Guns and Ammo Editor Supports Gun Control in Editorial Feature for December Issue

 

Screen-Shot-2013-11-02-at-10.14.58-AM

 

 

Time to cancel your subscriptions, Guns and Ammo Editor Dick Metcalf has penned an editorial for their December issue that will be leaving fans in shock; he’s supporting gun control. Metcalf claims there is a large difference between regulation,  (well-regulated militia) and a direct infringement of civil rights, he has made this distinction the premise of his claims.

“I bring this up,” he wrote, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”  Facepalm moment anyone? Now that Metcalf is no longer in a fit mental capacity to be left alone, someone should send Adult Protective services over for a welfare check.

“Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”

You’re kidding, right? Metcalf doesn’t know that “well-regulated” is “referring to the property of something being in proper working order“? That it has nothing to do with government regulation? No way!

Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.

Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.~TAG

“I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .”

Did he just say but?

“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”

I’ll stop right there, if you haven’t already picked up your copy of Guns and Ammo’s December issue, this may be one you want to skip; the first of many that is.

Capture

 

  • Tabitha Bliss

    Good grief! Time to boycott this publication.
    I mean if the editor is this ignorant on something as simple as the constitution (& it’s 2nd ammendment which he of all people should understand), who knows how many other issues you’re getting faulty information on.
    I’ll just say I personally wouldn’t put too much stock in their reviews & would probably need to ‘verify’ any ‘facts’ collected from said publication after it’s editor makes such an abject fool out of himself.

  • moon

    IM OUT!!

  • lather

    LOL… The world is changing and leaving you cavemen behind.

  • Fred

    Another sellout to the liberal agenda. Wonder who got to him…?

  • Johnbraavo

    I wonder who owns G&A?

  • jzpaznthru

    SHOT, IN THE BACK!

  • Mark Hatzi

    so, HOW MUCH did Obama and the libs pay you????

  • gunssavelives

    Like henry rollins is relavent at all, lather you are a dumbfuck, come take my guns if you want them so bad, pack a lunch bitch.

  • Mark Bigger

    regulation sounds a lot like enfringement to me. I disagree with him 100%

  • Orthospinedoc

    Coming from a man…who I used to like …whose music is violent and who plays violent thugs in the movies he’s been in…Henry Rollins you are officially a douche bag! By the way go look at some of his past videos and dealings promoting anarchy…yeah he’s really relevant…I guess senility does affect ones though processes!

  • David Weakland

    “I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody
    should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways
    without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.” As a matter of fact, YES

    http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

  • Orthospinedoc

    *thought processes!

  • Randy T.

    Lather is nothing but a paid liberaal obamabot ,,dont pay attention to such ignorance

  • http://hyperhypocrisy.blogspot.com/ Sierra584

    Sounds like he was blackmailed to me. Or intimidated. Would you really put the current administration past either one?

  • Orthospinedoc

    By the way Danzig would stomp his puny ass, rip off his scrawny arms and use them like wet noodles to beat him…lol!

  • http://hyperhypocrisy.blogspot.com/ Sierra584

    When a 90-year-old exec from a chicken place said he favored traditional marriage, who was it that ran amok for MONTHS, staging same-sex love-ins on their doorsteps and screaming through drive-up windows at helpless restaurant cashiers who weren’t even involved? It was people like you. Sounds like hate to me.

    Who was it that celebrated with a cheese pizza and a six pack of God-knows-what, when some union thugs in Wisconsin beat up a reporter and other innocent people just for asking questions, following the passage of a right-to-work law that was deemed momentarily inconvenient? It was people like you. Sounds like hate to me.

    Who was it that preached unprovoked murder and mayhem to Conservative Americans, and even their children, and thinking it’s profound or funny or both? It was people like you. Again, hate.

    Thank you for this opportunity to straighten you out.

    You’re welcome.

  • Dave

    Real simple…..cancel subscriptions to G&A, don’t buy it retail…hit them where it really hurts, in the checkbook!! I will never buy it again.

  • http://hyperhypocrisy.blogspot.com/ Sierra584

    “The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.” (The Screwtape Letters. Copyright © 1942, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd)

    Penned over 70 years ago and couldn’t be more true if it were written yesterday. And this time, a LOT closer to home.

  • lather

    Oh my, another one you fools will need to turn your back on.. You guys are the most disjointed party, lol.. love it!

  • John Miles

    I think after that business decision he will soon be joining you!

  • allen

    Won’t be buying your mag again.

  • Richard Hicks

    DIFF IS REAGAN WOULD NOT BACK ANY CONFISCATIONS

  • Richard Hicks

    LATHER IS A TRUE LIBERALDUMFUCK !!AND SUCKES OBAMAS TOES

  • lakeside227

    He is completely wrong about our Rights – they are ABSOLUTE! They can NOT be ‘regulated’ by an entity that is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN from doing so. Just as oppression can ONLY be defined by those being oppressed and NOT by the ones committing the oppression, infringement can ONLY be defined by those whose Rights are being infringed and NOT by the entity who wants to infringe.

    The government has NO authority regarding the Rights protected by the Bill of Rights. The PURPOSE of the BoR was to DENY, PROHIBIT, BAN the government from regulating these protected Rights. IF the government HAS authority in these areas the BoR is MEANINGLESS; there would have been NO REASON to include the BoR. So WHY have the People allowed the government to regulate and define our Rights? Because the ‘government’ SAID THEY CAN. The FALSE belief, the LIE, that SCOTUS tells the People what rules the federal government must follow, what powers the federal government has, and when the government violates the Constitution and our Rights.

    This atrocity will NOT be corrected by those in power now or by any ‘political party.’ They WANT the status quo – they WON’T do anything that affects the power they STOLE from the People.

