate speech?

            if you think that all sounds like a funny joke – wake up – this is probably already in motion and coming down the road – if you don’t think it could happen you are kidding yourself – go take a real look at a communist country, the ones where you disappear if you voice dissent. (i.e. say something in public that is not in agreement with hose in power)

            that road begins with one step, and we are heading in that direction no matter how much you think “it can’t happen here”

          • micko77

            Um, the Senate is working on just that type of regulation… “Authorized Journalists”, championed by the supposed representative of my home state of Illinois, Dick Durbin. Hey, maybe it’s in the first name…

          • Alexandre

            If the apology is not good enough for you, stop buying the magazine, cancel your subscription. I for one appreciate his letter/apology. I was going to cancel my subscription but the apology convinced me otherwise. Mistakes happen, and how people make good to set things right is what is important. Mr. Bequette earned my respect for his attitude in making this right.

          • sensrbtch

            thanks! i alreadi did it? read the online issue if ther is realie sumthin u want 2 look at. its easier, same with gun-tests,gun digest, and the list of alls da gunshows in the usa!

          • DHurdle

            Either speak proper English or STFU. People like you give responsible gun owners a black eye !!

          • Bill in Texas

            According to the “apology” letter, the publishing of Metcalf’s article was not a mistake. He intentionally published the article because he “thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.” The damage done, as explained above by the left wing gun-grabbers using the article as anti-gun propaganda, will be very hard to overcome. I will no longer support G & A or any of it’s affiliates, in any way and I will advise my friends to pull their support as well. Seven of my friends have already cancelled their subscriptions, as have I.

          • EagleBurningFirePatriotofTruth

            There are plenty of laws regulating the 1st Amendment – libel, slander, graffiti laws, “fire-in-a-theater” exceptions, obscenity laws…the list goes on. Stop acting like the 2nd Amendment is a sacred cow – and remember, the 2nd is the only amendment with the word “regulated” in it, so regulations are perfectly Constitutional. And lastly, when someone unsafely opens their mouth in public, people don’t have to worry about their faces being blown off. So there’s a difference.

          • Jon Eggleston

            You may be interested to know that, in the amendment, “regulated” is part of the phrase “well regulated militia”, an adverb followed by the adjective it modifies followed by the noun it in turn modifies. This is how the people in the founding era constructed sentences in order to make their meaning clear. Some of us still do. The word “regulated” was not simply thrown in to be applied to whatever cockamamie notion might occur to a modern reader with a questionable grasp of English syntax. You’re welcome.

          • EagleBurningFirePatriotofTruth

            I do appreciate the primer, thank you! I noticed the word “militia” in there…can I assume you all belong to one? If you want to get into grammatical lessons, I think you’d find that the 2nd is actually a horribly constructed sentence – it’s easily the most ambiguous amendment. Does “people” refer to “militia”? If so, then “regulated” also modifies “people.” Or maybe the two clauses are completely independent. Who knows?! The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the firearms of “people” can be “regulated”, so are they saying that all “people” are part of a “militia”? Seems kind of odd that the Framers would want a trained “militia” to have their firearms “regulated” but not the common citizenry.

          • Vickers

            “Regulated” in the framer’s time meant “in good order”. In other words, well equipped for it’s purpose. It had nothing to do with government limits or any other “regulations”. In fact the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from an oppressive government so why would they then say that that government could limit that right. Seems kind of odd that they would do that ;P. Also, the people were the militia. It was locally organized and the weapons were personally owned. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment describes a personal right so stop with the uneducated parsing.

          • Paul angel

            SCOTUS also said there are limits (read regulation) to the 2nd amendment. See Scalia’s comments. You are essentially a moron.

          • Smithfriend

            Do you trust the SCOTUS as being infallibly correct? Just because the SCOTUS makes a decision, does that mean that they are right?
            You know, the SCOTUS also once said that a slave owner had the legal right to enter into northern states to apprehend a runaway slave. Go read the Dredd Scott decision and I think that you will find out that the SCOTUS makes decisions that are actually in violation of natural law.

          • Tannim

            Scalidiot was wrong. Again. The plain language of the words cannot be construed to mean something else. That’s settled law, and he ignored it, just like it was ignored in Raich and Kelo.

          • Jon Eggleston

            The specific composition of the militia depends upon the definitions of a particular time and place. The version of the first (dependent) clause immediately preceding the adopted one familiar to us stipulated that the militia consisted of the “whole body of the people” (the deletion of which accounts for the confusing comma in the clause as it sometimes appears). States varied in their interpretations of this term; several specified males of a certain age range, typically 16 or 18 to 60. Other states were concerned that the phrase might someday be construed as including certain individuals originally counted as 3/5 persons, and the extremely farsighted feared the obigation of the fairer sex by such inclusive language. Nonetheless, the original conception envisioned the people rising in arms to defend the republic in times of emergency. So yes, you and I are both members of the militia.
            Moving on, a “well regulated militia” is a military force capable of functioning effectively. A militia composed of individuals unfamiliar with and incompetent in use of the arms of the day does not meet that standard. As in the days of the English longbow, the only way to ensure an effective force is to ensure that the militia–the people–have and use their own weapons in times of peace. I’m not going to try to educate you to my understanding of such matters; you need to do the history homework yourself.
            Getting back to grammar, the first clause is dependent and the second, independent. There is no reason to suppose that the dependent clause was ever intended to dilute the clearly emphatic meaning of the independent clause. It simply states one logical justification for the retention of the right to keep and bear arms among the people at large. The founders clearly also wished their new government to be denied a monopoly of armed force (again, you need to read the history for yourself). The sentence is perfectly grammatical and understandable to us older folk. If you have trouble with the perhaps archaic (though it survives in regional dialects) use of the verb “being”, read it as “Because a well regulated militia is necessary. . .” and the meaning will be precisely the same.
            In regard to your final statement, allow me to direct your attention once again to my previous post. In the founders’ syntax, “regulated” refers to “militia”, and not to their firearms, which are not even mentioned in the sentence.

          • Ken Head

            One can look at how the 2nd Amendment was originally worded.
            Madison’s original draft was: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”

            The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed for the final draft, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

          • Tannim

            See 10 USC 311 for what a militia actually is…

          • DirkDiggler

            That’s right. And most of these people here are not in any militia, especially a well regulated one, so they should not be allowed to own a gun. Period.

          • Leigh Rich

            Lets have stricter gun control like out good neighbors to our south. Mexico.

          • Ken Head

            If they had intended that people be in a militia in order to keep and bear arms, it would have stated that plainly and simply. “Those who are in a militia have the right to keep and bear arms.” So do you agree that all those in government who are not part of a militia should also be disarmed, or does that not serve your progressive authoritarian desire to see people controlled?

          • bigjpop

            Read Thomas Jefferson’s notes on the purpose of the Second Amendment, just google it. The 2nd Amendment is meant to protect us from Tyranny in all it’s forms. A militia forms when people are having their natural rights trampled on. Militia implies a civilian army that forms to oppose tyranny. You just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment.

          • TillThen

            I agree with you, with one caveat. “Well-regulated” cannot and should not be ignored or brushed aside. Who do we want to do that regulation? US, the people, the militia. No rational person believes that criminals, the inept or those with serious mental illness should have free access to powerful weapons. With freedom comes responsibility. It is our duty to create regulations for our militia, not wave our failure to do so like a flag of challenge to the tyrants. The longer we wait to take responsibility, the stronger the opposition becomes.

          • Tannim

            “well-regulated” means “well-equipped and trained”, not “controlled or restricted.” Your argument is based on incorrect premises.

          • airmecher1

            For those that have reading comprehension problems, Jon Eggleston said, the militia is the people, meaning us, the citizens. In DC vs. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the individual citizen, that is us, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms. Also written in the opinion was that we are to be armed with the normal type of weapon in use of the period of the military today. That means we have the right to own the normal and usual arms of the soldier. Pretty much what is allowed today. There are over 25,000 pages of gun regulations today. Plenty. No one, unless investigated further, licensed and paying the extra tax for it may own a fully automatic machine gun, rocket launcher or other heavy weapon. And I am OK with that. They should have to go through those checks. But all other firearms are legal for the normal citizen, or militia member, to own.

          • Joe

            The 2nd Amendment is in the “Bill of Rights.” Each of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to rights guaranteed to individuals. Enough said.

          • Joe

            The use of the term, “a well regulated militia” was there to support why every person had “a right to keep and bear arms” (not that only those who were in a militia could “keep and bear arms”). And regarding the anti-gun crowd’s contention that a modern, large capacity magazine fed semi-automatic rifle is not what our forefathers’ meant regarding weapons the citizens could “keep and bear”, the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are indeed the “muskets” of today, similar to but not the same as the military’s automatic M-16. And our “govern”ment should remember – 300,000 to 500,000 of these excellent sporting rifles (for target, plinking, hunting, and self defense) are sold to Americans each year. Over the term of President Obama’s administration to date, it is estimated that over 3 and a half million of these fine rifles have been sold to lawful Americans, making the President the number one rifle salesman in the world! Hopefully by the end of his presidency, Obama will be responsible for the sale of over 5 or 6 million of these rifles. When added to the already 10+million already in the hands of lawful Americans, that should prove to be a formidable amount of weaponry – a number that any politician should consider when running on an “anti-gun” platform.

          • Tannim

            10 USC 311 says you are incorrect. And you’re abusing that pseudonym for it, too.

          • Sirius Blaque

            DirkDiggler, You make a typical mistake of liberals and gun grabbers. You don’t join a militia to gain access to a firearm; you own and maintain a firearm so that, in time of emergency you can form up with the militia and deal with the threat. Imagine the lunacy of an emergency arising that calls for a militia to respond, and they’re all running around trying to buy a gun and find ammo and get trained.

          • sensrbtch

            is there trulie a ‘SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE”? MIES bullshite meter sez NO!. the demo-krap 4 brans hav twisted the statement with the fags and continue to foster that ther is? ther is not! prayer is allowed in aniyway, it does not ned to be declered toward a secular faith. this is hoos da queers ,wurmans,niggerians r in an effort to git rid of prayer befotre the general meetings in the stqates. yet the kungress has a prayer be-4 everi session?!

          • Confused

            Oh, for crying out loud. You do realise that it’s people like you that the rest of the world (that’s people like me) laugh at, every time we hear another story about some gun control outrage or other, don’t you? I can see you now, spittle flying as you hammer out another illiterate retaliation. People don’t remember the well-written, well-thought out debate; they remember the vitriol-laden, misspelled, spewing forth of random thoughts. The remember and they think “And they want to let idiots like that carry guns???”

            As someone who lives outside of the US, I do find it strange that you want to let every adult carry a gun, but understand your right to do so. What I really don’t understand is why people get so worked up about the idea that you should have a license to do so.

          • Tannim

            Because as sovereign individuals, our right to buy, own, and use private property is not subject to government permission, and if it it, then something is badly wrong. If you cannot own property, then you cannot own yourself, and you are not a free person but a slave.

          • sensrbtch

            wer do U liv, that u cannot own or carrie a gun? and thanks for reading my shite! what u r reading is spek of the prez “OBAMINICS” a real reason to own a gun.[ we the people love our country,its soldiers and its peoples; it is the government that we fear most!] i’m an english major?

          • Tannim

            Your illiteracy is on display with your atrocious grammar and spelling, not to mention your primitive racism and bigotry. I suggest you’s get yerself some learnin’ done about lotsa things. :-P

          • fratdawgg23

            The Southern delegates insisted on the 2d Amendment because they wanted to maintain armed slave patrols, community members that would go around looking for runaway slaves and either return them to their owner or shoot them dead, depending on their mood perhaps. No govt would intentionally arm and encourage citizens to rise up against it on a whim, angry over tax increase or whatever is viewed as “tyranny.”

            “When tyranny comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible.” – Sinclair Lewis

            Well, it arrived and the gun owners opened the front door and welcomed it with open arms. “Tyranny” comes in different flavors; enough people liked the soft flavor of it not to even notice.

          • Jon Eggleston

            If you wish to understand the roots and motives for the Second Amendment, I can only suggest that you read a bit more widely among early speeches, documents, letters, etc. Doesn’t your take on the amendment smell, even to you, like slanderous propaganda? From the Brady bunch, perhaps? Why don’t you begin with the Federalist Papers, say, or the previously adopted constitutions of northern, non-slave states.

          • bigjpop

            That is total BS. Google: Thomas Jefferson, 2nd Amendment. You’ve been given a one sided liberal revisionist version of the 2nd amendments history.

          • airmecher1

            Methinks you have consumed too much alcohol in your dorm room and listened to too much Alinsky.

          • Sirius Blaque

            fratdawgg23, you happen to have reliable supporting documentation for your assertions about why the southern delegates wanted the 2nd Amendment? I’m talking mainstream, peer reviewed research into the writings of the founders or first hand interviews given to newspapers or minutes from committee meetings from the Constitutional Convention? I contend the Massachusetts crowd wanted the second amendment to make sure that whatever new central government was installed wouldn’t become as oppressive as the one they just replaced.

          • exit13c

            Every regulation you list for the first amendment is ex post facto. Every gun regulation they wish to impose involves prior restraint. Funny how that worked out huh?

          • Rifleman

            You do realize there is no actual law keeping you from yelling fire in a crowded theater right?

          • dsd1

            you seem to forget as well that the 2nd amendment is the ONLY one to include “shall not be infringed”

            do you think that was an accident they put that in there?

          • Jinete Largo

            The First Amendment doesn’t contain the phrase, “shall not be infringed.” Whereas the Second Amendment is the only place in the entire Constitution that it can be found. I find that tremendously significant.

          • Smithfriend

            Stop being disingenuous. You know darn well that your argument here is false and equivocal. The laws against slander, obscenity, graffiti, etc. do not impose PRE-APPLIED RESTRICTIONS on free speech. They are retributive. They impose penalties on someone who has actually committed such abuses. They do not require someone to ask permission from the government before they speak, or require a government license to own a printing press, or limit the number of words that they are allowed to say each day in order to reduce the risk of slander and obscenity. You are making a logical category error here, and so your argument is false and misleading.

          • JGSRELP

            Nice straw man. and I love that you got so many lemmings to fall for it.

          • Jacob S

            There are rules to the first amendment actually. There have been several rulings on the first amendment, and there are laws against hate-speech, slander, Libel, leaking government secrets, fraud, and breech of NDAs. Not to mention the fact that it was famously decided by the supreme court that some forms of free speech should not be allowed, such as screaming “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre for kicks and giggles.

            The basic laws essentially mean that unnecessarily dangerous speech (such as the aforementioned theatre incident. Quite specifically, speech that is VERY likely to harm others, ESPECIALLY if what is being said is untrue) with no public benefit is not protected by the first ammendment, the same way unnecessarily dangerous guns shouldn’t necessarily be protected by the second. It just so happens that, in the case of guns, there are more situations where they could be considered “Unecessarily dangerous.”

            By saying that the second amendment should be regulated like the first, I’m glad to see that you agree that there are types of firearms that are too dangerous for use and should thus be banned from sale and possession by individuals.

          • Mike

            This is a very tired and fallacious argument. There already ARE comparable limits on the second amendment as pointed out by several people previously. Just like if you yell “fire” in a theater (as the mind numbing comparison goes), you will be held responsible for any misuse of a firearm in a theater. This is a consequence. What you seem to be arguing for is prior restraint on use of the second amendment which does not widely exist for the first amendment. The analogy is old, incorrect and needs to stop.

          • laverne_keller

            @dsd1 that has already happened here in Canada under various left leaning nanny state style governments both federally and provincially. The federal hate speech law was only recently amended to take away some of the powers of the various ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ by the current federal Conservative government. Prior to that under the former federal Lieberal governments of both Pierre Turdeau, and Jean Cretin anyone could face non-judicial punishment if not actual prison time from those so called tribunals. A perfect example is the 9 year persecution of Alberta Report publisher Ezra Levant for the heinous offence of publishing an article showing the Mohammed cartoons originally produced in Holland. That fight with the ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ cost Mr Levant hundreds of thousands in legal costs and the loss of the Alberta Report magazine to it’s readership as it went bankrupt due to the fights costs. That is just the tip of the legal iceberg created by those so called ‘Hate Speech’ laws be thankful that in your nation you have those rights enshrined in your constitution. When Turdeau repatriated Canada’s constitution and wrote our Charter of Rights private citizens rights were far from his consideration rather he was more interested in state rights then private ownership rights or anything similar. Considering his love of the Soviet leadership that’s hardly surprising so like your current POTUS and his regime. Take strong hold of your constitutional rights my southern neighbors as they can be taken from you as easily as a swipe of a pen by your political leaders as ours tried to do. My only prayer is that Pierre’s son and current federal Lieberal party leader never see’s the inside of the Prime Ministers residence and that his party remains in the political hinterlands for at least another decade or longer.

          • Virginia T Haas

            How about we take a look at a communist magazine, where when someone voices dissent not to oppose, but to open up rational dialogue, their job disappears.

          • John Taylor

            The 2nd Amendment is simple; its meaning is well supported by contemporary documentation.

            (I refuse to dignify the hoary reductio ad absurdum.)

            Licensing does not, in itself infringe on the RKBA … superficially. But its implementation often (almost always?) does; e.g. racial/economic discrimination, or confiscation in time of ‘crisis’.

          • OutPastPluto

            > Most of use who realize that the 2nd amendment is complex and open to discussion

            …are not your usual gun control crowd. Let’s not kid ourselves. Those kinds of people believe in a choice free nanny state where dependence is the norm and self-reliance is ridiculed.

            If you don’t think that the “end game” here is California style gun grabbing squads then you’re just being naieve.

          • RowdyD

            Good reply Paul, and I agree to a point. But not when we have a President bent on gun control. Have you not had to wait up to 3 months for a box of Good 22 long rifle ammo???

          • nhdjoseywales

            Please explain in small words and in great detail how exactly Obama is leading a war on guns and ammunition. The reason you cant find ammo is because paranoid idiots like you think the black guy is going to sneak in your house at night and take your freedom. You might want to cite some laws that have been passed in the last 5-6 years that have in any way affected your ability to buy, possess, or carry a gun. The only law i recall being passed actually expanded the number of places i can carry my gun. Do you have some magic list of information the rest of us are not privy to?

          • RowdyD

            Come out of your cave and do some reading and research as I sure ain’t wasting more then a minute on you!!!
            Obama buys Billions of rounds of Ammo for Homeland Security is a good starting point…The ONLY reason no laws have been passed restricting our rights further is because we have fought him hard in his campaign to restrict the 2nd Amendment…

          • nhdjoseywales

            A fast google search debunks you. Even Breitbart says you are full of it. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth
            Again, please tell us what laws were proposed that were so toughly fought…..oh wait, there werent any.

          • RowdyD

            And they believe what DHS tells them??? Funny!!! Go back to your herd…

          • nhdjoseywales

            Yep, yer an idiot. No reasoning with morons like you. I find it hilarious you think i am some type of sheep yet you are the one who has no connection with reality and live completely within an echo chamber of derp.

          • nhdjoseywales

            A link to info on the author, just so you cant claim he is a liberal writer…http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Tom_Stilson

          • paul

            There are many fact check sites that have debunked this. You are a fool. Homeland security was not buying 22 ammo anyway. You are an idiot. No wonder this country is in trouble.

          • RowdyD

            Paul, There are just as many sites that confirm it…It is a 100 percent fact he did order millions of rounds of various calibers, mainly 9MM…As far as the 22 LR shortage that is because of several reasons, one is Bullet factories were over worked filling DHS orders and folks are buying them as fast as they hit the shelf out of well founded fears…You are the fool Paul if you honestly believe Obama has no intentions of restricting guns and Ammo from Americans!!!

          • Inksling9

            If you think those who will be tasked to confiscate guns, mind you, that’s guns as in many individual people or groups of people, are going to politely knock on their doors during daylight hours, then there isn’t a shovel long enough to dig your head out from where the sun doesn’t shine…

          • Freebyrd1968

            Licensing can be the first step to an attempted confiscation.

          • Paul angel

            You are an idiot. Clearly.

          • Freebyrd1968

            Shove it up your butt, clearly!!

          • paul

            Would you license free, speach, freedom to associate, freedom to travel within the country? There is not statistical data which would justify licensing, but there is apmle historical data that if invariably is a precursor of confiscation.

          • Mike in GA

            If licensing does not infringe on 2nd amendment, then why is ID law for voting in violation of civil rights ?…how can one licensing activity be valid, and another invalid ? Or do liberals speak with forked tongues ?

          • Jacob S

            I can answer this! It’s because ID laws affect different ethnic groups differently, specifically, it disenfranchises voters more likely to vote democrat (and many politicians have gone on the record as saying that they are making those laws SPECIFICALLY to prevent non-republican votes). It can be argued that the right to vote is both a constitutional and civil right, but the right to bear arms is ONLY a constitutional right. Basically, the intent behind the laws is different.

          • DHurdle

            The problem with licensing is that the people issuing the license get to decide who meets the requirements. I am sure Obama would not consider me “fit” to have a CC license, although all my true peers would. For instance, the “mentally insane” phrase can mean different things for different people.

          • Jacob S

            Please elaborate on why you wouldn’t be fit to own a firearm and what you mean by the phrase “True peers.” True peers could mean ANYBODY and it sounds like you’re preparing to use the “No true scotsman” fallacy. Additionally, if there are no discussions on the subject, there is no chance to make a law with very precise wording. I would think that even a law specifically stating “People who have shot others whilst unprovoked should not own guns” or “People who have been clinically shown to have unexpected, wild and incredibly dangerous outbursts” shouldn’t own a gun.

            Complaining about broadly worded laws is reasonable and completely understandable, but complaining about the mere possibility of ANY law on the subject, no matter how precise the law is, is just ridiculous.

            Also, people on this website don’t seem to understand how the government works, because I keep seeing people who seem to believe that the president himself has direct control of who laws apply to. The people to worry about are your governors and police forces (and even then, I use the word “Worry” in the loosest sense of the word.)

          • Vandal

            I really don’t care in the least what Metcalf had to say. I’m cancelling my subscription because I’m tired of looking at an AR on nearly every page of their magazine, just like I’m cancelling my subscription to Car Craft because I’m tired of looking at Chevys on every page. These magazines don’t care in the least about you or me or our rights, they print what makes them the most money

          • robin

            i just read the article and i have no idea why rational people have a problem with it. I’m former army, artillery, have had guns since my red ryder, and am a super conservative thinking that firing everyone in congress and the current administration and start over would be a good thing. i hate pelosi, boxer, feinstein and all the other gun grabbers. i live in california and have been here since it was a conservative state. i don’t see why dick got fired or for the apology. i don’t think 16 hrs is anywhere near what you should have to carry a weapon. i personally wouldn’t want some airhead who thinks he KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE A GUN because the 2nd gives him that right around me when something goes wrong.i want someone with LOTS of training. i know you can’t give an inch to the liberals but i don’t think he was. I’m not sure what all the hysteria is about

          • airmecher1

            Jacob, Obamacare requires a photo ID. If you think it doesn’t go to the doctor or hospital and try to get treatment without providing one. Cashing a check requires a photo ID. Getting government welfare, EBT cards and Medicare requires an ID. I suppose those are racist and disenfranchises them too? Get off of the liberal lie and think for yourself. It just makes you look silly.

          • Jacob S

            Photo ID was not needed to cash the checks for my minimum wage job (at an ATM of course), which those who are on assistance and have difficulty finding work are more likely to have. Also, you seem to think that “Obamacare” is universal healthcare, which it is not. The affordable care act is specifically related to insurance, it does NOT allow you to simply go to a hospital and get free healthcare by showing your ID. I cannot, however, speak for the requirements for welfare, so I will (with a grain of salt) take your word on that one.

          • airmecher1

            In Texas where I live they have to treat you if you walk into the hospital. Doesn’t matter a hill of beans about insurance, race, anything. But they WILL copy your ID. I do not think Obamacare is universal insurance, or “single payer”, yet. But that is where they want to take it. If you sign up for any insurance plan, as required now by Obamacare, you will have to show a government photo ID, whether it is to an insurance agency you are buying it from or signing up for medicare. You must give them your social security number and all other personal information to be eligible. If they cashed your check at an ATM how did they know it was you and not someone who stole it from you? That is an odd arrangement.

          • AlMax

            At an ATM, you need your ATM card (something you own) and a PIN (something you know); These are more strong ID than a simple ID card.

          • Joseph L. Frechette

            I have never understood why it is such an imposition on an individual to require them to obtain a photo ID for voting purposes.
            You need one to borrow a book, visit a doctor, produce one if suspected of wrongdoing, go fishing or hunting, cash a check, get Social Security or Welfare, open a bank account, etc..
            The list goes on and on.
            But require one for voting and my God it’s as though you are requiring someone to swim the Channel to get it.

          • Virgial Haas

            Without an Id you can’t prove your identity at the voting booth, the same as you can’t prove that you have a clean background without going through a background check at the gun store.

          • Jesse

            Virgial maybe you need to get out and actually vote because the last time I did which was 3 days ago you did not need an ID. Because it is an infringement on your right to vote.

          • airmecher1

            The court has ruled it is not a rights infringement to require a photo ID to vote. Your argument is specious at best. I went and voted Tuesday and for the first time in my life I had to produce a government issued photo ID that was based on a birth certificate. It was a glorious feeling that our vote was actually going to count. As long as the machine is working right anyway. But I live in Texas which now requires a photo ID to vote just like most of the rest of the nation’s states.

            Obamacare requires an ID. So I suppose that infringes on your healthcare and is racist as well?

          • Joseph L. Frechette

            Here in the People’s Republic of Illinois requiring a photo ID would be a very real infringement of Voter’s Rights.
            First, the dead don’t have photo ID, and secondly, it would ruin the Liberal’s practice of voting more than just once.

          • airmecher1

            Which is exactly why they are needed. Even the UN was shocked at our last general election in 2012 when they were asked to “monitor” some areas by the democrats and they saw they did not have to have a photo ID. What gets me is the areas of our country that have been controlled by liberals for decades are sewers of humanity. If they really wanted to uplift minorities they have done a very poor job of it. Yet the minorities keep on voting for them.

          • Joseph L. Frechette

            You can always tell when Obama or Biden are lying because their lips are moving.

          • Freebyrd1968

            They’re both lawyers aren’t they?

          • Vickers

            > But I do agree with licensing. It does NOT infringe on your rights.

            Except when states like Massachusetts create intentionally confusing, overly restrictive and intentionally inefficient systems to maintain licensing that punish ONLY law abiding citizens seeking to stay within the law and make it easy for well intentioned people to fall afoul of these crappy laws. When these issues are pointed out, Massachusetts officials do NOTHING to address them and leave the people to get screwed. Currently some people seeking new Mass LTC’s are waiting months to get them when the law states it should take 40 days max. Letters to the AG and Governor and other officials go unanswered. People who have expiring LTCs are waiting months to get the renewals and in many cases don’t get them until after the 90 day grace period expires making them felons by letter of law. Again, nothing is done. These are the problems that law abiding gun owners face in some states and that is why people are trepidatious about having the government and gun grabbers decide on what laws make sense.

          • Stephen Erwin

            To a liberal rational discussion means listen to my rant and agree with me or it is not a rational discussion. The good news is that gun owners have been having rational discussions on the issue for at least as long as liberals have been making irrational demands.

            And yes Hillary, Biden, Schumer, Holder, Feinstein, Handgun Control Inc (aka The Brady Campaign) and more are all on the record wanting to ban guns.

          • Mike

            You know neither history or human nature. You do not represent the attitudes of all people. There are many in DC who do want to ban all guns (except for their security details of course). The anti gun people are not just in DC of course. California, New York, and New Jersey will not be happy until we are as defenseless as they are. Evidently, many people in those states think you have a right to be raped, robbed and murdered, but not a right to defend yourself. I encourage all anti gunners to move to those places and all us pro gun people can head to pro gun states.

          • airmecher1

            That which is “licensed” can be taken away at the governments whim. Maybe if there were solid, unbreakable guarantees but even that would be iffy.

          • Damien Leimbach

            Actually, under the NFA, it is completely legal to own rocket launchers and grenade launchers, and they don’t even have to be licensed or registered. The rockets and grenades for them are legal to own as well, you just have to have a $200 NFA tax stamp for each one and have it registered as a destructive device. So as long as you don’t mind the 6-9 month wait for the paperwork and a $200 tax on top of the base cost you can shoot all the RPG’s you want. Perfectly legal, just like short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns and fully auto machine guns. People think these things are illegal but they aren’t. They just have to be registered.

          • Terry Ross

            Licensing is the biggest problem. It gives the government a list of gun owners so confiscation and then complete tyranny is ahievable. Freedom must be protected by widespread anonymous, weapon ownership. History shows that anything less leads to mass genocide by tyrannical governments.

          • paul angel

            You are clearly nuts.

          • paul angel

            You are clearly nuts.

          • Common Sense

            I actually DO own a rocket launcher. A Soviet RPG-7V to be precise. I also own several grenade launchers, a dozen machine guns and SO WHAT! I don’t tell you what religion to believe or how to vote, you don’t tell me what I can have in my collection.

          • Smithfriend

            In 1775, average citizens stored field artillery cannons in their barns. So stop it with the “rocket launcher” arguments. The founding fathers intended for the civilian population to have access to the same weapons as the regulars.

          • NickyD

            THOU SHALT NOT INFRINGE….PERIOD!
            PS: g & a ought to be available in hardware stores, general stores and candy stores. cash and carry.

          • Almax

            Back in the Day Guns and Ammo was in every Hardware and General Store. toy guns in 5 and dimes for the kiddies

          • NRApatriot

            The Second Amendment is NOT COMPLEX!!! The founders said what they meant and meant what they said! If you would quit trying to reinterpret it and read their commentaries on it you would realize they intended citizens to be armed with small arms equal to anything the military has! That includes full auto real assault rifles not semi auto look alikes that some anti gunner labeled as an assault rifle!

          • dump truck

            Nothing is complex about the 2nd amendment. We have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and the rest of our freedoms from the government. I had a great laugh at the firearms to nuke comparisson!!! But whats been read now cannot be undone, and we are all now dumber from reading your opinion.

        • realworldgunowner

          the damage….its so catastrophic! its crazy! My MSR has already been confiscated! 3k yahoo comments?!?!? The officer told me with that many he had no choice…..omg we are doomed!!! (am I being sarcastic enough yet, do you realize how foolish you sound) Oh, and yes, there are absolutely restrictions on the 1st. There are no rights in the Constitution that run without some sort of “restriction”.

          • RowdyD

            I usually don’t reply to childish comments but apparently you do not understand why one can hardly buy ammunition anymore unless you just happen to be very lucky…Obama has been waging war on more gun control since he stepped into office…I guess he realized guns do not work without bullets…He pushes much harder to get more into Office that share his views…
            The article on yahoo is now pushing 8,000 comments and most are from the left wing gun grabbers…
            What VERY few limits on the First Amendment pale in comparison to what we face every day on the Second Amendment…How many times has Obama tried to sneak one passed us??? What was the #1 topic in his first State of the Union this term??? Gun Control!!! Because of his agenda many Vets are refusing to acknowledge any mental health issues out of fear of losing their guns…

          • Jacob S

            Gee, I wonder what happened just a few months before that address, SURELY it couldn’t have been in reaction to a national travesty involving a national travesty involving the death of children. I mean, there’s no WAY an event like that happening a few months prior would effect conversation topics and what people want to hear from him.

          • RowdyD

            Idiot!!! Obama was pushing his agenda WAY before the Sandy hook massacre. Also that freak that killed those kids would have no doubt used explosives if he didn’t have a gun…The fact is Obama exploited not only the dead children but the parents as well as he used them as props to push for gun control…Not only do I think he ised them as the reason he went on and on about gun control, it was also a way to avoid talking about Obamacare…BTW I hardly ever call someone names but if you’re gonna act like an idiot, prepare to be treated like one…

          • Jacob S

            I’m not an idiot, I was refuting a specific example you gave. Out of all the possible examples of Obama being for gun control, the example you chose to use was his response to a national tragedy involving guns. Even if he HADN’T talked about gun control before that, he would have to be an idiot not to bring it up then. I’m simply saying that you could have used an example that wasn’t a response to gun violence. And claiming that he used them as props is just…. Do you SERIOUSLY think that he did not honestly think it was a horrible event? He went into that state of the union KNOWING that gun control was what THOUSANDS of people wanted to hear him talk about.

            Also, the sandy hook shooter used guns that he took from his mother’s collection, which she, likely due to lack of training, did not store properly, which meant he was able to get at them and… Well, we all know the rest. I HIGHLY doubt his mother (a schoolteacher) had explosives lying around. You would also be surprised how difficult it is to get explosives that would be effective for a situation like this in this country. I would strongly recommend you look up “Cracked 6 weird things we learned since 9/11″ on google (yes I know Cracked isn’t the best source) and read item number 4. I could probably find a better source, but they do a great job of wording the fact that situations like Sandy Hook just don’t happen with explosives (in the US at least), and how inefficient for the purpose they are when they DO happen.

          • RowdyD

            I appreciate the response…I apologize for calling you an idiot.
            I guess will have to agree to disagree as I won’t change my stance on this…There is no doubt in my mind that Obama used them as props…He always uses props, it gives the impression each one is 100 percent backing him…When his crusade finished and he didn’t get what he wanted he quit carting these families around…But he is not done…Not by a long shot…
            You have items in your house to make crude but deadly explosives…Sadly teenagers are learning these things. Look what the Boston Marathon bombers used…There have been a couple nut cases, thankfully busted, with pipe bombs filling a backpack, one was at a University…My point is a nut bent on killing people always finds a way…After reading what info was released, his Mom did wrong by not having the guns under lock. Then we will never know, maybe she did and he used a knife to force her to open the gun safe…

          • Jacob S

            Thank you for your retraction. Also, it’s interesting to note that the Boston marathon is actually mentioned in the article I mentioned about as an example of how surprisingly hard it is to EFFECTIVELY make a terrorist explosive attack in the US. And, even if nutjobs DO always find a way, I think it’s better if the way they’re forced to settle on is less effective and causes less harm.

          • tmasset

            realworldgunowner, fair enough, then you won’t mind me duct taping you pie hole shut the next time you walk in to a “crowed theater”. You know because the 1A has a restriction.

        • tereliz

          Actually, there are many restrictions on First Amendment Rights.

          • RowdyD

            I was being sarcastic but if you want to flesh this out I can say the First A. is one of the most broad-minded. Westboro, I refuse to call them a Church, is a great example…Also do we have a President that is constantly trying to restrict the First A.??? No…

        • Joe B

          After reading a good many of these posts it is clear that there are many opinions in these issues, but my concern it that so many of the shooting community have so visciously turned on two good people who have supported and defended gun rights and the second amendment all of their lives. Should every one of you who have a slightly different view be chastised. Can only one opinions be the right one? I know both of these guys and can tell you they are every bit is concerned about our country as I am. When we tear each other apart, destroy lives and careers over a discussion its pretty sad. We need to wise up and get some perspective. Things like this make the antigun community jump for joy. Its fine to debate symantics or legal/historical meanings of a sentence, but the personal attacks on individuals need to stop.

