Aimee Patton

A pleasantly eccentric take on politics

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.”

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2k4nKEJjo

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

Update:

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
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/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.

regards,

lwk

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Guns and Ammo Magazine and I have something in common.

  1. lwk2431 says:

    “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
    http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/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.

    regards,

    lwk

    1. Thank you so much for sharing your views with me. I read your article and I think it is smart and I may edit my blog post to include the link.

      I think you and I agree that this is a difficult dialog to even have. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I do think your idea on background checks is very smart and one that I could get behind.

      I don’t know how to reassure people that the government will not end up taking their guns. I guess people need to have faith in the constitution and that means in the structure of our government that if one branch over steps their bounds another branch steps in to correct them. Just look at the abortion issue in this country. We are currently seeing that with the judicial system stepping in to say that some states are going too far on abortion regulations.

      I really appreciate you taking the time to share with me. I wish more people like you and me could come to the table to have healthy dialog instead of this all or nothing attitudes. I know my attitudes about guns are starting to soften and I am seeing things from the other side – if only to come up with a workable solution for both sides.
      All my best – Aimee

      1. lwk2431 says:

        “… I am seeing things from the other side – if only to come up with a workable solution for both sides.”

        I have thought a lot about how to answer you. I greatly appreciate that some of what I said made some sense. The one thing that touched me was what I hear as optimism and there seems too little of that these days.

        In reading what I write below keep that in mind.

        “I don’t know how to reassure people that the government will not end up taking their guns.”

        That is a problem, and it is a much larger problem than just the debate over guns. It is fundamentally a debate about government itself. As government gets larger and more intrusive how can you possibily reassure people that it is not intending to dictate more and more aspects, and eventually every aspect, of their life?

        When you find out that the NSA is literally recording and analyzing almost every electronic communication you make, either by telephone or over the Internet, doesn’t it start to look like government not only wants your guns, it wants a dossier on your life and everything you do in it?

        Under Obamacare your doctor – if you can keep him or her – will not only be mandated to ask about whether you own guns, but also about your sex life and sexual orientation and all this will be recorded, along with your medical history, for IRS agents and probably any other government agency with a casual interest in your life. How long before your dossier will contain your political affiliations and opinions? This is the same IRS that has already been caught blatantly injecting politics in its decisions.

        So given the current directions I don’t see much chance of reassuring a lot of people that the current government has their best interests at heart, or that it will gladly allow them to keep their guns or freedom or independence.

        My hope is that this will be solved by peaceful means and that many Americans will awake to the “Brave New World” that is being planned for them and avert it by their free will at the polls by rejecting establishment politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and by eventually making drastic changes to our form of government. But that is a whole different subject.

        What I am saying is the problem is a lot bigger than guns, and the animosity you often see in that debate is far more wide ranging, and certainly for the 2nd Amendment side it is not just about guns – it is about the very future of our country and what kind of country it is going to be. A lot of people really don’t get that. It is not just guns.

        If I could convince of you anything I wanted it would not be to have you agree with me on guns. It would be to get you to see that a lot more is at stake than the freedom to own a gun.

        Thank you very much for your kind words.

        regards,

        lwk

  2. Aimee, bless your heart, you did just exactly that which gives so much powers the Progressive movement. Something that the Conservative side mostly just can not wrap their heads around. You rushed to defend someone who, in appearances, is supporting a tenet of the Liberal Agenda.

    If someone the “Left” considers their own, such a movie star, endorses a tenet of the “Right”, the powers that be(read Media) will do everything they can to demagog that person. Very rarely though will some one from the Right come to that person’s defense.

    That being said I think the point that most people are objecting to the editorial is that the Author is calling for Government regulations that would mandate that a gun owner learn to operate his gun safely.

    Fasten you seat belts ladies and gentlemen we are about enter the thought process of the Progressive mind. “This is a great idea, if you buy a gun you have to take a safety class, and the Government will stipulate what that training will be, and who will be able to teach it. Oh wait I have a better idea lets make it so that you have to take the class first before you buy the gun. That way we can make sure they know how to be safe before they even get their murderous hands on these child killing instruments. Hey, Hey along with the safety training lets require a mental evaluation, you know just to make sure that we are weeding out the psycho baby killers. Yes, yes then when they object will will do a press conference and tell everyone “If it saves one life, it’s the right thing to do”. Oh ya and in the back ground we’ll put some people and tell everyone that they are the mother, fathers, children of someone killed by a gun…What? Hell no we aren’t going to tell them that the majority gun deaths are self inflicted, no body cares about the facts. We need a spokes person,… hey what Travon’s mom doing?”

    Wow that was scary, welcome back to reality, don’t worry that jittery felling will pass, it’s a side effect of all the Kool-aid the Left drinks. The reason so many people are angry at the article in “Guns & Ammo” is that we on the Right knows how the Left thinks. In the past the Right has tried to find a compromise, but it is in Left’s nature to take a good idea and institutionalize it, regulate it, and eventually use it to gain power over the people it was meant to help. The road to Hell is paved with progressive intentions.

    1. lwk2431 says:

      “That being said I think the point that most people are objecting to the editorial is that the Author is calling for Government regulations that would mandate that a gun owner learn to operate his gun safely.”