    Support the New Federalist Party – a REAL party of the People, obeying and protecting the Constitution; electing TRUE servants of the People who will obey and protect the Constitution AND listen to and obey ONLY their constituents, NO ONE ELSE.

    https://www.facebook.com/NewFederalistNationalCommittee?ref=hl

  • Vikodlak

    Even if “regulated” was used as he claims, it was still only refering to a militia. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is what is not to be infringed.

  • Vikodlak

    Black Fag

  • Ron Harper

    Remember Jim Zumbo?

  • Anthony Weisbecker

    Well regulated are the serial numbers that’s all that’s needed . Guns & Ammo just an advertisement magazine if you haven’t noticed .

  • Butch

    Go Chicago, go Detroit and DC!! Like they care.

  • JGattman

    I’m not sure you remember the history of your own party but let me remind you…
    -Dems were the power party of the Southern United States long predating the civil war.
    -Dems were responsible for segregation of the US armed forces after the revolutionary war. It was not segrigated prior to then.
    -Dems fought vehemently every effort to end slavery.
    -Dems formed the Confederate States of America, and were the overwhelming party of slave owners.
    -Dems formed the KKK.
    -Dems showed first movie and pro KKK film in Whitehouse.
    -Dems rounded up and illegally held prisoner German Americans during WW1 without trial in camps.
    -Dems suspended the first amendment during the WW1 time frame and arrested, without trial any journalist that spoke out against the presidency and encouraged our citizens to spy on each other and notify government officials if they new people who did not tow the party line.
    -Dems rounded up without congressional approval, hundreds of thousands of American Japanese during WW2, tossed them in prison camps with out trial and confiscated their property which was never returned.
    -Dems fought allowing blacks to serve in the armed forces
    -Dems pushed the first forms of gun control to prevent republican gun store owners from selling guns to blacks who had to travel out of State to purchase them because most Southern gun store owner were racist Dems.
    -Dems pushed for Planned Parenthood to be placed in predominantly black sections of cities.
    -Dems were the predominant fighters against desegregation before and after WW2.
    -Dems pushed for employment laws to “even the playing field” because they believed blacks were not intelligent enough to compete in a fair workforce.
    -Dems created welfare and housing projects to “contain” blacks to areas that were easily controlled and foster a reliance on Democrat controlled government support ensuring black votes. AKA a form of economical slavery.
    -Dems denied MLK his permit to carry a concealed weapon. MLK’s killer was a registered Dem.
    -Dems were the primary supporter for the 1980s “Saturday Night Special” gun laws that was touted to the public as a way to keep the poor blacks from owning firearms.

    Only in recent history did Dems change their public image by claiming it was “those racist republicans” who did all of the above, often enough for people to believe it. So please do not stand on your false political high horse and call those who are right of center racist. Though I’m sure there are those who are, it’s been the political right that has fought and paid with blood to racism for over 200 years.

  • Don

    time to get a new editor, it seems this one lost his way.

  • rappini pasta

    Ditto on not buying that rag

  • Bruce Beckwith

    The regulation in “well regulated militia” refers to the drill regulations of the time for the linear tactics then used on the 18th century battlefield. G&A has been little more than trash for quite a few years. Good riidance!

  • Frik Groenewald

    Think he needs to look for a new job, voice your disgust with your closed wallet / chequebook.

  • Duck

    Cancelled!

  • MOFUGGA

    And how many of the Jackass party has jumped ship?? Even Oprah W. doesn’t support Obamacare…so now who is LOVING IT?!?!?

  • Diane Alden

    Maybe he is promised in the New World Order he can keep his guns .. or maybe he is senile .. or maybe they have him on drugs.. or maybe he has always been a closet case of stupid.

  • Shootist

    I suppose everyone has forgiven Bill Ruger for supporting the federal “Assault Weapons Ban”? That was big news back in the day.

  • Eric Blatter

    Do you have a point? Then make it and quit screwing around.

  • Musketball

    well, this magazine is now officially DEAD.

  • http://hyperhypocrisy.blogspot.com/ Sierra584

    I was replying to the graphic that “lather” attached, with the slanderous prose from Henry Rollins — whoever HE is. Conservatives are accused of hate and intolerance and, in his own words, anti-pretty much everything, but this is nothing but name-calling. And that is all that Liberals know how to do.

    Don’t like my post? Okie dokie smokie. But at least I gave specific examples of Liberals being hateful and intolerant — ironically, in the name of love and tolerance. This is something that Rollins — and again, whoever the hell HE is — won’t and can’t do.

    Honestly, Liberals are such retards. And they’re even more so when they think no one will call them out on their shocking hypocrisy just because the likes of MSNBC and CNN won’t. Liberals can and do hate with the best of ‘em. And calling people racists for pointing that out are sophomoric attempts at intimidation — just like Hitler’s “brown shirts” did to dissenters in pre-WWII Germany. And it’s not going to work with me.

    Now, thank you for the opportunity to straighten YOU out. You’re welcome.

  • Pam Dunn

    I bet he was an Obama voter, Not just ONCE but Twice.

  • Pam Dunn

    Yeah, That YOU are a moron and total idiot.

  • Pam Dunn

    Hey Dumb rectal passaeway;
    Reagan use to be a Democrat.

  • me

    You’re the kind of people he’s talking about. You freak out because he voices his opinion. Why to be the example…… good job

  • SKEETER

    HE NEEDS TO BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY AND I’M CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION NOW.

  • anon

    Piece of shit traitor.

  • lather

    LOL. he said this statement in the 80’s you tool. He joined the scum party in ’62. That was right about the time when the southern democrats were changing to KKK Republicans.. Are you that dumb Pam?