      • Jacob

        All he did was let him retire a little early. Whoa. That’s a tough guy. not.

      • The Ghost of FDR

        Maybe you should just shut up, fuckface.

    • George

      You are protecting second amendment rights, by taking away someone’s first amendment rights.

      • Bcw

        This is a privately owned media company, publishing their magazine as a consumer product. It was Dick’s job to write articles which would enhance the product, he failed to do so and was fired. Welcome to private enterprise.

        This is not a 1st amm. Issue, since a privately owned magazine is not a public forum. Nobody shut Mr. Metcalf up by force, nor was he oppressed by any group or government. He was let go for not doing his job, plain and simple.

        • Jeff Furlington

          If you consider Guns and Ammo a propaganda rag, I can agree that he was let go for not doing his job. If it’s meant to be a place of honest discussion, he was doing his job fine, but the readers let everybody down by being extremists who can’t handle anything but their own beliefs echoed back at them.

      • teufeldritch

        Dick Metcalf is still free to exercise his First Amendment right, just not on the pages of Guns & Ammo. The First Amendment only provides protection from actions of the government. Generally, as there are some exceptions, on private property the First Amendment does not apply. Another note, no ones rights can be taken from them. You can only be prevented from exercising them or you can forfeit them, but they CANNOT be taken from you.

        • gat

          “no ones rights can be taken from them. You can only be prevented from exercising them or you can forfeit them, but they CANNOT be taken from you.”

          So if I have the right to bear arms, but the government PREVENTS me from bearing arms by passing a law, you are saying I still have the right to bear arms? How would you propose I exercise my right to bear arms if the government is preventing me from doing so? Your circle talk is well honed; do you work for the Obama administration?

          • Derek

            gat, what he’s saying is considered to be fundamental to our modern understanding of rights. That is, our rights are native to us, inherent, God-given if you like. Rights are not doled out by a piece of paper, government, or politician. A right bestowed is not a right, as the justification, and ability, exists to remove it. That is a privilege.

            No, each and every human has a right to bear arms for the primary purposes of self-defense and self-determination (rights of Life and Liberty, respectively). Even the poor folks in New York or North Korea. The ability or desire to exercise that right has nothing to do with your having it, BUT if you are coerced into not exercising that right, that would be infringement, as forbidden by our 2A.

            teufeldritch is specifically addressing George’s claim that Metcalf’s 1A rights are being “taken away”. He correctly responds that rights can’t be removed from your being, they can only be suppressed. He also states that Metcalf is still free to express his compromising, apologist views in a public, not private, medium, as a private entity (G&A) has a right to choose to convey, or not, whatever material it chooses (1A again).

          • Seraph

            You have heard of a little thing called the civil war right?

          • teufeldritch

            A person can never lose their rights. You can be prevented from exercising them or a person can forfeit them but they cannot be taken from you. Rights are inherent & are never given. The US Constitution guarantees our rights but does not give them to us as they are inherent. You are born with them & you die with them. Do I work for the administration? HELL NO! It is I that should ask you if you work for the gov’t with your talk of losing rights. Rights can NEVER be lost or taken.

        • Josette Pernu

          “but they cannot be taken from you” except at the business end of an assault rifle then you lose every right you’ve ever had.

          • teufeldritch

            No, you still don’t lose them. You are being prevented from exercising them but you did not lose them. A person can only be prevented from exercising their rights or they can forfeit them but you can never lose them or have them taken from you.

        • sensrbtch

          thasnks 4 the komentit/tors. butt; the problum is dickhed is the author of the articklle. the jerk-off hopos made the statement is JIM BEQUETTE! HE IS THE EDITOR IN STUPIT FOR GUNS AND AMMO. SO read mores karefullie?!

      • Seraph

        It’s the right to free speech, not paid speech. This man’s job was to reflect the opinions of the magazine and it’s reader’s. He failed and was terminated for it. The same as you would be terminated for wearing the uniform of YOUR job and speaking out AGAINST it.

      • David Kachel

        So, “free speech” means he gets to push his way into my living room and paint his leftist slogans on the wall??!!
        Moron!

        • P

          Actually, yes it does. You have a TV and the internet don’t you? By exposing yourself to the outside world, you accept the social contract that every other person accepts. That being, people with views that differ from yours are freely allowed to express them without governmental persecution. I don’t try to control your free speech, and you shouldn’t try to control mine or Dick Metcalf’s.

          People like you can’t even have an open debate on any issue that you find “offensive.” It’s such a crybaby move.

        • Ignatz

          No, he can’t do that. Thank you for pointing out that rights are regulated.

      • Klingon00

        Oh please! 1st amendment doesn’t entitle anyone to a stage nor an audience. Likewise, the 2nd amendment doesn’t entitle anyone to a free gun. We must provide those things ourselves. Being a writer for a magazine is a voluntary arrangement between two private parties that may be terminated for any reason at any time (unless a contract says otherwise). Terminating that agreement in no way harms anyone’s rights.

      • Jacob S

        I’m going through here basically to just point out flaws in people’s ways of thinking and holes in their arguments, and I just wanted to say that, although I DO think it wasn’t a problem that the article ran and I DO think that firing the guy who read it shouldn’t have been done (and I REALLY think that readers of the magazine should have sat and thought about what was being said instead of having a kneejerk panic attack and accusing him of wanting to take away all guns, which the column specifically said was not the case. I’m fine with them disagreeing with it, I just wish they’d actually think about it before howling that he’s a traitor to his country), the act of firing him wasn’t taking away his first amendment rights. The magazine was perfectly within their rights to remove him from their staff, although the fact that the article was okayed first and that he was ONLY fired to protect the magazine’s image when it learned that its readers don’t like to calmly listen to opposing arguments makes the situation feel a bit icky.

        But, again, it WASN’T removal of first amendment rights.

    • sensrbtch

      do u wans dis guy behind u wen it cums time to” stand up for our rights”?

    • Noffie56

      I am very happy to read that Jim Bequette has ended Dick Metcalf’s association with “Guns & Ammo”. I’ll say again, very very happy! I truly hope “Guns & Ammo” never let’s such a terrible article / column on any page ever again. I will continue with the magazine, but if it ever happens again then I will not support it. We have enough stupid people trying to change or take away our 2nd Amendment. We do not need or want an idiot like Dick Metcalf. He has done nothing but harm us and helped the anti-gun A-Holes. Thanks, Noffie56.

    • Gary Schwab

      RetiredGrunt: He’s stepped down, which is to say he fired his self.

    • Renegade

      Did you read the statement at all? Jim, the editor, resigned and the new editor started immediately, instead of January 1.

    • airmecher1

      He resigned. I think that is taking responsibility for it.

    • Faced

      The biggest mistake was not realizing what the founding fathers mean by “well regulated.” Back in the 1700 and 1800′s that was understood to mean “well trained.” Not being regulated by the federal government. The words of the English language change meaning overtime and it’s often forgot what the true meaning and intent was. Dick should have known the true meaning considering his knowledge but apparently he missed the mark. The framers wanted no “regulation” whatsoever from the government. Once you start down the slippery slope there is no stopping.

    • Jinete Largo

      Jim says in the article that he’s quitting sooner than he had planned because of this.

  • Blacksheep1

    You thought it would generate a healthy exchange on gun rights? Have you been hiding under a rock the last few years?

    • Jacob S

      True. Most people reading a gun magazine PROBABLY aren’t the people most likely to take an article like that and act rationally. I’m very glad whenever I come across a comment here that actually does have a response other than “THE GOVERNMENT WANTS OUR GUNS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ROCKET LAUNCHERS WITH NO OVERSIGHT” (I sincerely wish I was exaggerating there) and instead actually admits that this is not a black and white issue.

  • hnoel

    The printing of Mr. Metcalf’s column was what magazines are about. You said it yourself — “A healthy exchange of ideas.” You should be ashamed for firing Mr. Metcalf. Did his column appear with no one’s knowledge? while reading your apology, I felt like I was reading in a high school newspaper. Again, you should be ashamed.

    • Wayne Atchley

      Publishing a pro-gun control article in a gun magazine is NOT a “healthy exchange of ideas,” it’s an idiotic idea, much like publishing a pro-crime idea in a law enforcement magazine. Get a grip.

      • hnoel

        I guess it all depends on how rational and reasonable your audience is.

        • Paul Angel

          Agreed. This audience is completely deaf to the ACTUAL words in the 2nd amendment and the lack of clear understanding as to its meaning. Shocking really.

          • John Baker

            Deaf to the meaning of the constitution in general I’d say. Just sad.

  • matt R

    Im glad Metcalf knows his attitude is not acceptable. I for one think he wrote the “backstop” to get his unemployment ins. I’m not that familiar with his body of work, but I know if its anything like this trash he needed the boot long ago. how about letting him write one more article, explaining himself? Metcalf either doesn’t get it, or never really did.

  • Gregory Smith

    You made the right decision, and I support you. There’s no room for gun control or for compromise. We have to be strong! I don’t care if the liberals scream bloody murder, I don’t care what tactics they lose, learn from your enemy but don’t become him. We already have 20,000 stupid gun laws, there’s no room for anymore laws. Right now the battle must be for more gun rights, not less.
    http://sellingthesecondamendment.com

    • Phoenix Vic

      I haven’t yet read all the comments, but I believe there is a more fundamental mistake made in both the column and in the replies I’ve read so far. The issue hangs on the word “regulated”. I think (and can stand corrected) that in the time the 2A was written, “well-regulated” also referred to well-trained, or well-set, as in “the sights of my Kentucky long rife were well-regulated, set to hit at 300 yards” or some such thing. Metcalf and others completely ignored that and went straight to today’s regulation as issuing binding rules. That is a completely different issue, as I don’t think there was ever a regulation issued or a “compromise” reached that did not infringe on the rights of gun owners. Something was always given up. Certainly if someone is a serial shooter, they shouldn’t own a gun, but if they haven’t “paid their debt to society” why aren’t they still jailed? Also, there are many felonies that have nothing to do with firearms or other weapons; why do these also carry the firearms restriction?
      That being said, if Mr. Metcalf has had as long and distinguised a career as it appears, why don’t we all cut him a little slack? One column, whether mistaken or not, should not inform what he and his entire life have been like. Now, I cannot fathom Planned Parenthood magazine printing a pro-life column or continuing the employment of a staffer who did. I just think everyone ought to step back and take a deep breath about this one.
      Thanks

  • Orkan

    You see, read, and APPROVE the article… and then fire the guy whom wrote it when the heat is turned up? Corporate elitist behavior if there ever was an instance of it. I see things like this and I get answers to why this country is headed down the path it is. It’s not the fault of the politicians. It’s the fault of the citizens. There is no honor anymore. No dignity, no morality, and certainly no responsibility. People like you and metcalf look to the government for answers and protection, when you should be looking to yourselves. Safety is ALWAYS the excuse for the violation of rights. Instead of trying to save everyone, maybe you should concentrate on getting them to save themselves. If people were held accountable in this country, there would be no need for any of this.

    Instead, people point to others as being responsible, no matter what goes on in their lives. If they are mugged, it’s the police’s fault for not protecting them. If they lose their job, it’s their bosses fault for not appreciating them. If they lose their house, it’s the banks fault for allowing them to get that ridiculous loan. If they allow an article to be published that results in massive blowback, it’s clearly the writer’s fault.

    Sure, Dick Metcalf is an elitist that finally let his true colors show. However, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Those that are capable of thinking for themselves can see right through this response, and read the character of those behind it.

    Until personal responsibility is restored, this country will continue to circle the drain. This game of “compromise” that the majority of gun owners have been playing in the last 50 years must come to and end. It’s time for the OTHER side to start compromising with us. That editorial, and clearly your attitude toward gun regulation (infringement) completely ignores the actual source of violence in this country. It is not the guns. It is the PEOPLE using them to commit crimes. If you want blame something for the crime, and regulate something to stop the crimes… then blame and regulate what is actually responsible: The CRIMINALS perpetrating the crimes.

    As for the rest of us, we are law abiding citizens whom have rights granted and protected by God. We are innocent, until proven guilty… not guilty until proven innocent. We do not submit to any government whom wishes to restrict our rights so that the masses of ignorant and irresponsible people can have the ILLUSION of safety.

    Jim Bequette, you should be ashamed of yourself. If anyone is lax in their duties, it would seem to me that it is you. How does someone in your position forget the fate which befell Jim Zumbo when he spit in our eyes? Is your memory that short, or do you simply not take your job that seriously? Let me clear things up for you. There is a line drawn in the sand. The anti’s have been waging a war against our rights for over a hundred years. Are we safer today than we were then? Is there less crime now than there was then? Are people more responsible now than they were then? No. I think not.

    So as you can see, your response to this incident proves my point. No one will do the right thing when it is uncomfortable. They will only do the right thing when it is easy and expedient. You will be suffering the repercussions from this series of events for a long time to come. If you have not learned to not cross the gun owners in this country by now, you will in the coming months. Believe me.

    • Bernardo T. Villanueva

      Jim Bequette is the editor, now he mentioned there will be a new one, named Eric R. Poole. Does it mean, he relieved himself too?

      • A Thinking Person

        Heh. “Does it mean he relieved himself?” Considering how many people are, ahem, *pissed,* it certainly appears that a lot of people have relieved themselves.

        • CRex

          I relieved myself on the last page of my copy :)

      • howler1968

        I believe that many are mis-reading Bequette’s words.
        Rage can put a blinding mist of blood across your vision and understanding.
        Bequette refers to himself as the “editor of ‘Guns and Ammo’”.
        He then states that a new editor move was in the making for awhile but a decision was made to move the chain of command ceremony to Jan 1.
        Bequette writes that the new “editor of Guns and Ammo” is Poole.
        Bequette has resigned.
        Metcalf was terminated.

    • KingGuns

      I for one am disappointed at Mr. Bequette’s apology, and Mr. Metcalf’s early release. Though I did not agree with all of the opinions mentioned in the article, I did agree with some. I see way to many ignorant gun owners at public ranges who scare me that they even own a gun. I would love a minimum requirement of a gun safety class for all gun owners.

      Me. Bequette should have had the guts to stand behind his writer, his right to his opinion, and his position to print it.

      • Jacob S

        THANK YOU. This is the best dissenting opinion of that article I’ve seen all night.

  • John Russell

    Look in the mirror Jim. Do you honestly think the opposition will settle for anything less that confiscation? There is no excuse for what you have done. Period. If you want to save this magazine, you made the call, resign.

  • tbones

    I agree with Jamie JJ on this one. What Jamie is trying to say re: first amendment is that it is a bit hypocritical of G&A to can a guy for speaking about another amendment, not that it was illegal. Most especially when the article was vetted by top brass before publishing.

    On both sides of the political spectrum there are obviously very strong opinions. It is basic psychology that if you wish to persuade an audience, you need to demonstrate that you have given thoughtful consideration to the opposition’s viewpoints. Without a balanced approach, thoughts of any media outlet are immediately dismissed by anyone that does not already concur… so what’s the point? This lends legitimacy to your argument in the minds of the entire audience. What’s wrong with exchanging some ideas? If nothing else, it gives readers some good things to think about next time they engage in this timeless debate themselves.

    As an aside, I venture to guess that Metcalf’s article will contribute more to G&A sales than any other this year. Bad for business? Hardly.

  • Brad Herring

    Too bad you fired Metcalf for speaking his mind. As a life-long gun owner I realize restrictions are a fact of life. I was a bit surprised by Metcalf’s article but agreed with it. Unrestricted gun ownership is not for 21st century America.

    • jbrown

      Brad Herring……..YOU ARE FIRED!

  • Phil

    For those of you calling for Jim Bequette’s resignation, please go back and read the last three paragraphs of his letter. He was already on the way out the door, effective January 1st, and decided to accelerate that departure effective immediately.

    • MM

      Good point, Phil. But it will be instructional for the new editor to read these comments, and NOT to make the same mistake that Bequette just did.

  • James Sellers

    I was very upset when I read the article. I now wish Jim Bequette had
    wrote an editorial statement that it was not the views of G&A. And
    went ahead and published it. Because it is exactly how some of our gun
    owners feel whether right or wrong. I feel it is wrong for the reasons Paul Markel post on his blog on SOTG.

    But it must be faced. And the hypocrisy of it exposed. Because this is how we will lose the battle against the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are not only fighting the loss of our 2ndA but the loss of our Constitutional Republic, our form of governance. Readers we have been under siege openly since 1913! Longer than Metcalf has been writing editorials. Where do you think he gets his ideas?

    He now has exposed a part of us that have been holding us back from success in the poles. People we thought were in league with us and that we could count on to vote against the gun grabbing and worse the destruction of our way of life, our governance, and our culture. We as gun owners now have a responsibility to expose them to unsuspecting but yet undetermined voters and expose the fallacies in their arguments and correct them so we have a united front against the loss of our rights, all of them.

    • Jacob S

      Wow, this reads as incredibly paranoid and doesn’t address any points made in said editorial.

      • James Sellers

        Wow, did you read the editorial? He starts with the 9th circuit courts reasons for limits and regulation of the 2ndA; “shall not be infringed” allows for “meaningful regulations”? He takes the “Well regulated”, which has always been understood as a well trained, armed, and supplied body of citizens, and turned it to mean governmental regulation of any and all aspects of gun ownership. Including when and where and who you can be allowed to defend yourself against. It’s not hard when you look at history to understand what “meaningful regulation” means. Then he ends the editorial as if what he was talking about was ONLY the required 16 hours of training for a CCW in Illinois?

        He also says “I firmly believe that all US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.” Ok, that would be criminal activity and I think we do have laws that cover criminal actions with or without a weapon. Which could be a car, a stick, a rock, a knife and heavens a gun, along with too many others to mention.

        Then “reasonable disease” kicks in and now to be thought of as a “good” citizen you should submit to the democratic majority, 50%+1, and not be governed by law as in a Constitutional Republic of which we are and the 2ndA is apart of, of what is adequate training, and preparation based on the same majorities definition of “responsibility”. Of which history can again show us what is meant by “responsible”.

        And yes we do have regulations for the responsible bearing of arms and conduct, in fact there are TEN. Found in Exodus 20:3-14. I know some people don’t think they matter, but they do. And they are applicable and have been used by the courts in application of laws. No where has history ever proved “reasonable and responsible restrictions” have limited violent crime but it has unarmed law abiding citizens and left them vulnerable to crime and tyranny. But if you prefer to have a large central all powerful government making decisions for you, and running your life then Mr. Metcalf is the man for you.

  • Dean Speir

    Dick Metcalf may have written the offensive drivel, but it was Jim Bequette’s ultimate decision to publish it. Bequette should have resigned immediately upon terminating Metcalf.

    There’s more to this than is being revealed here… Bequette and Metcalf have been joined at the hip for more than three decades, going back to the days of Shooting Times when it was published out of Peoria when Guns & Ammo was still published by Petersen’s in Los Angeles. Whatever happened here, I make it 13-to-five that Metcalf hasn’t gone very far.

  • Don Davis

    Absolutely 100% correct action, in terms of accountability as well as good business and customer service. When a mechanic fails to put oil back in the car and destroys the customer’s engine, he gets fired, first and swiftly, even before the call to the insurance company. This was not just an “opinion”, folks, and if you think so, then you’ve screwed up, too, but that’s OK as long as you’re not a professional op-ed writer. You cannot, however be a professional op-ed writer and misrepresent facts, whether accidentally or purposely, and certainly not to support an opinion that runs directly afoul of the purpose of the publication and the fundamental basis for the readers’ subscriptions. SCOTUS stated clearly on page 23-24 of the Heller decision what “well-regulated militia” means, and that is simply the imposition of training and discipline (military drill) on the portion of the militia (males 18-45) that Congress has the power to call up. (They still can’t just impose this without justification for calling up the militia in the first place.)

  • A Thinking Person

    Shame on you, Mr. Bequette. If anyone made a mistake — and I would argue that no one did — it was YOU for running the commentary in the first place. To fire the writer is absolutely shameful and cowardly. I was ready to applaud your magazine for running an essay that went a little against the typical grain — Metcalfe’s piece was not over the top. He simply opened the door for a conversation about *possibly* looking at the subject of regulations for potential guy buyers. You obviously knew it would spark discussion, even feisty discussion, and yes, even disagreement. Fine. That’s part of the job of a magazine editor — yes, you mostly run pieces that stroke and caress your audience, but you also want to run occasional pieces that spark, even provoke, heated discussion. Otherwise, what’s the point? If you’re only stroking your readers, you’re not doing your job.

    I worked in magazines for 20 years. And my editor liked to say, “If we’re not pissing off some of the people some of the time, we’re not doing our jobs right.” Not ALL of the people ALL of the time, obviously. But if a magazine’s editorial staff doesn’t have the balls to run a slightly controversial piece on occasion, I’d say that staff has lost its mojo. And that starts with you, at the top of the ladder.

    After initially believing that the editors of Guns & Ammo had done something courageous and praiseworthy earlier today, that opinion completely turned around with your apology, retraction, public dissing of Metcalfe, and his subsequent firing.

    Your behavior today is the antithesis of courageous. It’s cowardly, and you should be ashamed.

    • Wayne Atchley

      A. Thinking Person (above) isn’t thinking at all if he believes that running a pro-gun-control article in a gun enthusiast’s magazine is a courageous and praiseworthy thing to do. On the contrary, it’s an incredibly stupid idea.

      • A Thinking Person

        Depends on what you mean by “pro-gun-control.” If the writer is simply saying, “It shouldn’t be easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get their hands on guns,” which is essentially what Metcalfe was saying, then yes, that piece belongs in Guns & Ammo and ANY other publication, for that matter. Too many gun owners hear the words “gun control” and leap to conclusions: “You want to take away my guns and deny everybody the right to buy any gun anywhere.” Nope, not at all. Just want to make it a little harder for those who would use guns for evil, is all. Nothing unreasonable about that.

        If you have kids, would you simply hand them the car keys at the age of 16, without any instruction, without any safety guidance, without making sure they’re ready? Oh, heck, why 16? Why not give them the keys at 12? At 8? At 4? Because of, ahem, *regulations* — reasonable rules that have been put in place by the government, not to take anyone’s rights away, or to cause undue restrictions, or to infringe on their rights. But to a) protect them, and b) to protect the rest of the public. Is there any argument that there should be *some* regulations for drivers? What if someone wrote an essay for Car & Driver magazine that said, “My son was just killed by a drunk driver who had already been convicted of three previous DUIs. Can’t we have a conversation about having stricter laws for this stuff?” Would there be outrage about “car control” and taking away my whatever-amendment rights? Of course not. The very thought of it sounds silly.

        That’s how gun advocates sound when they say refuse to even have a conversation — or they’re just afraid to have it — about guns and regulations. They seem to believe there should be no regulations at all, or if there are any, they should be so slack as to make it easy to buy a gun. Why should it be easy? Guns were invented to injure and kill. Such a device should not be so terribly easy to purchase. Why are you, or so many other Guns & Ammo readers, so afraid to even have a discussion about it? Is it because you don’t even want to think about it? Consider that before you accuse me of not thinking. Thinking sometimes requires work, and sometimes that even includes considering views that may not line up exactly with yours. What a thought. Dialogue. Discussion. Conversation. These things make the world go round. But Guns & Ammo readers want to have nothing of it.

        And that’s unthinking.

        • Inksling9

          Holes are required to be poked into your “thoughts”… A firearm, or any other devise you care to include in that definition, was invented to expel a projectile of specific design, rapidly along a specified path… nothing more nothing less! They were not invented to kill & injure, that effect was & is one of the discovered byproducts of the applied use of those items. So, therefore, these items must be acted upon by some other force to expel said projectile to cause that end result.

          I’m guessing, “thinking” one that you do not live in a “rural area”, let’s say farm country, where the “kids” are routinely operating mechanized equipment at early ages that “city” dwellers, let alone OSHA, would cringe over… how much “training” had they gotten before doing so (including driving vehicles, some as large or larger than a bus), not as much as some do gooders would demand as appropriate.

          Now for the hard part & the rub… who’s going to decide who should or should or shouldn’t have, what constitutes reasonable, you have already condemned as you said: ” Guns were invented to injure and kill. Such a device should not be so terribly easy to purchase.” This is the mantra of the “gun violence, gun control” groups, also pushed by most “mainstream media” outlets amid the urban gun deaths. It is the overwhelming position espoused by the “education system”, in highly populated urban areas, i.e. “guns are evil, dangerous, are only meant to kill”. So is it any wonder that there is a considerable politically active group of supporters of elected officials the likes of Dianne Fienstine (sp.?), Andy Cuomo, Mike Bloomberg, et. al. who “if I could I’d take away everyone’s’ guns, & gun confiscation is an option”. You are delusional if you “think” this is not the end result this coalition wishes to achieve.
          Given the ideological (what a concept) political gridlock currently entrenched among our “trusted leaders”, good luck with the idea of “meaningful discussion”; no one, it seems, is inclined to give anything on any level…

          Your turn, or any one else, to shoot holes in what I have put forth; & that also the rub… who’s going to blink 1st…

          • Jacob S

            I’m sorry, I had serious difficulty reading this after you stated that Guns are not made and were not invented to kill or injure. While it is true that that is the case with gunpowder, guns themselves were SPECIFICALLY designed to be able to propel steel objects INTO something, with that something being a living being (not necessarily a human, but you DID only say “Kill & Injure” and made no reference to whether you were talking about people in specific.) Although it is true that some guns today are made only for target practice (the only remotely reasonable “non-killing” use for a gun) it is a fact that their original design and purpose was to inflict grievous physical harm on people and animals. You basically made a “Guns don’t kill people, people do” argument.

            And yes, the question of who decides what is and isn’t reasonable is IMPORTANT. Which is EXACTLY why the article that was published in the magazine is important. We need to have serious discussion on who decides and controls the regulations, but that can’t happen if one side of the issue refuses to talk about the possibility of ANY regulations.

          • Inksling9

            My offering was a reply to “A Thinking Person” maybe you missed the line where I stated right after (quoting) ["what constitutes reasonable, you have already condemned as you said: "Guns were invented to injure and kill. Such a device should not be so terribly easy to purchase."]. The injure or kill came from his or her post; my opening was in part ” to expel a projectile of specific design, rapidly along a specified path… nothing more nothing less!” I continued with “They were not invented to kill & injure, that effect was & is one of the discovered byproducts of the applied use of those items. So, therefore, these items must be acted upon by some other force to expel said projectile to cause that end result.” Yes, that end result being to injure or kill; so if you honestly believe a firearm, however you care to define it, can solely on it’s own, devoid of an external initiating sequence, accomplish that operation, then I am guilty of “You basically made a “Guns don’t kill people, people do” argument.”

            Let’s not split hairs over the “projectile” as they were & are not only steel, even today, or the “specified path” that projectile takes, as that path is not the projectile’s choice. The last I was aware it did not have a mind & thought process of its own.

            As for your last paragraph, geez, wow, the happy “talking points”, we need “stricter regulations”. For the “et. al.” bunch that means 1 objective: the permanent ban of weapons as listed by Cal. Sen. Feinstein in her proposed Assault Weapons Ban; Cuomo & Schumer of New York have already stated that confiscation is an option. Thus you have the long & short of their serious reasonable discussion; is it any wonder that “one side of the issue refuses to talk about the possibility of ANY regulations.”; as I said any one who thinks that is not their “end game” is delusional. I’m sure you have your “little list” of regulations you feel are “necessary” reasonable even….

          • Jacob S

            Saying that “If any regulations are passed, things are going to get worse and worse and we’ll lose are guns” is a slippery slope fallacy.

        • Randy Francis

          It’s interesting to see some of the responses here. I see a lot of “guns are only for hunting” or “guns are only for target shooting” or “guns are only for personal protection” attitudes”. And I see some alleged gun owners defending Metcalf as he is claiming that “gun owners need to be properly trained” and yet I don’t see any of them saying that “users of the First Amendment should be properly trained before they express their opinion”. In a perfect world guns owners should have proper training, I doubt anyone denies that. However, we don’t need “gun experts” like Metcalf lecturing to us about training when I suspect most subscribers and readers of Guns and Ammo probably already have training. So why the lecture? Sounds like someone is back tracking. Why? So they don’t sound like us “extremist gun owners” or so they can sell a column to a magazine? The buck stops at Bequette or does personal responsibility for bad decisions not matter anymore in the gun community. I returned my latest subscription notice today to cancel. I will not purchase any more Guns and Ammo magazines. The magazine no longer reflects my values as a lifetime gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. It’s been a good run but you will no longer get my business. Good luck as other gun owners may be more forgiving than I but what has happened is unforgivable in my eyes.

      • John Baker

        It wasn’t “pro-gun control” it was pro-second amendment.

        As people like to explain “well regulated” meant “running well” and that was exactly Dick Metcalf’s point.

        And none of you can summon up an argument against what he actually wrote.

        • annoyed

          I can.

          To mention just one thing, he said felons shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Now, who could possibly argue with that?

          Well, it sounds great until you realize who’s included in that statement. It used to be that only DANGEROUS felons were barred, but that’s long gone. Now a businessman who has been convicted of insider trading or cheating on his taxes is banned for life from owning a gun. Or someone who hacked someone else’s website, or committed identity theft. Someone who has never physically harmed another person in his life is deprived of the means to protect himself and his family. How is that just? Or necessary?

          And isn’t it a little “cruel and unusual punishment” to force someone to walk the streets unprotected and even live in fear in his own home because of a white collar crime?

          Such a scenario only makes sense to the gun grabbers. Their plan is simple: create a category that unthinking lemmings will want to be unarmed, and then try to fit as many people as possible into that category.

          • therealguyfaux

            What you’re going to need is a good sympathetic plaintiff in a civil-rights case who can make that argument.

            As it stands now, the only thing you can do in that scenario is “petition for relief from pains and penalties,” i.e., clemency, and that’s a lawyer’s full-employment act– have you any idea how mch that costs to pursue?

            Make a 14th Amendment equal-protection/privileges-and- immunities argument that the person is being discriminated against without a rational basis.

          • Jacob S

            I would like to state that guns are not the only form of protection. Invest in a taser, some mace, a maglight, or any of a variety of other forms of items designed solely for self defense (instead of at the very least originating from the design of something made to be used offensively.) Heck, carry a knife around. They even make throwing knives you can practice with. Being unable to own a gun in NO WAY means having no way of protecting yourself.

            I do agree that only violent felons (with possibly a few SPECIFIC non-violent crimes that could suggest violent tendencies included) should be banned from possessing guns (as opposed to white collar criminals) but please do not make statements or insinuations that are patently untrue.

          • Trey VonZimmer

            Yeah, that’s it, carry a knife. The only problem with that is the fact that in many jurisdictions, carrying one suitable for personal defense will get you cuffed and stuffed with a felony charge.

          • Jacob S

            I can’t help but notice that you ignored all of the other myriad of examples I gave.

        • John Taylor

          You need to re-read the article. Metcalf said:

          “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

          “… citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory [gun control] laws.”

          ” ‘Well regulated’ [in the context of restricted by law -- see above] is, in fact, the initial criterion of the [2nd] amendment itself.”

          • John Baker

            I did read it. Moreover, I understood it. You are trying unsuccessfully to split hairs and ignore most of what he said. First as a matter of constitutional law his argument is well founded and even Antion Scalia has had to agree. Regulatory laws are constitutionally valid. Second, to regulate is to establish rules and run things. Tell me, exactly how does one have a well run militia without rules? What does “running well”mean? Metcalf’s point is that running things well means making sure that people know what they are going and that irresponsible people don’t have weapons. Ok, if you think that’s bad fine. But since the constitution does call for running things well how should we do that?

          • John Taylor

            Rights are unalienable. They predate the constitution. Regulatory laws infringe on those rights, by definition.

            The USSC does not get to ‘regulate’ the constitution, or individual rights. That they exceed their authority does not mean their opinions are valid — they’re not even relevant.

            The constitution does not call for “running things well” anywhere. If it did, most politicians would be tried for treason.

            “Who insures that things run well?” Well, certainly not I and, if it’s all the same to you, not you either.

    • Jacob S

      Another good comment.

  • LDO

    It’s great that he apologized, but the shot has been fired and the Anti-Gunners will run with story and it has caused irreparable damage to our fight to maintain our right. This can’t be taken back and even firing the writer will not change or lessen the damage done to the gun owners and supporters that this poorly written and ill advised publishing of this article has and will cause in the future.

  • Mike Judge

    Bring back Richard Venola, His stories were educational and entertaining. Bring him back or I’m ending my subscription.

  • Toby Self

    I, for one, appreciate that you owned up to making a poor choice and that it has resulted in the termination of the writer. I also appreciate that you have taken responsibility by advancing your own exit and I wish it were otherwise. The readers, I am sure, have made it clear that being a purist where 2nd Amendment rights are concerned is how it has to be and unfortunately this means that we will all miss out on some intresting discussions of the possible compromises between the folks who want more gun control legislation and the folks who want to avoid what is seen as any loss of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Perhaps in the future there could be this type of conversation by advancing it as a”discussion” of possibilities and not the magazine or it’s writers taking a hard stance one way or other – just a discussion. Anyway, ghood luck with your future endeavors and thanks for being an honest person.

  • no_more_2A_in_CA

    Apology NOT accepted! Dick Metcalf and Jim Bequette should go find jobs with Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Gabby Giffords PAC, or perhaps the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. They may fit right in.

    Incredible stupidity spewed forth from this editorial and the gun-grabbing liberals and their liberal media supporters are ecstatic over it!

    When will conservatives, Republicans, gun owners, and gun-rights advocates, learn that this a a fight of ABSOLUTES? All or nothing. Liberals/Democrats/Progressives do not give up their principals for the sake of just “getting along” or to avoid offending their political opposition! For instance, could one possibly imagine the head of Planned Parenthood (the abortion providers of the Democrat party) ever writing an article talking about how the so called “right to lifers” may have valid points about the killing of unborn babies!! HELL NO THEY WOULD NEVER WRITE SUCH AN ARTICLE!!!! Every single freedom-loving gun owner needs to wake the hell up. DO NOT TRY TO APPEASE THE GUN-HATING OPPOSITION!!! They will never give up their quest to take our Second Amendment rights from us. NEVER!! It took the same people a hundred years(ish) to pass radical socialized “health care” in this country. You think they will stop trying to take our guns if we just play nice with them???

    Our civil rights as outlined in the Second Amendment have been severely “infringed” upon to an extent far beyond anything the founding fathers ever envisioned. I say no more concessions to the gun-hating, Progressive Liberal Fascist Marxist extremists who despise us. NO MORE GUN LAWS, PERIOD, and unlike Obama’s “if you like it you can keep it” lies, I absolutely mean it!!

    • Paul Angel

      CA is an odd place. It is true your rights have been infringed upon due to gun bans. I think what Metcalf was going after was licensing, etc. Not bans. I have no problem with licensing laws, but do disagree with bans.

  • Annie Layer

    Mr. Bequette, you are wrong and Mr. Metcalf is right. You put profits ahead of moral and civic responsibility. How many dead children are there because of irresponsible gun owners and mentally ill guns owners? Thousands. And if you can live with the deaths of children, you have no soul.

