Friday, November 08, 2013

Metcalf's Lame Response

Published, quite properly, by Jim Shepherd in THE SHOOTING WIRE:
In today's political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute "NO!"
I'm going to leave the reasoned, nuanced discussion to Bitter at SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, who does a superb job of disassembling Metcalf's sad comments:
Ah, yes, rather than address the specific issue, he resorts to implying that those who disagree don’t believe in freedom. This is a message to Dick: The Bill of Rights is a limit on government powers to silence you (in the case of the First Amendment), not a promise for any job you want with any private company you desire to work with and a free pass to say anything you want or behave any way you want without consequence from other private citizens. By trying to play this card, Metcalf is going into what I like to call Full Dixie Chicks Mode. The Chicks were outraged that their political rantings weren’t fully accepted by their audience and were stunned that the same audience simply decided not to buy future products. It’s the same situation here. The Bill of Rights does not provide a guarantee that someone has to keep giving you money when you say something that they fundamentally disagree with.
This is not, as Bitter so lucidly notes, a "free speech" issue. Let me go a step farther than I noted in my earlier post, we have been having a "dialog" about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I've been alive. IMHO, the "dialog" ended when the war began.

Let me say this again...we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.

It works like this...our enemy states a Big Lie, and I could list dozens, and we run around like little bitty chickens with our heads cut off, marshaling our arguments, footnoting our learned responses, bullet pointing our facts...and after the whole charade is over the enemy repeats the Big Lie, the lapdog media reports it as truth, and WE LOSE AGAIN!

Look at the thoroughly discredited "a gun in the home is 43% more likely to harm rather than protect the homeowner." Probably more words have been written debunking that fake piece of trash than all Shakespeare's plays and the complete transcribed Wikipedia, yet 2 weeks ago I read it presented as gospel truth in a daily newspaper website.

During the fight on the Colorado gun laws earlier this year, thousands of us came with our carefully prepared remarks, charts, studies, bullet points, facts — real honest to goodness facts. Our blood enemies, most notably Michael Bloomberg, shipped in a parade of liars...heads of fake organizations created by Bloomberg, a presentation of "polls" that wouldn't meet even the most basic rules for polling, etc. We had the "indisputable" facts; they had the Big Lie. Who won?

Hint: It wasn't us.

Note to future want some healthy give-and-take, go back to your academic lounges. The arena is for fighters.


Anonymous said...

Dick's grasp on the 1A is as tenuous as his grasp on the 2A. As to his sincerity, note in the first paragraph (paraphrasing), "I was told to write this."

Fighters, as Mike rightfully calls us, come to places like this to let our hair down, to be among our own, to relax and not have to look out for Brady attacks. A lot of guys would give up parts of their anatomy to have his job, and this is the thanks he shows us (and his advertisers)? I sure as heck hope his PhD is not in Constitutional law, English, or business. If it is, he needs a refund.

To Dick I say (quoting Motley Crue), "Don't go away mad. Just go away."

To you, Mike, thanks for what you do. It's an honor to share the path with you.

- Drifter

kmitch200 said...

The Bill of Rights is a limit on government powers

Why is this so hard for people to understand???

KevinC said...

I am all for a "healthy give and take" when it comes to talking about the Second Amendment.

I'll talk about the rights that have been taken from the people of the United States over the last 100 years, and the gun grabbers can talk about what they'd had to give up in return.

Who do you think will do all the talking?

Alien said...

Michael, a question: We always seem to be playing defense against the Big Lie. The media, liberal and anti-gun, supports the Big Lie. The facts we marshal against the Big Lie prove our point, but it's a Pyrrhic victory.

We need to, first, go on offense so the other side doesn't have the opportunity to sell the Big Lie, and, second, do so with sufficient vigor that they come to realize telling, or supporting, the Big Lie is a substantial negative for them.

Just how do we accomplish this? I'm really interested in your take on it. Even if your take is that I'm wrong.

Frank said...