  • Mike Donatello

    Welp, there’s one rag I won’t be wasting any more dollars on.

  • Humanity4Humans

    It is a “well-regulated militia” so that you don’t have a situation where the government is being overthrown by individuals seeking to use that power to become dictators themselves. Militias in America are meant to reflect the will of the people, not the will of one particular individual. What our founding fathers worried about was some rich bastard making a private army and taking over. (Which was sensible when you considered how the English, Spanish, French and Dutch all wanted to control us after we declared our Independence.)

  • mikesbuffalo

    i will never buy guns and ammo ever. this man is a traitor to the 2nd amendment. and a liberal at heart. he should be fired , go to their web site , and let them know how you feel.

  • GRusling

    Someone needs to retake high school English because they don’t understand sentence structure. No more G&A folks…

  • tgm

    I’m OUT!!

  • AmericanIcon

    That’s only a start, Dave – if subscriptions paid their bills, you wouldn’t have to plow through pages of advertising to read the articles. Send every G&A ADVERTISER a short, polite letter or email explaining that you will no longer purchase a product that supports such idiocy. When G&A hears from its advertisers that either he goes or they do, see how fast changes are made.

  • begladicarry

    A sheep in wolf’s clothing. You can only hide that for so long.

  • Eric Blatter

    Madam, I may be, but then what does that make you? I spent 26 years of my life in uniform defending our constitution for us all. I went to war, regardless of my opinion of its necessity, as that was the oath I’d taken. I still write to my political representatives frequently to remind them that any alteration or adjustment of any of our constitution is unacceptable and it “will not stand.” I make an attempt to present my arguments clearly and succinctly so that there is no question or confusion of my thoughts. What do you do other than insult or belittle others? Nothing? I thought so.

  • Eric Blatter

    Sir, the examples you cite are unfamiliar to me, so I have zero idea of the specific point you were trying to make. My comment had nothing to do with “liking” or “disliking,” but everything to do with understanding. Especially the last paragraph regarding “unprovoked murder.” Where that comes from I have no idea.

  • spraynandprayn

    you libs may very well rule and run this country onto the rocks, unlike you, people with strong core beliefs will never fall in line behind leadership who doesn’t represent them, you will be forced to deal with us at some point, we will not be converted, nor will we be oppressed, so that leaves only one option, it won’t be pretty…

  • liberalssuck

    So you are unfamiliar with the threats made by one or two democrats saying members of the nra should be killed? I believe the quote was” taken out and shot”? Maybe you need to do more research to have a clear understanding of what he or she meant!

  • Nicholas Fitzgerald

    He’s using the same BS arguments a lot of lefties do. The second amendment stipulates a regulated militia, not regulated guns. A militia is an organization, loose though it may be, of armed people. Elsewhere in the constitution (sorry, I don’t remember off the top of my head where exactly) it talks about the state appointing officers, and setting the parameters of training etc. That’s what “well regulated” is talking about. Also, the definition of the word “infringe” is to “encroach on the periphery.” We’re way past that already.

  • Nicholas Fitzgerald

    If that’s what happened, then that’s what he should have wrote about, or at least had the decency to say nothing. There’s no excuse.

  • Nicholas Fitzgerald

    This is a load of crap. I’m fairly certain Reagan didn’t say this, but even if he did, note the end of the second sentence. We’re not dealing with “people of good will.” This is evidenced by the tone of lather’s post. We’re dealing with idiots.

  • Nicholas Fitzgerald

    The KKK were democrats, dipshit. Learn some history. Your posts are moronic. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • Nicholas Fitzgerald

    America is on the move. It’s becoming just another second rate country because of the vast, but SHRINKING useful idiot brigades you mention. If the only way you can win is by co-opting the ignorant, then why would you want to win? I wonder if you are capable of understanding just how idiotic this is. What science? Be specific! Change into just another government controlled robot society? You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. I know this because it has, and you still haven’t recognized it.

  • Jay

    What an idiot, every smart person knows the fact that regulations infringe the right of the American people not only on their second amendment rights but also makes innocent people falls easily into victims. The truth is gun control kills innocent people and every scientific fact proves it.

  • cjhsa

    Is Obozo holding a gun to his head? Or his family? Sure seems like it. Buy bye Dick!

  • jim allen

    Nicholas, ‘well regulated’, at the time of it’s writing, had nothing to do with regulations as you define them, but more along the lines of ‘well equipped and trained’.

  • Citizen Armed

    Troll. Go back to your basement and whack off to porn, moron.

  • lakeside227

    Article I Section 8: Enumerated powers of Congress

    “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    Article II Section 2: Enumerated powers of the President

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    The key points:

    “…governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…”

    “…and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United State…”

    The militia was ONLY under control of the government WHEN ACTUALLY CALLED OUT FOR SERVICE. There is NO power delegated to the government to regulate firearms owned and carried by the PEOPLE. In fact, the government is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from doing that. It is ONLY when the People are called out to serve as the militia that the government may ‘regulate’ them. They may only regulate the MILITIA, not the PEOPLE who make up the militia, nor the firearms the People were REQUIRED to own.

  • Jack Jones

    Never pick up that rag again. Unless I run out of toilet paper. Go F*ck Yourself G & A
    .

  • Eric Blatter

    Look here “Mr Anonymous POS,” I shouldn’t have to look up anything. If one “must” post, it should contain all pertinent facts, or a reasonable representation of such. The point of communication, and a good argument is to include facts and rebuttals. If one has no desire to provide the appropriate information, or the necessary facts, one should stay home and watch television. As for you’re reply, I post with who I am, because I’m not afraid. If the government wants me, let ‘em come. But they better bring a lot of friends. That includes you, you paramecium piece of excrement. And as for “unfamiliar with the threats” mentioned, no, as a matter of fact I had not heard that. So just maybe the post might have been more pertinent and powerful if such had been included. Communication is a two way street. If you’re going the wrong way or a different way it is important to include enough information for others to understand why. Why? Because I have a life to live and don’t camp out on this flipping computer for a hobby.

