Shooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,287 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This might not be news to all, but I was wondering why I hadn't seen Dick Metcalf's articles lately. In the Dallas Morning News there's an article about that, that tells why he was fired from all of his writing and television jobs. In October he wrote an article titled " Let's Talk Limits ", which debated gun laws. He wrote, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be. The backlash was swift and major gun manufacturers told his company either he goes or they do and he was fired within days of the article coming out. Personally, I wasn't overly crazy about the guy after watching his new show for the first time a couple of years ago, Modern Rifle Adventures. Remington was the major sponsor for the show and they were pushing the 30 AR Remington. He started quoting ballistics number for the 30 AR and comparing them to the 308 Winchester. He stated that the 30 AR has better ballistics out to 300 yards over the 308 Win and produced more MV with a 125gr load. As soon as he stated the numbers for the 308 Win I knew he was talking about the Remington Managed Recoil/Reduced Velocity load and not a standard 308 load. I looked up 5 or 6 factory loads for the 308 with 125gr bullets that anyone can buy and the average MV was about 600 fps higher than the 30 AR. I wrote InterMedia an email ( which they never answered ) and told them I didn't think it was right to flat out lie on a television show and a lot of people would believe what their saying, and there's better ways to promote a product other than what they were doing. The show is all about AR type guns if you never watched it, and hunting with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Dick went way too far in suggesting what, in his opinion, constituted infringement and what is not. He took a position contrary to the position of most supporters of the 2nd Amendment and got fired for it. In my opinion, his firing was deserved and so was the editor's. Given the current state of the politics in this country and the slobbering attitude many have in their want to ban guns, Metcalf wrote a very ill-timed and quite frankly, not well thought out piece. His piece had the potential to harm those that support the 2nd Amendment as well as those that pay the bills at his former magazine. In his line of business that gets you fired. Just ask Jim Zumbo. And the fact he did his first interview with the NY Times tells me a lot about Dick Metcalf. Perhaps he can be their 2nd Amendment editorial writer since the Times is more in line with his views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bushrat and fred243

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
I'm not an advocate of someone loosing their job over a personal opinion. But I've watched and read Dicks work for a long time and he has made a good living from our support of his ventures!
I got really PO'd at A&E over what they did to Phil Robertson because they knew who they had entered into a contract with, they knew his belief's and convictions!
Dick should know as well as anyone that the Anti's don't need any help with their agenda to destroy our second amendment rights.
If he truly feels that any of our constitutional rights need to be regulated I say good riddance!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,748 Posts
All you have to do is look at New Yorkistan to see where his attitude will lead.

10/22 with thumbhole stocks or pistol grips are now considered "assault weapons" and need to be registered. If you want to see where his jackass opinion looks like on paper, read the NY SAFE ACT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
I read Metcalf's article and found it interesting.
He wrote that all constitutional rights are regulated. Speech is regulated, you can't yell fire in a crowded building.
Churches can't practice living sacrifices.
Freedom of Assembly is regulated, a bunch of yahoos can't demonstrate on your property.
We can't drive without a license and when we do, we have speed limits.
All of those statements are true.
He's a columnist, he stated his opinion and got fired for it.
Too bad.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,668 Posts
Easternhunter,

I agree one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded building, but when we enter a theater they do not put duct tape over everyone's mouth to PREVENT the yelling! Of course, there may actually be a fire and a need for someone to yell. I read Metcalf's last "limits" op-ed piece and sent him an email that was never answered. With "Friends" like him we gun owners do not need enemies!

I am glad he is history.

Webley
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Easternhunter,

I agree one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded building, but when we enter a theater they do not put duct tape over everyone's mouth to PREVENT the yelling! Of course, there may actually be a fire and a need for someone to yell. I read Metcalf's last "limits" op-ed piece and sent him an email that was never answered. With "Friends" like him we gun owners do not need enemies!

I am glad he is history.

Webley
Sorry Web,
You lost me with the duct tape.
But Metcalf got "duct taped".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
The absurd part is Metcalf comparing our right to protect ourselves guaranteed in the US Constitution to someone yelling "fire" in a crowded building. His conclusions are so ridiculously simple it is almost not worth the effort to debate. I would expect more out of first year students. His piece was shallow and without much serious thought. The part that is hard to understand is how in the world the magazine printed it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
> He wrote, all constitutional rights are regulated,

There you go, they are suppose to be God given rights.

" Let's Talk Limits "

Obviously, whoever he was, he found a man has got to know his limits. He found his.

May future generations refer to him as "dick who?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,820 Posts
While I completely disagree with his reasoning and position on the second amendment I hate to see someone get fired for voicing his/her opinion. If more people would tell us what THEY THINK rather than what they think we want to hear you would truly know who you were dealing with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
He was a writer for Guns and Ammo. There's no doubt now they paid him to write about guns and ammo and support gun owner's rights. When he deviates from that mission, and writes an article that is contrary to 2nd Amendment rights, then he belongs at a different magazine - one that also pays him to write for them. So they sent him off to look for that magazine. He'll be happier there, wherever that is.

