Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Well that didn’t take long…Guns & Ammo fires Dick Metcalf

Posted on by
Reply

The damage, unfortunately, is already done. Much like Jim Zumbo before him, Dick Metcalf didn’t just stick his foot in his mouth…He peppered it with lead for seasoning first. I’d like to defend him but, I can’t. The Brady Campaign and the media have already started salivating and run with the headline, screaming, “Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control!” It will be seen as “proof” that 90% of Americans believe in the Draconian style gun laws and gun bans these people consistently advocate.

Meanwhile, Guns & Ammo has had to go into damage control mode in an attempt to head off the same blood-letting that Recoil magazine saw earlier this year when one of their editors shot himself in the foot with a comment about what guns should and should not be in the hands of civilians. Metcalf was apparently already on his way out at Guns & Ammo but, in an open letter (seen below), Jim Bequett announced that departure schedule has been moved up to right now. Bequett apologized to readers/subscribers and said that Eric R. Poole will be taking over the reigns at Guns & Ammo, effective immediately.

Meanwhile, a number of folks jumped to Metcalf’s defense and I can understand a desire not to eat your own but, folks, we really should be done compromising. Metcalf offered up a liberal’s wetdream of an interpretation of what a “well regulated milita” means and his defenders have done the same saying the National Guard is the modern equivalent there of which brings us right back to the liberal mindset that only the police and military should have guns. We’ve been down this road before, that’s not what the Framers meant or intended. It’s a post for another time but, it is intellectually dishonest to interpret all other rights in the Bill of Rights as being the rights of individuals and then randomly single out the 2nd Amendment as being a “collective” right.

For the record Dick, you can yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater…There is no law against it but, you do bear criminal/civil responsibility for whatever happens as a result of the misuse of your right to do so. Likewise, there should be no law against owning a firearm (any firearm) but, you can and should bear criminal/civil responsibility for misusing said firearm if you unlawfully harm another person or their property. That’s the way it should be and the only regulation we really should tolerate. Instead, we’ve allowed politicians to slowly eat away at not just the 2nd Amendment but, the entire Bill of Rights such that now, “clenched buttocks” stand in as probable cause for a compulsory colonoscopy when X-Rays and anal probes fail to find drugs.

GM

For those interested, Jim Bequett’s open letter can be seen here:

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

via Our Response to the December 2013 Backpage Column – Guns & Ammo.

Guns not actually banned in neighborhood watch program George Zimmerman belonged to – U.S. News

Posted on by
1

“We’re not asking anyone to take their second amendment, or their concealed weapons rights away from them,”

via Guns not actually banned in neighborhood watch program George Zimmerman belonged to – U.S. News.

Gee, Chief…Back track often? Just last week you’d said anyone participating in a neighborhood watch would not be allowed to carry. I get it. You have to cover your butt and that of the city. If you endorse people carrying, you think that puts the city on the hook when someone get’s shot.  It doesn’t but, that’s the angle you’ll work.  It’s not the first time we’ve heard similar policies associated with neighborhood watch programs for that reason.  It’s also not the first time a police chief voiced a desire to limit 2nd Amendment rights and realized he’d just swallowed his own foot.

-GM

Some liberals really do think cars cause car-violence…

Posted on by
1

“The truth is known, obvious and inarguable. It cannot be said too clearly, and it cannot be said too often: guns make gun violence happen, gun-control laws make it stop.” – Adam Gopnik via After the Navy Yard Shooting: Why This No Time to Despair About Gun Control : The New Yorker.

That the above quote appears in “The New Yorker” is no surprise. Still, the thought that someone who considers himself to be of at least average intelligence would write it, let alone say it with a straight face, is hard to believe. The usual sarcastic retort would be to suggest that cars cause car-violence. But, the unfortunate reality is that people like Gopnik would say, “Yes! The truth is known, obvious, and inarguable…”

We’ve said before that violence is violence. That violence is either lawful, or unlawful. Guns are merely a tool through which that violence is committed. Violence can be committed through the use of many tools. The concept of “gun violence” is made up to justify the vilification of the tool, rather than the actor.  But curiously, the logic is not applied with regard to violence committed with other tools. We don’t talk about “bomb violence” even though the Boston Marathon Bombing earlier this year was clearly an act of unlawful violence.

Like wise, when Nathan Campbell decided to drive his car down a crowded sidewalk in Venice Beach in August, no one railed against “car-violence” even though that wasn’t the first or the last time such a crime has occurred. The fact is, he committed violence, and it was unlawful, period.  He willfully, knowingly, aimed to injure and kill as many people as he could for no reason other than he felt like it. His tool of choice happened to be a car.  Miriam Carey, committed unlawful violence when she ran over at least one police officer during her vehicular rampage through DC last week. Or what about Alexian Lien who clearly, knowingly and willfully plowed through a group of bikers to get away from an impending attack…The Range Rover was decidedly used to commit violence but, it may in fact be lawful violence.