  • MikeA

    The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment

    From: Brian T. Halonen

    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary,
    and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated
    Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in
    the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of
    time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated
    person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a
    clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every
    well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789,
    and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
    something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was
    calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight
    of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd
    amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the
    founders wrote it.

  • liberalssuck

    Wow, you must be a liberal, you just chided some one for calling you a name and now you have done it to me.
    I am sorry I could care less who you are, nor do I care how you feel. You called some one out for not giving the information you required, however the rest of us understood what she or he was saying.
    A typical liberal blames other folks for their failures. For some one who has spent time in the service it must have been the Air force as the rest take responsibility for ones own actions.
    Again you not being informed is not his or her problem. That is yours! Take responsibility for your own action ! I simply asked have you not heard of this and suggested maybe you should do some research. I guess asking you to take control of your self is a little to much for you. I guess asking you to remove your rectal inversion would be asking to much too!
    I apologize to the great airman and women who serve and do so with honor!

  • Scott Wilson

    Reagan’s stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm

    But I wouldn’t expect some dumb ass gun banning idiot to have any FACTS on hand.

  • Hardwood83

    Good idea, I cancelled my subscription Sat- and told them why. Now I’ll contact several advertisers too.

  • brent

    on and on with all the “smart” and “dumb” talk about what the constitution says,means or doesn’t mean…god damn idiots…..it’s this simple its a GOD given right and responsibility for a man to protect himself and his…end of words! I personally am apathetic that words will change a god damn thing…..pussies. I wish they would do whatever they want to do and get on with it……i’ll live intending the best for everyone I meet and if the day comes when someones in my space to protect myself or mine….i’ll live or die doing the right thing…..bunch of fricking armchair IDIOTS!

  • 1911

    Dude, the picture alone tells me you’re high (and I don’t
    mean tall)

  • mad jack55

    yes , somebody gets it.

  • captain bob

    In the 1700’s the term “well regulated” actually meant “well trained” so the Founding Fathers, using the then current terminology, wanted the people to be well-trained in the use of arms and certainly NOT have their right to keep and bear these arms infringed. I am shocked that Metcalf has turned to using the anti’s interpretation on the Second Amendment.

  • MZAZ86442i

    Time to cancel my subscription.

  • Ronald Reiman

    THE POLICE AND HOW THEY MUST FUNCTION IN A
    DEMOCRACY

    The conservation of private rights is attained
    by the imposition of a wholesome restraint upon their exercise, such a restraint
    as will prevent the infliction of injury upon others in the enjoyment of
    them….The power of the government to impose this restraint is called Police
    Power.

    We, the people give the government

    the right to exist!

    And not the other way round!!

  • Ronald Reiman

    And now. I am not a lad anymore, I grow older and have a story to tell but not here. As an old man and I must accept that status since I am now 67 I have the time to look around and through the medium of this computer, I see a lot that I had never sen before. I should wonder if Dick Metcalf has bothered to look. If you surrender yourself to the ideals of your government then you may as well lie down and die. Of all the idiotic utterences that a man could make. A bureaurcrat to decide for you what you may or may not have? The prophet spoke wisely when he said that the insane do not know that they are insane. On video’s from the US I have been drowned in a wave of violence of shootings, of sexual attacks and of muggings and this is only the police. Your police get away with murder, literally. Your ammendments do not save you from being disrespected by the police, at gun point do the police scream at you to get on the ground and they are not shy of putting the boot in. They are not shy of using pepper spray right into your face. They are not bothered by using a stun gun on a frightend young girl who tries to flee while handcuffed and is now brain dead after falling on to her head and the cop justifies this by saying that he thought that she would get away with him only a few yards behind. So what if she did get away, was she guilty of a capital crime? Or would he have had to pay for the handcuffs? To disobey a cop is to invite a thrashing or death, we have all seen those video’s of cops bashing people in a prison cell, throwing them against the concrete, beating them with truncheons, kicking and punching them and behaving like the worst cowards. I am minded of a scene from a soccer game when a chap came onto the field to protest about something. Five cops bore down on him and held him to the ground and used their batons like pistons on his ribs, it was brutality for brutaliries sake. And then the crowd spilled over onto the field. Now the people spoke and the cops ran away like little girls, hands covering their heads, now they were frightened.This is pecisely why I wrote what I did below..

    THE POLICE AND HOW THEY MUST FUNCTION IN A DEMOCRACY.

    They must be held accountable and like everyone else in this world they lie.

  • Greg H

    Speechless….

  • Ronald Reiman

    A trained driver is one who has had a lot of practice and is level headed, Nobody is born as a trained driver. What counts here is experience and not a piece of paper from a bureaurocrat who has trouble tying his shoe laces.

  • Ronald Reiman

    Said the man who made his living playing the role of a gunslinger.

  • Ronald Reiman

    How will those 16 year olds manage to survive when they grow up? And no matter what you may think, some things are immutable. God is supreme and you can laugh in my face if I am wrong. But until you can prove that God approves of them and the others that you mentioned, I will not change my stance.

  • Rifleman

    Well if he truly believes that is the case with the bill of rights we should start calling into question a few other things. Who should decide these regulations that won’t infringe on our rights? What other rights can be “regulated without infringement” will we now need to be able to pass a background check to gain a permit so that we cannot have unlawful searching of our homes? Will we need a permit for free speech? What demographic and regulations will we need to keep the government from housing soldiers in our homes without consent?