    • Wayne Atchley

      Annie, you should go back to reading “Mother Jones” and “The Huffington Post.” You have no place here.

    • gr0mblE

      How many dead men, women, children are there because of misguided laws that stripped them defenseless? How many more need to die before people wake up?

      Please, pull your head out of the sand. Restricting the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves does absolutely nothing to curb violence or keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

  • Munky

    I’m living proof that one can be both a Liberal AND have belief in the second amendment…

    However, I’d like to know what many of you think the second amendment means?… Oh, and how many of you who believe in government acknowledging “god” given rights yet believe government should keep church and state separate? BTW, it’s that separation that allows your church(es) to enjoy tax exempt status… That includes protections to those who absolutely do not believe in religion… Anyway… I’ve gone off point.

    The fact is, the statement found in the second amendment is a bit open ended… It does not clearly define what kind of arms can be kept. It simply says “arms”… I’m also assuming that many of you would agree that it would probably be a bad idea to allow everyone to own nuclear or biological weaponry… So, many of you same people that are arguing that regulation of the second amendment is wrong, you already believe in regulating weaponry and what can be owned by whom. So that makes you a hypocrite even if you don’t think so.

    • mike

      As a liberal and a gun owner, must put you in a difficult position, since your entire party seems to want to take guns away from the public. Do you have any idea what a militia was in the revolutionary war? The militia was the minuteman, the farmers, the bakers, the blacksmith. It was the everyday citizen. Not a standing military. I believe that there have to be exceptions of gun ownership. Mental patients, convicted criminals. But really, it seems no law stops them from acquiring guns, so why not arm everyone. I don’t think many of these crazy people that have shit at the sheep in movie theaters, malls, schools would be so inclined to do so knowing that everyone may be armed. They chose those targets for a reason, most victims with little chance for them to defend themselves. I believe in the first amendment. He decided to run with this story knowing the controversy that would come of it. Now after the magazine buying public has spoken out, he has now asked for forgiveness. Not for his decision. but to save his neck as an editor. Guns and Ammo is about making money. Pure and simple. Lets be honest about that. When the readers revolt, they lose money. easy math. If he had any balls he would resign himself. I don’t read this magazine to be berated about my stance on gun control. I will speak with my wallet and go elsewhere.

  • mike

    Jim Bequette is the one who should also be fired. He failed in his job to properly vet material going in this magazine. Giving an ground to gun right protesters is essentially waving the white flag of surrender, and I for one will never wave it. I have cancelled my subscription and will never purchase another magazine from this group. They have also glossed over reviews of guns and equipment for years. The only reason I still subscribed was for articles on upcoming guns and gear. Not for the gun reviews. I pretty much rely on You tube and internet reviews of guns along with gun forums to get the true rview of a weapons performance. Gun owners tend to be brutally honest about what they like and dislike about a firearm. This is a very sad day

  • I vote pro gun

    Good for him for owning up to it and firing those involved. Way to go!

    • Stephen Erwin

      He was involved too. He approved it.

  • L84Cabo

    I really don’t understand this logic. Get rid of the writer but keep the guy who approved publishing the article? It seems to me that Mr. Bequette’s judgment is just as impaired as Mr. Metcalf’s.
    This is such typical corporate America B.S. Fire the employee but not the leadership that he was working under and who approved his work. It’s absolutely disgusting to operate in this manner and to think that Bequette is any less responsible because he didn’t actually pen the document.

  • Dennis Johnson

    I accept this apology. G&A have ALWAYS been pro Second Amendment. It was a bad decision and I expect it to NEVER happen again. All you haters need to back the F up and respect a magazine that has since 1958 has not only supported our love of guns,but has done more than any other magazine to support us. This single mistake should not make them the enemy. How quickly you turn on a magazine that is one of our friends.

  • Dominic Delia

    I forgive you on one condition: Never, Ever, say “Let me be clear” ever again. I just can’t stand to hear that since Obama took office…….

  • Ben In Indiana

    I will say that when I read the article, I was done with G&A. I am glad that you are cleaning up this disaster and I will probably renew, instead of cancel. This heaped on top of calling battle rifles “MSR’s” got under my skin and I expect most to not understand the right, but G&A??? The 2A is a right not given to us by the Constitution or the Feds, it is only affirmed by them, we have the right regardless.

    Thank you for your attempt to clean up the mess.

  • ebookout

    Should have never been published, Both are at fault.

  • Charlie Smith

    I guess his constitutional rights of Dick’s free speech does not apply here. Whats wrong with training the use of weapons, if you go into the military you are trained extensively on your weapons you use to avoid accidents. I did not read where he said that your rights were being limited. Some people with guns need to be regulated such as convicted felons, nut cases, gangs, druggies, & evil people. What I don’t agree with is politicians or government telling a law biding citizens that they can’t have weapons. I don’t think this is what Dick was saying.

  • T.D. Honeycutt

    Well, I just read the column this morning, and I thought it was well-reasoned, and appropriate. All the Bill of Rights have limitations, including the Second. Unreasonable search and seizure? Get a warrant. The Second Amendment doesn’t mention taking away the right to keep and bear arms from convicted felons. That’s something that everyone supports, right?

    • lgbent

      Some felonies are not violent crimes such as white collar crimes.

      • EdBowie

        All felonies carry a sentence of more than one year in prison. The idea that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of anyone in prison to ‘keep and bear arms’, is sheer lunacy.

  • kakello34

    What we all need to keep close attention to is that a left wing agenda is frantically attempting to infiltrate the lives and rights of everyone. Everywhere you look or any tv show you watch, you are being exposed to hidden clues that over time, indoctrinate us all. This is not the hope and change the country needs, and when you don’t agree, you are racist, close minded, bible thumper, or a woman hating bigot; all Obamabot talking points.

  • gglaubrecht

    Wow – our side is not short on idiots. The Brady Bunch is linking Dick Metcalf’s column. The damage is done. I have no use for Guns & Ammo.

  • Robert Settles

    For those of you who didn’t read the whole statement and are wondering about the effects this will have on Jim Bequette, he is stepping down as editor. I strongly disagree with Mr Metcalf’s position. However, I wonder why gun rights supporters can’t even carry on a civil discourse with each other on this subject? There are questions out there. Should convicted felons be able to own firearms? How do we keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill without infringing on their rights? Should there be age restrictions on gun and ammo purchases? Are we gun owners and Bill Of Rights advocates willing to ask and answer these questions?

    • Pase’ Doble

      Robert please, once you burn that bridge the bridge is gone. The goal is disarmament. From ’34 till now there has been a constant – again CONSTANT – tiny infringement here, a bigger one there. You know that. Folks in NY are getting arrested for an extra round, ONE extra round. This is not about civil discourse. When the anti’s “appease” us by saying, well it’s only machine guns, it’s only 7 rounds out of 17, it’s only 3 inches longer a barrel and we agree that “yeah, well if we ONLY have to give that, well ok” we lose every time. How about the anti’s come to the table with, “How about we give back the regulations and taxes from the 1934 NFA”. THAT is never ever gonna happen. You wanna talk guns? talk to other gun owners not hoplophobes. And yes we gun owners are absolutely willing to answer any and all of your questions….. in a Constitutional context. Be blessed.

      • John Baker

        No you aren’t. If you were we would not be having this discussion here. None of you “answered” what Dick Metcalf had to say. You freaked out and pissed your pants instead.

        What a shameful display of cowardice.

      • Robert Settles

        Thanks for proving my point. I understand your passion and belief in the Second Amendment. However you didn’t answer a single question I posed. You simply fell back to the “Give No Ground” defense. I am not talking about trying to sway the anti gunners, I am talking about the differences in our ranks. Unlike the liberals and gun grabbers, we should be able to discuss differing points of view and come to a conclusion in a Constitutional context as you said.

        • Pase’ Doble

          Line 9. ” you wanna talk guns? talk to other gun owners not hoplophobes. OK. Already against the law for felons to have guns. I’m convinced there are so many laws about guns so if you break one(1 extra round), instant felon, no guns for life. Mentally ill is a tough one for me… how do you know? Yes there should be age limitations but I’m thinking when majority is reached. Done and Done. The editorial was put out for public consumption. The damage is done Robert. This is a fight for a Natural Right, not a civic exercise. This article went straight into anti-gunners playbook. As I said, now 3 times… “you wanna talk guns…” And do not paint me as simple or singular in viewpoints. I am first born in this country of LEGAL immigrants(a rare breed) from a country that you are not ALLOWED a firearm…… So what’s your point?

    • John Baker

      Yup, and worse long term trends do not support gun rights.

      We don’t convince anybody by burning anybody who offers a different opinion. Quite the opposite, long term this kind of crap will kill us.

      • sk

        Let’s hope so!

  • rwee2000

    And that article will be used by every anti-gun forever. See even Guns and Ammo says we should restrict guns. In fact they are already doing just that.

    You certainly gave the anti-second amendment people a lot of ammo. I can hear it now “Even Guns and Ammo think we need to restrict guns.” “Guns and Ammo says we need more regulation.” It’ll go on and on.

    The damage YOU have done will take years to repair, Supreme Court ruling
    not withstanding. From now on every anti-second amendment person will
    point to “Guns & Ammo” and say one of best know magazines on guns agrees with us

    The BEST thing you can do now is recall all the magazines that haven’t been sold, Replace the the online version and where “Backstop” was replace it with a statement, “Do to the many flaws contained in this opinion piece about gun control. Flaws concerning the Amendments to the Constitution, specifically the First and Second Amendment this article was removed. It also should be noted that the views expressed do NOT represent the views of Guns and Ammo.”

    It would be a very small step in repairing the damage you caused.

  • Ben Whalen

    Mr. Metcalf’s article is completely reasonable and in no way reflects a shift by Guns & Ammo’s staunch defense of the Second Amendment. We’re not allowed to, without infringement, own automatic weapons. We’re not allowed to, without infringement, carry concealed weapons. We’re not allowed to, without infringement, do most everything in our lives. Mr. Metcalf’s statements reflect a majority of American’s opinions regarding ownership of firearms: You should be trained in the craft of firearms before owning/carrying one. He committed no sin, and is advancing the policy of responsible gun ownership across a broader spectrum of the American population. Mr. Metcalf should be lauded, not crucified.

    • kakello34

      I’m perfectly capable of training myself or attending training on my own without the gov’t telling me what to do. Then once, they tell you what to do, they have to charge fees and other taxes on the rules that tell you what to do. You give someone with an agenda (where their is always more than meets the eye) an inch and it always becomes a bridge to something more extreme. You watch Obamacare become a single payer system if Dems control congress next year.

    • gr0mblE

      There is a big difference between being free to do something and be allowed to … for a price, of course! There is also a big difference between doing something out of common sense and being required by law to.

  • SPOTLIGHT44

    the way to fight back on 2nd amendment gun grabber articles like this is to email the advertisers

    • David Kachel

      No, the way to fight back is to send the magazine to the same black hole where “New Coke” resides. Cancel your subscriptions, never buy another issue. G&A needs to die a quick and horrible death so that lefty publishers in the future will never think of doing this again.

  • Jen

    It isn’t your fault that it didn’t generate a healthy exchange. That is the fault of your misguided and uneducated readership, who clearly have swallowed the gun lobby’s rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. God forbid a strong voice in the gun industry should be the voice of common sense. You should have promoted Metcalf, not fired him.

    • kakello34

      Here we go, here comes the Obamabot, on time as charged! You talk about common sense, but show me the common in your sense, common on your side?

  • David Kachel

    I just read about the Metcalf editorial scandal. It is good that he was fired but that is DEFINITELY not enough.

    Far worse is the offense admitted to by Jim Bequette when he knowingly published the editorial, thinking it would “generate a healthy exchange”!

    Bu!!sh*t! What he thought was that he agreed with Metcalf and that he and Metcalf might be able to convince the stupid right wing extremists who read his magazine to see the collectivist light, and then just like any lefty caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, he backpedalled furiously while pointing a finger only at Metcalf.

    Mr. Bequette and any other left-leaning staff members at G&A need to be gone.

    But if he is fired, I will likely never know. Because I have purchased my last issue of G&A, ever!! It should have been impossible for such a thing to happen. Rot always begins at the top.

  • Paul Angel

    Sad really. Dick expressed a rational view of reality and lost his job over it. I’m sure he realized this would happen. I guess the gun community does not agree with the first amendment or the fact that some people have other opinions that might disagree with their own. It is also obvious the gun community has a very biased, uninformed understanding of constitutional law and history. Wow. I’m very disappointed with this community. You are as close minded and biased as your liberal enemies. Sad really.

    • kakello34

      The Urban Dictionary definition of an Obamabot:

      An Obamabot typically can’t define, explain or defend Obama’s policies. If an Obamabot is pursued or confronted about his or her seeming blind loyalty and lack of knowledge, he or she will typically launch a ‘counter attack’ (to a perceived attack) and accuse those who differ as racist, ignorant, hateful, etc. and/or will become resentful, indignant, insulting, and even threatening (in cases which are most extreme).

      • Paul Angel

        I can explain Dick’s views quite clearly, if you’d like. I’m not any kind of ‘bot. The reality is that the 2nd amendment – the WHOLE 2nd amendment is complex and open to some kinds of regulation, not restrictions per say or bans, but regulation. Define, “well-regulated”, “militia”, “arms”, “being necessary to the security of a free state”. Not easy actually. Do you think you should be able to own rocket launchers too? And without society even knowing who you are? Wow. We should just trust you.

        • David Kachel

          Yeah, Obamabot for sure.

          • Paul Angel

            Are you mentally ill? I’m asking rational questions debated by constitutional experts for years. You want to ignore them to “get your way”. I own a pistol and am a CCW licensee. I agree with our ability to defend ourselves, but there are and should be some limits. You just want to ignore the whole issue.

          • Libdestroyer77

            Keep digging that hole, Obamabot.

          • gr0mblE

            It is sensible to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent, felons, etc… but we already have systems for that in place.

            A law-abiding citizen’s right to own whatever firearms they choose should not be restricted, period.

          • BurtMacklin23

            What about a law-abiding citizen’s obligation to own and operate a deadly weapon responsibly? Why shouldn’t that be regulated?

          • gr0mblE

            Do I believe deadly weapons should be handled responsibly? Absolutely. I took that responsibility on when I decided to own a firearm. I educate myself. I practice regularly. I store my weapons safely.

            I believe other gun owners should do the same and it is something that should be both expected of and taught to new gun owners.

            That does NOT mean it is the _government’s_ responsibility, though. Many are so quick to push responsibility off on the government – it is no wonder they are out of control and in every aspect of our lives!

          • BurtMacklin23

            I find your response very strange. The government regulates public safety. Owning and operating a firearm would fall under public safety. Just like operating a motor vehicle. Not saying states can’t have their own laws, but there should be a baseline (mandatory gun insurance, required classes, a safety test before you get a license and subsequent test, both written and practical for concealed carry etc.)

          • gr0mblE

            I’m not saying governments shouldn’t set sensible minimums – they already do.

            My point was that it isn’t the government’s job to make sure we all make smart choices… the responsibility for that must fall to each individual. That cannot and will not ever be legislated.

            My suggestion was that knowledgeable and responsible gun owners need to teach those around them at the personal level and in their community on how to go beyond those sensible minimums.

            Think about this: you mention driving… how easy is it to get a license? Buy a car? Very easy and driving is the most dangerous thing most people ever do. (and just look at how blind most are to that fact… at least until they are in a serious accident!)

            What does the licensing process do to cultivate good drivers? Not much. Learning to drive _well_ requires practice and experience and the process works best when the new driver has a mentor to guide them… I am suggesting the same kind of mentorship for new gun owners.

          • BurtMacklin23

            You make some very sensible points, but I fear we are in danger of veering off topic. While the government is not responsible for making sure I make smart choices, its surely guilty of trying really really hard to make me choose ‘correctly.’ Like it or not, there are tons of laws that govern your ability to make the wrong choice. For instance, I can’t just cross the street anywhere I want can I? I have to stay within the big white lines, and I can only cross when the little white man tells me to, otherwise I can be punished. The government makes tons of laws that place my behavior within an acceptable range, although within those lines I certainly have freedom to act how I like.

            So with all that being said, I’d like to amend your statement to ‘The government’s job is to weigh the public interest and make laws governing behavior that strike a balance between infringing on individual rights of choice and public good.’

            So assuming we don’t have to argue the above point, we can get back on topic. There is already precedent for restricting constitutionally guaranteed rights when the public good is endangered. I have freedom of speech, but I can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Why should guns be different?

            The argument that gun owners should be allowed to police themselves seems to boil down to ‘I have a constitutional right to operate a firearm irresponsibly.’

          • gr0mblE

            Several things…

            First,infringing on personal freedoms is one thing, infringing upon constitutional freedoms is another. The former is up for discussion, the latter is not.

            Second, the “yelling Fire!” argument is misapplied and flawed to begin with. It is not speech that is legislated in that instance, it is the consequences of that speech. Yelling fire may be totally justified… or the act may be committed and pass without incident. What is at issue is inciting a panic… that is what the law prohibits. It is (already) the same with firearms. Break the law, lose your right to own and/or carry. That said, barring any criminal or mental restrictions, and individual’s rights to own and carry firearms should not be infringed upon, period!

            As for your comment about “a constitutional right to operate a firearm irresponsibly”… well, that is flat out wrong and offensive to even suggest. If that is what you took from my comments you really missed the boat.

            The fact is there is a big difference between setting minimum standards and trying to legislate “proper” behavior… the first is permissible, the second is totally misguided and a threat to the freedoms our country was built upon. Someone’s personal idea of what constitutes “public good” does not trump another’s constitutional rights.

        • kakello34

          See, now YOU I would talk to. You made your case without calling anyone biased or uneducated.

          • Paul Angel

            I did ask if he were mentally ill though out of frustration. I just want to have a rational discussion of a complex issue.

  • Chris

    This will not be forgotten, it was a grave mistake.

    • Paul Angel

      You sound like a psychopath about to commit a crime. I hope not.

      • David Kachel

        And you sound like a pathetically typical leftist.

        • Paul Angel

          Nope wrong again!! I’m a gun owner and CCW licensee. The 2nd amendment is complex and difficult to interpret. You want to ignore this and the first clause and react emotionally and ideologically. I just want us to figure out what it really means. Have you ever read the WHOLE amendment??

          • RayinOK

            The 2A is not complex, and neither is it difficult to interpret. Metcalf’s specious argument that the word “regulated” in the context of the 2A has anything to do with regulations or regulatory agencies is inane. From Dictionary.com: “Regulated” means
            ….4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
            “Regulars” are regular army, using the state of the art arms, and a well regulated militia would be one that is well armed and equipped.

  • puckersnot

    Damage done. No turning back on that now. You gave ammunition to the gun control advocates and for that, your business has been severely impacted. While I respect the apology, in business you never, ever, made a conscious decision to infuriate your customers.

  • Mike Connie Duncan Norrell

    When a mistake is made, an apology is necessary. Your’s is taken and accepted. Your attitude of “the buck stops here” is admirable and uncommon in the world today. Obviously, you had already planned to leave in January by your comment. I don’t know if your departure is being hastened by the owners of G&A or not, I just hope for a smooth transition and a continued strong stance on 2A.

    • David Kachel

      You are easily fooled.

  • Seraph

    Bravo Jim Bequette. Thank you and your company for your swift and decisive actions. You have regained some of my respect. Please express my sincere opologies to Mr. Metcalf for his recent loss, but I would also like to impart to him that the american freedoms are NOT subject to sacrifice. Defending america comes in many forms. For me, first and formost is defending the freedoms granted to her legal responsible citizens.

  • Drew

    I am embarrassed to be even remotely associated with the readership of Gun & Ammo. More and more, they come across as silly extremists and detract from the credibility of their movement. Mr. Metcalf was completely correct. He didn’t advocate that gun ownership should be curtailed. He advocated training. Shouldn’t proper training of gun use and safety be a goal that all law abiding gun owners support? We always read about the idiot who shoots himself or someone else while cleaning a loaded gun, or inadvertently injures someone at a gun range.

    The extremism lies in the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Yet, isn’t lying a form of speech? Isn’t lying under oath a punishable crime at both the state and federal level? Ever hear of perjury? 45 U.S. Senators voted to remove President Clinton from office because he committed perjury. Where in the First Amendment does it say that the freedom of speech does not include lies? Did every Republican senator who voted to remove President Clinton from office violate his First Amendment rights? An intelligent analysis of the Constitution recognizes that this 200 plus year old document is an operational framework for American society, not a step by step instruction manual. Can we agree that individuals should not have the right to bear nuclear weapons. Aren’t missiles “arms?” We can all agree that convicted felons and the mentally ill should not bear arms. Did I miss a footnote to the Second Amendment with these exception?
    I always thought Guns & Ammo was about responsible gun ownership. Mr. Metcalf’s point was that we don’t just hand the keys to a car to an untrained driver, why should we promote such irresponsible behavior with gun owners. The longevity of the U.S. Constitution can be attributed to societal common sense interpretations that have allowed the document to evolve as society evolves. Stop being your own worst enemy. You should all apologize to Mr. Metcalf for your knee jerk reactions. I am a proud gun owner who is ashamed of his brethren.

    • annoyed

      “We can all agree that convicted felons and the mentally ill should not bear arms.”

      No we can’t. I completely disagree that someone who is convicted of a white collar felony such as insider trading or cheating on his taxes should be deprived of the right to bear arms to protect himself. Such a person has never physically harmed another person, and there is no reason why he should be deprived of the ability to defend his life from a violent criminal.

      • Drew

        Congratulations on missing the point. You might want to make a u-turn and take a right at the next light. Just to clarify, the point is that the text of the Second Amendment does not contain ANY exceptions: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Should a five year old have the right to carry a loaded gun? A literal interpretation of the Second Amendment would permit such an occurrence. Can we agree that a result like that is absurd? Let me guess, you have a friend that…Sorry I didn’t break down every felony into violent/non-violent/white collar etc. But tell me, where does the Second Amendment state that it is acceptable to infringe upon the rights of incarcerated violent felons. If you read the Second Amendment literally, the government should allow prisoners in jail to have guns. See what I’m getting at now? Are you having an A-ha moment.

    • micko77

      I advocate training. I expect those with whom I choose to shoot to be trained. I encourage those who wish to own a firearm to obtain knowledge about the safe uses of them. I expect people who use power tools to know what they are doing. I would equally advocate that one who would pursue such an endeavor learn from someone with knowledge of such tools. I DO NOT believe that governmental bodies should be the arbiter of that training. Let’s look at one simple angle, economics. In IL, about which Mr. Metcalf, (whom I have shaken hands with and whose land I have participated in the shooting sports, and he has critiqued some of my writings) is commenting on… the State requires $150 for the CCW permit, requires 2 days of traing at an expected cost of $150/day, and possession of a firearms owner ID (FOID), that’s $460.00 minimum cash outlay not including the gun and ammunition, at least another $300. So we are well over the $700 mark to defend oneself. tell that to the folks on a fixed income, on public assistance, disability, or low wage-earners. In effect, they are being told that they must choose between defending their lives legally, or taking a bullet because a bureaucrat knows what’s best for him/her. Now go volunteer to say this at town halls around the state: “You can’t afford to live”. See how that flies.

      • mickos_special_friend

        Quick observation – micko77′s comment looks like it was written by a 12 year old with a higher than average vocabulary while Drew’s looks like it was written by an intelligent and articulate adult.

        • Jacob S

          While I agree that Micko’s statement has confirmation bias and (if I remember my fallacies correctly) appeal to exception, and is not a valid argument against Drew’s post, commenting solely on the maturity of his writing is not the way to handle it. And, while humorous, your chosen guest name is out of line.

      • Drew

        We live in a world where goods and services cost money, and the political party that promotes gun rights could care less about the folks on fixed incomes, public assistance, the disabled or low wage earners. Just replay some of Romney’s genius campaign quotes. Keep in mind that the cost isn’t incurred every day, every week, or even annually. The gun is a one time purchase. If he/she keeps it for 20 years, it’s $15/year to own the gun + maintenance. If the training and ID cost $460 and it’s good for 5 years, that’s less than $100/yr. You know the old saying, “freedom isn’t free.” Doesn’t it also seem ironic that the same political party that wants to require everyone to incur the cost of obtaining a state-issued ID to vote doesn’t want to require people to incur the cost of a firearms owner ID to defend themselves. What is the cost to society when any untrained idiot can carry a gun. I don’t propose that the government provide the training. The point is that the Second Amendment does not preclude the government from requiring training. As to your power tool analogy, most untrained people hurt themselves with power tools. I think we can agree that guns have a greater potential to reach out and touch someone else.

        • micko77

          And yet we have Vermont, which has never, to my knowledge, had any licensure or certification other than an age requirement to carry open or concealed, and there is no “blood in the streets”. Odd, that.

      • John T

        While you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, speaking as someone who has actually taught combat tactics on a number of different venues, advocating for no regulations will literally get you no where, and ultimately shows that you don’t understand large scale governance.

      • Jacob S

        The error in thinking here is that guns are the ONLY way people can defend themselves.

    • micko77

      I advocate training. I expect those with whom I choose to shoot to be trained. I encourage those who wish to own a firearm to obtain knowledge about the safe uses of them. I expect people who use power tools to know what they are doing. I would equally advocate that one who would pursue such an endeavor learn from someone with knowledge of such tools. I DO NOT believe that governmental bodies should be the arbiter of that training. Let’s look at one simple angle, economics. In IL, about which Mr. Metcalf, (whom I have shaken hands with and whose land I have participated in the shooting sports, and he has critiqued some of my writings) is commenting on… the State requires $150 for the CCW permit, requires 2 days of traing at an expected cost of $150/day, and possession of a firearms owner ID (FOID), that’s $460.00 minimum cash outlay not including the gun and ammunition, at least another $300. So we are well over the $700 mark to defend oneself. tell that to the folks on a fixed income, on public assistance, disability, or low wage-earners. In effect, they are being told that they must choose between defending their lives legally, or taking a bullet because a bureaucrat knows what’s best for him/her. Now go volunteer to say this at town halls around the state: “You can’t afford to live”. See how that flies.

    • Rightway1208

      I agree with Dick Metcalf, gun owners should train to use the tool they carry so as not to become a danger to themselves and others. However, I don’t believe that the GOVERNMENT should be the entity to dictate that to us as citizens. I believe that anyone who carries a firearm has both the right to carry and is subject to the consequences of doing so.
      All to often, the GOVERNMENT uses the guise of “protecting us from ourselves”, when, what they really want is CONTROL over our lives. I’ve been on this planet for over 60 years, and during that time, I’ve seen our rights as citizens eroded far beyond any point I would have ever dreamed they would be. The GOVERNMENT never retracts controls over us, and by their nature, never will. THAT is EXACTLY why the Framer’s of our Constitution enacted the Bill of Rights. They KNEW, that governments were (and are) NOT to be trusted.
      By way of example, we are hearing more and more talk about the Negative MENTAL HEALTH of our returning Veterans.And so, we MUST deny them THEIR Second Amendment Rights, and it is happening. Many, if not most, of those vets do not hold the same political philosophy as our current administration, and so are perceived by that administration as being a threat. And as a threat, must be disarmed. We can look at the 135 Generals and High Ranking Officers who have been relieved of duty and run out of the Military because they too, don’t hold the same beliefs as the present administration.
      Politicians LIE to us all the time. They do it, it is literally legal. We do it to them, we can server jail time. So, while Dick might think that more training is needed, and I agree, I DO NOT agree that the government should be dictating to us that we HAVE to in order to exercise our inalienable rights. Government doesn’t give us those rights, we possess them. The Second Amendment RESTRICTS the GOVERNMENT from INFRINGING on THEM.
      I do agree with others who have indicated that it was just as much the Editor’s fault for publishing the article. He didn’t have to and he should have thought through his decision a lot deeper than he did. Especially given today’s political climate.

    • Stephen Erwin

      The supreme Court ruled in Heller that “Well Regulated” refereed only to discipline and training of the militia and contemporary writing supports this viewpoint. This expert in “firearms law” didn’t have a clue what he was talking about when he wrote an article straight out of teh Bloomberg talking points.

    • Okolemon

      Well said Sir!

  • Lee W Smith

    Too bad Jim Bequette lacks the spine to stand up for his own First, as well as Second Amendment rights.

    I disagree with Dick Metcalf about mandatory training, but Dick is an
    old-timer who has been field testing and writing about firearms and
    firearms-related gear for decades for many publications, not just Guns
    & Ammo. He also co-hosted an excellent show on the Sportsman’s Channel, “The Modern Sporting Rifle” with the late J. Guthrie .
    People who are called for Metcalf to be fired or for boycotting Guns
    & Ammo or its advertisers are wearing their asses for hats. And I’m sorry the magazine has caved in to this mob’s hysteria.
    Dick’s general point — that the right to bear arms does not preclude any
    regulation of firearms at all — is indisputable. As I said, I think he
    is wrong about state-mandated training as a requirement for buying or
    owning a gun, but I understand where he is coming from … because any
    responsible person will voluntarily seek and receive training before
    obtaining and using his (or her) first firearm. And too many people —
    probably a large proportion of the ass hats who have their underwear
    knotted up over Dick’s editorial — do not do so.

    • John Taylor

      “Dick’s general point — that the right to bear arms does not preclude any regulation of firearms at all — is indisputable.”

      Pray, give us the benefit of your omniscience and tell us just how much “regulation” we should accept. I’m having difficulty understanding how much restriction still qualifies as “shall not be infringed”.

      • Lee W Smith

        Hey, John, I’m not omniscient but I do believe this is a nation of laws, and in Heller, the last best ruling on Article II of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court made the same point Metcalf makes. I personally believe the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are too much infringement (let alone some of the recent draconian legislation passed in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, California and Colorado). But I am not a Supreme Cort justice, nor even a justice of the peace, which means that what I believe is not the law. I also believe that gun owners who are ready to crucify a good guy like Dick Metcalf because he expresses an opinion that varies from theirs (and IMO reflects a poor understanding of our rights and fails to take account of the relentless insanity of our enemies) make all of us look more like a pack of wild dogs than like a band of brothers. And Dick Metcalf is my brother. So are you, John, even though you are not behaving as a brother should.

        • John Taylor

          Sorry my behavior does not meet your standard, ‘brother’. But, in my life, my rights are fundamental, sacred and paramount — and not subject to infringement by man’s laws, regardless of who their author may be.

          • Lee W Smith

            John, I appreciate your no compromise stance. That kind of steadfast defense of our rights is what makes me support Dudley Brown and the National Gun Rights Association and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. But to be zealous in defense of our rights does not have to mean being a fanatic. Fanatacism does not make a positive contribution to a polity that respects a person’s innate, fundamental rights, John. That is one of the reasons gun- and gun-owner-hating hoplophobes who seek to have the state disarm us are so odious in my eyes. Likewise I abhor, for example, Islamists who stone women to death, gay groups like ACTUP that fling feces at the mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Christian fundamentalist fanatics who demonstrate at the funerals of US soldiers with placards reading “God hates fags” and racialist morons who embrace Hitler’s goofy notions and sport Nazi paraphernalia. I pray you will learn in the fullness of time that treasuring your own sacred rights ought to go hand in hand with respect for others, especially those on your side of the battle, even those whose platform is not as pure as your own. Dick Metcalf is not our (gun rights advocates’) enemy. He is not a “traitor.” He is a man with a long and honorable history of contributing to the knowledge and enjoyment of the shooting sports community. To scream for his head, to cut him from G&A’s writing staff — for expressing a misguided opinion — is dishonorable, uncharitable, and unworthy of the gun-owning community.

  • Get real.

    “Leading the struggle for 2nd amendment rights” or any rights, is a noble thing. Great. I don’t characterize it as a “struggle” but I know it’s emotional for many and that’s the problem that gets in the way of sensible compromise and safety concerns. Gun control to whatever degree it exists now or in the future needs to be emotion-free and based on solid data and not conspiracy theories or political motivations. G&A glorifies gun culture; sexy photos – it’s gun porn and I find myself liking it too although I don’t buy the magazine. There’s a blog above on this page called: “Zombie Nation” with a story on “how to pick the best zombie pistol”. Really gun people? Weapons aren’t toys or dick extenders. There’s a difference between our right to own a weapon, and our right to own 50, high capacity, high caliber, military-styled weapons designed solely for killing humans. Gun advocates need to be more sensible and reasonable and they’d get a lot farther on this issue instead the go “full tea party” and freaking out over the tiniest of issues, like this recent editorial, and look like “crazies” – the kind of people I don’t want to have guns or sharp objects or alcohol or anything risky. If you want to be taken seriously then you’re going to have to change your tactics and stop foaming at the mouth and quoting the same tired old arguments.

  • JohnRinVA

    I was proud of G&A when I read the article because I feel that responsible gun ownership is important and I feel that many of the polarized issues in this country actually have answers somewhere in the middle. Dick has years of experience supporting guns, obviously cares about them, seems thoughtful and well informed. I have guns to protect my family and as a hobby. Guns are already regulated (e.g. automatic weapons are heavily regulated). They’re not impossible to get, just regulated. I feel I can defend my house and family without one and are glad our police aren’t facing them on a daily basis. So many of the people lashing out are so black and white that I feel they are the problem. The define cut your nose of to spite your face. Complex problems often have complex solutions and require thought and compromise. I’m dissapointed in you, Jim. G&A has a chance to open dialogs (a healthy exchange) about want vs. need (I don’t need an M-60 to defend my family) and its funny that the lunatic children you are trying to appease are still asking if you should also be let go. When I read the article I was going to subscribe (haven’t had a G&A subscription since the ’80s), but now that you are running back to the fringe you can go back to being irrelevant in the adult world.

    • John Taylor

      “I don’t need an M-60 to defend my family”

      Do you need an “assault weapon”? A “Saturday Night Special”? A “high capacity magazine”? A “weapon of war, capable of rapidly spraying bullets in all directions”?

      I’ll make you a deal: I won’t tell you what you ‘need’, and you don’t tell me what I ‘need’, m’kay?

      • BurtMacklin23

        There is no rational, intelligent, and practical reason to own an M-60 for protection.

        • Tech Kitsune

          Try living on the Mexican/California/Arizona border and say that with a straight face.

          I do live here. Let me introduce you to the Zetas and MJ-12. Guess what they are armed with? What the US Government gave them long ago (in the case of the Zetas) and a ton of crazy mothers (in the case of MJ-12.) Weapons grade CRAZY.

          An M-60 isn’t enough. We need lasers.

          • vliam

            Sounds like what you need is a uHaul and a compass.

          • John T

            #1, The notion that you have the understanding of complex tactical warfare is laughable. Your saying that in order to protect yourself against a large, heavily armed force you require a Light Machine Gun, that, all by itself tells me you literally have no understanding of combat. If this upsets you, learn, don’t rant.

            #2. I actually have studied and taught these concepts and find it amazing the level of anger, and fear at someone who wants to try and have a discussion regarding firearms. I remember a time when it was the anti-gun nuts who seemed to have a monopoly on extreme and thoughtless views, But we have taken that torch and run to places most didn’t think inhabitable.