That's how the world turns. Forget who pays your bills and they might not pay your bills anylonger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
He was a writer for Guns and Ammo. There's no doubt now they paid him to write about guns and ammo and support gun owner's rights. When he deviates from that mission, and writes an article that is contrary to 2nd Amendment rights, then he belongs at a different magazine - one that also pays him to write for them. So they sent him off to look for that magazine. He'll be happier there, wherever that is.

That's how the world turns. Forget who pays your bills and they might not pay your bills anylonger.
but if there was a continuum with lets say Anti's on the Left and Pro Second Amendments on the right he WOULD be right of center, that puts him on our team even if we disagree on some of his points
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Well, yes, maybe he is on our team and maybe not, but we're not the judge really. Guns and Ammo decided he was not on our (their) side. In a way, I kind of like what they did. They are preventing an infiltration of leftists ideas. I don;t mean to say Metcalf was, but what I mean is they're showing a low tolerance for anti- drivel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Well, yes, maybe he is on our tema and maybe not, but we're not the judge really. Guns and Ammo decided he was not on our (their) side. In a way, I kind of like what they did. They are preventing an infiltration of leftists ideas. I don;t mean to say Metcalf was, but what I mean is they're showing a low tolerance for anti- drivel.
I get it and I don't like slippery slopes, but it was an op-ed piece and we do want people to be honest, rather than to lie to us, even if we don't agree. This is exactly like the PC shyt we hate, the left does that, they silence, smear and fire everyone who disagrees.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,083 Posts
I don't know what prompted him to write the article, but the line of thinking that "we'll preserve our rights by letting people take them away" isn't going to help our side. It plays back into the tactic by the left to slowly erode our rights over the years.

All a person has to do is look at the long history of gun control in this country, how many rights have been lost on that topic, and how few we've every gotten back.

By contrast, many other constitutional rights have been expanded. What passes for "free speech" these days would have swiftly landed a person in jail a hundred years ago, if not being hung outright by a mob (think some of the more sordid "performance art" if you disagree).

Dick is no different than the ignorant gun owner in Connecticut who say he "didn't mind" the registration of his AR, and foolishly doesn't know where all of that will ultimately lead (confiscation). Sad for Mr. Metcalf, but worse for gun owners as a whole if he is allowed to continue writing.

Like the entire gun control crowd, he's entitled to his opinion, but the magazine is entitled to hire writers who will appeal to their readership. And frankly a writer with a national exposure ought to be a little more savvy about the politics of gun control. He shouldn't have opened his mouth on the topic and exposed his ignorance (my opinion).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
I don't know what prompted him to write the article, but the line of thinking that "we'll preserve our rights by letting people take them away" isn't going to help our side. It plays back into the tactic by the left to slowly erode our rights over the years.

All a person has to do is look at the long history of gun control in this country, how many rights have been lost on that topic, and how few we've every gotten back.

By contrast, many other constitutional rights have been expanded. What passes for "free speech" these days would have swiftly landed a person in jail a hundred years ago, if not being hung outright by a mob (think some of the more sordid "performance art" if you disagree).

Dick is no different than the ignorant gun owner in Connecticut who say he "didn't mind" the registration of his AR, and foolishly doesn't know where all of that will ultimately lead (confiscation). Sad for Mr. Metcalf, but worse for gun owners as a whole if he is allowed to continue writing.

Like the entire gun control crowd, he's entitled to his opinion, but the magazine is entitled to hire writers who will appeal to their readership. And frankly a writer with a national exposure ought to be a little more savvy about the politics of gun control. He shouldn't have opened his mouth on the topic and exposed his ignorance (my opinion).
If we were sheltered from his opinion we wouldn't have known he had that opinion. Information is golden and it's always good to know what people are thinking, especially influential people. I think if I was the editor or owner of a hunting magazine I'd allow a PETA representative to contribute, if for no other reason than to make people aware of what goes on in people's minds. It's better to know, even if it hurts. Also, we don't want to scare people with opposing view points underground, and we definitely don't have the luxury of loosing people who are, overall, more on our side than against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,748 Posts
anyone who thinks Metcalf was entitled to voice his opinion, needs to understand the situation at it's basic, simple truth.

We are at war, and when you give add or comfort to the enemy, you're shot for treason. You can not print in a national magazine an attitude or idea that aids in the destruction of our rights and freedoms.

There is no more room for compromise in this fight, because we are always the ones losing our freedoms. You never see any Democrat moving to our point of view. No one with a "moderate" view is our friend and anyone speaking as such should be considered an enemy and be dealt with "extreme prejudice".
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top