  • carl

    by by G&A

  • disqus_khiD4yhUiu

    I think we need to start being careful of what we read, and pay attention to the articles written in all Sports magazines. I often thought that Liberal control freaks could very well start printing their own Magazines and buy out the ones we all grew up with and slowly mix in a Gun Control narrative.

  • chuck…

    If we afford him the benefit of the doubt, at best he may have misinterpreted the wording of the 2nd Amendment where it specifically calls for a well regulated militia and makes a specific exemption for private gun ownership from regulation. He may yet come to his senses…

  • mike

    I want to read the entire article. Then if what you say is true, I will cancel my subscription, and pen a letter to the magazine and their parent company that first, they need to fire the editor for not promoting gun ownership and gun rights. Second, I will encourage my friends to do likewise. We can put them out of business in 2-3 months

  • Dale

    There is a misconception that the bill of rights is not absolute , if you know why these rights exists then you know that thay are absolute regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled! They predate our constitution as well as the Supreme Court! As a matter of fact , they predate our country !

  • Cynthia Matthews

    How Stupid!

  • Scott Snoopy

    Dick Metcalf is purely an opportunist. There was a day lil Dick detested ARs…now they are the greatest rifle of all time…same can be said for revolvers vs semi-automatics or calibers other than 45…now in Dick’s eyes all are supreme. This is one more example of his attempting to stay relevant…I am sure there will be a “this is what I meant” piece soon.

  • V the K

    Henry Rollins? Yeah, his opinion matters, but maybe we should wait to hear from the lead singer of Kajagoogoo before we really make up our minds.

  • Shooter

    So, let’s “regulate” the First Amendment while we’re screwing around with our rights, too. How about that, Dick?

  • AlmostaCowboy

    +1

  • AlmostaCowboy

    I see the cowardly Down-vote Fairy is making his rounds.

  • AlmostaCowboy

    It also meant “to make regular” or “put into good order”.

  • Eric Blatter

    Zowds! You’re the first person that’s ever called “me” liberal! As for your statement “A typical liberal blames other folks for their failures,” that’s pretty much the method of operation for either party. If your honest to examine that you will find it to be true. In politics, responsibility has no home. And I’m “liberal” because I’m not afraid to use my name? No, I’m proud of my name, and the two American citizens that gave it to me. My Grandfather Conrad and my father Roger. Thank’s for your input!

  • Brian

    Ill bet the Obama administration of Chicago thug politics found some dirt on him and said “write this or else..”

  • jumper297

    As someone who is supposed to be a 2A advocate I think he’s suck his own ship. There will be no mea culpa on this one and I can promise you his article will be used as further ammunition against us by the fringe left who think the Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation.

  • Scott

    I’ve maintained a subscription to G&A for just about 30 years and received the December issue (my last) about a week ago.. I’m going to miss it..

  • Mark

    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. The next time you hear or see a progressive liberal saying that ‘regulated’ is interpreted as the government stating what the citizens are allowed to own, show them this: The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. [Merkel, p. 361. "Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations."] In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. “[District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] -MD — with Jeff McKay and 4 others.

  • scott

    just not buying this rag off the shelf or canceling your subscription will not hurt them. what will hurt them is contact the company’s that advertise with them and do what the democrats do tell them that you will not buy from them until the quit advertising with them.

  • HoundOfDoom

    It was a crap magazine anyway. Much better info online. Buh-bye G&A

  • RetiredHero

    Fire the bastard!

  • lakeside227

    I guess it fulfills some kind of need he/she has… :)

  • Right Wired

    The magazine will be renamed to ‘bows and arrows’.

  • WalkingHorse

    Haven’t bought G&A in years. I will maintain that policy for the indefinite future.

  • Mike Davis

    “Shall not be infringed,” negates infringement.

  • Boom in the Face!

    They produce 4 different publications. I have bought 100’s of periodicals from these back stabbing twits.
    Emailed them…check
    Won’t buy anything they produce….check
    Going to search for every post Dick Metcalf makes and post he is a sell out….check

  • sootsme

    Actually, going somewhere in your car is “traveling”, and is protected under our Constitution. “Driver” Licensing applies only to persons being paid to operate a vehicle. Many states have case law supporting this, and many folks have gone to court and beaten the state’s claim that private Citizens need a license to travel in a vehicle. Of course, your mileage in present day Amerika may vary…

  • sootsme

    Yep. The Right to self defense is God given and predates all governments and all “laws”. As is the case with all Rights, use it or lose it!

  • liberalssuck

    You really are a dim one. Your name does not matter you understand that right. Like a liberal you did not address the issues I brought up. Instead you brought up a completely unrelated issue about who you are. I called you out about name calling and you not taking responsibility for your own failures. I do know sir that you are a typical liberal. Eric Blatter you are some one I would not want to know personally as action always speak louder then words.

  • Lt_Greyman_NVA

    Wow. G&A editor in conflict with the finding in Heller. Who wold have thought it! So they went to him and said “Remember that child Porn that was e-mailed to you? Be cooperative comrade, and it will never be seen, even though we e-mailed it to you.”

    Was it the realization that, as Charlton Heston said, “We don’t have a Gun Control problem, we have Race Problem.”? Was he going to be accused of being a “racist” if he didn’t write a “fitting” article? If he didn’t believe in Gun Rights, why not just leave the issue and retire with Honor.

    Good Lord. I grew up with G&A. What would Col. Cooper Say?