            #3 To pretty much everyone who seems to think that a conversation about gun control is the same as people trying to take your guns: Your absolutely no better than them, and you do more to harm the situation and conversation than they have ever done.

          • BurtMacklin23

            I spent half a year in New Mexico and never encountered a situation where I required an M-60 to lay down suppressive fire. In what situation would an M-60 be preferable to a handgun or shotgun? Last I checked, both are pretty effective in incapacitating a target.

        • John Taylor

          So that’s “no deal”, then? By divine right, you have been empowered to tell me what I may and may not own? I do so hope you’ll allow me to continue to breathe your air!

          • Jacob S

            Strawman argument. Practically a textbook example. Taking somebody else’s argument and then changing it to something slightly different to make it easier to attack without actually addressing what they were saying.

          • John Taylor

            Jacob, clearly, you do not understand logical argument — unless you took my comment on breathing literally, in which case I’m sorry I did not set a flag.

          • Jacob S

            No. I was talking about how you changed “there is no reason to own an m-60 for protection as opposed to other, less contested guns” to “I am telling you what you are allowed to own.”

            If you need me to simplify it further, the claim that “There is no reason for you to own that” is different from “You cannot own that.” The first is what he said, the second is what you responded as if he said.

            Although similar, they are different, and you in no way addressed the claim that there is no reason to own an m-60 for self defense. By changing his claim and then attacking the altered version while in no way addressing his original claim, you committed a strawman fallacy.

          • John Taylor

            BurtMacklin23: “There is no rational, intelligent, and practical reason to own an M-60 for protection.”

            John Taylor: Yes there is.

            There, Jacob, do you feel better now? I have addressed an unsubstantiated claim with an unsubstantiated rebuttal. Please stop arguing ‘straw man’, it’s wearisome and (still) incorrect

          • Jacob S

            You still haven’t shared your reason. And what you said previously (although not above) was still a strawman argument for the reasons I outlined above. I will admit that the term “Strawman argument” is horribly misused and overused, but you ACTUALLY made one in your original post. I am curious to know what practical reason there is to own an M-60 for self defense over a less contested weapon, that would be just as lethal in a one on one confrontation and arguably less lethal in a large crowd. (expecting to be attacked by a large crowd isn’t what I’d call rational by the way.)

          • BurtMacklin23

            You sound nuts. One does not need to own a gun to live, one however does need to breathe. Your rights can extend as far as you like as long as you are not endangering the rights of someone else. Irresponsible operation of an M-60 endangers the lives of your children, your wife, your neighbors, etc. You must weigh that against the benefits of using an M-60 versus a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle. And so far, you have provided no rational reason or situation in which an M-60 was preferable to the stated alternatives.

          • John Taylor

            “You sound nuts.” ~ I’ll take that as a compliment, considering the source.

            “One does not need to own a gun to live, one however does need to breathe.” ~ In the face of a relevant threat, however, one needs a gun to defend oneself. And, even though the reference was hyperbolic, I hasten to point out that one can be breathed for (respirator), just to point out that ‘need’ was misused both times.

            “Your rights can extend as far as you like as long as you are not endangering the rights of someone else.” ~ I agree 100%.

            “Irresponsible operation of an M-60 endangers the lives of your children, your wife, your neighbors, etc.” ~ Again, I agree. That’s also true of autos and chain saws.

            “You must weigh that against the benefits of using an M-60 versus a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle.” ~ Any of which, used _irresponsibly_ constitute the same danger.

            “And so far, you have provided no rational reason or situation in which an M-60 was preferable to the stated alternatives.” ~ I am under no burden to do so. You advanced the unsupported assertion that “[t]here is no rational, intelligent, and practical reason to own an M-60 for protection”. The burden is on you to defend that statement _and_ the presupposition that you get to decide such matters for anyone but yourself.

          • BurtMacklin23

            Equating gun regulation with restricting someone’s right to breathe is an absurd and ridiculous hyperbole.

            You purposely used it to completely derail the conversation and any possibility that we could have a rational, intelligent debate.

            In order to be alive, a human being must breathe, whether the breathing is simulated by a machine or not is irrelevant. The act of taking in oxygen is necessary for life. The act of owning a gun does not contribute in any meaningful biological way to life. Furthermore the gun does not guarantee survival, you can survive a dangerous situation without a gun, with a knife, with a baseball bat, etc. The gun is a completely replaceable variable that on its own, can’t guarantee survival.

            I’m not even going to address your preposterous fallacy at the end since this conversation has already entered into absurdity. You are a ridiculous person and no serious conversation can be had.

    • micko77

      And as our society continues creeping away from absolutes (black-and-white), we continue to slide into decay. As I mentioned above, I’ve met Mr. Metcalf, shot on his land, and he was kind enough to critique some pro-gun articles I’ve written; nonetheless, I profoundly disagree with having the government determine how much and of what type training one should have. 16 hours? Is that the magic number? Or should it be 32? Why not 64?128? Living here in IL I’ve seen how this plays out on this angle as well: the state sets educational requirements, approves the educators, soon require ongoing training, and tap into that resource stream for their cut…. not to increase safety or knowledge, but to get the cash flow. As for my rights being infringed, I resent it now, as I am not legally able to use the most effective tool available. I also resent it when someone–anyone– decides for me what is best for all. Take Obamacare, please…..

      • Dan Daly

        Your closing brings to mind a paraphrase ,can you hear it now , “if you like your gun ,you can keep it”

      • Reservoirdog

        “I profoundly disagree with having the government determine how much and of what type training one should have.” ” I also resent it when someone–anyone– decides for me what is best for all.” When one pledges allegiance to the Constitution and the United States one becomes a citizen of the UNITED States. The Constitution outlines the supremacy of the Federal Government except for those rights reserved for the states. Citizenship should foster a sense of general purpose with all other citizens, empathy and responsibility to all. Since the Federal Government is made up of elected officials the voice of the ENTIRE United States is heard and decisions, even ones we may not agree with, are binding on all citizens. This is true at the state level as well. Anyone has the right to petition government about perceived grievances in order to seek redress. And anyone certainly has the right to feel resentment concerning government policies. However, when resentment replaces citizenship-I did not say patriotism-we devolve into the Dis-United States of America where narrow interests prevail and extreme viewpoints take hold.
        Mr. Metcalf was just expressing a viewpoint; his viewpoint. To fire him over the fervor that ensued was unjustified, in my opinion. When extreme viewpoints are held opposing thoughts are viewed as heresy, as apparently was Mr. Metcalf’s.

      • Jacob S

        “The most effective tools available” for what purpose? And I find it prudent to ask at what point “Most effective” becomes “Overkill” and “Unnecessary.”

  • Dr West

    pussy.

  • John Baker

    Ah, unwavering support for the second amendment but screw the first ‘eh? The right has become just as stupidly PC as the left. By isolating themselves and refusing to ever deal with different opinions people only make themselves ignorant. Long term this won’t help anything at all. But short time it does make your magazine useless. You can’t trust a magazine who fires people for different opinions. I won’t renew my subscription now. Doesn’t matter if I agreed with him or not. I don’t have any respect for G&A now.

  • Libdestroyer77

    “I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a
    healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and
    simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.”

    No forgiveness from me. Your stupid decision to run the anti-gun article has consequences and I hope it hurts.

  • Former G&A Subscriber

    I just cancelled my subscription to Guns & Ammo. If this is the way you treat people who do not fall into line 100% with what you believe, than I want no part of your publication. I didn’t agree with everything Mr. Metcalf had to say, but to fire him just because some ignorant people complained is ridiculous.

    • John Baker

      Yup, you can’t trust them if they have no balls.

  • Henry Kadoch

    That column should never have been published. The mere fact that its entire premise was based on the phrase ‘well regulated’ in the 2nd amendment and taken to be about ‘regulations’ is a historical falsehood. ‘well regulated militia’ meant well equipped at the time, and still does; despite the fact that we use the word regulated differently today.

  • Marine Veteran

    The decision to fire Dick Metcalf was economical, pure and simple. A more principled organization would’ve stuck by the intent to forward the discussion. Referring to Dick’s editorial as a “sin” demonstrates how far off the mark some people are regarding this complex issue.

    Mr.Bequette should not be apologizing. If this matter cannot be openly discussed and debated on “Guns & Ammo” then where should it be discussed and debated? Mr.Bequette should take a stand and challenge his readership, not just be reactive and go with the flow.

    There’s a reason why most Americans don’t read G&A, and it’s precisely because it appeals to only a small demographic that is diminishing every year. If the magazine wants to survive for the next 50 years it’s editorial staff is going to have to put on its big-boy pants and evolve it into something more rational that appeals to a less militant readership.

    • Libdestroyer77

      The erosion of our rights is rational? What are you smoking?

  • ardeth01

    What a shocker, huh? An honest guy gets banished for not following the party line. And RWnut gun goons have a problem with “commies”? lol

  • D

    WOW, even the suggestion that some forms of regulation are reasonable is enough to throw every gun-nut right off the hook, and get these guys fired

    The magazines readership are the responsible gun enthusiasts, who are rightly po’d that their liberties might be infringed on because of the fact that any psycho, disturbed, ganged-up or just plain stupid person can easily get a gun legally or not. I can think of some other mags the article would be better suited to….

    The problem is we can’t control people, or spot the crazy apples early apparently. But this magazines a lapdog, never endanger the bottom line Jim/Dick, i guess you thought you were journalists.

  • End the NFA

    What about you feature an article or editorial, on a regular basis, questioning the legality of the NFA? What is the basis for the limitation on what machine guns, suppressors and SBR’s we can own? Why can’t American citizens buy modern machine guns? Why does the BATFE, on the homepage of the NFA section state that, ‘The purpose of the NFA is to eliminate machine gun ownership in America’!

    WE NEED ARTICLES PUSHING OUR AGENDA not considering that of our enemies!

  • commonsense

    What a bunch of gunnut crazies!! This guy Metcalf offered mild regulations and the gun fringe goes nuts! These crazies are pulling this country down. Well regulated militia means that a well-regulated militia, which we have, it’s called the National Guard. The gun violence in this country is absurd. You do not have a right to own a automatic firearm that kills people!! Gun-regulation is coming people, and if you don’t like it, pack up your guns and move to Canada. We don’t need you here in the USA.

    • shooter2009
    • Libdestroyer77

      Pipe down dopey lib. My guns never hurt anybody.

    • howler1968

      I know several well-disciplined automatic weapons that have never killed a person.
      And we do have the right to own them…….the owners aren’t just stamp collectors.

    • Trey VonZimmer

      Maybe you’re the one that should head to Canada, eh? Their gun regulation seems to be more to your liking and you won’t have to put up with our pesky Constitution anymore. Take off, hoser!

  • Metcalf_Fan

    That’s too bad, really. For the first time in a long time I thought one little corner of the gun world tilted toward reasonable with regard to some sort of gun control. I’m a multiple gun owner but not an NRA member or subscriber of G&A (I found this link through Yahoo news). I think a lot of gun owners have developed a persecution complex with regard to the perceived rights they get from an outdated amendment. People should be allowed to have guns, but it is not unreasonable to have limits on ownership. Some limits already exist, obviously. And some limits need to be implemented and/or enforced better. But judging by the scary, irresponsible things I have seen some gun owners do, I think it is absolutely reasonable to require some sort of gun education and licensing for ownership.

    • Libdestroyer77

      Shall not be infringed means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How is that hard to understand?

      • searambler

        ‘A well armed Militia’ means ‘A WELL ARMED MILITIA’! How is that hard to understand?

    • howler1968

      “limits on ownership”
      Well,that’s a turned over can of wiggle’n wriggle’n intertwinned wormy words.
      Law-Yurs and judges will have a field day determining what that includes and excludes.

  • CODE3FILL

    BULL CRAP, YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING. YOUR JUST CHANGING YOUR MIND BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PISSED. YOU SAID “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights” WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK THAT SOMEONE BUYING A GUN MAGAZINE WANTS TO DEBATE GUN CONTROL?

  • Don

    As usual and shown thru history the ONLY 2nd Amendment magazine is owned & printed by Americans at the NRA.

  • John

    “I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.”

    So what you’re saying here is that you thought the point of having a magazine was to generate a reasonable debate about reasonable ideas — by which you’re admitting that you think the question of whether there should be some regulations on guns is a worthy question — but you’ve come to realize that you can’t actually generate a reasonable discussion on this issue. How is this anything other than admission that gun rights people are unreasonable?

    • Libdestroyer77

      Reasonable to a libtard is anything but reasonable to anybody else.

      • John

        So you’re saying he made the mistake of assuming his readership are liberals, only to realize after the backlash that they are not liberals? That doesn’t sound very plausible.

  • therealguyfaux

    Here’s a thought to consider.

    Training with weapons is something we all can agree is a positive good. I don’t want some idiot who doesn’t know a$$ from elbow owning one.

    So what if the Government finds out who’s taking the training classes? Like they can’t already come by that information?

    Here’s the crux of the issue: Are you willing to criminalize someone who uses a gun, righteously, for failure to have taken training in the use of it? Which of course, I do not– just as I do want the book thrown at someone who uses a gun illegally. Or, as is more likely, and something I do in fact favor, that there be a record of those who have taken the training, so, in the event a gun is used and lawsuits result, it can be used as evidence pro/con as to compliance with safety standards employed in that use?

    Note that at no time have I proposed that you need to produce the “license,” i.e., the record of having taken the class, in order to purchase the weapon. Gun dealers are free to request it and base their willingness to sell to someone on that basis, but no law will require this.

    The number of successful grad’s will not necessarily correspond one-for-one with owners. The database including the grad’s will not be of practical use for anyone in terms of confiscation, on that basis; i.e., a DC resident who cannot own a gun in DC may still wish to qualify in a gun-safety program for when (s)he might spend a weekend in Virginia, if Virginia law makes gun-safety programs admissible as evidence as to non/compliance with the standard of care the DC resident should have employed.

    I hate to sound like a Cass Sunstein nudge, and I even bristle at the comparison, but hey, wouldn’t some guidance as to the desirability of training, versus the undesirability of non-training, be welcome in the law, as a way of showing that gun owners, by and large, in fact DO get trained and DO comply with standards– and take that argument away from the ban-all-gun types?

    Go ahead and have at me, and call me a concern troll, if you like.

    Like I give a $#!t. I just want people with guns to know WTF they’re doing when they use them.

    • Libdestroyer77

      The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Requiring a “training class” is an infringement on our rights. Would you like a license to vote as well? How about a license to allow free speech? Where do you draw the line?

      • John Baker

        BS, I think some of you just can’t read. Just as bad as the left. Both sides ignore what the constitution actually says.

        • Libdestroyer77

          I can read. It says, “Shall not be infringed”. Am I missing something?

          • John Baker

            Yes, the meaning of all the words when they all get strung together and probably some individually as well.

            There is no actual comprehension of the second amendment to be found here. Just unhinged PC ranting.

      • therealguyfaux

        You don’t need a “license to vote,” but you DO have to register. That’s another issue (Voter ID), which I’d just as soon deal with elsewhere.

        My point was that you might like to cover yourself legally by showing that you DO in fact know your a$$ from a hole in the ground around a gun. States do have mandatory hunter safety courses, and the training I’m talking about is not all that different. And I don’t make it mandatory, in my perfect world. I simply say that the law can take into account, should you ever end up in court, whether or not you’ve taken gun safety instructions. In other words, too bad for you if you don’t– it might be held against you, and you do know there are juries out there who’d just love to award six-figure judgments. Liability insurers might demand that gun owners take such a course, based on that fact. I’m beating ‘em to the punch, so to speak.

  • Kittens&Politics

    And God said Let them own tanks… and from the dirt he created 100 round magazines and stock options for Remington and Smith and Wesson… “natural right”

  • RegularJoe62

    Nice. He’s OK with Metcalf running his column until the storm hits, then he cuts him loose. Where’s your backbone, Bequette?

  • ucdscholar

    Interesting that Gun Nut Nation has found a part of the constitution they’d just as soon not defend. I know, I know, your publication is still just a product and you have to be concerned about the business impact. Hey! You know what else is just a product? …Guns.

    • Larry O

      a lot of people would rather be in the “gun nut nation” than your probable presence in the World of NAMBLA. which do you like best — 11 or 12-year olds?

      • Ben Weston

        Funny you would bring up NAMBLA in your ‘retort’.

        The 1st Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
        speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
        assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

        So really, why don’t you have your guns out there scaring the Congress and States into repealing Age of Consent and Child Porn laws? Because really all they are doing is having ‘friends’ get together and make/share pictures. And that’s protected, isn’t it?

  • Ted Nugent Death Watch

    You pussies. This is why you people are viewed as a bunch of nutjobs. Anyone that disagrees with commonsense gun regulation is more and more out of step with the rest of the country.

  • SparksinKY

    I find it very interesting that opening up this dialogue is considered an antithesis to gun rights. Nothing he wrote was damaging and judging by the comments already posted here, people have very different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. How is publishing an opinion column a mistake? The point of an opinion piece is generally to put forth an idea and have people discuss it. Clearly it brought forth a conversation that is still happening now even after the firing. Just read through all of these comments and look at the diversity. Positive things come from open dialogues. If you get angry that someone published a viewpoint different from your own, than maybe it’s your own ideology that needs some work if it can be so easily threatened by one opinion piece.

  • USPatriot556

    Guns and Ammo needs to hire Clare Wolfe to write up their magazine’s stance on the Second Amendment and gun control, and have all of their writers memorize it, and find a way to refer to it in each article. This isn’t a lapse of judgement, this is a Freudian slip, they accidentally showed their cards. They are going to have to do better than that to save their business.

  • Renee Engine-Bangger

    So Jim, it is just about the money, right?

  • vetch

    I will never ever purchase another Guns & Ammo magazine. What happened to protecting First Amendments Rights? Just screech on about the Second Amendment and hang the rest! This has nothing to do with Constitutional freedom, only sales and plays not to the thinking gun owner but the lunatic fringe.

  • Not_in_Denial

    Everyone is entitled to err, that’s part of being human. Recognizing that error and rectifying it matters a lot, and you’ve done it. I do think that spirited exchanges are valuable, but not from the standpoint of appearing that a venerable publication such as G & A is advocating moves that would infringe on 2A. There are so many uneducated and unenlightened members of the public that in order to turn them around there needs to be factual discussions. There’s the problem, a comeback I’ve witnessed so many times as to be uncountable is essentially, “Don’t confuse me with the facts”. That’s why many times quoting an actual expert like John Lott just makes them go comatose. Anyone notice that
    the uninformed in Sunnyvale, CA passed an ordinance infringing on the 2A? Get over there and comment. The NRA is going to sue. BUT, only 20% of the registered voters participated and of them something like 60% voted for it. Essentially 12% of the registered voters have cost the city $40k+ to vote on it and a whole lot of attorney fees for something that would in essence do nothing of what they claim to be so ‘concerned’ about. Ignorance and stupidity is the enemy here.

  • RetiredDetective

    It would seem from his comments Metcalf has absolutely no understanding of the intent of the founding fathers, old time firearms terminology, and has not read any linguistic experts “translation” of old English into modern English. Well regulated = well trained simple fact. A firearm that is regulated is properly sighted and in good working order. How you could convert that basic statement into some frankenstieninan meaning that the government can pass laws regarding possession and use is so absurd it defies belief. From Obama and his cohorts, yes, from a supposed firearms expert, give me a break.

  • Rick

    This whole thing smells fishy. If an editor can’t publish an op-ed relating to an issue important to his readers, then what good is he? Are gun people really that afraid of a debate? I’m wondering if Bequette was threatened.

    • Ben Weston

      Yes, they really are afraid of the debate.

      One of the favorite arguments that is being strutted out is how “You used to be able to buy a TommyGun by mail for $25, but no one was shooting up schools then!”

      Ya, well, $25 is the 1920s/30s was more like 500-600 now; kids and most working stiffs didn’t have that kind of disposable scratch.

      The people that were buying them were primarily bootleggers and bank robbers, that were making a habit of shooting up cops, street corners, and each other.

      Until the Congress, President, and NRA got together and said “Enough. No law abiding citizen needs one of these. And the price is too damn high”. So they banned guns by mail order, they tightly restricted automatic weapons. You’ll notice we haven’t had a mass shooting with an actual machine gun in a while, yet you can still go to Cabela’s and guy a hunting rifle, pistol, or even an AR15.

      Like religious fundamentalists of all stripes. They can not have their article of faith questioned at all. As soon as that happens, it creates doubts, and doubts are the surest path to hell (or, the ‘slippery slope to abolition’ in this case)

      So no, they really can’t have a reasonable conversation.

  • Jim Cornelius

    Jim Bequette:

    I am appalled and disgusted by your purging of Dick Metcalf.

    Treating a reasoned, thoughtful opinion — popular or not — as an act of heresy
    is grotesque, a signal contribution to the narrowing, coarsening and
    dumbing-down of public discourse. Throwing him under the bus was a shameful act
    of cowardice.

    The “gun culture” of which I have been a part since my
    youth, must be at the forefront of efforts to promote responsible firearms
    ownership and use. Attempting to prevent the violently insane from obtaining
    access to lethal weapons should be an obvious duty for those of us who value
    our rights. We have a responsibility to help separate the drunks from the car
    keys. That is all Metcalf was advocating and you know it.

    You have behaved in a craven and dishonorable manner that
    will ultimately be detrimental to the culture and to the maintenance of our
    rights.

    Jim Cornelius

  • John Baker

    It’s hard not to notice that nobody here is able to offer even the slightest attempt at a coherent argument against what Dick Metcalf wrote. Why? Looks to me like you know that you simply don’t have one so all you can do is scream and get him fired instead.

    Not a good sign at all. I say he was right. Let’s hear some of you actually explain why he wasn’t without sounding like you are ten years old.

    I be you can’t.

    • Ben Weston

      The American Cult of the Gun has run wild. Trying to be sensible with them is basically a lost cause. They are a small, loud, and angry minority, but they have a stranglehold on the conversation, and the lawmakers, because of things just like this.

      He makes a perfectly valid assessment, and people go nuts.

  • lloyd clement

    Who allowed this to happen? I can assume that Guns and Ammo magazine is another media/magazine, etc. outlet that has buckled under. Sad………

  • Fieldkorn

    When I read Mr. Metcalf’s opinion piece I went “huh.” A small surprise but hardly an earth-shattering anti-Second Amendment scree. Guns & Ammo is an excellent publication. Sure at time it goes overboard with page after page of Modern Sporting Rifles at the expense of shotguns, bolt-action rifles and the like. And I’m less than thrilled when the reviewers look at ubber-expensive handguns made by some of the publication’s more regular advertisers. All of that being said it’s still a better read than the NRA’s American Rifleman and American Hunter (both of which I also get) where one has to wade through page after page of commentary just in order to find an article about firearms or hunting. Oh, well, this will die down the way the flap Jim Zumbo caused several years ago when he dissed AR-platform rifles.

  • argh6543

    I only got to the first few lines then I put the nonsense down…

    Most people argue that along the lines of the 2nd amendment – which in itself is pretty easy:

    1) Well regulated militia: The old definition used by the writers defines a well regulated militia as a properly disciplined.
    2) The logic of the sentence is a A implies B… So if A is true, then B – the right of the people shall not be infringed. So if you can proof that you need a properly disciplined militia, then you can’t take guns away from “the people” – not the people that are part of the militia, but all people. So it all depends on proving that A is true, which is actually quite simple. We have one, and we’re (still) the most free. Done. That was easy.
    3) shall not be infringed. That definition is equally clear. Anything that limits the right to arm yourself. A simple background check is already an infringement…

    However – even all that said, its still the wrong argument to have. The constitution limits the powers of all branches of government pretty effectively. Noone gave the federal government the power to limit gun ownership in any way. Therefore they simply can’t do it. That’s what the people that were against the bill of rights argued about and now it has come true. By including the bill of rights, it gives the impression that the government can do anything it wants as long as it does not infringe gun rights or any of the others listed in the first 10 amendments. Nothing could be further from the truth! As soon as you argue FOR the 2nd, you already lost your freedom…

    Peter.

    • Ben Weston

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

      So by your logic, if you daughter finds herself on the wrong end of a perv with a video camera, who then publishes it on the internet, well that’s just fine. He was just expressing his 1st Amendment Rights.

      Suck it up: No right is absolute, and all come with responsibilities (and it’s not often you’ll hear me quoting Alito, but there it is).

  • EatSh*tJimBequette

    As a magazine editor and writer myself, I have to congratulate you, Jim Bequette. You are officially the biggest pussy in the industry. If you can’t muster enough self-respect to stand by your decision to publish something, at least be man enough to accept personal responsibility. And I’m not talking about that tacked on bit at the end there, where you advance your already planned retirement by two months. I’m talking about throwing one of your own writers under the bus.

    Ignoring the fact that dissenting viewpoints are what make editorials interesting to read in the first place, this was your “mistake.” I don’t think there is a gun currently manufactured that is large enough to compensate for your astounding lack of balls. I mean, for fuck’s sake, you were already retiring. What did you even have to lose by standing up for your writer and, by extension, yourself? Enjoy your retirement, you goddamn apologist lock-step chickenshit robot idiot.

  • Wade Harlan Crawford

    Sorry Jim that the healthy debate didn’t take place. Unfortunately, my fellow gun owners are very one sided and of course they are always right, much like a different crowd of people that we know of, but won’t speak of. The lament of the general public over gun ownership and rights has it’s place. People still need to realize that the Government “secured” the rights we have today, and they can and will regulate them how they see fit, for the good order and discipline of the nation. If gun owners wish to own weapons, they can. It’s a right. But that doesn’t mean that the right is secured by the government. That doesn’t mean that some of those weapons won’t make them criminals in the eyes of the almighty law. People need to accept the consequences for their actions.

  • Phil from Chardon

    It has become increasingly apparent in recent days that this
    administration will do anything to advance their philosophy including lie
    directly to the American public be it fast and furious, Benghazi, data
    collection or health care. Anything they propose must be opposed based on the
    old adage if you give them an inch. The writer should have been fired and the
    editor replaced for letting this get past him. Moderation cannot be tolerated
    as it just starts us down a slippery slope.

    • joe Bob

      Phil. You are a dick.

  • Ignatz

    Apparently, some gun owners have such weak arguments that they cannot allow differing ideas.

    I read the article. Frankly, it’s hard to disagree with the central argument: that the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute, and that SOME regulation is obvious and necessary. Unless you think convicted felons should have bombs. If you say they shouldn’t, you are agreeing to a regulation.

    And you fired a man for pointing that out? Holy crap.

  • chuck

    sorry for bad language but that dick Metcalf is an asshole glad to see that scumbag get the ax I hope he does not get a job writing for any of the other magazines I read his input anywhere is not worth a sh… I guess this is my freedom of speech just like his bull

  • John Taylor

    You approved the article as it ran? Resign!

    Note: this is NOT about Metcalf’s 1A right to free speech. He can say anything he wants. But to promote such a wrong-headed view of individual liberty reveals a sloppiness of thinking that is inexcusable in a periodical that claims to advocate said liberty.

    Your statement: “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.” You cannot expect a healthy plant to grow from an unhealthy seed. If you want a healthy exchange of ideas, you promote discussion; you do not advance illogical ignorant dogma. As I said in a comment elsewhere, if I want such drivel I’ll go to the lamestream media.

    If you’re having trouble finding a knowledgeable person to run such a discussion (online is better than in print — more timely), I humbly offer my services. I guarantee I can promote discussion without costing you readers and advertisers!

    • John Taylor

      A surprising number of ‘subscribers’ seem to agree with Metcalf’s position (though I suspect some trollage). Let me offer a few quotations from the article, and let’s see if you agree with them:

      “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

      “… citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory [gun control] laws.”

      ” ‘Well regulated’ [in the context of restricted by law -- see above] is, in fact, the initial criterion of the [2nd] amendment itself.”

      I submit that any gun owner who advocates any of those three positions has an incomplete understanding of individual liberty. (And I’m being as polite as possible in saying it that way.)

  • D

    I see nothing wrong with the article. I think it did just what it was intended to do, start a conversation. Trouble is, most people are unable to think rationally about a topic they are so passionate about. Metcalf’s argument is sound. There do need to be restrictions. In fact, there already are. You can’t go out and by a stinger missile. Anyone think it would be a good idea to lift that restriction?

  • DaveL

    I plucked this from a comment section about an article entitled “Senate Gets Second Amendment Wrong” @ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/Senate-Website-Gets-Second-Amendment-Wrong
    I thought I would pass it along as it defines and explains the 2nd better than I have ever been able to and shows how Metcalfs premise was all wrong from the beginning.
    Quote:
    “Liberals like regulations, so they hear “well-regulated” and think “Goody! We get to impose restrictions!” Every time they try to translate the 2nd Amendment into Modern English they expose their profound ignorance of Western culture.
    A “well-regulated militia”, in this context, is akin to a “well-regulated” clock, they even used the term “regulated” in reference to clocks back when you had to wind them up. It means a “regular” militia, a “reliable” militia, or a “well-maintained” militia.
    In modern vernacular, the 2A would be translated thusly: “A reliable militia of the American people is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited by any laws.”
    Regardless of whether or not Americans actively participate in military drills or they are highly disciplined, they are a para-military reserve force endowed with the legal right and duty to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Liberals, perpetual children that they are, may not like the fact that being an American comes with responsibilities and duties, but that’s what the Founders were saying. As an American citizen, you are a member of a para-military force, and as a member of a para-military force you are free to own any kind or number of weapons with whatever magazine capacity you choose to use in defense of this country against anyone who threatens it.
    That is the meaning of our 2nd Amendment.”
    Unquote
    I have been an avid Guns & Ammo reader and fan for more than 30 years. I never really cared for Metcalfs articles or his presence on G&A TV. He seemed a little aloof to me. OK, so he’s gone. We have a new editor. Lets move on. Everyone makes mistakes. I for one will be looking forward to my next G&A just as I always have and I’m sure the guys and gals at G&A will continue to support the 2nd amendment in the future just as they have in the past. Dick Metcalf not withstanding.
    David A. Lampman
    G&A Subscriber

  • David Bane

    Glad to see Dick and Jim go. I’ve never seen a copy of Recoil but I’ve read G&A for many years and I will continue to buy their magazine every month. I buy Rugers and S&W handguns too. We can all learn from our mistakes. (But its easier to learn from others.)

  • commonsense

    People who are defending Guns & Ammo’s column on pro-gun control don’t understand what we are up against in fighting for our rights to bear arms. You cannot “debate” fine points or various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment with liberal gun-control advocates. Why? For Liberals there is nothing to debate–their position is not to regulate the ownership of guns– it is to Eliminate all private ownership of guns. And, how do you do that–confiscation just like they did in Australia and the U.K. Liberals have learned that it is impossible to defeat supporters of the 2nd Amendment with a “all or nothing” compaign so they pick at the edges of the amendment by asking for “common sense” regulations. This is the death by a “Thousand Cuts” strategy. And just who is defining “common sense.” The reason our founders wrote the Constitution and Amendments was to not allow just anyone to define “common sense.” Does anyone doubt that Obama’s definition of “Common Sense” would include a total confiscation of all privately owned firearms? We are forced to fight ANY changes to the 2nd Amendment because once you allow “common sense” changes that is the beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment. What Guns & Ammo does not realize is that the liberals do not want a debate– Has any liberal gun control measure ever reduced crime? Why do you need new laws when liberals refuse to enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books? Besides, what is to debate? The Supreme Court has already upheld the 2nd Amendment as the right for private citizens to bear arms. Do we really need a gun magazine to offer up liberal talking points to eliminate the 2nd Amendment?

    • HUNTERVIC

      What Are You On?

      Where or where have you ever heard or read that the major goal of liberals is the confiscation of all guns? You must have imagined it because nowhere has it been stated or written that that is the specific goal of liberals. Instead, the emphasis has been the responsible use of firearms by responsible individuals.

      The off the wall remarks appearing on this comments page serve as prime reason for this writer being a single-year, one time subscriber. The majority writing here are obviously so off the wall that even moderate viewpoints are viewed as heresy to the United States of America. Maybe these subscribers have been bedding a bit to close to the NRA nut balls.

      To them I direct the wish that none of their children or grand children are present when the next crazy decides to take his black-stocked, kiddie killer, military-type weapon with extended magazine and shoot up a grade school. We all know that this will happen again until some type of control is implemented. Live with it as this is what the public wants.

      • VietnamVet

        Why don’t you just admit you are a liberal and you view the Constitution as a “Living Document?” It is so easy to spot a Obama voter–ignorant, uninformed and mud slinging when you have no facts to make your argument. Pathetic.

        • HUNTERVIC

          VietnamVet to VietnamVet

          Don’t attempt a low grade, low level label on this writer. Show me proof that the general public is “a well regulated militia” as described in the second amendment.

          Your response reflects your racist, ill-conceived remarks marking you as the pathetic one here. Solace in the fact that like most conservatives, and GOP followers, your time of reign is about to end and this country may again be guided by good sense and not chicken crap reasoning.

        • HUNTERVIC

          A VietnamVet to VietnamVet

          You are so off the wall that you earn the label of pathetic and really should be seeking professional help for whatever ails you.

  • Tommy

    ITS ABOUT time an article of sanity appeared in your magazine. I am a subscriber. I am also a Dick Metcalf fan. I value his opinion on firearms, instructional writing, and the guts to come clean with his readers. UNLESS something has changed we still have the freedom of speech in this country. To fire a person because of an opinion is worse that cowardly—- it’s refusing to take responsibility for your own publishing duties. I am of the opinion that a firearms Magazine should restrict itself to the subject of firearms. Politics of the 2nd amendment clouds the fact that there are –out there– many people who believe in the 2nd amendment –yet also do not enjoy a constant barrage of right wing propaganda. A case in point would be the NRA magazine —American Rifleman. It has very good firearms articles–but– has almost as much propaganda articles. I subscribed to Guns and Ammo specifically to get away from this format. Then when you begin to go political— you run away like a scared rabbit and fire the miscreant writer. Well you bring a serious dilemma to my reading regimen. Do I renew — or go elsewhere for my instructional, and informational fire arms reading.

  • Reservoirdog

    All I ever hear about from gun owners is “My rights, my rights, my rights!” Rarely does one hear gun owners talk about “My responsibilities.” Yes, we as gun owners do have responsibilities. We have responsibilities to those immediately around us as well as the larger society. One such responsibility is to properly safeguard our weapons so our mentally unhinged family members can’t get ahold of them and, oh, I don’t know, go to an airport or a school and start shooting people! Another responsibility is to be properly trained if we decide to carry a concealed weapon. From Mr. Metcalf’s article it stated that Illinois has mandated 16 hours of training for a CCW permit. I think that is a good idea if the training is meaningful. I just wish my state had such a mandate. To be armed is one thing but to be well trained is much better. Such training is a responsibility that every CCW permit holder owes to the public at large. I think this is this larger point that Mr. Metcalf was trying to make: with rights comes responsibilities and to ensure that responsibilities are being acted upon regulations must be created and enforced because some people just don’t care.

    • John Baker

      Exactly, the second amendment expresses responsibilities and rights.

      But nobody wants to think about responsibility anymore.

  • veniceneon

    Dick Metcalf’s expertise in firearms knowledge will be missed, I wish he would have stuck to that, and Jim Bequette his editor, would have spent more time reflecting on the potential damage this article could do. Unfortunately Dick and Jim either forgot or never learned that when it comes to firearms policy, everything, every statement, even anecdotes are political. Every word needs to be measured and analyzed to make sure it doesn’t boomerang back on you or the pro-Second Amendment community. We all know we are under a microscope. This is a lesson for all of us to smarten up, don’t respond with knee-jerk reactionary comments that can be immediately used against us by the elitist authoritarian gun-banners. It doesn’t matter if you are writer with a large following, a editor, an NRA volunteer, a gun store employee, talking with your buddies in public, or posting on the internet, we all need to be acutely aware of what we say and the images we foster to the world at large. We live in a constant public relations campaign. where image is nearly everything world. I shut up and have to bite my tongue regularly.

  • BMFLYFISH

    Mr. Metcalf’s article was very pro gun and I hate that someone has lost his job just because he expressed an opinion that should have been addressed a long time ago. We can all think of a few people who DO NOT need to own a gun or they never train with their firearms. Those are the people that scare me! Just because you can, does not mean that you should and that was the basis of Mr. Metcalfs article. I believe that its the 10% that make the rest of the 90% of us look bad and I think it is shameful that a few people are so closed minded that they cannot at least see the perspective of someones else view. I hope that Guns and Ammo print more articles like Mr. Metcalf’s. The closed mindness of people on 2nd amendment rights are just as bright as Vice President Biden’s comments about shooting a shotgun outside your home.

  • Justin Brill

    Way to go coward. Your readers don’t care. It’s your sponsors who will pull their ads. Well you know what? Maybe we don’t need a paper-published magazine about guns anymore.

  • AmericanCitizen

    Dick Metcalf wrote the article and Jim Bequette allowed it to be published. Dick is entitled to his opinion like every other American and I am fine with his freedom to write what he thinks. I don’t agree with it in the slightest and I am expressing my 1st Amendment rights by stating that Dick is a moron and so is Jim for publishing this crap! I will NEVER read this magazine again and I certainly will not buy a product from ANY advertiser that stays with this magazine…EVER! Guns and Ammo magazine does not exist to me anymore…..that will not change no matter what Jim does or who he puts in charge. I am so disappointed, I really am.

  • Dan McCoy

    Yes!!!! Thank you, Jim. The good guys win for once. You did what’s right, and I will keep my subscription to your magazine. Dick always struck me as a rather odd fellow anyway, and I never found him to be a true firearms expert to begin with. I overlooked all of that, but it did make finding out his true views on the second amendment all the less surprising. Anyway, what you did is absolutely right and the correct response to Dick’s outburst – and don’t let anybody tell you different. We gun owners either wholly support the second amendment together or we fail as separate forces. If we all insist on pushing our self-important views on how we personally believe in “common sense” gun rights limitations, we’ll have no gun rights left at all. Out with Dick, in with someone who I’d want next to me when facing down a gaggle of ravenous anti-gunners in any given political debate. Thanks again, Jim!

  • ConcernedReader99

    I had to read the column a couple of times before it finally sunk in that this was printed in G&A. I agree with your decision to remove Dick… based one what little I knew about him I was very surprised when he started writing the back page to begin with. I don’t think his opinions do well on the Outdoor Channel shows that he appears in either.

  • Bob Vela

    Are we as bad as the Antis. OK a mistake may have been made, it was almost immediately corrected. We need to stop attacking our own and unite against the nuts that want to limit our constitutional rights. The fact this article stirred a hornets nest shows our passion, now lets show our intelligence, forgive our own and unite agaist the Antis.

  • John Locke

    I like to stand behind the 2nd amendment too. It doesn’t mean what your magazine and it’s readers think it means. I’m sure I’ll be flamed for not twisting the constitution and it’s amendments to fit the agenda of the NRA. Stop hiding behind it because you want guns to satisfy your paranoid delusions. There are violent shootings in our country on a regular basis, what seems monthly at this point, but you push the idea that the solution to our gun problem is more guns. It’s really pathetic that someone got fired for writing this, and the guy who approved the publication of it does a quick 180 because some Americans who think “god” gave them the right to own killing machines started to get whiny. Maybe, just for a moment, you had a sense of humanity and thought it would be a healthy and positive thing to have your magazine publish an article that promotes alternative ideas to the redneck mentality that this country suffers from. Why don’t you stand behind your gut and not give in to what is now the minority in this country? Be a journalist and stand up for humanity, not some editor who allows himself to be controlled and manipulated by a few worthless rednecks.

    Let’s bury the first amendment to protect a misinterpretation of the second. Go America.

  • Reasonable Gun Owner

    Wowzer. You sure have knocked a load of fruits and nuts out of the trees with this controversy!! Whatever happened to tolerance and compromise??
    Is G&A owned by the NRA? I have a subscription to G&A, and am a member of the NRA. I can’t express the frustration and heartburn I feel over the NRA’s [and now G&A's] policy of zero % consideration of anybody else’s opinion, and, God Forbid, reasonable compromise. I can’t imagine the potential good that could have already been accomplished by the power and finances of the NRA. There is an undeniable “lunatic fringe” of extreme individuals on both sides of the gun ownership/regulation discussion. Other than these extreme loose cannons, I believe that the majority of people on both sides of the conversation are open to some kind of reasonable, fair, non-infringing, negotiated compromise and regulation. Like others have commented, I had to reach the age of 16, take driver’s education, and pass both a written and driving test before I could get my license to drive a car. What is so horribly wrong with people being required to follow the same general outline in order to buy/own a gun? I’d feel safer! We NEED a reasonable means of keeping guns out of the hands of people that don’t have the physical or mental capacity to use them safely.
    Neither Dick Metcalf nor Jim Bequette deserved any kind of disciplinary action for Dick’s article. Dick gave his opinion on a sensitive subject, and Jim approved its publication. If you don’t agree with it, express your opinion. This entire subject needs a lot more OPEN discussion and reasonable compromise, and a lot less intolerance. I think you can take it to the bank that the NRA is sure as hell not going to let anybody take away your gun(s) unless there is something specifically wrong with YOU that you shouldn’t have a gun at your disposal.
    Come on people, let’s get realistic about this. I think we can agree that it won’t be good for any of us, or the Country, if the extremists on either side of the discussion end up getting it 100% their way. Reasonable compromise beats extremism every time.

  • Chimookman

    I live in Arizona, and have had a CCW for years. I believe that Arizona Revised Statutes that allow concealed carry without a permit are unwise. I believe that it endangers the police and promotes negative impressions on those who carry with the permit. I also believe that the renewal should require at least 4-8 hours of training, at least half of which is legally oriented. I do not disagree very much with Dick Metcalf’s final conclusion. There are enough ill-trained morons running around carrying concealed, including some dirtbafs in my town. I am a staunch supporter of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, but some regulation is necessary. Also some way to prevent nut cases from obtaining and retaining firearms is going to be necessary to keep our 2nd amendment rights in place.

  • NRA Instructor

    Hi Jim – you hypocrite! All Mr. Metcalf’s piece did was to show G&A Magazine’s TRUE colors and political leanings. All you did by allowing it in the first place is show yours. All the back-stroking and back-spinning in the world can’t change that. This debacle is YOUR responsibility. YOU should be fired and not allowed to work in the sporting media again. G&A and the rest of your parent publisher’s magazines deserve to go out of business as a result of this. If the employees get mad for loosing their jobs, they should turn to YOU for blame.

  • Netmonger

    The 2nd amendment is not some religious text – its just a law. It can be further amended at any time. And it doesnt say ‘you get to have any guns you want’ – it clearly says ‘well REGULATED militia’. There are other parts to the Constitution that are alot more important like the ‘Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’ which PREMPT the 2nd amendment. Finally, it was written 200 years ago when it took 60 seconds to reload and fire a single shot. The founding fathers would NEVER IN A 1000 YEARS have condoned civilians owning things like an AR-15. These are clearly military grade weapons. They have no business being allowed for sale in a civilian market. This is not a war zone. The rights of the majority of people to live without fear of getting shot, takes precedence over the rights of a tiny minority of primarily low self-esteem insecure men and their dangerous little hobby. Its just pathetic this is even an argument – of COURSE assault weapons should be illegal. Of COURSE magazines should be limited. This is not a a war zone.

    • dsd1

      the same then goes for speech. the founding fathers never imagined hundreds of thousands or more people could all comment and make their opinion known via the internet.

      no different then many countries tried to outlaw printing presses. you think the government does not have the 1st amendment in it’s sights too?

      are you ready to give up your 1st amendment rights? because your EXACT argument against the 2nd amendment will be used against the 1st amendment soon enough.

      i’m sure THEN you will have a problem with it. too many people only care when suddenly it affects them. you and all the other useful idiots will look back and cringe when you realize what you enabled.

    • John H. Melton

      More Typical gun grabber GARBAGE.

      1. It is an enumeration of an already existing natural law.

      2. ‘Well regulated’- really? Once again…The origin of the phrase “a well-regulated militia” comes from a 1698 treatise “A Discourse of Government with
      Relation to Militias” by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term “well
      regulated” was equated with “well-behaved” or “disciplined”. Read history, will you!!

      3.How in hell do you expect to support your ‘Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’ without a weapon of some kind? History has shown innumerable times that those without weapons will be enslaved by those that do have weapons. What happens to your ‘Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’ then? And how exactly does that ‘Right’ preempt the 2nd Amendment?

      4.Technology advances happen, but rights don’t change. By your flawed logic, we should still be using hand presses to publish newspapers.

      5. An AR-15 is NOT a ‘military grade’ weapon. That is a simple catch phrase to
      capture the emotions of the less intelligent of the species. You bought it
      hook, line and sinker.

      6.The individual rights if each American are more important than your little
      democratic demagoguery. The ‘majority rule’ you speak of has been attempted
      before- ever heard of NAZI Germany? That’s why we are a representative
      republic. Not a democracy.

      7. And finally, 60 to 90 million gun owners is a very strong minority- and we have no problems with self-esteem.

      It is pathetic that this is an argument. Of course you should stay in your basement. Of course you should tell mommy someone spoke badly to you. And of course, you should grow up and learn to reason and think clearly, rather than parroting lies, half-truths and your democratic ‘Big Lie’- similar to what the Nazi’s did…

  • John Armstrong

    PURGE ALL DISSENT!

  • darryl hanks

    In reality you should be able to own any type of fire arm you can afford barring weapons of mass destruction. Why do so few want to control so many?

  • scooter

    Jim, I believe in the 2nd amendment and feel very strong about it. I also believe if you give these politicians an inch they will take a mile. I ALSO BELIEEVE IN THE1st amendment but I also have a right that is not to spend my money to read other peoples believes I don’t like .I also have the right not to buy products produced and sold by people I don’t agree with and that are trying to take away my rights. I hope you noticed that there people out there that are taking advantage of this article .there are enough gun laws out there and these politicians don’t want more laws they want our guns and we might have just let them get a foot in the door to take our rights away. Jim Bequette the right of the citizens to bear arms is so important in this country that don’t need people doing anything that will endanger those rights. Your job was not to check grammar, punctuation or spelling it is also to check content and I think you dropped the ball on that one and it is for that reason I think you should resign your position as Editor

  • McAllister Bryant

    To Jim Bequette…

    Awesome job caving to your fringe base, punishing someone who offers thoughtful alternatives to intransigence which is alienating gun enthusiasts from the majority of this country.

    As a gun owner for over 50 years [as a child at the end of the Eisenhower Administration], it disappoints me that gun enthusiasts are building what is, in effect a Maginot Line – and will be, in the long run just as foolish.

    If I thought for a minute it was about 2nd Amendment, like you repeat four times in a 400 word column I would not view it this way…but it is not…and you know it. It is about the 85 gun industry advertisers [and I suppose the one Viagra ad] that fill your magazine.

    It is a shame that gun enthusiasts continue to throw those who have a slightly differing opinion under the bus…but I guess cashing those checks make your echo chamber tolerable.

    This gun owner knows you missed the target…completely.

  • vliam

    Thank you for standing up for the rights of the children, felons, and the mentally deficient to keep and bear arms. “No strings attached.”

    • Phd Marty

      I fail to see the connection to issues unrelated to either article. Where was it supported to drop the age restrictions, drop the law against felons owning weapons, or even advocating handing out weapons to the low IQ individuals who can’t figure out how to load one. Unfortunately, no law can dictate common sense, which is why we have laws already to restrict who is able to own a firearm. Now if you want to advocate mental health assistance, maybe you may have something. I have yet to see anyone who suggested we wipe the slate clean with the laws we have. However, as many have said, our rights should not be infringed is meant for those who have the rights in the first place. Felons, above all, should lose many of their rights when they choose to commit crimes. We also select a certain age or ability to vote as well. Who is to say what mental issues warrant losing your 2nd Amendment rights? Is a bout of depression qualify? Maybe you advocate someone who has a fear of heights should lose their ability to own a firearm. By definition that is a mental health issue. Maybe being over zealous should be a good reason, then you would lose your rights. I suggest you move to NY or CA where the laws are more to your liking, restrictive. Then you would be nice and safe as everyone knows with the strict gun laws, people never have guns when they should not.

      • EdBowie

        If you haven’t seen all the letters calling for ‘zero restrictions’, and ‘gun rights for every single American’, and ‘any regulation is an infringement’, apparently you’ve covered over your eyes.

        • Phd Marty

          I stand corrected! I did not read enough of the many letters, but the ones I did read were in addition to what is in place. If this is the case, my apologies for certain! I would like to see all the states to be similar and not like DC and NY. As I said, you can not dictate common sense but some issues should go along with the rights, and loss of them, that everyone attains when turning 18. I am required to qualify every year to retain my CCW. While it truly does not bother me, I question having to every year. Then again, when you take the responsibility to carry a firearm, you should feel morally obligated to be competent, but how many times have we heard stories of law enforcement who’s departments “can’t afford” to pay for this and these are people who are most likely to use their sidearms. I just heard of a department who is on financial hard times and cancelled their annual certification. How is that for fiscal responsibility? You really have to love it when they require a private citizen to qualify every year yet those who are tasked with upholding the law don’t have to shoot well!

  • Sane Person

    Man, there are a great number of inbred child molesters that read Guns & Ammo. May god have mercy on your souls.

  • Tech Kitsune

    Way to defend the Second while regretting and gutting the First.

    The utter hypocrisy is why my fiance canceled his subscription to G&A today, and I’m working on convincing a couple of others I know with subscriptions to drop them as well.

    Firing someone for expressing an opinion in an article *you* published is disgusting and reprehensible. You thought the unintelligent readers that were complaining are mad? Guess how pissed I am about this? Magnitudes of order more than any of those whining readers.

    Thankfully, in my personal arsenal, I have the appropriate weapon of mass destruction for getting justice and vengeance for Mr. Metcalf – my mouth and 300+ million people that I have as an audience across hundreds of services on the internet.

    And both barrels are pointed straight at you. You’re about to learn that no weapon you could dare bring to bear, or have ever reviewed, is as powerful.

    I hope you’re prepared. There’s about to be gallons of digital blood spilled all over your editing room floor.

    • LtColJPM

      So many people don’t understand what the 1A is about. It’s about limiting the powers of the government when it comes to free speech and religious believes.
      It has NOTHING to do with a PRIVATE business. If the owner of the magazine doesn’t like what one of the writers has to say – it’s his right to fire him. Has nothing to do with the 1A as the government is not involved here.

  • Rick Swirl

    I’m severely mentally ill and it’s not fair that the government take away my guns. Thank you for firing this lunatic.

  • GIGS

    It is like Zumbo-gate all over again…..

  • Emmeran

    What part of the 2nd Amendments “Well armed militia” do people not understand? The complete amendment must be applied, as such I expect all of the vocal advocates of militarized weapons in civilian hands to show up for militia drill. It normally occurs on the first weekend of each and every month at your local National Guard Armory. Express your rights and be there! (Also be in shape, we’ll be going for a 3 mile run)
    Otherwise we will all understand that you are just whining that someone might limit the number and type of toys you have to play with. I’ll see you there!!

    • Phd Marty

      So your telling us that the Minute Men went to drills every month? Ah huh. Our biggest defense in this country is the fact we have so many people who own firearms. This is what made it a non issue when the Japanese thought about attacking our mainland, gun owner behind every tree. So by your thoughts, if we are ever attacked by a foreign nation, if we can’t run three miles, we can’t possibly fire a weapon accurately. Apparently you know dick about history or the resolve of the American people. While it is true we have our individual problems, when disaster strikes, as in 911, we always seem to group together. Or maybe your memory is too short to remember? As for militarized weapons, I don’t know of anyone who owns multiple automatic rifles, do you? In fact, how many people do you know with Howitzers, LAWs, or 500 pound bombs? Just because a weapon has some aesthetic features that have no affect on it’s function, it is not a “militarized weapon”. Now you sound like Feinstein’s lackey. So why not go for your three mile run and we will keep honing our aiming skills and we shall see when the crapola hits the fan, who fares better! One of us will be the shooting the guy chasing you!

  • ThinkinLincoln

    Too bad. Seems to me that one purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect important things like the 1st Amendment. This seems more like a response to preserve customers than to take a principled stand.

  • Norm Morris

    Mr. Bequette is publicly admitting to an error in judgement, and taking ownership of it. I admire that, and will continue to subscribe to G&A, but unfortunately those who say damage has been done to the cause because of this are right, as I’m sure Mr. Bequette would agree; piling on him at this point doesn’t help. The anti-self-defense, pro-criminal crowd loves this kind of back stepping by a supposedly “pro-gun” guy, but there’s nothing more that can be done about it, so IMO we should support G&A and move forward.

    • Rick Swirl

      I am pro-criminal. Indeed, everyone who is for gun control is pro-criminal, it’s as simple as that. And I will march in the streets with pride carrying a “pro-criminal” banner. Criminals are what make this country great, which is why I support criminals. VIVA REDUCTIONISM

  • daf3625 .

    I will continue to be a loyal reader. We all make mistakes. And when we do, the only right thing to do, is to stand up and take responability. I believe G&A has done that.

  • Jerry Patterson

    I was prepared to write a letter of protest when I learned the writer was fired. I was disappointed in the failure of the editorial to recognize the roots of the second amendment. In Europe (and other countries going back to Bible Old Testament times), the nobility which was the government had the right to bear arms. The common people were deprived of this right. The Second Amendment gave the right to the militia, every able bodied man, to have the same right to bear arms as the government. Any discussion of the subject should recognize this fact.

  • 2nd to NONE

    Good riddance to both!!!

  • Hemmin47

    Are your readers so insecure in their beliefs that *anything* that challenges even a tiny part of their dogma should result in the sacking of the writer responsible for it? That’s pathetic.

  • Steve L.

    This was’nt a mistake, it was a blunder of epic proportions! For crying out loud, you people should know better! The people on the other side dont care WHAT they have to do to get their agenda passed. They sit, chomping at the bit just waiting for the next shooting so they can come out and scream more gun control even before the bodies assume room temperature. You should have known that the lefties would be all over this like a cheap suit blasting it all over the media to make it look like support for the 2nd Amendment was waning even among gun enthusiasts. I will continue reading G&A but I ask that you PLEASE use better judgement next time.

  • fed-up

    I want to congratulate you, Mr Bequette. You are a brave individual with integrity and courage. While you may have lost your job today, your efforts will be rewarded. You, and most americans, want sensible regulations and controls of weapons that have the capacity to infringe on others’ rights to LIFE and LIBERTY. Hurray to a GREAT american hero.

  • Realworldgunowner

    I am a gun owner. I am an advocate for gun ownership rights. I liked the article. I a sorry to have received this email. You fired someone for doing exactly what you pay them to do, discuss gun ownership. Is his view the same as all of your readers? No, the comments below make that abundantly clear. Do they represent yours? No, you stated as much. Are you so damned afraid of your own shadow that such an article had you fire someone? Yes. God forbid we ever talk about the elephant in the room as gun owners. You think the 2nd prohibits weapons regulation? Weapon ownership is already regulated, unless you have an F-16 in your back yard with an Abrahms in your driveway. Purchased a TOW missile lately? Lets get real people. The fact that you fired this person after you blindly published what they wrote speaks more towards your own fear of an opinion different than yours than it does anything else. You didn’t care about the article until the MURICA crowd started writing letters. He didn’t tow your party line 100% so thats it? As though you have somehow deciphered the 2nd after a couple hundred years of people trying? I would expect you, as an editor and particularly as an editor of a gun magazine, to stand for freedom, not politics. You are no better than many that we fight against to keep our guns. Not only will I cancel my subscription, I will encourage others to do the same. Not because we don’t believe in the 2nd, but because we don’t believe in being a bully just because someone thinks a little different than you do. Smart people surround themselves with people who will discuss their ideas. Morons surround themselves with yes men. At least its clear where you stand.

  • Bruce Jala

    People, you are reading too much into what Dick Metcalf said in his article. Read it again! If you think his statement that requiring 16 hours of good training is excessive in order to carry, then come live in my state, New Jersey, and see what excessive regulation really is! All your talk about nukes and rocket launchers are what give responsible gun owners a bad name.

  • rivroowalker

    A well regulated Militia – Gun nuts hate that phrase. It turns their claims to complete unfettered freedom with respect to gun ownership on it’s head.
    Regulated
    It’s right there in the amendment.

  • patches64

    If we go soft on the second Amendment we LOSE this country,PERIOD!

  • John T

    I really think it speaks volumes about my fellow gun owning brothers and sisters that we cannot have a discussion about the most heated issue pertaining to the sport we all love. That we are completely unable to hear other voices on this issue really means that we have completely turned into the very ignorant and stubborn fools we have been dealing with on the anti-gun crusade.

    Whether the majority of readers are capable of understanding this at this time or not, this is one of the most damning and embarrassing moments for a magazine that i have read for decades.

    “the inability to have a reasonable conversation on a given contested issue generally means that ones position is a foolish one, ours is not that type of position, but that is the exact message this action sends to the world.

  • Madisonian

    Mr. Bequette, you cannot un-ring the bell. I question your true beliefs now, given that you made the decision to publish this editorial, and only now, in the wake of the well deserved reaction from your readership, you have suddenly come to your senses. Both events – the original editorial, and your firing of Mr. Metcalf – have given ammunition to the anti-gun crowd to fire at us. Perhaps all future editorial should carry the statement “I’m Jim Bequette, and I approve of this editorial,” just as political campaigners are required to say, so they’ll be no misunderstanding – and no ritual firings – in the future.

  • Dallace

    So in order to uphold your commitment to the 2′nd Amendment you’re gonna use the first as a door mat ? There’s nothing healthy or productive to be had from that. It was an opinion piece that anyone was free to disagree with and many people did. That’s healthy for our community, not the opposite. It’s when we all start engaging in Like Think that we fall into the same hole as the Lib’s and start to rot just like they do.

    Sorry Jim, you caved. Dick at least had the guts to put his opinions out there, you’re just trying to hide from the heat.

  • William Reynolds

    too late, a new editor won’t change the fact that this magazine has revealed its support for gun control.Remember Recoil magazine. Same shit, an apology and a new editor. Goodbye Guns and Ammo, a loyal reader for 27 years, never again will i buy anf of your magazines.

  • JohnnyZ77

    All I want is a record check. Having my record checked before I buy a gun does not prevent me from owning one, I’m not a felon or a crazy person. Anyone that is against record checks for something as dangerous as a gun is just a fool.

  • Jerome Bigge

    The term “well regulated” had a different meaning in the 18th Century than it does today. A more accurate term would be “well trained”. Having a “well trained” militia would of course be a good thing.

  • EdBowie

    Guns&Ammo will go down in history forever, as the ones who handed the Brady campaign total victory. The offending editorial called for limited restrictions on the *criminally* irresponsible, on those too violently mentally ill to be responsible, and on those too young to be responsible. The basic legal situation we have had for many years.
    The wave of lunatic ‘zero restrictions’ letters demanding that all of the above have full 2nd amendment rights (even including convicts in prison), are exactly the ammunition that the anti-gunners need to leverage their campaign all the way to success.
    “Hey look, even the mainstream, like G&A readers want criminals in prison to be armed, see how they lynched the writer that dared suggest otherwise? Time to protect ourselves from all gun nuts like them”.
    Simply amazing.

  • Wayne Atchley

    If you understood what your “valued readers want,” you would never have allowed such a foolish thing to happen. What’s the REAL backstory? New owners of the publishing group who are liberals or at least liberal-leaning? Political pressure? You’re STILL assuming that your readers are ignorant. I hope your publication goes down in flames for pulling such a glaringly idiotic stunt.

  • rgeorge1

    It’s shameful that you stifle dissent or debate by sacking one of your writers.

  • pbh

    Metcalf should have been put out to pasture by now. The last issue of Ruger Inside & Out he started shooting at a target and ended up shooting at air planes not to mention how he interacts with the Ruger staff. I don’t think he is a happy person especially to write that column the way he did. It could have been written much more cinstructively but he chose to essentially slap pro-gun people in the face. Shame on him.

  • doliver

    Jim and Dick thank you for your contributions. I understand we live in “let’s eat our own if they disagree with us” society. And my views are definitely that of a hard core civil libertarian.
    But that includes all rights, including “Freedom of Speech.”
    It is a shame that tolerance, the Hallmark of civilized society has gone by the wayside.
    I personally would never want to be responsible for a man losing his job because he didn’t share my exact same opinion.
    I have been a avid readers of many that I did not agree with entirely.
    No apologies are needed for doing your job.

  • timothy mauldin

    Tim Mauldin
    If you read Mr. Mecalf’s article carefully,you will notice that if you replace “regulation” with
    “control” and “makes sense” with “common sense” and the assertion that the writer is both
    a gun owner and believes in the individuals right to keep and bear arms and that politician
    dictated controls do not infringe, you will undoubtably recognize the mantra of the Obama
    gun control campaign. “We can pass common sense gun safety laws that will protect our
    children from these guns and not infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms”.
    The way to tell on which side you are standing is to see who stands with you and who
    opposes you. I would rethink my position carefully if Feinstein, Obama, Blommberg, etc.
    were on my side.

  • harte

    well rest assured I will never subscribe to your magazine. Hypocrisy at it’s worst!

  • needful

    just read the article that dick metcalf wrote,WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS!!!!!!! i always liked metcalf’s articles about guns but allowing him to print this garbage in a FIREARM MAGAZINE is about as stupid as jumping around in a rubber raft in the middle of the ocean with football cleats on!!!!he deserved to be fired,this magazine is finished!!!they lost all credibility as a sportsman’s magazine!!! good luck writing for good housekeeping or what ever liberal rag that will have you.

  • goatscape navigator

    “As the publisher of this magazine, I chose to run this article. No excuses, no backtracking. Oh, you guys don’t like it? I’ll fire the guy responsible, then.”

    Riiiiiiiiight.

  • c

    Being military and supporting you for year I am so let down I hope this cost you to go out of business. To put this in prospective what you did was like me knowingly walking away when my team is in a firefight or leaving a wounded or k.i.a soldier in the field. Then coming around after the danger is over and apologizing you just do not do that. You have people who screen all your magazine articles before they go out. You knew what was in that column and you choose to publish it anyway. Cannot accept any apology on this matter it has been a hot topic for years. This just tell me you probably voted for Obama also.

    • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

      Yeah it has nothing to do with killing, it’s all political. What nation are you fighting for?

  • sensrbtch

    hey jimie, u ned to load u brans, be4 u shott u mouff! sed in da spek of da prez. OBAMINICS! witch u r a membr of hit inner wet-spot. r u a jimbo bimbo or a vickum of da demo-krap 4 brans bulshite spek kampaign? dude! u wid usa oir u r agin usa?

  • airborneinfantry

    I love how some people have a problem with reading comprehension. I don’t have a PHD but the 2nd amend is pretty easy to understand. To Mr Metcalf and a few other posters here that say “it even says “regulated” in the Amend. Yes it does. But it is clearly talking about the “militia” not the firearms since there is a “comma” separating the sentence. “well regulated militia,,,,,comma,, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed….It does not say “the right of the people’s arms should be regulated…the ONLY way this could be misunderstood is if you are a complete MORON or hell bent on taking away peoples right to bear arms.

    • EdBowie

      ‘People’ including illegal aliens, convicts in prison, violent patients in mental hospitals, and 7 year olds on the school bus?

    • Tracy Thorleifson
    • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

      Try looking up the word “Amendment” in a dictionary. It can and should be amended.

      • airborneinfantry

        This is what this country has been founded on.Maybe you need to hop a boat back to England.

        • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

          Maybe a little education is needed on your side. There was a country here before it was invaded by imbeciles and their guns.

          • airborneinfantry

            Really? What was the country called before we got here? Please Wow us with your seemingly vast historical knowledge and education. Maybe you are better suited in the more Liberal Huffington post. You seem to change the subject when the discussion isn’t going your way.

          • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

            You brought up “Maybe you need to hop a boat back to England.” and I responded. So who exactly changed the subject? See how dumb you are? Get your parent to help get you a library card to look up the word “Amendment”. I just know there are no books in your household.

  • No Pretense

    Warren Burger:

    “Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

    If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

    to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
    to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
    that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
    to have a “ballistic fingerprint” of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim’s body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

    These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the “domestic tranquility” promised in the Constitution. “

  • Varminator1

    After reading the response from Jim Bequette, I went back and re-read the article by Metcalf. I might make the suggestion that everyone take a deep breath, hold it (as in taking a shot), and re-read as I did. We may not like it, but Dick was simply stating the facts and his opinion regarding them. We all have opinions and some know what an opinion is like, so Jim, what was the problem? It was an editorial, and just who is the editor of G&A? Knee jerk PC action at best.
    And hey, 16 hours of CC training required! I’ve seen people who have passed the CC course that couldn’t hit a barn door at 7 yards.

  • No Pretense

    Any English teachers out there? What’s the predicate of this sentence:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    • Tracy Thorleifson

      The predicate, in the language of the day, referred to a militia that was well-practiced, competent and efficient in the use of arms – that’s the original meaning and intent of “well regulated.” It has nothing whatsoever to do with regulation under law.

      You are making the same mistake as Metcalf, and repeating the nonsense of the gun banners. Get educated, or take a hike.

  • Jilu Khan Spandiary

    We needed Eric in the first place just my opinion. :)

  • nucleardeath57

    Dick and Jim, thank you for your contributions to the shooting community.
    I don’t agree with Mr. Metcalf’s opinion, however as one other reader posted, Mr. Metcalf is certainly entitled to his free speech and his opinion.
    Even if his opinion gives ammunition to the anti-gunners and I wish he had never written it.
    To all those who are directing venom and Guns and Ammo and Dick Metcalf just remember the following.
    Dick Metcalf is a nice guy who was afflicted by a bit of stupid when he penned his column.
    I know everyone reading this has been hit by stupid at some point in their life.
    Remember, Metcalf was one of us for a long time. He screwed up, but he is not the enemy.
    Save your ire for those who are the full time enemies of gun owners like Feinstein, Bloomberg, the Brady center.
    Dick Metcalf is not going to spend every waking minute hating the entire second amendment and all private gun ownership.
    Those others I mention will certainly continue to attack your rights.

  • Bob Thorton III

    I think I’ll be unsubscribing because of my concern that this magazine is putting the second amendment before the first.

    • jamescricket63

      Without the Second, there is no First. And, by the way, your First Ammendment right has nothing whatsoever to do with how your employer deals with your speech…unfortunately. If that were true, you could call a spade “a spade” without being fired.

      • Michael Maynard

        Pssst. Don’ look now, but it was an…editorial…supposedly where opinion goes in a magazine or newspaper.

        • jamescricket63

          Psst…don’t look now, but was written in…wait for it… Guns & Ammo. It’s no different than a Ford employee writing in a Ford enthusiast magazine about how we should all start to consider the benefits of owning a Chevy. Yeah. Not good for business. Man, where do you people come from….

  • Crusader06

    Probably would not be a bad idea for the one that approved that article to be published to be out looking for a job too. As you admit, Jim, Metcalf didn’t published that article all by himself.

  • bigyaz

    HEADLINE: “Gutless editor throws columnist under the bus”

    Guns and Ammo editor Jim Bequette found himself in hot water today and gutlessly fired one of his writers with “a long and disinguished career.”

    Bequette approved the column beforehand, but once it ran and the readers (who obviously don’t want to read anything they might disagree with) revolted he had to backtrack quickly. But rather than resign, Bequette took the cowardly way out and fired the writer.

    Personally, I don’t think anyone should lose a job for voicing an opinion. But if Metcalf is going to lose his job then Bequette should man up and resign.

    • jamescricket63

      WRONG> Bequette took personal responsibility and held his writer accountable as well. It is most unfortunate for our society (and it is showing) that no one seems to understand personal responsibility these days. Rather like our current “president” and his Secretary of Health who both “took responsibility” for their massive failures but nothing happened as a result. Pathetic.

      • bigyaz

        So what consequences did Bequette face? Did he lose his job? Did he dock his own pay? Suspend himself for a month? Uh, no, he fired an underling and wrote a mea culpa column. Big deal.
        Maybe that’s “taking responsibility” in your world, but not in mine.

        • cololew

          Did you read the part about him resigning?

        • jamescricket63

          He stepped own, big. Or didn’t you read the article?

  • Clarence smith

    The mistake you made is assuming that one can have a rational discussion with most todays shooters. Nothing rational about them.

  • bob

    Sophistry at its best. Are we REALLY supposed to believe NO ONE at the entire magazine realized what they were publishing? Personal responsibility kids. Watch your subscriptions drop to zero.

  • jr

    I did not agree with the article, I also do not agree with the decision to get rid of him. He spoke his mind, Guns and Ammo should have put a disclaimer stating it was not their opinion, only his if they did not like it. I do not need to read or hear only one biased side of anything, there is some common sense in what was said, I firmly believe in our constitution, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it is by every gun control act ever passed-whether it be regulation of machine guns, caliber size or who cannot possess one. All of us have seen the idiot that is not even sure which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, followed by the comment “he should not be allowed to have a gun”, what they need is training, how to get or require the training without infringing on their rights is a question I do not have an answer for . I do not believe in having to have a firearms permit to own or carry a gun, but for some people, without the licensing they have absolutely no idea what to do with the firearm. We have the God given right to have firearms, I wish there was a way everyone could be safe while exercising that right, anybody got a brilliant solution, I think Metcalf was trying to explain some people need training, as firearms people, we need to show we are responsible, even though the constitution does not require it. That is my two cents worth.We can speak our minds and have our firearms because of all the men and women and their families who have served, died and bled to protect our rights.
    God Bless Them all.