Be gone with him, the sooner the better. It amuses me to know end that he's been given a chance to rebut his critics all over the web, to include this blog, and yet he's talking 1A? Please, remove your head from it's natural position and look around. And if G&A is wise they'll hose down is office after he leaves. Just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

"I'm not going to take your guns."; Barack Obama

Sounds kind of like: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctors, you can keep them. Period!"

Big lies come in all forms. If the lie is made so big that most people believe it because no one would ever tell a lie that big; then the liars win.

I agree with Alien, stay on defense. Get the truth out there.

Life Member

Anonymous said...

Whoops, I DID mean to say OFFENSE in my last post.

Life Member

Bubblehead Les. said...

That's why I don't even bother talking to Anti-Gunners anymore. I don't have a big enough drill to get through all the Crap that's in their Head.

Though if they keep pushing us into a corner, they may be hearing some Garands doing our Talking for Us.

But that's up to THEM.

Anonymous said...

The vultures are already circling.

This is the problem. The gun grabbers like getting us fighting each other. Metcalf said he was involved with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This was the start of our letting it be known we could be divided. "My Model 70 is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Your Uzi - not so much". It's still happening with gun owners allowing bans on AR15s and magazines.

Anonymous said...

My biggest issue with Dick's response was that he said he wanted to open a dialogue of other points of view. His editorial didn't ask a question of the readers opinions, it was a statement saying that his views were the correct ones. If he had just used "what if?" or "how about?" in his points, we probably would have listened.

Anonymous said...

I have now read Mr. Metcalf's response. He misses the mark wildly. No one here is saying that we should ignore past legal precedent, such as laws and court rulings. No one here is advocating breaking any laws. No one here is advocating ignorance, nor poorly handling firearms. No one here is advocating "carrying" illegally. And you know that.

What we are advocating is the conclusion that enough is enough when it comes to more gun regulations. We can easily see where this is going.

The truth is, we are over-regulated. In fact, we are beyond the point of diminishing returns when it comes to regulations. Our current restrictive gun law situation is actually allowing lawlessness to occur. Citizens are left defenseless by the mere fact that individual rights are infringed upon by disarming us in select locations, making ownership expensive beyond what many citizens can afford and otherwise complicating ownership to the point that many citizens simply throw-up their hands and walk away from gun ownership.

Mr. Metcalf, you have the right to say anything that you want, but I reserve to decide if I want to listen to you.

Thanks for the "Obama-esque" apology. That was your apology, wasn't it?

Life Member

gunman42782 said...

Michael, it is an honor to have you on our side.

Six said...

It's just sad. I've been reading Dick Metcalf for many years. G&A was probably the very first magazine I ever subscribed to. I could wish he had chosen to keep these views to himself but better to know now than never I suppose.

Good luck Dick and I mean that sincerely. I hope you prosper but I pray you will forgive me when I say that I prefer that happen in a field other than one related to the Second Amendment.

Overload in Colorado said...

I think he needs to replace his arguments with others to see how they would be taken.
Replace Guns with Jews, or Concealed Carry with Blacks. This is NOT a "How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?" question.
I guess the bottom line is that a pro-gun outlet like G&A can't question gun rights. It would be if the AARP talked about euthanasia for the elderly.

Crotalus said...

Go back to your academic lounges. Out here, this is no longer a debate forum. This is a battlefield for warriors. And WE are the ones with the guns! (Eh, I couldn't help myself. I like those words better. )

Nowhere in this nation has gun control been reasonable, or about real compromise. It is a power grab--nothing else.

Ursavus.Elemensis said...

Hey Dick Metcalf, when we are done having a reasoned debate about the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, can we have some reasoned debate about the 13th and 19th Amendments, too? Just asking because maybe the exact wording of those amendments should not be taken so literally and maybe there is, after all, some room to debate reasonably regulated slavery instead of just throwing out the whole practice of it. And, hey, maybe those who bemoan the inability of Congress to reach a compromise on anything these days would be willing to compromise on how and when we allow women the right to vote. I'm just wondering, Dick, since you have already lost the debate on the 2nd Amendment, when can we start having those other reasoned debates?