  • Lt_Greyman_NVA

    I hear this like everyday. Actually we are convinced every time one of our daughters is raped (35,000 yr by blacks) or killed (95% of interracial crime is black on White) or we read of The Knoxville Horror or the riots in Wisconsin during the Wisconsin State Fair where Whites were literally pulled from their cars by blacks and browns. Science shows that people are NOT the same, that Egalitarian ethics are destructive and regulated outcomes is merely that hammer of mediocrity. The change toward Communism is the same pattern we have seen in the killing fields of the Ukraine, of China, of Cambodia. Also, I think it is ironic that you use the face of a White man to push Anti-White propaganda. Do you think it will be more convincing?

    Some of us will fight for a Homeland of our own. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history, only whites have been tricked into thinking that love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others.

  • Rich

    Notice he is from Ilinois. They have to have permission via a FOID card to exercise a Constitutional God given, civil right. That means the gun owners are registered. I won’t be renewing my Guns and Ammo. Maybe Metcalf can get a job with the ATF, or the Brady Bunch. Don’t listen to any backpeddeling that will come out by this guy. Gun control of every and any kind has never ever in the world reduced violent crime. A good case can be made for increasing crime. Per a recent worldwide Harvard study by Don Kates and Gary Mauser.

  • Rich

    I hope Guns and Ammo drops his premium health care policy and he has to go on Obamcare. Poetic Justice I would say.

  • Johnny Cirucci

    I’m a subscriber and yet this snuck past me. Good catch. He’s another “I got mine so screw you” Elitist just like Steve Hornady that mocks the gov’t role in the ammo shortage…as if they haven’t bought BILLIONS of rounds and are prepositioning MRAPS to use against US.

  • cb

    What a piece of crap sell out!!!! Never will that magazine be in my house or any of my family members houses!!

  • lather

    Until you can PROVE there is a God your argument is moot.

  • lather

    LOL.. Idiot, you fools are going to die off.. You are irrelevant in the future.. No power now, No power later,.. You are done and will not be missed.

  • burnavenger

    Lather- OY it’s so fookin humid, you fookin libtard. Do us a favor and finger bang your boyfriend, queer bait.

  • lather

    Speak English dickhead!

  • Azlefty

    So all of you screaming’ do you support Felons possessing firearms? Illegal Aliens? The Mentally Ill -You know those folks that have been shooting places up?

    I will wait until I read Mr Metcalf’s FULL editorial before I judge and refuse to base my decision on a article that only tells us part of what he says, like it or not yes we need some regulation to keep those who have lost their rights from possessing the arms they have shown they are unworthy of possessing.

  • mlee952

    felons and mentally ill are prohibited from possessing guns NOW. Somehow, they still commit crimes. Criminals do not obey laws NOW.

  • Azlefty

    So you support gun control then………………….Yes that is gun control; think about it. We do recognize that certain narrow restrictions are a benefit to the whole and thus accept them, when we scream no “gun control” we are advocating for the felons and mentally ill to posses them. The real trick is to insure that any regulation is as narrow as possible so as to not to impede the peoples rights more than is absolutely necessary, such as insuring felons and the mentally ill do not possess firearms.

    This type of article is designed to enrage and not allow one to make a informed decision about what is really being said

  • mlee952

    I did NOT say I support them. I said we HAVE restrictions now and they are ineffective.

  • sapper

    subscription canceled

  • RonShirtz

    Doesn’t surprise me. The GOP, now this. Look how the NRA has back-pedaled and fails to use all the money and resources they possess to fight all illegal gun cases being prosecuted against legal and responsible gun owners.

    It’s all about maintaining a perfect equilibrium –Not too hot, nor too cold. NRA needs anti’s like so as to remain the champion of gun owners–If they really got serious and flooded the courts with suits, why, they just might defeat the anti’s, and then have no purpose for their existence. So instead they do a few here and there, and meanwhile the well paid head honchos at NRA enjoy fondling rare guns at gun conventions while badgering for more member subscriptions.

  • marcthepig

    A couple of pictures of a guy wearing lots of leather and a ball-gag can make him say just about anything.

  • Eric Blatter

    “You really are a dim one.” Ah, “name calling.” I guess no one is immune to that. “Your name does not matter you understand that right.” Why yes, you do have a “right” to anonymity, in this Internet world, but the rest of us also have a “right” to ignore those who shelter under such an approach. I was taught as a child that a “man” stood up for himself, took responsibility for his words and actions, and did so as a “man.” Just like Ben Franklin, Thomas Pain, Thomas Jefferson, “men” who took responsibility for their words as I take responsibility for mine. “Like a liberal you did not address the issues I brought up. Instead you brought up a completely unrelated issue about who you are.” I find it entertaining that because of the Internet some people feel it is just fine to make a statement or claim, without supporting facts, and then say, “Well maybe you should look it up.” If you don’t do that in normal conversation, why would you do that for a written conversation? Your concept of who and what one owes to the conversation is lacking. “I called you out about name-calling and you not taking responsibility for your own failures.” No, I do take responsibility for that. And truthfully I was a little out of line. My only defense is the previous statement. And I generally avoid conversations with “anonymous” people as I consider their contribution generally worthless as they feel it necessary to hide in the shadows. “I do know sir that you are a typical liberal. Eric Blatter you are some one I would not want to know personally as action always speak louder then words.” Actually no, I’m a moderate. I refuse to totally support the agenda of either of the ultra liberals or conservatives, as both have lost their marbles. Our country was only able to come into being as a more diverse bunch of people could not be found that were able to reach a consensus and settle for a little less than desired. Both the “Liberals” and “Conservatives” these days refuse to make concessions for the betterment of all, so I cast them out. I’m done here. Oh, no, I was in the Army. Twelve years as a Cavalry Scout, and then an Infantryman.

