Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control (cancel em if you got em)

[ShooterInPA1]

Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .

Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:

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!

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...s-gun-control/

[raxar]

I wish Cooper was still around to beat his ass.

[ShooterInPA1]

I canceled my subscription and I just renewed it last month.

If I wanted to listen to antis, I would turn on the MSM.


How do I end my subscription?

To cancel your subscription, please call 800-829-3340 or Send a Comment to our Customer Service Department through the Manage Your Account area of the Customer Service site. You may also write to us at Guns & Ammo, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235 .
For international orders please call 386-246-3326.

A refund will be issued for any un-served issues of your subscription.

[ExpectingRain]

It is likely that this editorial will cost the author his job. Anyone remember Jerry Tsai at Recoil? He lost his job for suggesting that civilians should not be allowed to touch/own/breathe on the MP7a1 as it had no "sporting applications to speak of" and that it was a gun "no civvies should get to lay their hands on". I would guess that this guy is in his way out. Sadly though, G&A has a huge Fudd audience that frequently sounds off about "too many black rifles! Not enough hunting articles!". They may be sympathetic to this sort of assclownery. Either way, that's it for me. Plenty of other options.

[ShooterInPA1]

It is likely that this editorial will cost the author his job. Anyone remember Jerry Tsai at Recoil? He lost his job for suggesting that civilians should not be allowed to touch/own/breathe on the MP7a1 as it had no "sporting applications to speak of" and that it was a gun "no civvies should get to lay their hands on". I would guess that this guy is in his way out. Sadly though, G&A has a huge Fudd audience that frequently sounds off about "too many black rifles! Not enough hunting articles!". They may be sympathetic to this sort of assclownery. Either way, that's it for me. Plenty of other options.

Reminds me of Jim Zumbo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo

Jim Zumbo is a prominent firearms and hunting commentator and writer. Until February 2007, he was the Hunting Editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel. He was removed from both positions after he condemned the use of common semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 for hunting in his blog. On July 3, 2007 Zumbo's TV show went back on the air.

On February 16, 2007, Zumbo published an entry on his blog which read, in part:
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods.[2]


ANYONE who thinks this way needs to be shown the door tuit suite and replaced with someone who understands and respects the 2A.

[louie]

Guns and Ammo is a rag, and has seen it's subscriber base dwindling over the past decade.
Metcalf is a slug; a Zumbo troll.

Subscribe to GUNS and/or American Handgunner for your PRO-2nd Amendment reading.


louie, out!

[ettorment1916]

While reading Metcalf's editorial I had to flip over to the front cover to reassure myself that I was actually reading a firearms magazine. This guy's a tool.

I don't believe I'm going to cancel my subscription, but I will be sending Guns & Ammo my thoughts on this so called editorial.

Contact information related directly to the editorial = backpage@imoutdoors.com

[ShooterInPA1]

While reading Metcalf's editorial I had to flip over to the front cover to reassure myself that I was actually reading a firearms magazine.

I did the same thing. Thought I was reading the thoughts of someone from obama's cabinet.

[ShooterInPA1]

So much for "limitations" on the 2A. At the time of the founding of this nation, cannons were the largest arms of their time and were owned by citizens (and they did not have mandatory safety classes either)

[ungawa]

I cannot throw a smoke grenade in a crowded theater. That would be causing mayhem and reckless endangerment. Yelling, "Fire!" is the same thing. The fact that I cannot yell, "Fire!" is not a regulation of free speech (yes I know where it came from, they lied).

I cannot choke my neighbor's wife to death. That is murder. Shooting her to death is the same thing. The fact that I cannot shoot my neighbor's wife to death is not a regulation of the Right to Keep and Bare Arms, it's simply that murder is illegal. Same as creating mayhem and reckless endangerment are illegal.

Telling me I must get prior approval from the federal government before I can own a firearm is NOT that same as saying I can't murder a neighbor or cause mayhem and reckless endangerment in a crowded theater.

Telling me I must get prior approval from the federal government before I can own a firearm is the same as saying I need to get prior approval from the federal government each time I speak or write a letter.