“There is no real ending. It’s just the place where you stop the story.”

― Frank Herbert

Friday, November 8, 2013

Guns and Ammo fires Dick Metcalf and Jim Bequette. Good Riddance.





When my latest copy of Guns and Ammo came in, there was an article by Dick Metcalf bewailing the fact that the requirements for receiving a concealed carry permit were not as stringent in the rest of the country as in Illinois.  Immediately, the left wing blogs picked up the story and began running posts like "Gun Magazine supports gun restrictions."  CNN jumped on it right away and they are still doing so now that Metcalf has been terminated.  This guy provided the left with a rich source of propaganda and an excellent opportunity to attack gun owners, which the Democrats and their pilot fish are not missing for a second. I just watched a CNN segment that touted gun owners as closed minded buffoons who can't stand a little scrutiny of their beliefs. Metcalf and Bequette were lionized as realists who understand that gun ownership is not an absolute right and has to be "regulated" by the government.


I've been around a while and I remember 1994, when this kind of thing is exactly what provided cover for Republican Senators and Representatives to vote for the 10 year ban that Diane Feinstein declared would make the U.S. safe in our time.

Metcalf had an obligation to the people that buy that magazine, and he completely ignored it in order to "generate a little action." Well, he got his action and so did the editor, Jim Bequette.  Some people are too stupid or too arrogant to learn from experience.  When the new magazine "Recoil" came out, the editor wrote a story in the first edition that was poisonously anti-Second Amendment.  As a result, the 2nd edition rotted on newsstands. When the publishers fired that guy and got a pro gun ownership man in there, the magazine took off and has done well.  For Metcalf and Bequette to run a story implicitly calling for tighter  restrictions on gun ownership is like having a preacher come to church and give a sermon on the benefits and strengths of atheism.

If I want to hear debate on my right to own guns, all I have to do is turn on CNN, or MSNBC, or ABC. Piers Morgan is always ready to scream and shout and try to intimidate his "guests." I can always watch that as he does his show on evil gun owners.  I sure don't need that same aggravation in a magazine I am paying cash for.

I think they both got what they deserved.


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, and 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 is unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers like Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction 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 — and, most importantly, Guns & Ammo’s. It is very clear to me that they didn’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 ask your forgiveness.
Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of Guns & Ammo Jan 1. These recent events have convinced me I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new Guns & Ammo editor will be Eric Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications like 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 in the struggle for our Second Amendment rights and with vigorous young editorial leadership, will do it even better in the future.

16 comments:

  1. I agree, good riddance to 'em both. The fight will never end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no room for duplicity or side "shaving" in this debate. Not with so much on the line. In every other respect, the government is forcing us into the role of drones, but not on this critical issue. This is the big one. Metcalf was an idiot to write that piece and his editor was an idiot for letting it go to press. They both got what they deserved.

      Delete
  2. Good riddance to bad rubbish is right.I still don't understand why they thought that was a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Metcalf was looking for attention. Guns and Ammo has had some serious internal issues and jockeying for position since one of their writers was killed while visiting another man's wife. (innocently, according to the magazine). That set off a domino effect and I think this is part of it.

      Delete
  3. With friends like those who needs enemies...

    What Metcalf did was tantamount to that Jim Croce song:

    You don't tug on Superman's cape
    You don't spit into the wind
    You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
    And you don't mess around with Jim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, it's a propaganda bonanza for the left. I'm writing this about midnight Saturday evening. There have been numerous news clips on the major networks extolling Metcalf and company as martyrs, burned at the stake by evil gun owners who can't tolerate a discussion of the issues. What these pimps don't understand is the fact that there isn't any "discussion" it's all about us giving up rights every time we "negotiate." The only thing we ever got back once surrendered was the sunset of Diane the Hag's Gun Ban bill, and that took ten years. Like your quote says, some things you just don't do.

      Delete
  4. While I am not a gun owner, I do respect gun owner rights. Its down to a war between us vs them. All good comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob, it's been that way since the 1960's and it will always be that way.

      Delete
  5. What bothers me is the ideas of the writer were not recent. He has had them for a while and still managed to have a job at said magazine.

    Does no one get vetted anymore?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Metcalf was a good technical writer. As long as he confined himself to that, he did well. It was only when he tried to venture into the philosophical issues that he ran aground. He just didn't understand what a boon his article would be to the anti's, and he had to pay the price.

      Delete
  6. I have that issue, and didn't even notice/read the editorial. My annoyance was that it seemed like an extended advertisement for Ruger's new AR. I have been buying less advertisement driven gun magazines of late in response to the a lot of questionable content.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russell, I've never trusted a gun review in a big gun magazine because the writers had to tout the product whatever they really thought. Guns and Ammo is a good magazine for keeping up with new products but you do have to evaluate them on your own.

      Delete
  7. I think there has been incidents of magazines and web sites seeming to be pro gun when in fact their intent is to weaken 2nd amendment ideals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duke, that may well be. I'd be surprised if it wasn't so on reflection. In this case, I think the two people involved just didn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing.

      Delete
  8. I cannot recall buying a G&A over the last 25 years. Ive looked at many though, that were left at campgrounds or work. The articles are seldom more than ads or baloney filled with cliches, IMAO. That said, most of the current rags are not much better, the only 2 I take are Handloader & Rifle. I woder about the column in question coming so close to the editors departure date, hmmmm? I also, in a small measure, sympathize with D Metcalf. Meaning....... When I am in private with my "gun friends" I bring up subjects and ideas like keeping guns from crazies. I use language and ideas that I would never use in front of a non gun person or heaven forbid, a banner. A national mag just gives the wrong ppl too much to use against us. We MUST have these conversations because ppl keep shooting up schools etc AND we have to war game "THEIR" arguments vs ours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have hit the nail on the head. It's perfectly ok to discuss these issues privately, with people who are all "of the right party." But to do so in a national magazine is about as close to traiterous as you can come.

      I've read Guns and Ammo for eons and I keep them all. I get it on Kindle now.

      Delete