      I am not sure that is the exact motivation (or that there is just _one_ motivation, people vary in how they see things). I did not write on this incident with Dick Metcalf at Guns & Ammo initially because I wanted to set back and look at how it played out and how different sides portrayed it. I finally did write on it here:

      Guns & Ammo
      http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/guns-ammo/

      Bear in mind I have been reading Guns & Ammo longer than some people have been alive. I just renewed by subscription for another two years. For the most part Dick Metcalf is a good and careful writer. His real problem, at least it seems to me, is that he still stuck in a mindset at least several decades, if not more, old.

      As I go over in the above article, I am not sure that a lot of people were totally upset that he reached the conclusion that some regulation is justified. It is _how_ he did it that totally pissed them off (and me too). I think that factor has been missed by about 99% of the commentators I have read on this.

      regards,

      lwk

  3. 3boxesofbs says:

    “This all or nothing attitude on both sides of the gun control debate can’t continue.”
    And from my perception, the gun control debate has been all for gun control side and nothing from pro-rights advocates.

    In the “debate”, can you name one item the ‘gun control’ side is willing to yield on?
    I can’t. They don’t want a compromise, they just want us to agree to another restriction.

    Gun owners reacted quickly, as did Guns and Ammo, because they know how Metcalf’s statements will be used — we are tired of people telling us we need training to exercise our rights. Do you feel 16 hours of training (current plan for Illinois) is needed before you blog?
    Do you think people should have to get a Bible Owner’s Identification card before buying one? Several states require that for firearms.

    Is it possible to be pro-2nd amendment and still be for regulation?

    This one is a favorite of the anti-rights cultists (aka gun control advocates) –they like to pretend we don’t have lots of regulations on firearms already. What we want is the laws to be similar to the Free Speech — no permit to exercise, no training requirements. Seems to work well for free speech since the misuse is covered by regulations such as fraud, threats, libel etc.

    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?

    Is it possible you only look at the negative side of firearms; discounting the millions of times people use firearms to hunt (and many hunters provide meat to homeless shelters) the millions of times people use firearms for recreational shooting, and definitely it seems as you discount the numerous crimes stopped and lives saved/

    The most conservative estimate for “defensive gun use” (where someone stops a crime or saves a life) is 108,000 times a year. Kleck and Gertz (gun control advocates) found up to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year.

    I don’t think we have a ‘gun’ problem as much as we have a crime problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 2/3rds of murderers been previously arrested.

    An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

    The numbers are staggering — we simply have a ‘justice’ system that does not keep violent, dangerous people in jail. Mass shootings get the most publicity but they aren’t the big problem, it is the day in and day out criminal activity. The F.B.I. estimates that 80% of all violent crime is related to drug cartels or gang activity. Stop the crime and you’ll reduce the killing.

  4. murphaticlaw says:

    Personally I will remain against any ‘compromise’ until the average person knows some simple facts

    Over the last 25-30 years, as the number of people with Defensive Carry Licenses has went from a few thousand to several million*, violent crime has dropped 40%, the murder rate is down by half, non-fatal gun crime is down by 2/3’s**

    Yet something like 64%*** of American citizens think violent crime is increasing.
    It’s crazy to think a ‘reasonable conversation’ about ‘common sense’ methods to reduce gun violence can take place, when over 1/2 of the group is deluded as to the reality

    *The number of new guns, new gun owners, new states with a Defensive Carry License laws also increased over that same period.
    **All numbers are from the FBI Uniform Crime reports or from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    ***or from a Gallup poll=)

    1. Thanks for commenting! You post some interesting stats…the drop in crime – how can you be sure that is because of the conceal and carry? A drop in crime could be because of a better police force, an improving economy, etc. It’s quite a jump to say that crime is down because more people are arming themselves.

      Also, how about mass shootings or accidental shootings? There has been a significant increase in mass shootings and accidental shootings. Is that all worth the cost of crime being down which may or MAY NOT be from more people carrying guns.
      Just some food for thought!
      Thanks again for contributing.
      Aimee

      1. lwk2431 says:

        “…the drop in crime – how can you be sure that is because of the conceal and carry?”

        I am very solidly on the pro-gun side of the argument. Just so there is no mistake about that (and you probably know – we have conversed before).

        It is absolutely true that violent crime and homicides started to rise in the 1960s and peaked in the early 1990s and now are approaching early 1960 levels today. While I would like to attribute that to concealed carry I don’t think that would actually be true. A Dr. John Lott did some research that showed some correlation but it is way to small to match the above phenomena.

        Some have blamed it on the Baby Boomer generation getting older. Still the correlation is not exact. One of the more interesting studies (read this a bit ago, don’t currently have the link handy but imagine could find it with Google) shows an interesting correlation with the introduction, use, and eventual banning of leaded gasoline (with an approximate 20 year lag between them to allow kids to grow up be exposed, and perhaps have some damage from lead in the air causing more criminal behavior).

        But the truth is no one really knows for sure what the root cause(s) is (are). It is probably more complicated than a simple answer, either guns, boomers, or lead in the air.

        Some things we do know though. A lot of guns have been sold in the last twenty years with the crime and homicide rate declining. That should at least show that a correlation betweens guns and crime – an often claimed “fact” – is in fact not very likely either. 🙂

        My other thought is that the decline might have been even more dramatic except for the War on Drugs and the unintended consequences of legislation intended to help minorities but which has decimated the black family in the inner city (inner city blacks, gang bangers, and drug dealers account for large part of the “gun problem” in America).

        regards,

        lwk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: