The editor of Guns and Ammo and I have something in common.
Trust me..it shocked the hell out of me.
Dick Metcalf, editor of Guns and Ammo, or should I now say FORMER, editor of Guns and Ammo, wrote an article about gun control. Now, Mr. Metcalf is out of a job. What did he write that was so outrageous?
- He must have written that the government should confiscate all of the semi-automatic guns that have been so popular in all of these recent mass shootings.
- He must have written that the government must outlaw the manufacturing and importing of all semi-automatic weapons in the United States.
- He must have written that anyone with a child under the age of 18 years old is no longer able to keep a loaded gun in their homes.
I read his article. He didn’t write any of these things. In fact he simply asked the question- can the 2nd amendment be regulated and when does regulation become an infringement? You can read his article here.
“I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly. And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility bearing arms.” Dick Metcalf
The response by Guns and Ammo was swift. Mr. Metcalf lost his job over this radical stance and Guns and Ammo put out this apology to their readers who demanded an action and began boycotting the magazine.
From the apology:
“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.”
This all or nothing attitude on both sides of the gun control debate can’t continue. Mr. Metcalf’s arguments were logical and mild compare to the ones I posed at the beginning of my blog. Where are we as a nation when we can’t even pose the question without boycotts and firings? Is it possible to be pro-2nd amendment and still be for regulation? Will tactics like the firing of Mr. Metcalf force like-minded people into the shadows causing this argument to become even more polarizing?
How many more innocent people are going to have to die while we hide our heads under the security blanket that is the 2nd amendment and pretend like these things aren’t happening?
The good thing to come out of all of this is I now have a new hero and in the most unlikely of places – the former editor of a Guns and Ammo magazine.
For what it’s worth – well done Mr. Metcalf.
*When I went to the Guns and Ammo facebook page, I got the message Failure to Load. I just thought that was funny. Get it guns and failure to load.. he he he
I received this comment and I wanted to share it. I know you can probably read it in the comment section, but I thought it was so good that I wanted to put it in the actual post. I love comments like this that contribute to healthy dialog. Enjoy – Aimee
“This all or nothing attitude on both sides of the gun control debate can’t continue.”
Whether it can continue, or how long it will continue I don’t know, but you have identified a huge issue.
I don’t think a lot of gun owners would oppose some laws if they had one iota of trust that the other side did not have an agenda to basically take all their guns. But for most of my lifetime the other side, for convenience let’s call them the anti-gun side, have demonstrated repeatedly that is their agenda.
They will say, “We only want reasonable laws,” but then what they think is reasonable seems totally unreasonable to a lot of folks, for example, largely banning semi-auto firearms and magazines with any capacity much greater than a muzzleloader (slight sarcasm here).
So maybe the anti-gun side needs to compromise? Maybe they need to get behind passing laws that absolutely 100% guarantee a right for a law abiding, non-dangerously-crazy person to own certain types of guns (maybe what is legal today). Make it iron clad and make every regulation respect that right then you might get some cooperation.
That is in part why I wrote a while back an article on how universal background checks could be done, and maybe even get a lot of support of gun owners.
Universal Background Checks
If you want the cooperation of many gunowners then the anti-gun folks have to totally give up the idea of banning a lot of guns and accept that people are going to own AR-15s with 30 round magazines and Glocks with 15+ round magazines. Then if you want cooperation of background checks and even things like training, etc., you might have a chance of having a dialogue.
But if the antis won’t accept some of that they will get 0% cooperation.