  • Steve Largent

    Two things for all of you on here: look at the G&A site and go to the bottom to see who owns the title. Then do a simple search for who is at the very top of company (go into the private equity firm who owns the company) and you’ll get your answers to where this is coming from. A bit of a conspiracy theory but with today’s administration, not unbelievable.

  • warpmine

    Metcalf apparently falls into the same craptrap that liberals do using the modern terminology in an attempt to define what the founders meant in their day. All he had to do is refer to the writings of the Founders to understand their reasoning behind every thing they wrote why. Quite certain, he failed in both tasks.

  • Wrangler

    I am a life member of the NRA and never had any interest in Guns and Ammo magazine. I started high power rifle competition when I was 18yrs old. Spent many years shooting service rifle. The American Rifleman magazine is all I needed plus ammo loading manuals. I’m surprised an editor of a shooting magazine is a Libtard.

  • John Stephens

    Never heard of him.

  • Remo Williams

    Wow. They must have been selling to many magazines.

  • Jack Of Clubs

    I don’t see any evidence that Metcalf is supporting gun control. The parts that Michael Wright quotes are just making the obvious point that “infringement” has a definite legal definition and it doesn’t mean that every bad gun law is necessarily unconstitutional. That seems like it should be obvious to anyone who has actually studied the legal literature, but I guess that is too much trouble for most people.

    The original article doesn’t appear to be available online and the facsimile that Wright provides is illegible. I will reserve judgment until I can get a copy of the original article, but my take from the info available is that Metcalf is trying to save us from looking like ignoramuses when we debate in public. Ironically, I don’t subscribe to Guns & Ammo, since the reviews tend to read like paid advertisements, but I will probably get a copy of this issue just to see for myself what Metcalf actually wrote.

  • liberalssuck

    Name calling, I actually referred to your state of being. Hence, you are a dim one! I find it funny you responded again to an anonymous writer in the first post unless you happen to know personally Sierra584? Yet you state again a false argument about your name. You also responded to me and again made a false argument about how your name matters.
    It is good you finally acknowledge you were wrong about Sierra’s points. It is very clear to most of us who have been following some of the happenings and threats that always emanate from the left.
    I really do not care about your political affiliation as that is a personal matter and one I do not care about unless I want to follow or have further dealings with. Since I do not I do not care what you call yourself.
    Ah for a scout you disappointment me. Since we always relied on accurate information from you all to make route changes, plan ambushes, and such and to have you act stupidly and then try to blame others for your failure. A shame really, I expect better from my brother in arms! Hoohaaa!!
    Now as to me, I may have been heavy handed also. I could have addressed your points with links to educate you, instead I may have came off as a bit mean. That was not intended as I was in shock you have never heard about all the threat made against the right from the loony left. So for that I take responsibility and apologize! Have a good day.

  • Jakob Stagg

    Hard to believe, but everyone has a price.

  • Eric Blatter

    How good a Scout I was is for others to determine. However, for 95% of the time, my NCOER’s were pretty fine. But, may I remind you, one has a tendency to defer political affiliation and it’s mandates on the battlefield as it is not important at the time. Living to the next day with as many of your platoon alive also is what is important. May you too “have a good day.”

  • cheesemaster

    He actually admitted to having a hand in FOPA, and that wasn’t enough for people to see his true colors? FOPA protected gun owners just like ACA makes healthcare more affordable.

  • Dana King

    Seems like reading the US Constitution is too much trouble for people like YOU.

    We are a Constitutional Republic. If the feds can read between the lines and assert any power their little fascist minds can imagine then we are not a Constitutional Republic.The US Constitution grants SPECIFIC LIMITED POWERS to the federal govt. Anything NOT listed is not a power granted to the federal government and the last time I checked there is NO language in the US Constitution granting the right to pass laws regarding guns. The BoR is not a list of rules for the feds to do a tap dance with liberty, it is simply a representation of a few of the rights off limits to the feds’ ability to monkey with nor is it a guide for the feds to play legalese games with our liberties. If the power isn’t EXPLICITLY granted to the federal govt they DO NOT have that constitutional power, period. Any action they take on guns (and millions of other things) is unconstitutional despite what the appointed crony statists on the supreme court say. And if that wasn’t clear enough for you I refer you to the 9th Amendment. After reading that if you still believe the feds can do whatever the he77 they want to do then you are beyond help.

  • Gregory Smith

    Unacceptable! This man is a coward, if you work for a gun magazine, you better be pro-gun. Anti-gun crap belongs in The New Republic, not Guns & Ammo. Listen to me, G & A, you either fire that bastard or you can kiss my money goodbye.
    sellingthesecondamendment.com

  • DoubIenaughtspy
  • MarylandShooter

    Writer has been terminated, editor stepped down. How gun writers and mags keep Zumbo-ing themselves is hard to fathom.

  • ManOfTheLog

    I quit it a long time ago. The magazine is 80% ads and frankly, I see no point in paying for someone to pitch merchandise to me. To me, this whole gun control deal is like watching wax melt. Slowly, little by little, it softens, yields, sags – until finally, the whole thing is liquid. Our rights are going away. One by one, leaders all over the country are giving in to the progressives. In the not-too-distant future, we will have a couple of choices – surrender our guns, or live in continuous fear of being discovered, like the Jews in Nazi Germany during the war. I guess we should enjoy what little freedom we have left, because we won’t have it much longer.

  • scooter

    I believe in the 1st amendment rights but I have the right to pursuit happiness so I don’t read what I don’t like that is my right

  • Mark

    Caption Contest

    Enter your caption for a chance to win!