  • Chris Smith

    At first I was going to cancel my subscription to G&A. But having thought about it and read some of the replies and the response to the article I decided to stick with them and see how it pans out. I don’t agree with what was written but Metcalf has a right to his opinion. It’s worth defending. Remember people, that in this emotional charged time in this country’s history, there are people out there who want to destroy it, both external and from within. Now is the time for us to stop being keyboard warriors and to come together like I know we can and stop the BS bickering and childish infighting. We Must stand Together or we will all hang separately.Dr Ben Franklin said that and I believe it rings true today. Give G%A a break. Support them and above all support each other as we fend off those that wish to strip us of all our freedoms.

  • Boots

    I suppose the I did not know answer or I wasn’t aware of that or it was someone else’s fault if popular these days. I am glad that you now understand those of us who support Guns and Ammo are not tolerant of this. PERIOD

  • Illamina

    Metcalf shouldn’t be surprised that people who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later don’t want to have a meaningful discussion. If your “commitment to the second amendment is unwavering” that means your commitment to “A WELL REGULATED militia” is unwavering, but that’s not the truth is it? Your commitment is to “as many guns, however I want, with no rules”. I absolutely believe everyone should be able to acquire a fire arm to defend themselves, if necessary. And hell, if you like to shoot crazy, giant murder machines that are primarily constructed for warfare, cool. There should be training, and background checks. But don’t give me a line about “sporting” when you buy an M-16.

    • Guest

      Typical obama boot-licking government lackey. Suck it, you pathetic POS.

  • TimBones

    Be satisfied, it’s a real apology. Editor Jim Bequette steps down immediately, a new editor, Eric R. Poole, who has solid credentials comes in and writer Dick Metcalf’ won’t be asked for more articles. I enjoy reading G&A and the NRA’s Rifleman monthly and will continue to subscribe.

  • Edgar Friendly

    Mr. Bequette,

    Why did you publish this communist drivel in the first place?

  • JGSRELP

    Wow, Jim way to stand up to some criticism. You push Dick Metcalf out because he spoke the truth about the lack of responsible gun owners. Smart thinking there. Why not defend your writer who has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter. Good way to throw him under the bus.

    Only the fringe paranoid/delusionals think that there is nothing wrong with Americans gun fetishism. Why not take a stand against that group? What Metcalf said was very middle of the road, common sense. Why throw the only person out thats talking sanely about this?

    You have one writer that expresses the same opinion and sentiment as the majority of Americans and you toss him out to appease the lunatics. The mind boggles.

    • Lambros Linardakis

      Fun fact, england, the crown jewel of anti gun-examples of paradise, had a ridiculously low crime rate and no gun laws whatsoever (other than the law saying cops can’t have guns). That is, till the 1920s. Due to an increase in crime, gun laws were instituted, with no affect on the increasing crime rate. Same applies to a lot of other gun less countries.

      • JGSRELP

        You seem to be responding to someone elses comment. I never once said anything about removing all guns. I never once said anything about anti-gun.

        Again you are confused or only hearing what you want to. The debate is not about No guns its about SAFER GUN OWNERS. Metcalf also said NOTHING about getting rid of all guns.

        Your use of the slippery slope argument is completely invalid and without merit.

      • jamescricket63

        Lambros…don’t waste your breath with this little guy. He’s a mind-numbed obama -zombie who lives in his parents’ basement and rants about GW Bush destroying the economy, rather than going out, getting a job, working his way up, and contributing to society. In short…he’s an uneducated loser. Let him go, man.

    • jamescricket63

      “Fetishism”? Since when did a right guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United States become “fetishism”? Typical liberal piece of garbage. You suck. When the jack-booted thugs come for your measly, sniveling arse, I hope you remember your ridiculous diatribe, you pathetic, boot-licking suck wad.

      • JGSRELP

        Ah, name calling and threats, you must be a republican. You have zero facts and are ignoring reality. Also famous trates of republicans.

        Jack-booted thugs. This is a perfect example of your inability to deal with reality. Are you so afraid, so paranoid about life and reality that you are expecting someone to come and attack you? Something tells me you either want it to happen SO bad so you can finally be proven correct. Such a fatalists view of life.

        • jamescricket63

          Ah, ignorance and blind worship of your political god. You must be a democrap. Facts and reality are on my side, dumbass. Or didn’t you study history? Oh, I forgot; obammy tells you what to believe, including what he will and won’t do, and you believe it…every stinking, ridiculous word. One need not be paranoid to clearly understand what has happened throughout history. If you are blissful in your willful ignorance, that’s your problem. And, contrary to your ever-so-insightful bullshi+, I actually hope I’m wrong. I hate the idea that people like you have elected such disgusting garbage to destroy what was once the greatest nation to have ever existed. Unfortunately, you’ve already proven me correct by your inaccuracies and your inability to understand what’s happening right before your very eyes. Read, JGS…be informed. It’s a real life skill. You should try it sometime.

          • JGSRELP

            Why did our opinions about common sense gun laws (not grabbing or control) turn into your diatribe about Obama?

            Newsflash lunatic, gun deaths and shooting and mass murder by guns was already happening BEFORE Obama took office. What is wrong with you? Why are you gun FETISHIST the same ones that think the big ol black man in the white house is coming for you? He hasnt yet and though you are crazy enough to NOT be able to pass a psychological exam to own a gun you still do.

            Talk about trying to be informed. LOL where do you get your news? Nothing as been destroyed by Obama that wasnt already destroyed by Bush/Cheney. I like how you think Obama has destroyed the country even though a completely destroyed economy, global recession is exactly what he inherited from the last guy. But Im sorry, Im letting facts get in the way of your insane history lesson. Through all of those words you typed up, you still didnt give me one iota of what you or me should be afraid of. You sound like those End of day’ers that constantly feel that armageddon is just over the horizon. The problem is the only people saying that is YOU and the other paranoids that read the same fringe reality blogs. You know the ones, they have all the survival gear, water purification kits and crap like that in the margins.

            You fear it, but secretly beg for it to come. Then you’ll be the prepared one, the correct one. Its frighting and sad. Im sad for you.

          • jamescricket63

            Hah hah. And it begins….blaming Bush and calling me a racist. Okay…you didn’t use the word..but you still used the idea. You liberals really do live in an alternative universe, with fairies and unicorns. You didn’t even read my post, did you? Speaking of news flashes…here’s one, you typical, liberal hypocrite. Now, see if you can follow along. I know it’s difficult to read and comprehend at the same time, but really, reading comprehension, much like being informed, is an important life skill. So…pay attention.

            You, little guy, started out by referring to our Second Amendment right as some kind of sexual deviance. I immediately saw your spew for what it was and decided to poke you in the eye with a stick because, frankly, stupid people like you piss me off. You see, dumbass, there are those of us who take the Constitution seriously. Unlike lemmings such as you, we think it should be the guiding basis for all decisions made by our government. I know you flag-burning, excretory canal poking, rap-artist sucking freaks love the Constitution, but the truth is, you only love it so long as it allows you the opportunity to ply your sick perversions uninterrupted. Then, there are guys like me. I believe our founding document does indeed allow you all the sick, twisted perversions that I referred to above, but in order for those to remain intact, the underpinning law allowing it to be so must be protected; and fervently so. As so many of my fellow countrymen love to say on their bumper stickers; “without the Second, there will be no First”. People who view the situation the way you do are the ones who so willingly give up your freedoms in return for protection. And, as Ben Franklin is so oft-quoted (right or wrongly), “Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security deserve neither.”

            Contrary to your anti-Bush tirade, I wasn’t in favor of the Patriot Act. In fact, I thought our government went well over the line with all of that garbage because I firmly believe that when human beings are given that much power, it is simply a matter of time before it is abused. When your man-god ‘messiah’ was elected, even though I can’t stand him or his politics (yes, I know…that makes me racist…man, you libs are shallow little lemmings), I had two hopes. One, that we would finally begin to put all of this false racism crap behind us. I figured that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world would finally be put out to pasture and that we could move on. Well…we all know how that turned out. Any mention of any argument in opposition to obama-the-great, and here come the race baiters. It’s disgusting, really. And you are right in the middle of it. “The ol black guy in the white house”. What a stupid bunch of ad homnem. Look it up.
            Second, I hoped that we would begin to undo a lot of the over-reach of the Bush-Chaney years.

  • Mark Larson

    I have long been a subscriber to guns and ammo. I appreciate freedom of speech, but Im not interested in a gun rights debate in a firearms magazine. Its simple, I read stuff like G&A because the debate for me is over. When I read Metcalfs backstop column I got mad! The guy is welcome to his views, but clearly this wasn’t the right place to publish them. I have considered ending my subscription, but I think the fact that the magazine recognized the mistake and fired Metcalf shows that they understand their readers, so for now Ill keep it. I wont if it happens again.

  • jamescricket63

    This is the way a person with character behaves…unlike the garbage in the White House and his lackeys…who all say “I’m sorry. I take responsibility”. But then continue to collect a taxpayer-funded paycheck.

  • Dick Tinkleton

    Hello Jim,
    We would also like you to resign. You tolerated this article pretty well and now are trying to 0bama yourself out of it. Don’t be a Rodeo Clown Jim.

    i can hear you now Jim, if you like your guns, you can keep your guns. you just can’t get any new scary black ones.

    Please have some shame and resign,
    K thanks,

    Richard Tinkleton.

    • cololew

      I guess you didn’t read the article?

  • fratdawgg23

    “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.”

    Well, it would have if the complaining readers didn’t let live in a circus of fear, a dystopian mindset in which Gun Grabbers are hiding around every corner and they dream of having a day like Joe Horn so they too can shoot somebody and feel important and in control. Wonder what was taken from them as children to render them so afraid, angry and anxious to neutralize the (totally imagined) threat?

    Cheers.

    • nucleardeath57

      Listen ivory tower lad, someone very real (not imagined) pried open the side door on my house at 2:00 am some years ago.
      Just the sound of a round being chambered in my Remington 870 caused this home invader to flee with great haste. No shots were fired and I did not have to put my life or that of my family in danger and confront this criminal unarmed.
      I don’t feel in control, I AM in control. I take full responsibility for the safety of myself and my family.
      It is the height of irresponsibility to leave your loved ones unprotected while
      you dial 911 and wait …and wait.
      I have a keen understanding of real life and the potential for others to do harm.
      What strange and warped childhood event caused the anti-gunners to be so afraid of an inanimate hunk of metal and plastic? I certainly don’t know.
      Perhaps a mental health professional can answer this question.
      I am offended, not anxious, when idiotic politicians try to take the very tools by which I ensure the safety of my loved ones.
      If you don’t think they want to take our gun rights, look at legislation the worst of them introduce. This is their wish list. Just because reasonable people stopped it, doesn’t mean they won’t try.
      I am pleased that you have had a pampered and sheltered life that prevents you from understanding how the real world works.
      Hopefully you can find a little safe bubble where you never have to deal with the fact that there are people in this world who would do you harm for a nickel.

      Until that time, I can assure you the prisons in this country are not filled with “totally imagined”.

      • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

        Now there’s some B.S.

        • nucleardeath57

          If I wanted to hear your opinion Skippy, I would watch MSNBC.
          Please come back when you can form a cogent thought without
          finding out what Rachael Maddow thinks first. I wish lib-drones would go back to studying their belly buttons instead playing troll under the bridge.

          • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

            Doesn’t everybody who has a gun hear strange noises and cock their weapon. Paranoia runs rampant in the gun lobby.

  • Matt Baen

    You gun enthusiasts sure go ballistic easily. Why, I would even say you have hair-trigger tempers, metaphorically speaking. No need to go off half-cocked until you spit bullets at folks in the rhetorical crosshairs.

  • Tracy Thorleifson

    Mr. Bequette, kudos to you and G&A for doing the right thing. Unlike the leadership of the current administration in Washington, it would appear G&A is willing to take responsibility for it’s mistakes. Although no doubt painful for the G&A organization, it’s entirely appropriate for Mr. Metcalf to be terminated, and for your tenure as editor to come to an immediate end. The factual errors and flawed analogies of Mr. Metcalf’s column were so egregious as to require no lesser response. Mr. Metcalf essentially parroted the specious arguments of the gun banners, and such utter drivel has no place in G&A. While “healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights” has its place, Metcalf’s horrendous column is most certainly *NOT* the place from which to start.

    Bottom line: I won’t be cancelling my subscription just yet, but G&A is now on probation in my book. I won’t forgive a second transgression of this nature, and I’ll certainly never forget this one.

  • Thom

    I feel like every commenter is a constitutional scholar….

    • Tracy Thorleifson

      Every living, breathing American should be a Constitutional scholar. The Constitution is the defining document of our Republic, and was intended to understandable by, and accessible to, the common citizen. If you aren’t a scholar of the Constitution, shame on you. If you’d like to make a start, here’s a good place to begin: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

  • former G&A subscriber

    Maybe it’s time for a new editor at G&A.

    • cololew

      So I take it you didn’t read the article.

  • Michael Maynard

    Mr. Metcalf made a well reasoned argument, but rather than debate the point he raised people went ballistic and had him fired. This is a typical tactic of the left and I never thought I’d see the day when law abiding citizens who firmly believe in the Constitution would demand that someone be fired over his opinion. What happened to rational discourse on the right? It seems that political correctness isn’t for the left alone any more. Because the editors of Guns and Ammo refused to back their employee as they should have I will never again read the magazine. You should have shown some backbone.

  • Stephen Erwin

    The supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller that “Well Regulated” refereed only to discipline and training of the militia and contemporary writing supports this viewpoint. This expert in “firearms law” didn’t have a clue what he was talking about when he wrote an article straight out of the Bloomberg talking points.

  • Luckie McDonald

    Nope, you gave ammo to the liberals to run with. Too late to fix it, damage done. No longer buying your filth from the book stands…. really upset here.

  • Mark W

    I have been a Guns & Ammo subscriber for a number of years. When I read the Let’s Talk Limits article I kept on reading to find the punch line. I couldn’t believe I would ever find something like this in a gun magazine. The mainstream media, yes. But never a gun magazine. I try to stay informed and keep up with the assault on our Second Amendment rights so I know who I will support and who I will not support with my vote and wallet. I had planned to cancel my subscription and to write letters to several of the big G&A advertisers asking them to pull their ad dollars or they would lose mine. After reading the letter from Jim Bequette, I have decided to take a wait and see approach. Mr. Bequette has admitted his mistake, let Dick Metcalf go, and asked for our forgiveness. I will forgive his error this time, however I will not forget. I fully expect Mr. Bequette to live up to his promises. I also expect the magazine to take a more active role in support of our Second Amendment rights and to publish more alerts concerning the assault on those rights. I will not be handing out any second chances. I applaud those who have voiced their opposition to Dick Metcalf’s article as we must stand united and be ever vigilant when it comes to our basic freedoms as Americans. Let us now concentrate our efforts on those who work tirelessly to take away those freedoms and not squabble amongst ourselves.

  • obamamustgo2012

    when our rights are under attack on a daily bases, to allow such a article to be published is viewed as and a attack on our rights. …that article represented the opinions of guns and ammo in the public eye, not some writers opinion…. my rights are not up for negotiation……I will never buy this rag again…

    • Thomas Zell

      So, any rational discourse that you disagree with is an attack upon your rights? Won’t it just be so funny if someday there actually WAS an attack upon your rights?

  • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

    You replied to Alfred E. Neuman

    Guns are made to kill, period. Some are more powerful than others, but bringing tools and sporting apparatus into the equation is disingenuous. By the way, you left out hands as a weapon that other idiots have pointed out to me.

    And you call someone a troll which makes you an idiot.

    Here the editor of this rag had to apologize for one of his writers who went off the reservation just proves my point. Weak like minded people. I guess someone agreed with toning down the “right to bear arms” and a company didn’t meet their quota of weapons sales.

  • http://www.MentalHealthFailedMe.org/ ARMDW97

    ‘Pete Wallace

    • 3 days ago−

    They only cover what forwards their agenda.”

    Kind of what you and Guns & Ammo are doing??? What an idiot all of you are, having a debate with like weak minded people. Got your marching orders from Fox News and off you go, right? Bozo’s and idiots believe in responsible gun ownership. Weapons are made to kill, period, and that is what happens. Amendments can and should be changed over time, the second one needs to be changed soon if for no other reason than to bring back civility among the people.
    The preamble to the Constitution said it all and I advise everyone to reread it from time to time. Everything after it was writing for further clarification for the times.

  • Jack Reed

    This is terrifying that the gun community has become so radicalized that it can’t bear differences of opinion even with in its own ranks. When we shut out opinions other than our own we lose sight of reality and become further marginalized. The very purpose of an editorial page is to make an argument and present an opinion. If all of the editorials in Guns and Ammo affirm what you already believe then why read the page at all? It becomes an exercise not in intellectual exploration and advancement, but one of mind numbing conformity.

    I enjoy guns as much as the next guy, but they are not the be all end all be all of existence. For gods sake, is a hunk of metal really the most important thing in life for all of you? Kudos to you, Dick Metcalf. Shame on you, Jim Bequette, for backing down.

    • Jay Paine

      “I enjoy guns as much as the next guy, but they are not the be all end all be all of existence. For gods sake, is a hunk of metal really the most important thing in life for all of you?”

      Yeah, if you’re a gun owner I’m an NFL quarterback.

      • Jack Reed

        I am. I am an NRA certified instructor in fact. I regularly carry a Ruger LC9 and enjoy shooting IDPA with my Sig 229.

        And that’s the larger point. You are failing to see the diversity of the gun owning public. We come from all walks of life. We have all sorts of jobs, educations, and political beliefs. It just so happens that the gun owners writing in these comments and ones like them share your views rather than mine.

        It is this blindness that is the problem. You are ignoring what you don’t want to believe. Just because I welcome a diversity of thought and don’t exalt guns above all else, doesn’t mean that I don’t own and enjoy guns.

  • psrod1

    I don’t want my 2nd amendment Regulated!!! but I agree with Dick most people need a little training.There are a lot of Idiots out there thinking they are Mr. Tactical.
    Jim I accept your apology, Dick you are a great writer and I’m sorry to see you go.

    • Paul Angel

      Even though it says, “well-regulated militia”, “in defense of a free State”. The 2A has regulation and state regulation in the first clause. You can pretend it is not there but it is. If you think people require training then you believe in regulation. What i don’t like are bans. Regulation yes, bans NO.

  • Hawkshaw

    I know Mr. Metcalf as a personal friend and I know that he would not have written an article to intentionally anger gun owners. Believe me when I say “He lives and breathes the smell of gunpowder” and in his article, he is simply stating that you do not just hand guns over to just anyone that wants one or wants to carry one. You must have the proper training to safely carry and use weapons and I would hope that everyone reading this agrees with that statement. Weapons require the utmost respect and knowledge of the person behind the trigger or you have a recipe for disaster. If you read the article with an open mind instead anger in your heart, you will understand that he is simply pointing out that gun safety is the major concern that we are facing. Too many people are killed each year by accidental shootings and several are caused by lack of weapon knowledge. I see no reason for Mr. Bequette to apologize for the article, in fact, he should be proud of Mr. Metcalf’s article. Good things take time, 4 years of High School does not earn you a College degree, driving around the block for a first time driver does not earn a driver’s license and 16 hours of gun safety training will not make you a professional gun owner, but it will help the person that takes the course to have respect and knowledge that is necessary. We are all entitled to our opinion and he was simply stating his opinion as he states in the last sentence of the article “but that is me”. He didn’t say it was the opinion of Guns&Ammo or Mr. Bequette.

    • Jack Reed

      Well put.

    • Lenny

      Editor, I would like to offer the perfect explanation to one of the gun-grabbers’ common questions. “Can you own a nuke or a rocket…?”

      First, thank you for expelling a man whom clearly stated his opinion is in violation of our 2nd amendment.
      Secondly, I would ask that you would produce a piece elaborating on what I write here, so as to educate more gun owners on how to win this debate and the many “can you have Nukes?” questions. Here are the facts.

      There is ONE reason that “machine guns” (for example any 3-rd burst M4 that our troops use daily) are no longer produced here for civilian purchase.
      That is, the court decided they are not “discriminate” enough to allow the owner to protect him/her self without harming other INNOCENTS. That entire argument is patently false as we see every day in our military. They don’t kill each other and they carry the rifle religiously. So I disagree with that argument but it is law thus I will obey it. I have the same contention of law for hand grenades, and even RPG’s.

      However the court has determined that they are not discriminate enough to be legally possessed in self defense (same argument).

      I absolutely agree with ONE PART of the court’s decision – that, clearly, your rights STOP where another person’s rights BEGIN (right to life). That is why they held that you have the right to self defense but in an act of self defense you do not have the right to take an innocent life, and that person has the right to life. Therefore I agree with that clause.

      However I will never agree with the conclusion that the courts have made that a 3-round burst AR/M4/whateverYouWannaCallIt is actually indiscriminate by design. And our troops prove my point daily. So it’s simply not true. They ARE “sufficiently discriminate” so as to not kill innocent people when properly used.
      A nuclear weapon? Absolutely ban citizen possession. Such a weapon would most certainly harm innocents who were not assaulting you, therefore you do not have the right to own that weapon [as established by precedent].
      But a 3-rd burst M4? No, there is absolutely no evidence that that weapon is indiscriminate and will kill innocent people. Proven by our troops every day.

      More people need to know about the actual logical reasoning behind banning “machine guns” or whatever they want to call anything that has technology created after 1900, and I think this is a good place to start.
      Thanks!

  • Virginia T Haas

    What this shows is that some/most/all(?) of this magazine’s readers are some very closed-minded individuals. They can’t even discuss it amongst themselves without some sort of retribution. Freedom lovers my hindquarters.

  • Lenny

    –Sorry I accidentally posted this a reply to another comment, so I am posting a reply to your article now.

    Editor, I would like to offer the perfect explanation to one of the gun-grabbers’ common questions. “Can you own a nuke or a rocket…?”

    First, thank you for expelling a man whom clearly stated his opinion is in violation of our 2nd amendment.

    Secondly, I would ask that you would produce a piece elaborating on what I write here, so as to educate more gun owners on how to win this debate and the many “can you have Nukes?” questions. Here are the facts.

    There is ONE reason that “machine guns” (for example any 3-rd burst M4 that our troops use daily) are no longer produced here for civilian purchase.

    That is, the court decided they are not “discriminate” enough to allow the owner to protect him/her self without harming other INNOCENTS. That entire argument is patently false as we see every day in our military. They don’t kill each other and they carry the rifle religiously. So I disagree with that argument but it is law thus I will obey it. I have the same contention of law for hand grenades, and even RPG’s.

    However the court has determined that they are not discriminate enough to be legally possessed in self defense (same argument).

    I absolutely agree with ONE PART of the court’s decision – that, clearly, your rights STOP where another person’s rights BEGIN (right to life). That is why they held that you have the right to self defense but in an act of self defense you do not have the right to take an innocent life, and that person has the right to life. Therefore I agree with that clause.

    However I will never agree with the conclusion that the courts have made that a 3-round burst AR/M4/whateverYouWannaCallIt is actually indiscriminate by design. And our troops prove my point daily. So it’s simply not true. They ARE “sufficiently discriminate” so as to not kill innocent people when properly used.

    A nuclear weapon? Absolutely ban citizen possession. Such a weapon would most certainly harm innocents who were not assaulting you, therefore you do not have the right to own that weapon [as established by precedent].

    But a 3-rd burst M4? No, there is absolutely no evidence that that weapon is indiscriminate and will kill innocent people. Proven by our troops every day.

    More people need to know about the actual logical reasoning behind banning “machine guns” or whatever they want to call anything that has technology created after 1900, and I think this is a good place to start.

    Thanks!

    • Paul Angel

      But you are making our point. That some regulation is necessary. I’m fine with a 3-shot burst also. But you are DRAWING A LINE. Others here say there is NO LINE and I think that is crazy.

  • pej1953

    Wow, I guess the 2nd amendment trumps the 1st. I studied history under Dick Metcalf at Yale many years ago and found him to be a great teacher and a very fair man. While many may disagree with Dick, others do not, and it is interesting to me that G&A cannot tolerate diverse opinions. Dick is an excellent writer and he’s always been a strong supporter of gun rights. He is also a patriot that served with distinction in Vietnam and he will always have my respect, even if I don’t always agree with him.

    • Lenny

      I can’t say I know Dick personally, but I will contend that if he is going to write for a pro-2nd-amendment magazine then he probably should agree with the “common” interpretation of that amendment, and by “common” obviously I mean “common” people who also actually understand the constitution and its solidarity. He may be a good man, but his opinion does not belong in a magazine born and based on facts. If they have an anti-2nd-amendment person in an opinion column or something, that’s fine, but as far as representing the magazine as a whole, NO. That is how ALL magazines function and this is no exception.

      • Paul Angel

        “Common” people are not the Supreme Court and don’t make laws. You can have your opinion, but your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is NOT in line with SCOTUS. The “common” opinion is the one you WANT to be true, but is NOT true. There are lots of common opinions based on CRAP and a complete lack of education and knowledge. Do you go to a doctor or do you get the COMMON opinion from your local garbage man???

  • Nelson

    I’ve been a subscriber to your magazine for 20+ years… you can’t just blame Dick Metcalf as YOU, Mr. Bequette, are responsible for publishing such false and uneducated garbage as what Metcalf wrote. There IS no valid “discussion” or debate on the 2nd Amendment as the Amendment protects an unalienable, enumerated right that neither Federal or state’s governments have ANY authority to regulate and that Amendment is also backed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
    This goes far beyond the “What was I thinking” scenario and is nothing but fodder for anti-gun terrorists to attack MY rights with.
    Maybe you should join Metcalf on the unemployment line….

    • Paul Angel

      Dude you are WAY off. Even justice Scalia in the Heller case clearly states that the govt can regulate the 2nd amendment. Regulation does not equal infringement. There is no unalienable freedom that cannot be regulated, it just cannot be banned or infringed upon. These are not the same thing.

  • roger

    Wow! This Bequette is pathetic! One of his editors writes an editorial in which he expresses an opinion that would be considered completely rational by the vast majority of Americans. But some self-appointed Constitutional law “experts” in combat fatigues get upset. So Bequette fires the editor, then fires HIMSELF, then falls to his knees and begs for forgiveness! Guess the lesson is– give these kooks the echo chamber they want– remember they’re armed and dangerous!

    • Thomas Zell

      Sounds like he’s the kind of spineless simpleton who needs a weapon of ware to make himself feel masculine.

  • axel

    This is stupid! I would hate to think G & A has been taken over by the Tea Party. Its sad when a publication can’t print a different view of a public concern. Nor was the article all that far off from our stated belief in 2n. Amendment rights. No discussion allowed. Drink your tea partiers.

    • Paul Angel

      Totally agree.

  • The Rifleman

    I truly believe that Mr. Bequette’s apology was genuine and sincere. Although Mr. Metcalf’s article was counterproductive in support of the Second Amendment, at the same time, perhaps this exposes “another side” about Dick Metcalf that many wasn’t aware of until just now? Of course, I’m only second guessing about that for lack of having any clear reasons why he would ever think to write an article such as this.
    Jim Bequette’s take on this is that “he thought that this article would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.” Unfortunately he was completely wrong in that thinking, and it turned out to be the equivalent of trying to take a bear cub from its mother and hence… the consequences.
    However, I don’t necessarily agree with the actions that were taken on this. I assume that Dick Metcalf was very near retirement, and therefore, no real consequences to deal with, or at least not in the market as a gun writer. Not to say that is what he was thinking when he wrote this article. Although punishable perhaps to some extreme, certainly not to the degree of being fired. Mr. Metcalf has the right to freedom of speech the same as any U.S. Citizen. Nonetheless, there was more than ample time to censor/edit, or moreover, simply not publish this article if anyone thought it was questionable, or not within the image of Guns and Ammo magazine. Mr. Bequette rolled the dice on this one, and he lost.
    Whatever the true case may be, (which we may never know for sure) I would venture to say that there is probably not one person here that hasn’t made some bad choices at one time or another in their life, and perhaps some with some dire consequences. Nonetheless, Mr. Bequette has stepped up to the plate and has taken full responsibility for this mishap, and with that, extended a genuine apology to all concerned. The actions taken of immediately dismissing/firing Dick Metcalf will in no way erase the damage that has been done, and it is Guns and Ammo Magazine that will actually suffer the consequences if any, and not so much the writers. Although I certainly don’t like the article Dick Metcalf wrote, however if this indeed warrants immediate dismissal for Mr. Metcalf, then the same should also apply to any and all responsible for his actions.
    In this case, Mr. Bequette was afforded and opportunity to apologize for his mistake. My question here is then, was Mr. Metcalf afforded an opportunity to do the same? Apparently not. Instead he was immediately dismissed. If this is the methodologies and/or “standard operating procedures” of Guns and Ammo in situations like this wherein some serious review and “house cleaning” needed to be immediately implemented as an attempt to save face, then I think you stopped short of the mark.

  • Thomas Zell

    I’ve always been a supporter of personal freedom, including the right to bear arms, but after reading this, and in particular, the lulzy comments written about it, I think I might become a full blown advocate of taking your guns away, simply because you are all crazy fucktards and you deserve to have your guns taken away. I’ll be the first to volunteer for the job of gun take awayer.

    • davidmartin7777

      Nice!

    • Paul Angel

      I admit that many of the responses are indicative of paranoia and some instability. Metcalf’s column was quite sane and never even called for gun control, just licensing. Why did everyone go crazy? Can any of you separate your emotions and think rationally??

  • Dweeb

    “Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering”

    It is too bad your commitment to the First Amendment isn’t as strong. You fired him for writing that editorial.

    Hypocrits.

    • Paul Angel

      Totally agree.

  • ALL THE WAY GUNSMITH

    THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT S TO PREVENT A TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT SO IF THE GORNMENT AN HAVE A ROCKET LAUNCHER THE SO SHOULD WE!

    • Paul Angel

      I think you represent a faction that scares the crap out of many people in our country. If you screw up with that rocket launcher – how do you EVER repay the dead people who’s lives you have taken?? HOW CAN JUSTICE BE DONE??

      • ALL THE WAY GUNSMITH

        Paul I appreciate the civil response and, I believe that training should be part of a requirement but, damage can be done with a rifle on a large scale also. Today we have a government that is out of control and as hungry for power as ever before. The 2nd amendment was put in place by the founding fathers to keep the government from overthrowing the people.(meaning the people to be armed in like fashion so the government would not be so powerful as to impose it’s will on the people instead of the people imposing their will on the government as a representative government should be.) I am an ARMY AIRBORNE VET & understand that training is the key to safe operation of anything, from a rocket launcher to driving a truck.

  • marylamb72

    Shades of Jim Zumbo! An overreaction by readers and 2A supporters? I think not. This is how you get the attention of the sponsors and immediate results. And by the way, other approaches such as writing letters to our representatives works real well doesn’t it? Remember, voting with your pocket book is much more effective than voting in the booth.

  • John

    From a legal standpoint, Metcalf is correct. The Constitution regulates all of our rights within reason, as does the 2nd Amendment. And he can have an opinion about requisite firearm training; I agree a level of competence is needed to own a firearm, i.e. Firearm safety class or hunters safety class. I just completed range duty at my gun club and some moron walked into the 100 yard range with a loaded Mosin Nagant slung on his shoulder. He did not know he could not transfer a loaded uncased rifle in Minnesota. Just some dude that bought a military surplus rifle going shooting for the first time put everyone on the range in danger; it was also the first time I had the thought in my head that I may have to draw my concealed carry weapon because I was taken back by a guy walking into the range with an uncased rifle. This situation solidified my stance on firearm education. I took a course as avyoung teen when I wanted to hunt and I took a course when I wanted to get my concealed carry permit.

    • Paul Angel

      Wow a sane person. Nice to see. Why are so many gun folks going crazy over Metcalf wanting licensing and competence? I think everyone overreacted in BIG way here.

  • The Rifleman

    I truly believe that Mr. Bequette’s apology was genuine and sincere. Although Mr. Metcalf’s article was counterproductive in support of the Second Amendment, at the same time, perhaps this exposes “another side” about Dick Metcalf that many wasn’t aware of until just now? Of course, I’m only second guessing about that for lack of having any clear reasons why he would ever think to write an article such as this.
    Jim Bequette’s take on this is that “he thought that this article would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.” Unfortunately he was completely wrong in that thinking, and it turned out to be the equivalent of trying to take a bear cub from its mother and hence… the consequences.

    However, I don’t necessarily agree with the actions that were taken on this. I assume that Dick Metcalf was very near retirement, and therefore, no real consequences to deal with, or at least not in the market as a gun writer. Not to say that is what he was thinking when he wrote this article. Although punishable perhaps to some extreme, certainly not to the degree of being fired. Mr. Metcalf has the right to freedom of speech the same as any U.S. Citizen. Nonetheless, there was more than ample time to censor/edit, or moreover, simply not publish this article if anyone thought it was questionable, or not within the image of Guns and Ammo magazine. Mr. Bequette rolled the dice on this one, and he lost.

    Whatever the true case may be, (which we may never know for sure) I would venture to say that there is probably not one person here that hasn’t made some bad choices at one time or another in their life, and perhaps some with some dire consequences. Nonetheless, Mr. Bequette has stepped up to the plate and has taken full responsibility for this mishap, and with that, extended a genuine apology to all concerned. The actions taken of immediately dismissing/firing Dick Metcalf will in no way erase the damage that has been done, and it is Guns and Ammo Magazine that will actually suffer the consequences if any, and not so much the writers. Although I certainly don’t like the article Dick Metcalf wrote, however if this indeed warrants immediate dismissal for Mr. Metcalf, then the same should also apply to any and all responsible for his actions.

    In this case, Mr. Bequette was afforded and opportunity to apologize for his mistake. My question here is then, was Mr. Metcalf afforded an opportunity to do the same? Apparently not. Instead he was immediately dismissed. If this is the methodologies and/or “standard operating procedures” of Guns and Ammo in situations like this wherein some serious review and “house cleaning” needed to be immediately implemented as an attempt to save face, then I think you stopped short of the mark.

  • Brian R

    Subscription cancelled. There is already plenty of “healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights” especially right now from all corners of the media. Fortunately there are also plenty of other enthusiast magazines available.

  • justmike65

    It is obvious to me that the tentacles are reaching in. The article was an attempt to use the writer’s credibility to influence you. It is a persuasive technique called credibility transfer. Watch out for more of this. Glad G&A readers are too smart for the BS.

    • tmf354

      Yes, you’re right. Those crazy libs probably kidnapped him, brainwashed him, and then set him loose to write the article, thus using his immense credibility to influence gullible gun owners. That makes much more sense than he was just putting forth a reasonable argument to no controls at all.

      • Mitch

        Another Alinsky troll.

      • justmike65

        Sarcasm noted, but wit is not a logical argument. I suggest you read about the “halo effect” and credibility transfer in Persuasion, Social Influence and Compliance Gaining by Gass and Seiter. Also, a good study to read about exposure to ideas is: Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. It was written and conducted by Robert Zajonic. Very informative, both of them… Perhaps you can apply things from them to situations you observe, too. Kind regards

  • Rick

    Mr. Bequette. Dick Metcalf’s essay was rational and articulate. I suspect that you personally agreed with it when you published it and still do. However, I further suspect that you are bowing to the negative PR flak coming from the rabid “2nd Amendment” folks who will tolerate no limitations on their ability to own and use guns. You should be ashamed of yourself. Rather that use this incident to foster a rational dialogue, you simply caved. Grow some balls.

    • Stephen Erwin

      In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the
      U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the
      adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper
      discipline and training.”

      Contemporary documents and dictionaries also support that position. Metcalf’s claim that well regulated refereed to gun control was straight out of the Bloomberg propaganda book.

      • Paul angel

        That is not true. Read Justice Scalia’s comments. You cannot own whatever you want. Sorry. Here are his remarks:

        The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned.

      • tmf354

        So, in that case you should at least agree that the government has the right to impose strict and proper discipline and training. Which it doesn’t right now.

    • Mitch

      Troll on girl.

  • Twiny

    I think it’s a shame that a gun magazine thinks a civilized
    discussion BETWEEN GUN OWNERS on the 2nd Amendment is out of bounds for their editor to
    write about. That is, in my opinion, a downright
    cowardly attitude for the magazine to take. I think they blew a chance
    to see just where gun owners really stand on gun control.

    • Mitch

      Another Alinsky troll.

  • Fedup

    I was glad to read Jim Bequette’s letter regarding the December shameful publication of that anti second amendment article. Had he not written that letter, I would have cancelled my subscription.

    • tmf354

      Why is it impossible for you to understand the article was in no way anti second amendment at all, but only offering an alternative interpretation to consider, much like the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution in every single decision it makes?

      • Mitch

        Why do you think your interpretation of the article is correct?

  • John Richter

    I get the same response from both sides when I argue that it is my second amendment right to not only own fully auto guns, but RPG’s anti Aircraft, land mines, or any other arm I want. No where is the word guns mentioned, it says arms. The constitution has been twisted to fit agendas without amending it. Our forefathers had fought the government using every arm the government had. In order to form a well regulated militia does not mean tieing our hands behind our backs and limiting us to certain arms, much less certain guns. I know how you feel, being treated this way, Mr Metcalf, even though we are on polar sides of the argument.

    • paul angel

      I don’t want you living in my neighborhood! You go crazy and we all die. What about my right to life??? Also how does law enforcement enforce laws with you ready for a war? How does that work?? SCOTUS has already made it clear you cannot own whatever you want. They only had cannons and muskets in the 18th century. You can have those.

      • Mitch

        You have no right to decide who lives where. I see your inner Nazi is coming out.

      • John Richter

        Same old tired lib scare tatics.

  • nalgi

    So do I understand this correctly? You are the Editor, you reviewed the article, you published the article, and when the shit hit the fan you fired the writer?
    That’s maning up! Go fire yourself you sellout!

    • Paul Angel

      He did.

  • Lucas Prater

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    -LOL people cherry-pick and ignore anything that doesn’t fit their opinion. Either rewrite it to say “Everyone can own guns no strings attached and screw the original amendment, we don’t need no regulations” or read the Constitution and follow it. But don’t pretend thet second amendment’s second and third words aren’t “WELL REGULATED.”

    This poor sap made the mistake of thinking he was the editor of a journalistic publication and not a cult pamphlet.

    • Mitch

      Another Alinsky troll.

  • ronin_cse

    This is the kind of thing that makes any discussion on this topic absolutely impossible: the absolute rejection of any kind of opposing view point. Seriously all he did was post an opinion piece, NOT A BIG DEAL. Is reading an opposing opinion for violently offensive to some that it’s worth someone losing a job over? Certain parts of humanity really sicken me.

    I wonder if the same would happen if someone posted a pro gun article in some kind of anti-gun magazine? Not sure if that has ever happened though.

    • Mitch

      It already has so drop the fake outrage and go back to plugging Obamacare.

  • William Peterken

    Mr. Metcalf’s fundamental mistake was assuming that “well regulated” had the same meaning today as it did when James Madison wrote the Second Amendment; it did not. “Regulation” was a word referring to accuracy and precision, particularly in firearms. To this day, the barrels of double rifles “regulated” so that they both shoot to the same point of aim at a given distance. In the eighteenth century when the Second Amendment was written, a “well regulated militia” was one that drilled precisely, and performed volley fire in unison on command with good accuracy.” Militia members were volunteers who elected their officers and were not under the control of the government. They “regulated” themselves through training which made their performance more “regular,”
    meaning precise and uniform.
    The term “regulation” was not used in the modern sense of governmental control of business and personal conduct until the late nineteenth century, one hundred year after the drafting of the Second Amendment, with the creation of such “regulatory” bodies as the Interstate Commerce Commission. Therefore, it was a fundamental error for Dick Metcalf to assert that the Founders favored or authorized governmental control of Second Amendment protected activities. Although I have taken many courses in using deadly force in self defense, covering both the use of firearms and the legal implications of such use, I did so voluntarily based on my perceptions of my responsibilities as a free citizen. Requiring compulsory classes, including passing tests, in order to exercise a right diminishes the right and turns it into a privilege granted by the state (government). Requiring the expenditure of money, and requiring the passing of a test, in order to exercise our Second Amendment rights is exactly the same as poll taxes and “literacy” tests which were employed to disenfranchise black Americans. The ostensible purpose of those laws, which were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, was te ensure that voters were qualified to cast informed ballots, but the real reason was to prevent black Americans from voting. The same is true of compulsory “training;” the ostensible reason is ensuring safety, but the real purpose will be to limit the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
    The state, society, and we as free individual citizens, have a legitimate interest in the safe exercise of our Second Amendment rights. Therefore, the state should offer free voluntary courses of instruction, preferably provided by private organizations such as the NRA, for those cicitzens desiring to responsibly exercise our Second Amendment rights.

    • Paul Angel

      Please read the Militia act of 1792. It is in direct opposition to your claims. You do not know what you are talking about.

      • Mitch

        The militia act cannot trump the Second Amendment you tiny brained wonder.

    • 2ThinkN_Do2

      Looking back, is there any possibility that there should be some sort of test given before someone has the right to vote? Seriously, should someone be allowed to vote just because they are a citizen and of voting age? Shouldn’t some reasonable amount of intelligence level be necessary to elect people that ruin, I mean run our nation?

    • PavePusher

      Shorter explanation: Dick fails on mere grammar. “well regulated” applies only to the militia, not “the people”. He needs a grammar class and a remedial Constitutional Reading class.

  • William Bowen

    I agree with Mr. Metcalf,regulation is necessary.To legally own and drive a vehicle you need a license,registration and insurance.I have been a lifelong gun owner and support universal background checks for all gun sales.I have heard arguments that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane with no opinion on how to accomplish this.Some have even said all background checks should be abolished because of shootings that have occured in recent years by people who did get their guns after a background check then they are found to be insane.It is true background checks are not infallible,but it is better than a private gun seller being able to tell if someone is “OK”to buy a gun.I totally disagree with the firing of Mr. Metcalf because of the outrage of a well respected and intelligent persons argument being called a traitorous act.I have been banned from a shooting sports forum for my opinions ,all because I exercised my constitutional rights of freedom of speech and thought.

    • Mitch

      Again another stupid tired argument comparing driving an automobile to gun ownership. You lose.

  • Nancy D.

    As I read through these comments, it reaffirms for me the need for sensible gun regulations. I commend Jim Bequette for trying to address this complex issue in a reasonable and civilized way. I am sorry that he felt the need to resign early.

    • Mitch

      Stop thinking with your ovaries.

  • fuck gun nuts

    you people are fucking crazy and make me sick

    • Mitch

      Go back to trolling elementary schools pedophile.

  • aintthispeachy

    This about the same as vogue magazine saying its OK for model’s to vomit up all their meals and use cocaine as needed to stay skinny.

  • R.F. Gilmartin

    Having read Dick Metcalf’s article twice,I find myself wondering as to his interpretation of the term “well regulated” as it applies to te second ammendment and the militia. In the original sense of the constitution the militia was all able bodied citizens (male) already equipped with their own firearms in good working order. Over time this has evolved into state militias and has become the national guard which now holds the place of the regular militia As for the individual firearms owner, I believe that person to be an unspecified member of the irregular militia and so subject only to the laws concerning firearms ownership and posession within their state of residence and /or local jurisdiction; though I believe that the constitution, being the law of the land, should hold precedence. Mr. Metcalf,then, is mistaken in his interpretation of the term “well regulated”. As for Jim Bequette; I would aks that in future, you read copy more carefully.

  • bigjpop

    After my wife and I read the article I said to her, “well, he has some good points about promoting firearms safety, but his insistence that the government mandates the training and checks is very disturbing.” “Doesn’t he understand that here in California the government is not a friend to gun owners and if you give them an inch they will take a mile?” I strongly disagreed with him about government regulation and his apparent trust that government would do the right thing, however at no point did I feel like anyone should be fired for writing this. I know Dick Metcalf is one of the most ardent supporters of the second amendment and he worked tirelessly to promote the Modern Sporting Rifle The Ar-15. I think everyone needs to take a breath, step back, present your rebuttals, and gently offer the correction that is obviously needed. Jim and Dick presented a short sighted article, it wasn’t malicious or devious, just misguided.

  • mohusker

    Bravo. Now some damage control in the liberal media is in order as they all salivate over the published article.

  • steve ducell

    if the 2nd amendment is not subject to govt regulation, then I suppose that everyone should be allowed to own a belt fed machine gun. Now, that’s home defense……

    • Mitch

      That is an old, tired argument. try being original.

  • steve ducell

    I don’t get it; you state that YOU made the mistake in publishing the column……and the writer is the one who loses his job. When you look in the mirror, what is it do you see?

  • Raymond

    Let’s see now, you fired a man for submitting an article you approved for publishing in a magazine you are the “editor” of. Then you apologize for letting him write the truth – the truth your readers don’t want to face up to. How poorly does that make your magazine look when you and your readers cannot face up to what was truly stated? I enjoyed reading the magazine even though I am no longer a gun owner but seeing as how the editor can no longer be relied upon to present a fairly written article, I can no longer say I will read it with the same beliefs as before.

  • DLH

    Gun advocates are so weird.

    • Mitch

      Another pedophile poster.

  • justagunguy

    What true 2nd Amendment advocate would brag about working on the law that banned all new manufacture of full auto guns available to the general public?!?!?

  • Richard Battye

    “It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.” – Wrong again Mr Bequette, not doing very well here are we?!!! I’m a long term subscriber to G&A and Mr Metcalf’s PoV nailed it 100% for me so please consider carefully before making a sweeping statement like this. Shame you don’t share your former employer’s conviction and stand by him after making a deliberate decision as the editor to publish his article. Shame on you and G&A.

    • Paul angel

      Amen – thank God for sane people!!

      • Mitch

        Your definition of sanity is twisted.

    • Mitch

      So two readers out of thousands are the majority? Try again skippy.

  • tmf354

    So, let me get this straight. Yours, and/or Guns and Ammo’s staunch support of the second amendment trump’s Mr. Metcalf’s first amendment right to free speech? Excuse us for thinking they were all just as important as the Constitution itself.

    • Max

      There is no first amendment right to free speech in a private publication.

      • tmf354

        No, there’s not. That doesn’t mean though that they aren’t restricting his right to free speech. If they had a problem with what he wrote, they should have declined to publish it or give him a column for that matter. But they didn’t. They gave him the column AND published it. To fire him after that is stupid. The should have fired the bozo who wrote this apology if they were going to fire anyone. It was his decision to run it.

        • Mitch

          Go back to Mother Jones freak.

        • Max

          It was a setup. For reason only known to himself a editor who was going to be replaced in January OKed a editorial that he knew without doubt would cause a firestorm. Maybe he did not like Metcalf, maybe they colluded as a publicity stunt or political statement but there is no way Bequette did not know exactly what would happen if that piece was published and he knew what would happen to Metcalf.

    • Mike Harmon

      So every American has a Constitutional right to a column in every magazine? That raises and interesting question. Are you nuts?

      • tmf354

        Like most gun nuts, you read into what you see in any way that serves your narrow minded purpose. I never said anybody has a Constitutional right to a column in a magazine. Go back and read again, then take a course in reading comprehension.

        • Mitch

          Here we go the little man is having a breakdown because the big meanies won’t let him get away with his crap.

    • Mitch

      Mr. Alinsky taught you well.

  • chesnet14

    It looks like Metcalf’s discussion is taking place.

  • fs

    The fact is, there are no constitutional rights. There are only natural rights that the constitution recognizes. The phrase ‘constitutional right’ is misleading.

    • Paul Angel

      You have the natural right to self-defense. Not to a specific weapon system. No guns in the Bible or that grow on trees – hence the term natural is ridiculous.

  • Stephen Erwin

    Looks like low information voters who get their information from the Bloomberg website have taken over the forum.

    • Paul angel

      And you are a constitutional scholar? I do not get any information from Bloomberg. Period. But I’m not an idiot either.

  • Jason G

    Thank you for your stance sir, I was not a subscriber to your magazine but I am now!

  • No Pretense

    “Gay marriage will never be legal”
    “We will never have a black President”
    “The second amendment will never be overturned”

    Keep playing your hand gentlemen and there will eventually be a backlash and you will loose rights. Allow the requirement that all guns are registered and deeded for ALL sales, catalog the ballistic characteristics or every weapon sold and require owners to provide arrest and medical history etc. It should be hard for people to get guns, keeps the amateurs and spur of the moment psychos at bay.

    Maybe if you are reasonable and allow the above you could actually get reciprocity to pass.

    • tesla3090

      You realize one of the original aims of gun control was to prevent minorities (particularly black people) from getting them and defending themselves against racist whites. The KKK made gun control one of it’s top priorities when it was founded. Your equation of the second amendment with racism and homophobia is dishonest and false.

      • No Pretense

        Thanks for your input, as delusional as it might be, it is informative to witness the mythical folk lore that hard core zombie-advocates like yourself tell each other.

        • tesla3090

          Perhaps instead of name-calling, you should do some research and inform yourself.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

          The professor who wrote the above article is no gun-rights advocate, yet he as well as others confirm my claim. History is usually more intricate than our modern partisan nonsense.

          • No Pretense

            I read the article and it was interesting, thanks. A few things:

            1) It makes clear that even during the time of the founders there were regulations.

            2) I think the article demonstrates the effect of the black panthers on helping drive the current NRA stance on guns vis-a-vie the 2nd amendment BUT…

            3) Guns play 0 significant role in eradicating the social injustices of the 60s. Rather, non-violent protests did much, much more.

            4) I think the article shows the hypocrisy of the entire issue of gun control and implies a strong argument for tough regulations.

          • Mitch

            Typical Alinsky garbage.

          • No Pretense

            Hi Douche Bag,

            What’s Alinsky?

        • Mitch

          I’m sure a pedophile would be less distasteful to you than a gun owner. Why don’t you go back in the basement and wait for Mommy to make lunch?

          • No Pretense

            Hi Mitch,

            You drip with anger and hate. You are the last person who should own a firearm d0uche bag.

    • Mitch

      Troll alert!

  • John

    “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.” You DIDN’T miscalculate. In any other venue and on any other subject, reasonable people could have a reasonable discussion. But many of your readers are CRAZY zealots. So in order to not lose all of those subscribers, you apologize with your hat in your hand. Your first inclination, to start a reasobale discussion about the damage guns do in our country, was the correct one. Shame on you.

    • Mitch

      Why don’t you go back to Mother Jones and let the adults take care of business princess?

  • John

    I’m sure that all of you are in a “well regulated militia.” Meanwhile, more news reports about little kids killing themselves with Daddy’s gun on the news tonight.

    • Mitch

      Read the 2nd Amendment completely princess. You seem to be an emotional idiot.

  • Roger Davis

    I was surprised to see the article. Seems the editor erred in judgement by letting it go. Metcalf must be having serious senior lapses in judgement. Maybe the editor also. I expect better from Guns and Ammo!

  • Mom Against Gun Violence

    You people are without integrity or conscience. The crazier you get the better the chances that very strong gun restrictions will be enacted. Keep it up. I only regret that hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent lives will be taken before this insanity is stopped.

    • Mike Harmon

      When are you going to start the Second Amendment repeal process, Mom?

    • Mitch

      And you are an emotional fool.

  • David2u

    The second Amendment is the only national law / amendment in the history of the United States to have the ‘Shall not be infringed’ language in it… that should always be a major point with all the editors and writers at G&A! What part of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed” do they not understand? There are no exceptions or caveats in the law… period! No room for any government infringement.

    • tmf354

      What pat of “well regulated militia” do YOU not understand?

      • Mitch

        What part of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
        infringed.” do you not understand? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Are you Dyslexic or ignorant?

    • No Pretense

      14th Amendment:

      “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
      including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
      services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
      questioned.”

  • Vlad99

    Isn’t free speech also part of the constitution?

    • tmf354

      It sure is. But like Christian zealots with the bible, they pick and choose what part of the constitution they want to follow.

      • Mitch

        Ah here we go, the Obamabot comes out of the closet. You hate gun owners, Christians and heterosexuals. You outed yourself and now your talking points are in ruin.

    • Mitch

      Read the Constitution and understand it. The First Amendment keep the government from restricting free speech not a private corporation that decides to let a contract worker go after that worker caused damage to the corporation. It truly is a shame that so many of you have no idea what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before you try and attribute false garbage to the First Amendment.

      • Vlad99

        Point taken. I’m Canadian so bear with me. Why a gun magazine discussing gun control is an heresy? I mean if there is a forum where it seems appropriate is a gun magazine. I mean seriously if nothing was done concerning gun control after Sandy Hook why would one article change anything?

  • watkibe

    Jim, you also owe an apology to Dick. If an article contrary to magazine policy was published, and the author was terminated, then perhaps the editor (who admits his mistake) should man-up and tender his resignation as well. Dick’s article is hardly actionable, except maybe to the “take my gun from my cold dead hands” group. Dick has educated and informed me for most of my adult life; it is petty and cowardly and foolish to fire him over this.

  • Steve Kimbrough

    Whoa there Boys. You just did to Dick Metcalf what University faculty does to anyone with whom they disagree. You all have become “Thought Police”. Dick was wrong, but for Heavens Sake, he is DICK METCALF! His column should have been matched by an authority of the caliber of Tom Gresham and be printed side by side.
    Go to Tom Gresham’s website (www.guntalk.com) and listen to the podcast in rebuttal to Dick Metcalf. Gresham is outstanding and effectively refutes the “reasonable regulations” arguments.
    You guys all act and talk like angry old men, and you generally only talk to each other.
    Please study Tom Gresham’s methods to refute gun control; his methods are the most effective I have ever read or heard.
    Please remember that we all despise the “thought police” and the politically correct speakers and don’t be one. Dick Metcalf has earned our respect and should be heard and read, then in this case refuted. But do it like Gentlemen.
    Steve Kimbrough

  • bustech

    I ge t sick and tired of these leftists trying to rewrite history …EVERY real american knows why we weree on our way to Lexington and Concord…to capture the British armoury’s FOOL. I also recently saw a “photoshop” of USA fighter planes with “U N” markings on the side..over Germany in 1944???? The Mystery ( history) channel. “Regulated RIGHTS” my ass.

  • buxtonpete

    to shut down debate on gun control is a win to the gun grabbers

    • Mike Harmon

      So Obama’s website should include conservative opinions or be accused of shutting down debate?

    • Mitch

      Another one of the gun grabbers trying to pretend they are rational.

  • Jim_Macklin

    Mr. Metcalf’s error is applying the use of the word “regulated” in the first clause to the principle of “shall not be infringed” in the operative clause.

    The SCOUS got it almost correctly in HELLER. In 1939, the Court DID NOT ISSUE AN OPINION, rather the Court made statements in dicta and returned the Miller case back to the Arkansas Federal Court to actually have a trial so there would be a trial transcript and evidence for the SCOUS to take “notice” so they could rule on the case.

    That trial never happened.

    I wish that G&A had not fired Mr. Metcalf, rather I wish that other lawyers, scholars and writers be given equal space to comment, in the same issue, on facing pages since although Mr. Metcalf is wrong in his interpretation, the editors who authorized the printing were also wrong to have not had a review and commentary by a constitutionalists lawyer such as Stephan Holbrook http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/ to correct errors.

  • robin

    i just read the article and i have no idea why rational people have a problem with it. I’m former army, artillery, have had guns since my red ryder, and am a super conservative thinking that firing everyone in congress and the current administration and start over would be a good thing. i hate pelosi, boxer, feinstein and all the other gun grabbers. i live in california and have been here since it was a conservative state. i don’t see why dick got fired or for the apology. i don’t think 16 hrs is anywhere near what you should have to carry a weapon. i personally wouldn’t want some airhead who thinks he KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE A GUN because the 2nd gives him that right around me when something goes wrong.i want someone with LOTS of training. i know you can’t give an inch to the liberals but i don’t think he was. I’m not sure what all the hysteria is about

  • rudy

    Sounds to me like the editor had sour grapes before publishing the article. He stirred up controversy intentionally!

  • freedomhunter

    Even when the doubt was already planted, I think that you explanation and able business decision clarify the position of Guns & Ammo…….. I almost stop my subscription, let’s forget and continue with the good work of all this years.

  • Pipestone Packer

    Guns and Ammo should be ashamed. Metcalf’s column was a long overdue, thoughtful and perfectly sane and rational set of proposals for just engaging in reasoned reflective conversation. Confronted with a rabid crowd idealogical lunatics they fire apparently the only rational guy in the crowd. It is indeed a sad day.

    • Mike Harmon

      His arguments were flawed and far from rational.

    • Mitch

      Another commie troll.

  • Guest

    He should have been canned for stupidity. The analogy of laws against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater are ridiculous. Gun control laws are more like gagging everyone entering the theater because they MIGHT yell fire. We already have plenty of laws against the ABUSE of speech and the ABUSE of guns.

  • Mike Harmon

    He should have been canned for stupidity. The analogy of laws against
    yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is ridiculous. Gun control laws
    are more like gagging everyone entering the theater because they MIGHT
    yell fire. We already have plenty of laws against the ABUSE of speech
    and the ABUSE of guns.

  • Kirk Demaree

    I purchased a copy of the December issue so I could read Dick Metcalf’s article first. It will be the last copy of G&A I will ever buy, because I support his First Amendment right to express his opinion, which is, by the way, what he was getting paid to do. He makes a well reasoned argument for potential minimum training requirements in order to obtain a carry permit and that such requirements are not necessarily an infringement of the Second Amendment, which although I disagree with from my own viewpoint, I understand what he was trying to say and support his right to make the argument and generate discussion as a result. For G&A to terminate him over this piece is a totally gutless, unprofessional move, particularly since you all obviously saw the copy and approved it for publication. Since G&A and its publishing parent has apparently decided that sales and good PR are more important than professional integrity, loyalty to an employee, and standing by the content of the magazine being intended to generate discussion, I will no longer support your organization’s products. I’ve read G&A and Dick Metcalf’s work for decades. You do owe someone an apology, and it’s Dick Metcalf.

    • Mitch

      Another commie troll.

  • buxtonpete

    no, obama’s website should include intelligent opinions, now we know that’s not going to happen any day soon. if you can’t have debate among people with broadly convergent views, and in a forum with people with similar interests where can you.

  • D.Babb

    Jim, Too Little Too Late. You Should Have Thought Of This Before You Ok’d Metcalf’s Article. I Can Promise You That Your Publication Will Never See Another Dime From Me Or My Family. Your Words Ring Hollow.

  • The Rifleman

    Have you seen this yet? This has become “front page news” now!
    This is very sad, and I fear this could end up costing Guns and Ammo magazine in many ways.
    http://news.msn.com/us/at-guns-and-ammo-the-second-amendment-comes-first

  • BigSky1970

    Any amount of gun control is unconstitutional. Chew on that one for a while.

    • tmf354

      ^ ^ ^ Stupidity personified.

      • Mitch

        Yes you are.

  • Bob Farquhar

    Sounds like he’s backtracking to me.

  • Kirby Kramer

    I’m a diehard Second Amendment supporter, but if you can’t tolerate an objective discussion about the role of firearms in our society, you’re playing into the hands of gun control advocates.

    • Mitch

      You really don’t understand what happens when you try to work with these people, their agenda is to ultimately grab all of the guns and they will lie and stab you in the back to get what they want. How does one open a dialogue with people like that?

    • Bob Fletcher

      You are actually; a total moron. What is “objective”, about surrendering our Second Amendment Rights?

      How does telling Metcalf; & his die hard Commie ilk; to go to hell; play into the hands of your anti-Bill of Rights ilk?

      Bob Fletcher

      • Kirby Kramer

        Hi Bib:

        Thanks for your thoughtful, measured response. Very eye opening. And please stay in touch and let us know how the anger management training is progressing.

  • HappyJohn9

    Congratulations! That was a REAL apology unlike the meaningless words Obama said that the Liberal/Socialist media are trying to convince everyone it was an apology about Obamatax.

  • Shooter

    I don’t expect to read anti gun propaganda in the G&A. I hope they don’t do this again.

  • Senior Shooter

    I wonder if Guns and Ammo is taking the same nasty stance against other opinions that is similar to the gun grabbers. By firing Metcalf Guns and Ammo is becoming just like the anti gunner opinions. In other words there is only one opinion to the anti’s – there is no middle ground. The Bill of Rights gives Metcalf the right to express his own opinion without being fired. My question is now — does Guns and Ammo really uphold the Bill of Rights? No, the magazine has contoured the First Amendment to its own liking. Take a good look in the mirror Guns and Ammo.

    • Mitch

      How does this become a First Amendment issue? Mr Metcalf was paid to write an anti gun column by this magazine. He was paid with the subscribers money. The subscribers are angry, and naturally so, when they see their money being used against them. You need to to understand that a paid employee has NO right to free speech when doing company business. The Bill of Rights and the Amendments are there to stop the government from usurping our rights not to stop an employer from firing an employee for causing damage to the company. Did you not pay attention in school?

    • Bob Fletcher

      EXACTLY; you absolute moron. There is no middle ground (the only thing found in the middle of the road; is dead chickens).

      The 2nd Amendment; is crystal clear. No compromise, no middle ground, no exceptions, no modifications; period.

      Got it?

      Bob Fletcher

  • Django

    My opinion is that Metcalf and the editor are somehow compromised, and have skeletons in their closet that came to light and ended up in the wrong hands. The powers hat be probably have dirt on these guys and now want to stop any gains that were made in the last 25 years. I could now see Metcalf and Bequette on the talk show circuit, criticizing the 2nd amendment. Reminds me a lot of Scott Ritter, and Chief Justice Roberts!

    I never understood why and how the 2nd amendment gets so misconstrued?
    “shall not be infringed” means to do not mess with this one! It is the only amendment in the Bill Of Rights to say so! The Founders wanted a MILITIA or FREE men granted the right to BEAR or CARRY any arm. That is why they did not limit type, length or means of firearm; otherwise they would have stated those objections! Where in the Bill Of Rights does it say that only military or police officers, and the like are only to
    possess or BEAR arms? That is the opposite of the 2nd amendment, the
    right to bear arms was a counterweight to tyranny from our own government, to prevent our government from using their force against us, PERIOD! Any TRUE 2nd amendment advocate can figure this out in 5 seconds!!!!!!!!

    You have officially lost me as a consumer and viewer of your shows, and will be boycotting your sponsors!

    IT IS ALL A HUSTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Joe

    Upon reading Metcalf’s article in Guns and Ammo Magazine, I had to pause for a moment. Was this a joke? I read it again and decided that Guns & Ammo would no longer be a publication that I would support. Was Editor, Jim Bequette, a sleep at the wheel, did he have a temporary brain fart, did he not review the piece before it was included in the magazine, or is he just plain stupid? Regardless, while I appreciate that, unlike our elected officials, he actually accepted responsibility for this screw up and apologized, the damage has been done. He and Metcalf can no longer be considered 2nd Amendment supporters and any future offerings by these two should be reviewed with this clsuterf**k in mind. Good grief – what were you both thinking?

  • JHB2013

    Elitist, superior, snobby people. Only those that
    have the same training / thoughts / experience that he has should have the
    right to ____ (fill in the blank).

    Metcalf is advocating 8 or 16 or ?? hours of training for CCW. Does he feel that honest citizens can’t decide when to shoot if someone is trying to harm or kill them? Do they need training to shoot at the average 7 feet range of lethal encounters? Obviously, I
    think he’s just an elitist in a different way. I’ve had CCW’s in Washington state and Indiana – both states feel that no training is needed, and that a responsible citizen can make up their own mind whether they are comfortable with a firearm – and how much training they personally need. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A STATE THAT REQUIRES TRAINING FOR A CCW HAVE ANY BETTER RESULTS THAN STATES THAT DO NOT!

    My feeling is: There is no “training” to vote. There is no testing whatsoever to vote, which is THE most important aspect of being a citizen in America. In fact, the Supreme
    Court has overturned every attempt to test or train for the right to vote. It’s a right and a responsibility.

    The right to arms is also a right and a responsibility. I feel that an honest citizen can determine if and when to use a firearm. If they misuse one, there are already a myriad of laws on the books to punish them. Hours of training are great if one is so inclined, but it should be the citizen’s choice. Frankly, will you deny somebody the right to buy a gun unless they have training? What if they’ve been threatened and they need a gun today to protect themselves tonight? Take Metcalf’s article to its natural conclusion, and that’s what he’s advocating.

    • tmf354

      “…a responsible citizen can make up their own mind whether they are comfortable with a firearm” is about the stupidest statement I’ve seen yet on this. How many children are killed or wounded by these so called “responsible” citizens? Too many. Because leaving it up to a individual to decide if they themselves are responsible is ludicrous. Using that logic, I suppose you’d be OK with letting a person decide if they could drive a car, or better yet, an 80,00 pound 18 wheeler, with no training or testing.

      • Django

        DRIVING A CAR or PURCHASING A CAR IS NOT A RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • tmf354

          It’s still a stupid argument. Do you want to be surrounded by people with guns who have absolutely no clue what they’re doing? Good luck with that.

          • Mitch

            We are surrounded every day by people that don’t know what they are doing. Are you ignorant or just unable to make a convincing argument? Your arguments are based upon emotion and not fact.

          • tmf354

            Yes we are, but in most cases it doesn’t have deadly results.

          • Django

            Do you wear a helmet?

          • Django

            Yeah i do, rather than, live in a place that restricts them like Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Kim’s N.Korea, and Castro’s Cuba!
            The only thing stupid is you not knowing your birth rights or worse giving hem up and letting some one else defend you!
            What is stupid is not knowing a right from a privilege!

      • Mitch

        That old canard has been dis proven many times why can’t you commies come up with a new argument?

        • tmf354

          Typical response from someone who has nothing intelligent to add. Tell us again how anybody who disagrees with you is a “commie” Senator McCarthy. Because I’m sure someone of such low intelligence doesn’t know, from Wikipedia: Mccarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”

          • bball

            Must be talking about the gun control crowd where they claim states with higher gun ownership have higher gun death rates but leave out DC or narrow the number of states until it hits there beloved gun control state. How about the GC crowd using suicide in their gun death rate knowing that whites and Asians commit more suicides then blacks no matter guns if are available and so count gun deaths only not the overall suicide rate in the country not just gun deaths to distort stats.

          • Mitch

            You can try and obfuscate all you want commie troll but it wont work.

      • Bob Fletcher

        The ramblings of a hard core Commie.

    • Django

      Do you think Metcalf had any prior “training” the first time he shot or acquired a firearm?

  • John

    I was thinking about subscribing , guess not EVER. (I guess your never to old to get brain washed I feel bad for both of them)

  • petru sova

    Is it true that Metcaf is now in drug rehabilitation? If so the editor needs to join him.

  • jkkoplin

    Two things,

    One, I think it’s time for us gun owners perhaps to come out of our fortresses and be brave enough to talk about and debate healthy regulation. We’re acting like bullies who’ve finally been punched in the face, and it’s unbecoming and silly. Having an unwavering approach to what we view as the second amendment is only going to get guns swept away faster, as our inability to negotiate or find any common ground is building up public opinion against us. The fact that the readership of guns and ammo isn’t even willing to discuss the issue shows an immature and scared mentality to an issue that effects all americans, not just gun owners. You should be man enough to debate the issue, which I find myself doing with my anti-gun friends regularly and finding common ground, usually with me taking them for their first shooting session and changing their minds about a few things. I grew up reading guns and ammo, but the politics were the same drivel and never changed or evolved with the times. Columbine happened, then sandy hook, then the theatre in colorado, then the navy yard, then on and on and on, and yet the message remained the same with no evolution or sensitivity to the times we live in. I gave up my subscription since the point of view was simply immature, just like bush sr. giving up his nra membership. It’s time to learn, adjust, and be able to actually debate the issues. As they say, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.. Also, what’s up with reviewing the new sig 227, why isn’t the whole industry on fire about this one? If they came out with it 10 years ago they would have owned every swat and special forces sale overnight.

    • Django

      Negotiating is what lead to guns being eliminated from almost every liberal city ie. The Sullivan Act and SAFE Act in N.Y.!

      Ever hear of form 4473 or gun registration that Reagan and the NRA negotiated with totalitarians with? You make it sound like the other side has something positive to offer, instead of Confiscation, elimination, and total bans, like the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban Bil that lasted 10 years! Or like NY being limited to 7 rounds, what a joke!

      If you do not want gun control do not vote for people who want to eliminate them!

      The Sig 227 is alright but, like Kimber their quality control has been a little off lately. BUY a GLOCK 21, and if you live in a state that allows it, get a Kris Vector +25 magazine that is an extended Glock 21 mag! It rocks, they run, and they are more affordable!

      • jkkoplin

        Hang on bro, brady, as in sarah brady, you know she’s a republican right? This “massive attack on civil rights” has always been coming from your own flanks. Reagan put gun control into effect in california to stop the black panthers. It’s not a natural right, and all constitutional rights are not unlimited, that’s why you can’t but automatic weapons, tanks or rocket launchers, or scream fire in a crowded theatre. The second amendment calls for a well regulated militia, we don’t have one, so how does this all work? You’re already being infringed upon in about 9 of the constitutional amendments, so stop desperately clinging to gun ownership, since it’s already quite limited. People are not talking about banning guns, they’re talking about banning schitzophrenic people from owning them, just like they can’t fly planes or do alot of other things, but they seem to be able to buy guns easily and kill everyone around them.
        Anyways, on a larger point, how could you dare to compare that plastic toy of a glock to a sig? that’s like comparing a yugo to a benz? Tell me more about the FNX-45 though. I’m curious.

        • Django

          Since when is REPUBLICAN = to CONSERVATIVE or CONSTITUTIONALISTS? Reagen is NOT Conservative The Brady Bill is NOT conservative neither is not balancing a budget as both Governor of California or as President. Neither is Abortion, or Amnesty, which he has a hand in passing!

          Republicans rulers of GOING OFF THE GOLD STANDARD which led to flexible currencies, which led to a credit based economy instead of a savings economy due to the fact that interest rates can be lowered to 0% because it no longer was backed by gold.
          They gave us the Patriot Act which is Biden’s 1995 s. 390 anti terror bill.
          They gave us DHS, or a POLICE STATE that = 1984 style Stasi policing. It also eliminated POSSE COMITATUS, and jurisdictions!
          TSA or official interrogations at terminals of transportation!
          Never mind Common Core, and no child Left behind which is federalized education, and does away with localities being in charge of curriculum! There is no such thing as a 2 party system ASK Cuccinelli how conservative the GOP is! This country has been moving left ever since The Nixon administration who gave us such Acts as DEA, EPA, & HMO”S!

          Do not ever confuse Natural Rights with Presidence that usurps the Birth rights we were granted. This was a way to destroy NATURAL RIGHTS! this also lead to things as the Twinkie defense and temporary insanity, and revolving doors of short term sentences!

          WE DO NOT HAVE A REGULATED MILITIA where in FANTASY LAND? We have had a regulated militia since the late 17th century and still do it is called the National Guard, and States do still have militia’s! Bearing arms means simple arms you can carry, machine guns are not illegal in most states! “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGRED” = DO NOT FU$K WITH THIS ONE! What other of the bill of rights states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” So tell me again on the 2nd amendments limitations?

          Who is going to deem people as schizophrenic the government? Again you do not seem to realize government will take the powers you give up! Just ask veterans how they trust the government evaluating anything? Or you can keep the insurance you have is another lie the government continuously tells it’s subjects!.

          YOU KEEP SAYING THEY DO NOT WANT TO BAN GUNS? What is the Sullivan Act, SAFE Act, Clinton GUN BAN? When it has Ban in the title or Registration or CONFISCATION and insurance that is a BAN! Ask Diane Feinstein who said : Dianne Feinstein in 1995 made clear ” that if I could have gotten the votes to confiscate the ‘assault weapons’ I was banning, then I absolutely would have done so. The votes weren’t there to force Mr. and Mrs. American to turn in their weapons.”

          Just like you CANNOT Comprehend Natural Rights or think the 2ND amendment has limitations you will never understand the simplicity, and flawless function of the GLOCK!They are the AK 47 of the hand gun world they run and run on all types of ammo. They are accurate enough and have capacity up the wazoo, more rounds = more time in the fight! Sigs due have an issue with their extractors and pinned slides! They are overpriced and limited in capacity, and are a bit finicky with low quality ammo!

          The FNX-45 is like the GLOCK very durable and eats all types of rounds, they have a 15 round magazine, they are Polymer but they are heavier than the GLOCk, but they run and are accurate! This is the gun that FN enterd into the Army’s competition to replace the M-9!

    • Mitch

      Another lib troll.

      • jkkoplin

        I live in a city, try it sometime, my city is 90% democrat, and 60% gun owner. So, let me tell you something poloco, not all gun owners are republicans, much less right wing nuts. Also, republicans are the ones who originally brought us gun control, and these liberals you speak of are doing a far better job of standing up for the civil liberties of americans at this moment, although not great. So, call me a liberal troll, but you’re forgetting something, there are over 300 million guns in america, and over 100 million gun owners, and they don’t all line up behind all the draft dodging chickenhawks who call themselves conservatives these days.

        • RogerDane

          “…much less right wing nuts… draft dodging chickenhawks.” And then, “You don’t have to resort to childish name calling, be an adult” – ? If one person cannot decide how they will behave and stick to it, well. Humans are prone to calling their own behavior, “in others”, wrong.
          Most gun owners, if they consider “all” those who they know who own and use guns, will not go to the range with 30% of those people. Too stupid. Everyone who shoots “knows” this to be true. And I’m not sure additional training or education will improve that percentage. You cannot fix stupid.
          What you can do, and what is being done, is the dumbing down of our society through an ever declining educational system. It results in people trading their vote for a ‘free phone.’ The wave of ignorance and ‘entitlement’ is building. When it crashes fully onto the back of a destitute society, well… you think about that before going nuts over one article by a guy that none of us know.

          • jkkoplin

            What do you mean “none of us know” have you just picked up a gun magazine? Dick Metcalf has been writing gun articles since I was a kid. He’s actually quite famous in these circles and considered a long time authority one gun issues. People like him are the best voices we have on this issues. We alienate people like him, we lose the game. We alienated someone like him, guess what? Don’t be so surprised after the next massive massacre and no good answers from the gun lobby, that you’ll end up having to hand in or destroy your guns, since us gun owners couldn’t put forward a disciplined and responsible sounding front. Read his article to see how much legal light comes through the crack in the second amendment.

    • Bob Fletcher

      I don’t have any “anti-Bill of Rights” friends; you absolute moron.

      Bob Fletcher

      • jkkoplin

        You don’t have to resort to childish name calling, be an adult. I’ve seen your responses to others, them embody the paranoid, scared and anti social mentality that people seem to perceive of us gun owners. You are making us look bad, and not sane. When people say things like “all gun owners are a bunch of right wing nutjobs” they’re talking about people like you. Calling someone a commie dirtbag because they have a slightly nuanced view of things, and are concerned that if we don’t get our house in order, it will burn down, is not adult behavior.

  • bball

    When I read the column I though I was reading the opinion page on Huffington Post in the gun control section of the pro gun control crowd not G&A. It doesn’t now surprise me when I look back on how they defend the AR15. ” well
    regulated” has nothing to do with requiring training to get a CCW, it’s all about conduct and discipline in the militia; if these lecturer Metcalf read the Federalist Papers #29 titled Concerning the Militia or read any of George Washington’s writings. Two opinions of men who were in the military. Nothing to do with required training. Yelling fire in the theater has nothing do with the 1st. It’s a criminal code. You can yell fire in a crowded theater as long as no one gets hurt and not be charged for a crime. The first 10 Bill of rights has all to do with limiting gov. power.
    No wonder the 1984 gun control law was a mistake because Metcalf wrote, it denied the common US citizen a firearm which is protected under the 2nd. Just that admission makes me ever more incense then his interpretation of the word “regulated”.

    The state requirement that you get hours of training does not fall under the 2nd. That would be like requiring you have journalism degree to practice your freedom of speech or must be a preacher to practice freedom of religion. What about requiring a degree in political science to vote? The state can impose because having a CCW is outside of the action of the militia. The 2nd deals with the militia, not with bearing arms in self defense in public. The state can’t deny you a firearm protected under the 2nd but they can regulate how you use it when it’s outside of the activities relating to the militia. The state can’t tell you need training before you can purchase that pistol to use in training for combat but can impose rules if your using it for self defense outside of your property. Metcalf failed to understand that part which made him look like another gun control advocate like the Brady Campaign.

  • JSAD

    This is a sad state of affairs. A well-respected author and TV commentator who has been a professional associated with this industry for decades is canned simply for expressing his opinion. Shame on you Guns & Ammo magazine for your lack of spine.

    • Mitch

      Look you idiot lib go away your prattle does not belong here.

  • ogden lane

    There are already regulations. You cannot wear guns into schools, etc.; you cannot have an automatic weapon or one not within barrel length, etc. The other side wants control of weapons, for the government’s advantage, not our safety, and we see that more and more with Obamacare, IRS illegalities, political callousness re Benghazi, and other indications that our freedoms are at stake. After school children died, liberals were so sad so long “for the children.”but when Hillary got to Congress ostensibly to give answers on Benghazi, als she did was shriek, “who cares now? They’re dead.” no empathy there. Nobody wants mentally ill persons to have guns, but ACLU does not want to impinge on their freedom, so there you are. Only a bad guy fears a good guy with a gun; all fear a bad guy with a gun; were it otherwise, my brother in law would be seeing his sons grow.

  • buxtonpete

    who me, gun grabber, gun safe full, licensed registered cos that’s how it is in australia, and the earliest guns n ammo in my collection dates back to the 70′s

  • Bob Fletcher

    Metcalf is pathetic. His understanding, of the United States Constitution, & the Bill of Rights; makes Carl Marx; look like a Constitutional Scholar.

    No doubt, he cries on his treasured photo, of Pol Pot; every time an American Citizen, buys a gun.

    There needs to be an extremely through house cleaning, at G&A. Top, to bottom. How many more, closet Marxists, roam the halls of G&A?

    We’ve bought this magazine for 30 years; but no more.

    Bob Fletcher

  • jkkoplin

    Do you guys realize you all sound nuts? If the liberals you so despise were to read this drivel, they’d have a lot to use against you. You’re giving gun owners a bad name, start acting and talking responsibly and maybe they won’t want to run off and take our guns so virulently..

    • jkkoplin

      Seriously, the tone in general is angry, threatening, and more than a bit racist. You have to be able to disagree with people without acting like an abortion clinic bomber. Low tones and logic might actually do more help than harm.

      • Django

        Do you realize you sound like a Fascist or Nazi never mind Stalinist?

        Gun control does not and will never work? Go to Chicago, N.Y., L.A., Boston, Detroit, Newark, etc. Tan we will talk?

        Hurricane Katrina was a disaster due to confiscation, and government inadequacies such as FEMA!

        Ever hear of The Mormon execution order?

        How’s About The Trail Of Tears?

        Free Blacks were not allowed to own firearms did not work out well for them!

        Bleeding Kansas?

        Ever hear of the Bonus Army Massacre?

        Did you ever hear of Kent State?

        Now for the BIG question ever hear of The Battle Of Athens TN.? Google it you will learn something! Especially on how to quell TYRANNY, and be successful at it!

        Gun control was and is a way for a Nation to subjugate it’s populace usually leading to DEMOCIDE and or GENOCIDE!

        “..to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)”

        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
        George Santayana

        • jkkoplin

          A fascist or a stalinist? Because of some moderate gun regulation that’s already in place? First of all, the nobody is crying about how you can’t own real weapons to take on the government, or that you will never successfully be able to take on the government. It’s a delusion. Do you really think you and your collection of pop guns ever be able to take on the government or army? The trail of tears was the govermnent using a gatling gun on people. Kent state was a peaceful protest against a war until some soldiers started firing on the peaceful protesters, not all protest requires blood, and the aftermath of that was that the government looked desperate and insane, and that they had gone too far in trying to stop the anti war movement. Free blacks weren’t allowed to own firearms because of the NRA let me remind you, and gun control started in california under gov reagan to try to tamp down the black panthers. Gun control is not how a government subjugates it’s people, it’s all the other things on the way, like this NSA jazz nobody seems to care about, I’m with you about the new orleans thing, that was downright creepy, but it also showed that under marshall law, government will do as it pleases on many different fronts, and we’re going to be powerless anyways to handle it, guns or no guns.

          • Django

            Tell that to Al Qaeda who BEAT the shit out of 2 super powers without drones, a navy, helicopters, tanks, satellite imaging or hardware!
            Tell that to the Vietnamese who beat the shit out of the U.S. with nothing more than will and AK 47′s!

            Free blacks were not allowed to gain guns because of DEMOCRATS! Which is why Andrew Johnson was impeached!

            Tell that to the survivors and participants in the Battle of Athens, the only victors against tyranny in this country !

          • jkkoplin

            Every time there’s a mass shooting in america it’s the same story, “he was such a quiet guy” etc, plus some markers for mental illness, treatment etc, then he buys a gun, kills about a dozen people, and the rest of us look bad, feeding the fire for gun control. Swearing up and down is a right is not going to work, we need to make sure these incidents don’t happen, don’t feed the fire, and don’t get everyone riled up to ban guns. If the scales tip a little bit more, they could amend the constitution just like they did over prohibition. How about we head that off at the pass and start making guns less a scary part of america and gun owners less scary to non owners. This issue will be decided by the wives and mothers of america, so we need to learn how to talk to them, not each other. If we don’t start treating it like a privilege, we won’t have the right anymore to gripe about. Yell all you want about rights, but this is going to be like football and concussions, watch the frontline, this will explain to you how gun ownership really dies in america unless we get our house in order.

          • Django

            Every MASS shooting in America except for Gabby Gifford’s shooting was done in a GUN FREE ZONE!
            How many citizens do you live with in FANTASY LAND! Your arguments are not only antiquated they are proven wrong time and time again! To the point it is getting old. Simply put since The Clinton Gun BAN expired in 2005 HOMICIDES and VIOLENT CRIME has gone down BY 50%, why? If the Gun BAN worked shouldn’t they have gone up 50% after they expired?

            Again confiscation of arms is tyranny!

          • Ace

            So … we need to turn to our wives and mommies? Hoo boy.

          • teapartydoc

            Gatling guns didn’t exist in the time of the trail of tears, lefty. Quit lying.

          • jkkoplin

            read “dr. Gatling’s terrible marvel”

        • jkkoplin

          oh, one more thing, gun control does not lead to genocide, genocide leads to genocide. Also, free ownership of guns has not stopped genocide, ever. It didn’t work in germany, iraq, afghanistan, or any other place. People who are going to kill other people in mass are going to do it for other social reasons.

          • Django

            It leads to genocide if you cannot defend yourself, like the Jews and end up in a mass grave or camp!
            Where do you learn history from? Are you a product of a Public school education? German citizens such as: Jews, Dissidents, Gypsies, and gays were not allowed to possess firearms in fact they were confiscated. During a speech in 1942, Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms.” In other words, Jews and others whom Hitler wanted to wipe from the earth first had to be separated from their guns.
            This was not new position for Hitler. Rather, it was something he had put into practice from the moment he came into office. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, he seized gun registration information that had been compiled by Germany’s previous government under the premise that the information would not fall into the wrong hands or be used for an all-out confiscation scheme. Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” Hitler’s hands were the wrong hands. And Hitler and the Nazi movement used all the information they could find —as well as the threat of brute force and death— to force Jews and others to hand over their firearms.
            Remember Hitler was a Socialist!
            Afghanistan beat not only the USSR but also the Americans, where have you been in the last 30 years?
            The #1 cause of death globally in the last century is Democide or death by your own government! If more countries like the U.S. and the Swiss had better gun laws that number would be cut in half!

          • teapartydoc

            Hitler had stringent gun control laws. Get your history right before you attempt to lie to people.

  • Jeffrey Hollis

    Metcalf has been fired; fair enough. I can’t believe he was able to get the article published without other people in the Guns & Ammo organization having knowledge of the content of the article and approving it. No if, ands or buts, they should be gone also. As journalists I’m confident all of them should be able to find gainful employment at places like the New York Times, Chicago Tribute and the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, Obama would be delighted to provide a reference. With “supporters” like this in the industry, our enemies must be very pleased indeed.

  • Dana Hubbard

    If you only valued the 1st amendment as much as the 2nd.

  • SDkid605

    Crazy people and criminals should not have “control” of guns.

    That is how the article should be interpreted.

    Not like the knuckleheads that are getting their panties in a bunch over
    some reasonable common sense that was written in this intelligent
    article.

    Gun laws suck here in the USA, and it’s sad that no one can question gun
    laws and ownership without an AK or AR or Bazooka pointed in their
    face.

    M&P means M&P; & Guns are Dangerous.

    Money, Greed, and Satan has a hand in the NRA.

    Mr. Metcalf deserves respect for bringing some intelligence to the issue.

    I live in Chicago and deal with on a daily basis the repercussions of
    fanatical gun wielding people ranting against gun control. Since gun
    control is so offensively battled; guns are easy to aquire and pass
    around to kill people in the streets daily.

    Many, many, of them children, or innocent bystanders.

    Really, it’s actually a bookmarked internet to a news site; gotta see where
    bullets are flying.

    My job takes me to these neighborhoods.

    This magazine sucks for folding in to the “NRA Way”

    I’m tired of waking up to my morning coffee before work only t listen to
    the news that another dumbass who had extremely easy access to a gun
    has killed or severely injured a child or person who had nothing to
    be involved with their criminal actions.

    This article should have been viewed differently and my flag is at half
    mast as an American because of the treatment of the Author.

    I think it was very well said.

    God Bless_____

    JW

    • bball

      With supporters like you for Metcalf he is sure to not find many gun owners listening to him. Better offer him a job with Bloomberg.

  • Business Owner

    Anyone that stupid should not be working for your magazine.

  • Capt Jack

    I didn’t have a problem with the column. I didn’t particularly agree with most of it but his opinion was well thought out and well stated. Maybe if I read it again I can work up some righteous (sp) anger. No, probably not.

  • teapartydoc

    Thanks for firing the guy, but what bugs me is the question as to why no one was aware of his leanings before now. Usually people betray their ideological quirks in everyday conversation. I would suggest that if anyone does so, as I’m sure this fellow did, that they are set straight on things and if they continue to demonstrate contrary leanings they be gently placed into positions where they can’t do any damage.

  • Freedom / Responsibility

    Dick did nothing more than lay out the plain simple truth! With Freedom comes Responsibility! Sounds like rules doesn’t it? Sucks when you are challenged into thinking for yourself. Dick would be the 1st to Stand against “Gungrabbing Liberals!” Jim, you made a huge mistake! If you didn’t understand that article, you should have asked Dick to educate you!!!!

    • bball

      Responsibility requires no gov. regulation. That is why it’s called responsibility.

  • Edward Davis

    It is hard to believe that such an ill informed person could rise to the top of the heap of gun rights advocates. How can anyone form an opinion on the second amendment without having even the slightest clue as to it’s true meaning? The “well regulated” portion of the amendment was meant to address the government raised militia and NOT the individual citizen! What better way to insure that the rights of the individual be protected from an over zealous gaggle of government armed thugs than to completely prohibit said thugs and those that direct them from disarming the citizenry? I guess that this is proof positive that if people hear lies repeated often enough they find it difficult to
    separate them from the truth.

  • Ric
  • Django

    I hope G&A takes a good look at their subscribers outcries and cancellations (such as mine). Then look at all the totalitarian anti second amendment yahoos who agree with your magazines stance. These are the same people who like Diane Feinstein, Clinton, Bloomberg and Cuomo want to BAN guns and put manufacturers out of business and disarm the population like Nazi socialists, and Stalin’s Communists!

    With one article you alienated your patrons, advertisers and brethren and at the same time elated your opposition and their followers! Chapter 11 is not that far away, good riddance!

  • Mit

    In the late 1700s the word regulated meant supplied not controlled. The usage of the word has changed over the years. That is why soldiers who were supplied by the government were called regulars. If a store keeper kept a well regulated establishment it was well stocked or well supplied. Substitute the modern word supplied for the word regulated and we bring the second amendment into perfect focus in the year 2013.

  • Mit

    In the late 1700s the word regulated meant supplied not controlled. The usage of the word has changed over the years. That is why soldiers who were supplied by the government were called regulars. If a store keeper kept a well regulated establishment it was well stocked or well supplied. substitute the modern word supplied for the word regulated and we bring the second amendment into perfect focus in the year 2013.

  • David Coleman

    Dick Metcalf is a column writer. His “BackStop” column was from a gun writer perspective, writing a column. He may or may not agree with every single word typed. He has put out a though-provoking perspective. What exact wording damned him? One shouldn’t take what anyone writes on the backpage as gospel. It isn’t. It is supposed to be thought-provoking. I might agree or disagree with something that a person writes in all his/her columns. Dick Metcalf is not Jesus Christ, but some readers are crucifying him as if he is. This mentality is similar to the anti-Glock/Pro1911 argument. The right tool in the right hand, Listen to others opinions. Evaluate it, learn from it, keep the wheat, discard the chaff. My door and dinner table are still open to Mr. Metcalf even though I don’t agree with every comma or period he types.

    • bball

      You are contributing to this guys lost of credibility with the gun rights people. Better find him a job at the Huffington Post column on gun control.

  • Edward Davis

    It is hard to believe that such an ill informed person could rise to the top of the heap of gun rights advocates. How can anyone form an opinion on the second amendment without having even the slightest clue as to it’s true meaning? The “well regulated” portion of the amendment was meant to address the government raised militia and NOT the individual citizen! What better way to insure that the rights of the individual be protected from an over zealous gaggle of government armed thugs than to completely prohibit said thugs and those that direct them from disarming the citizenry? I guess that this is proof positive that if people hear lies repeated often enough they find it difficult to
    separate them from the truth.

  • JustSomeGuy

    The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear if you ever read the papers of the Founders. Since the Government must maintain “a well regulated militia” or army for security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the type necessary to repel an army, either foreign or domestic, shall not be infringed. If the arms of the various armies evolve, so too must the arms of the Citizen. Even small towns at the time of the writing of the Constitution had artillery and citizen militias.
    One must remember that during the 20th century alone 100 million people were killed by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. So protection from tyrannical government is not something to be taken lightly, and it was protected against by the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Constitution by those who had just faced such a situation.

  • ultrachrome

    2 Middle fingers to you Metcalf, go suck a big liberal D!ck, D!ck!

  • Lorin Chane Partain
  • Curt Cope

    “Way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right
    to continue to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that
    all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to
    be.” – Dick Metcalf

    I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right … AND a collective right:

    Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

    “I
    go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the
    extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
    proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

    They would
    contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very
    account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were
    granted.

    For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why,
    for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not
    be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be
    imposed?

    I will not contend that such a provision would confer a
    regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men
    disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

    They
    might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not
    to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an
    authority which was not given, and that the provision against
    restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a
    power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be
    vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the
    numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive
    powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”

    Now,
    note that Hamilton says: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the
    liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
    which restrictions may be imposed?”

    Hamilton could have very
    well said: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to
    keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
    which restrictions may be imposed?”

    The same can be said for religion.

    Where
    do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution.
    Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which
    restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and
    bear arms?

    Hamilton was not really “anti-Bill of Rights.” His
    argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution,
    it would: “… furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense
    for claiming that power. That they … “might urge with a semblance of
    reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity
    of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and
    that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press
    afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper
    regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national
    government.”

    If it is not restricted by the Constitution … nor delegated by the same … there is absolutely no power.

    Now,
    I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the
    Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed
    on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

    Unfortunately, Hamilton’s worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.

  • Old Chief

    It was ridiculous to fire Dick Metcalf for what he said. Aside from lack of respect for freedom of speech, has Guns& Ammo no respect for obvious truth? No constitutional right is absolute and unlimited, not even the most-favored one, freedom of speech. As Metcalf said, (quoting the Supreme Court) you can’t deliberately, falsely shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. You can’t keep nerve gas, either.

  • Jacob Tribe

    I would like to state Mr. Bequette that what is truly disturbing about this article and it being published is the fact that the understanding of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment portrayed by the author and yourself in allowing it to be published is appalling. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution does not give us rights, it acknowledges God given, inalienable rights that are outlined because of the fear of founding fathers had that if it was not spelled out the rights would be trampled over. The term “well regulated” was used to state a well trained militia which was given to mean every able bodied person, not the modern US military. And it is not referring to the rights of the people being regulated because in that part of the sentence it states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The word infringed means: broken; violated; transgressed. All of which modern regulation of our 2nd amendment rights does in direct violation of the Constitution. I am sorry sir but your statement “Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering…” well it was just proven under your guidance to be a lie.

  • Roger Glass

    For a moment, forget the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the forget the whole Bill of Rights.

    Even without them, the powers that the Constitution provides to the federal government do not include authority to limit individuals’ rights to any arms. Including jet fighters and H-bombs.

    So on this basis alone, the federal government is without legal authority to
    prohibit such weapons to individuals.

    Now do take the Bill of Rights.

    The 10th Amendment, by explicit statement, reinforces the foregoing
    principle—that the federal government is not permitted to exercise any
    power not specifically identified in the Constitution.

    And the 2nd Amendment – particularly as to weapons – in fact expands such protection from governmental intrusion beyond the federal sphere,
    to all state and local levels. In this regard, note that unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t start off with the word “Congress.”

    The Founders (and ratifiers) indeed did want private individuals to have access to all weapons that governments can get:

    ” … Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American … [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Of course such a principle might have made much more sense when the
    worst weapons available were muskets and line of battle sailing ships.
    It is very reasonable to argue that changing circumstances have made it
    necessary for the federal government to limit arms. But if so, then the federal government cannot legally do so unless the Constitution is amended.

    The beauty of such restraint is that, before the federal government may do something new, we are forced to iron out just what result we want. We first first hold a national conversation as to what we want the feds doing, why we want them doing it, how far we should let them go, and what might be the pros and cons of them going there.

    Unfortunately, we have not disciplined ourselves to operating within these confines. We have thought that the need was too great, and too immediate, for action to be hampered by such restrictions.

    We have failed to understand that the federal government will ultimately crush us unless it is strictly limited to its enumerated powers. To our sorrow, we have not realized that need alone—no matter how desperate—should never be sufficient reason for permitting the federal government to act where it has no constitutionally specified authority.

  • CharlesD

    If American gun owners are afraid of a difference of opinion and hound an editor out for publishing it then shame on you. Unless of course Senator Joe McCarthy is your hero. What happened to freedom of speech and the First Amendment in the US of A? Yes, I am an Irish Brit and a keen gun owner but I do not fear a difference in opinion. Only dictators, zealots, fanatics and spoiled brats cannot bear to even hear a differing opinion. This is not the America the rest of us grew up admiring as the guardian of the free world.

    • Azazel

      No one was denied their freedom of speech. Last I checked, Metcalf’s column was published and he’s still free to speak his mind. He’s just free to speak somewhere else.

      • JoeCommentor

        Well said, Stalin.

  • Roger Glass

    As per my previous post, I myself am a right to bear arms absolutist, but CharlesD has a point. We have cost two well intentioned men their jobs. That’ll teach them to speak their minds. Hooray for us.

    • Azazel

      Like the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

  • Michael Simon

    Please understand that Dick Metcalf was let go from G&A. They publish many, many magazines. Metcalf will not be out of work. Look for his “opinion” in other magazines published by tis same parent company.

    • Roger Glass

      Point taken; thanks. Of course we should post replies that strongly argue why they were wrong. I just hate to see someone getting fired over this.

  • brent

    Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering.
    healthy dialogue or generate traffic and sell more stuff regardless the Explosive material youre dealing with? guerella marketing 101
    Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2kdElzzVB

  • Rick

    One reason the Japanese did not invade the West Coast of the U.S. during WWII was their fear that every citizen owned a gun, and that it would be too costly in lives to attempt an invasion.

    As far as the ‘militia’ goes, during the revolutionary war period, the militia referred to every able-bodied person who had a firearm, not some organized group of people. The militia was the armed citizens in general.

  • Hoplite1234

    to be very specific Dick Metcalf stated that in his opinion it was reasonable for a ccw licensee to be required to demonstrate some safe firearm handling skills prior to being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public via regulation which required him to undergo training. Metcalf was not speaking about the right to purchase firearms. Metcalf was addressing the issue of whether it is wise to allow untrained persons to carry concealed weapons in public. We do not allow people who do not have drivers licenses to (legally) drive automobiles. People must demonstrate skills albeit modest ones in order to obtain a drivers license. A similar proposition for the concealed carry of a firearm is reasonable. I don’t want an armed person who has not demonstrated a reasonable level of skill with a firearm In the same city park or store as my child.

    The editor owes Dick Metcalf an apology, not Guns and Ammo readers.

  • John Galt
  • KatrinaAnon

    The man apologized and owned up to it. He even resigned. Its against the law to eat him.

    The big problem I had with Metcalf’s article is it was poorly written. That is to say it ignored Heller and McDonald, and further failed to examine why Illinois is having a 16-hour course. He could even have added if Illinois was so concerned about safety then why is it so difficult to open a gun range in Illinois?

    If Metcalf wanted a ‘state’s rights’ argument that states should have the latitude to determine what their CHL requirements are that is a different story.

  • runbot

    I was starting to worry. First the anti 2nd Amendment rant in RUNNERS WORLD (?), and then GUNS & AMMO? I guess Bloomberg’s checkbook ain’t dead yet.

  • Czar1977

    I am torn on my feeling on this. I do not think this guy should have been fired over a thoughtful and particularly well written article (you may not like what he said, but you cannot ignore it was well written). I am a shooter, love my guns, love the sport. However, you cannot deny the fact that there are wackos out there that shouldn’t have them. Yes, if in a perfect world, illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and thugs, politicians fingers off my LTC, this would no longer be an issue. The issue is here and it’s gotten out of hand. I say we stop with the words “regulated and control” and maybe “adapt” to the world we now live in. We cannot forget that there are innocent lives taken everyday…What’s wrong with a little bit of modification? I’m not afraid of a “give and inch, take a mile” with that bit of modification either… We support the NRA to make sure it doesn’t go too far.
    (sitting back waiting for the hail storm of responses)

  • sb

    Sadly, in its firing of Dick Metcalf and public submission to the angry mob , G&A abandoned the high ground in defense of the First Amendment . I’m a gun owner and hunter who respects the right of Americans to express their opinions freely and openly .If I can’t trust a publication like Guns & Ammo to protect the First Amendment , Where will your magazine find the courage to protect the Second Amendment ?
    SB

  • bert

    This is truly sad. A writer who has spent his whole career as a gun owner and enthusiast puts out a column — with his editor’s approval — with a very mild deviation from orthodoxy, whereupon a couple of advertisers scream bloody murder, threaten to yank their ads… and the writer is unceremoniously dumped??!! Whatever happened to the freedom of ideas and discussion? The whole sequence of events bodes ill for the democratic values of free speech. And it reflects very poorly on the magazine and the editor.

  • PK

    Thank you, Dick Metcalf…for your intellect and dedication to forwarding the rights and regulations of gun owners across this great nation. The fact that Guns & Ammo (and according to them, their readership) are threatened by an article advocating safety measures to carry firearms is a sad reflection of their ability to understand your argument. It stands true, that we often fear what we are not able to understand or comprehend, feeling threatened by the mere mention of an idea different from our own. This is obviously the case with the leadership (Jim Bequette) at Guns & Ammo, they are scared, even when the very thing you are advocating is for the good of all legally carrying gun owners. (And Mr. Bequette, I get it, it’s about money, the advertisers – it’s just a shame to see how quickly you sacrificed your “own” out of pressure, not principles.)

    I am a proud gun owner, and I stand firmly behind our Second Amendment. However, I am the father of two teenage sons and a teenage daughter, who often hunt and carry firearms on our family farm in my absence, and I rest easier at night knowing that we all have enthusiastically enrolled in our Texas concealed hand gun course. We, as a family, are gaining the adequate training and knowledge not only to handle our firearms more safely, but more effectively in the cases of hunting, and heaven forbid, self defense. I fail to see the fault with such valuable training…rock on, Mr. Metcalf, with or without G&A!

  • JoeCommentor

    I just read the New York Times article, then the editorial in G&A. I agree with the NYT article: unfair treatment for expressing a moderate opinion. The manufacturer’s and G&A ownership movements are disgusting.

  • Flash Gordon

    Jim. You should be fired. Not because you published Dick’s article, but because you okayed it and then later threw HIM under the bus when all these idiots started catterwalling and threatening to bomb people’s homes – like impudent little children throwing a temper tantrum.

    Most of these fools are ignorant of the fact that we do have regulations on all of our rights, we don’t even have the unfettered right to be born on this planet anymore without being on “someone’s” land – rather than owing our lives to the land, we’ve tricked ourselves into thinking it’s the other way around.

    To get a hunting license you need to take a hunter safety course, at least that’s how it is out here in Pennsylvania. That’s not an infringement upon my rights, that is a good faith effort by other citizens to try and make sure anybody out in the woods during season knows how to be safe for themselves, their fellows, and humane toward their quarry. The infringement upon my rights is having to have a license in the first place – if we want to talk about natural rights of animals to eat, anyway.

    Similarly, if a person is wearing a concealed firearm, I would like to know they know how to wear it, use it, and when to use it. Right now, that is something I can only hope for out here, because we don’t require any training to get a concealed carry permit. Now, ideally the world would be populated with intelligent, well trained citizens that never made particularly stupid mistakes, but we obviously don’t live in such a world. If some idiot’s kid doesn’t shoot herself or a friend or get hit by a stray bullet from some dumbass shooting into the air because “WOOHOOO MERICA!” because that idiot didn’t pass their safety test – that’s another kid that can live a healthy and whole life. That means something.

    Do other people get crazy about “RAWR NO GUNS! BURN ‘EM ALL!!” ? Sure as hell they do, and they’re wrong – for all the reasons. At the same time: so are you at Guns & Ammo for buckling to pressure and turning on one of your own, Metcalf has written for decades and is one of the very best in the field, and you lot are damned cowards for betraying him after his years of service simply because he’s not stupid enough to think that our Constitutional rights aren’t regulated like some of these clowns. Sorry, but the man taught at Yale and Cornell, he;s a bit higher caliber than your average belly-button-lint picker in the readership – to hell with him for thinking that other American’s might have realized that our other rights are similarly regulated! WOW! What an unusual notion! You can’t say a whole mess of things or you’re a terrorist, or an illegal immigrant (try speaking a language other than english sometime, if you know any, or just learn a few words and try it out somewhere), or you want to ban all guns ever and get death threats from idiots that probably are the living BEST arguments AGAINST gun rights.

    Dick wrote a good article, meant to get us talking in a way that works about the realities of our rights, regulations, and obligations as citizens to ourselves and one another. We needed his type of experience and voice to help us move intelligently forward. If we don’t engage productively, we become mere reactionaries no more organized or validated than a gang of toddlers demanding ice cream. People -are- trying to change gun laws, the way they are regulated and the way we buy or carry them – that’s alright that they’re trying, but for them to succeed all that needs to happen is to keep doing what we’re doing and being ignorant jackasses that are not organized or united in the right ways.

    We need to talk about these things. Dick knows it full well, and did his readers a great service by respecting them enough to try and talk with them about it, and to ask them to talk to eachother about it.

    Y’all at G&A did a typically slimy business worm-bend by approving it for print and then not standing by YOUR decision to print it after the fact – because that means you KNEW it was a good article in the first place, and only turned around and shot your friend in the back because a body was demanded by a bunch of yawping fools. Then you have the audacity to come out with this garbage “apology” – which can only be so ingenuine that it’s as insulting to read as it is embarassing that other people believe it.

    Divide and be conquered.

  • Ulm

    I legally own, safely keep, and regularly shoot several firearms. I grew up in a hunting family. I like guns. So why do I believe that the vast majority of gun advocates are out of their f$cking trees? It’s a travesty that these guys were fired simply because their readership is irrational and advertisers manipulate that irrationality.

  • Solberg

    I legally own, safely keep, and regularly shoot several firearms. I grew up in a hunting family in NE. I love guns and self-determination. So why is it that I find the vast majority of gun advocates to be completely out of their trees? It is a travesty plain and simple, that these two journalists who are ON OUR SIDE were fired because their readership is completely irrational… and because G&A advertisers exploit that fact in order to safeguard their profits. Debate about reasonable & prudent regulation of firearms is not “gas on the fire” — what IS gas on the fire is gun owners insisting on remaining a lunatic fringe who are out-of-step with the world.

    • day_in_the_sun

      Thanks for you comment. One starts to believe most gun owners are represented by phallic brained invertebrates. This amounts to intellectual fascism. Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China all demanded the ideological purity these conservative extremist demand. In the Information Age any courageously challenged person went emotional or cognitive issues to talk trash hiding behind the Net.

      Being an American Vet. When you start talking about taking up arms against our government you are walking on the fighting side of me. I’m sick of these emotionally challenged gun rights extremist waving guns and making threats.

      I have a idea of how they will fair against HE, beehive and white phosphorous munitions.

  • Tanksndudes

    I worked for an editor like you once, Jim. He was a coward, too.

back to top