Obviously, these cases are just random oddities among the 30,000 or more cases of drunk, reckless, distracted driving incidents in which people are killed every year. And of course, the total number of such fatalities is small in comparison to the literally, millions, injured annually.  The almost routine drive by shootings that occur in places like Los Angeles, California don’t count toward these totals but, it is hard to deny that a car is a tool used to commit violence in such cases.  Yet we do not see calls to ban cars or campaigns against car-violence.

The reason we don’t see such campaigns is because we recognize that cars nearly all of us own do not (yet) drive themselves and they do not operate with free will. So it is the people operating those cars who are at fault. As such, we do not seek to punish other drivers for the actions of the Nathan Campbells, Miriam Careys, or Alexian Liens of the world by arguing that one should not be allowed to buy Dodge Avengers, Infinity G37s, or Land Rover Range Rovers because they were used to run over people. We do not demand background checks of anyone buying a car. Instead, we clearly recognize that it is not the cars themselves that are at fault. The truth is known, obvious, and inarguable…The problem clearly lies with those operating said cars. But, then again, people like Adam Gopnik might just believe a guy like me shouldn’t be able to buy a pickup without submitting fingerprints, a blood test, and proving that I need it.

-Gary

 

The Houston Comical gives us yet another example of media bias and ignorance…

Posted on by
Reply

In this morning’s Houston Chronicle, Dane Schiller updates the paper’s Narco Confidential blog with a post regarding the top ten reasons the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has denied purchases for potential gun buyers. I don’t know Dane Schiller.  However; I do know guns and it is clear the Dane doesn’t know anything about guns and doesn’t care to check the facts before posting mindless drivel and calling it journalism.

In this latest post, Schiller states that there were more than 174 million NICS requests this year and that Texas leads the nation with a million requests through the end of August. Schiller also states there have been over a million NICS denials this year.  I don’t doubt that there have been well over a million firearms transaction in Texas this year but, the very source Schiller cites (The Federal Bureau of Investigations) contradicts the post.
There have not been 174 million NICS requests to buy firearms this year. That’s the total number of NICS requests over the life of the NICS program from November 30, 1998 through August 31, 2013.  The graphic Schiller used to illustrate the top tens reasons for denials (above), also clearly states that those million-plus denials occurred over the life of the NICS program, not just this year.

Sadly, there are people who will read the Chronicle and assume what is published is fact that’s been checked for accuracy. Clearly that is not something that happens with the Houston Chronicle. Even if the Chronicle or Schiller see themselves as biased, they clearly aren’t interested in getting the facts right when it comes to the issue of guns. They, like so many other media outlets, consistently misreport the facts on anything relating to guns. Worse, some plainly lie but then, I’m sure I’m just preaching to the choir.

-Gary

Anthony Bourdain, “…I think I should have as many guns as I like.”

Posted on by
2

Admitted a “socialist sympathizer, leftie, liberal New Yorker,” Anthony Bourdain had a few things to say about guns on Tumblr today. Folks I don’t pretend to know this many from a hill of beans but, I recognize him as a prominent face in popular culture. A person of influence on the minds of many whose opinions are formed based on what their favorite celebrity of the week is thinking.  And while I usually don’t care what such people think, whenever the subject of guns comes up, I am keen to hear what they have to say because I cannot refute bullshit if I don’t know what’s been said. In this case, I was a little surprised. Somewhat pleasantly even.

Now, I’m not saying Bourdain is or will be a card carrying member of the NRA, GOA, or SOF anytime soon. I do not agree with his attempt to liken guns or the ability to own/operate them to the licensing or purchasing of a “sixteen wheeler.” (Figures a New Yorker wouldn’t know it’s 18-wheels but, that’s another story). But, I did find it refreshing to see that unlike so many lefties, he at least was not on the bandwagon of castigating all gun owners and claiming that the latest tragedy is the fault of gun owners and/or the NRA as so many lefties, especially in the news and entertainment industries, tend to do.

Listening to Bourdain, I am reminded of the kind of people who used to identify themselves a liberals and Democrats and yet are seldom seen anymore. Those aren’t hell bent on taking away other people’s rights. The man obviously still has some leftie ideas with respect to knowing more about me before “allowing” me to exercise my rights but, it seems he at least recognize the right exists and that’s more than I can say for our President or his lackeys.

-Gary