    This Week’s Prize:

    Blue Book of Tactical Firearms Values 4th EditionEnter The Contest

    View All Caption ContestsSportsman Channel

    Airing this Week On GATV

    more video and showtimes

    FIND SPORTSMAN IN YOUR AREA!

    Get the Newsletter

    Save Over 80% off the Cover Price

    First Name

    Last Name

    Address 1

    Address 2

    City

    State AlabamaAlaskaAlbertaAPO/AFP AmericasAPO/FPO Europe APO/FPO PacificArizonaArkansasBritish ColumbiaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineManitobaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew BrunswickNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNewfoundlandNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthwest TerritoryNova ScotiaNunavutOhioOklahomaOntarioOregonPennsylvaniaPrince EdwardPuerto RicoQuebecRhode IslandSaskatchewanSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingYukon Zip

    Email

    G&A Network

    Guns

    Shotgun News MagSmith & Wesson Model 41 Review

    RifleShooter MagSweet Seventeen: Savage B-Mag Review

    RifleShooter MagAgeless Rimfires: The Best Rimfire…

    At the Range: M16A1 Review

    Shotgun News MagRechambering a Savage 110 in 7.62x54R

    Handguns MagTactical Solutions Glock .22 LR…

    A Pair of Nines: Taurus CT9 Carbine…

    At the Range: SIG Sauer MPX Submachine…

    Shooting Times MagReady for Duty: CZ P-09 Duty Review

    Shotgun News MagHow to Fit a Barrel Bushing to a Slide…

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Ammo

    Handguns MagHornady Critical Duty .45 Auto +P Review

    This Day in 1947, Supersonic Flight…

    6 Reasons to Reload the .300 Blackout

    Shooting Times MagNew Deer Hunting Ammo for this Season

    Handguns MagBig-Time Defense: Federal HST Ammo Review

    First Look: Winchester Longbeard XR

    G&A Perspectives: Does the .308 Fit…

    RifleShooter MagBig Bore Upgrade: Should You Hunt…

    Handguns MagHow Dry-Fire Practice Can Make You a…

    RifleShooter MagBest Hunting Cartridge: .25-06 Rem. vs….

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Personal Defense

    Read & React: Indiana Pastor Pulls…

    G&A Perspective: Why the Mossberg…

    Read & React: Would-Be Burglar…

    Handguns MagHornady Critical Duty .45 Auto +P Review

    6 Reasons to Reload the .300 Blackout

    Shotgun News MagThe Ultimate Urban Carbine Cartridge:…

    Read & React: French Jeweler Shoots…

    Read & React: Liquor Store Clerk Pulls…

    Handguns MagMake Ready: Staging Your Pistol for…

    Read & React: Iowa Hostage Kills…

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Culture & Politics

    G&A Perspectives: When is a…

    The Best Concealed Carry States in 2013

    Shotgun News MagSpecial Needs Student Suspended for…

    Shotgun News MagPhoto of Duke Basketball Team with Guns…

    This Day in 1947, Supersonic Flight…

    California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Gun…

    Shotgun News MagTCU Axes Student Group Gun Promo on…

    Shotgun News MagConvicted Criminal Among Those in New…

    Shotgun News MagGun-Shaped Lighters Banned from New York

    Shotgun News MagNo Gun Ownership Growth? Check Illinois

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Gear

    Trijicon VCOG Review

    Shotgun News MagHow to Select the Right 1911 Rear Sights

    Shotgun News MagHow to Install Apex Gator Grip Handguards

    Gear Guide: Leupold Riflescope Roundup

    Handguns MagBig-Time Defense: Federal HST Ammo Review

    Shotgun News MagConfessions of a Tool Junkie: MGW Sight…

    RifleShooter MagThe Best Ruger 10/22 Trigger Assemblies…

    First Look: Winchester Longbeard XR

    Silence is Golden: SIG Sauer Silencer…

    Gear Guide: Best 1911 Grips on the…

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Our Response to the December 2013 Backpage Column

    by Jim Bequette | November 6, 2013

    215

    96

    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

    Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2jzcS79S9

  • Mark

    Guns & Ammo Response:

    Our Response to the December 2013 Backpage Column

    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

    Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2jzcS79S9

  • Mark

    I only wish our govt. would respond by firing their mistakes as fast as Guns & Ammo did. Hats off to admitting their mistake and took action. Thank you!!! from a 2nd Amendment supporter.

  • fatboy46

    re: “I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

    I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .

    WOW! the PRINCIPLE is NOT the same. The Framers did not make horse ownership a right or a privilege because it was not necessary to the Freedom of the people.
    DRIVING is a privilege- regulated by the STATES. Gun ownership on the other hand is a necessary part of Free people to remain FREE. the 2nd Amendment insures the rest of them remain in place. While we can argue about a few that have been added (income tax and Senators being elected, and prohibition come to mind). Metcalf just reinforces the image of the Liberal/Socialist journalist. ( and NO I will NOT capitalize ‘journal-anything’ )

  • burnavenger

    picture boy. wow, picture boy. you are fookin juvenile douche bag. butt chop

  • pabarge
  • BEO-JAR

    According to Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 a “regulation” is to “make regular”. An “infringement” is a “restriction.” Today, what the government calls “regulation” under the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968 is not a regulation, but an infringement, along with most gun laws made AFTER 1933( ;) ). This flaming-asshole is an ignorant, and an elitist. He printed this in a Gun Magazine, too. What a dirty-rotten, no-good, muther-fucker.

  • Jimmy Z

    So… Jan Morgan is arguing in FAVOR of people with mental defects or who have
    committed a felony still having the right to possess firearms. Just wow.

  • maryann26

    I once supported some gun control, but I know longer do. The government has destroyed all our civil liberties.

  • Kirk

    Why does the Michelle Wright want felons to have P-90s?