Ursavus.elemensis said...

One of the Cowboy Rules of Life is that when one finds himself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Anonymous said...

Again, I agree with Metcalf and found his response anything but lame. There is a discussion to be had but as I have seen in other gun forums, it will not happen without a certain segment turning hateful. I am disappointed in the response here. Yeah, Ok Michael, call it war and turn on fellow pro gun rights people in the name of purity. You just lost me.

Anonymous said...

Michael, for every detractor on this subject who says they're leaving, you'll gain ten-fold in new readers. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Bravo Mr. Bane. Well written and right out of the minds of millions of fellow gun owners.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 10:23,

Since you're lumping everyone who disagrees with Mr. Metcalf in to the same boat, please tell me where I'm being hateful. I bear no animosity toward him, but I don't see why either readers of G&A or their sponsors should pay Mr. Metcalf to spout Brady talking points - thereby giving credence to factually incorrect and misleading information.

For those who are confused about why gunowners are not interested in "compromising" yet again, see this link:

If you "compromise" (where they give up NOTHING) this time, they'll call it "a good start" and be back for more of your rights before you can blink.

- Drifter

DamDoc said...

NRA indicates that now "runners world" magazine is preaching bans for hand guns and "assault rifles"... any runners or retired runners out there? bombard rw with protests, immediately!

Anonymous said...


No one in any form of media can boil this issue down to its essence like you. I believe you to be the most important voice in America today for 2A protection.

Thank you!

Greg Wyatt
Sacramento Ca.

Michael Bane said...

Thank you...strangely enough, I believe in the words intoned by John Houseman at the beginning of THE PAPER CHASE: "Contracts are the basis of all civilization." A contract might be defined as a "meeting of the minds" where both sides, albeit unhappily, give up ground to meet in the middle.

In this entire battle, our enemies have given up exactly NOTHING. NOTHING. Not one inch of ground, while we have steadily retreated. Every "promise" made by our enemies has been proven to be a lie. While we talk talk talk the other side's agenda has remained amazingly unchanged since its very beginning — unconditional civilian confiscation of all firearms. They're not even particularly subtle about their lies anymore.

Yet my friend Dick Metcalf would have us believe that if we all sit down over chai in the faculty lounge we can all then decide the color of our chains and leave happily encumbered by them.

Look who comes to Metcalf's defense — Brady, various antigun groups, the NYT, the Puffington Post...judge for yourself how seriously our supposed friend has damaged our cause.

Frankly, none of this makes any sense unless the pressure for such a "3rd Way" article came from over Metcalf's head. This is the journalistic equivalent of buying a gallon of gasoline, dumping it in your kitchen and setting it on fire just to check out the color of its flames. Anyone with an IQ higher than warm water had to know this was a guaranteed firestorm...I know all the players in this little production, and none of them are done.

It reminds me of the discovery of Neptune...initially, no one looked through a telescope and discovered Neptune. Rather, it was discovered by mathematical prediction...gravitational anomalies in other celestial bodies predicted the presence of another planet of Neptune's size.

What I take from that is sometimes we might NOT be able to directly "see" what's influencing a system, but we can take a stand at predicting that invisible something by studying how it affects the overall system.

Think about it...when things don't make sense, maybe Neptune's out there influencing things with its own gravity.


kmitch200 said...

Anon@10:23: Yeah, Ok Michael, call it war and turn on fellow pro gun rights people in the name of purity.

Pro gun rights? Seriously? This Brady talking point is PRO gun rights?
HA! That's a knee slapper there!!
Nobody "turned" on Dick Metcalf. He turned on us..and now he reaps the reward.
If you think that infringements enforced at the point of a .gov gun are OK, we didn't "lose" you.
You never 'got it' to begin with.

Michael Bane said...

Not "done," but "dumb"


DamDoc said...

This is kind of like 911 in one way... the enemy used our own infrastructure to attack us