“Compromise is a bad word these days,” Dick Metcalf, 67, told The New York Times of what he believes is the unyielding, give-no-ground ethos adopted by Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. today. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
via FOX News – U.S. – Latest Headlines – Former Guns & Ammo columnist speaks out on becoming ‘a pariah’.
To quote Ron White, he has the right to remain silent but he does not have the ability.
Following Metcalf’s dismissal, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, told FoxNews.com Metcalf “absolutely did not” deserve to lose his post.
“If he suggested a ban on all guns, then I would understand that reaction,” Watts said. “But to say a fair exchange of ideas on how to stem the deaths and murders in this country because of gun violence is an act of heresy just reeks of no tolerance.”
When the enemies of your kin come to defend you, it becomes a big hint that you fucked up by several orders of magnitude. That you still have not figured out says a lot about your disconnect with reality.
I would not be surprised to see him become a spokesperson for some “sensible gun rights organization.”
I think a lot of us, myself included, would have been willing to compromise. The problem is that they’re not willing to give us anything, and they would never keep their promises to leave us alone afterwards. They’ll always want more, which just forces the movement to be uncompromising as a result.
A compromise was put on the table regarding the Background Checks: Give access to NICS to civilians without having to go through FFL. It was shot down by Schuumer before the ink in the proposal was dry.
Bingo. They wanted the ability to have a registry, so it was shot down.
And I think the only way we would agree to that would be National Reciprocity.
But again, they aren’t interested in compromising- they only what US to compromise.
And we have learned their game, and we aren’t playing it any more.
True about a lot of things. The Left accuses us of being unwilling to negotiate, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to come to an agreement.
Except the only things they’ll accept are the things we CAN NOT AFFORD TO GIVE THEM!
During the Shutdown late last year, the House offered a budget that was EVERYTHING the Democrats were asking for. Everything except funding for the Affordable Care Act.
We all remember what happened.
Metcalf is a learned, intelligent expert in the field of 2nd Amendment rights. If we are so narrow minded that we can’t find a place at the table for him if only to debate his positions, then we are truly lost as a movement. Guns & Ammo should be ashamed of themselves.
He may have been as you described him 20 years ago but his article clearly showed he has not kept up on the debate for quite some time.
He obviously did not pay any attention to the CCW debacle in IL when they pushed for a 40 hr training requirement but then ‘compromised’ for 16. What was the purpose? Not ‘safety’ but infringement. Just one example.
Plus a “learned, intelligent expert in the field of 2nd Amendment rights” couldn’t do a little research on states with no training requirement, as well as states with 1, 4, and 8 hour requirements and see if there was ANY correlation with mandated training level and/or quality and accidents, homicides, or other pitfalls that could allegedly be minimized by training?
I mean I came to the 2A fold via the anti-gun side, and I was very much in favor of mandatory training…until I looked at the numbers, and realized while it LOOKS good on paper, it simply wastes a lot of time and money for zero gain.
Why can a 20 year-old-college student with bone-headed leftist leanings (I voted for Gore, for fucks sake!) why can’t a “learned, intelligent expert in the field of 2nd Amendment rights”?
He’s an idiot, and he wrote an idiotic article. He’s now simply doubling down on what really could have been dismissed as a stupid article written under a deadline.
He deserves what he’s getting, and we should note how much the antis now love him for what he’s said.
He might well be, but he is a babe in the woods in the actual battlefield of the fight for the Second Amendment. And just by giving an interview to the NYT, an openly anti-Second Amendment newspaper is proof of that.
Guns & Ammo had to wake up and realize that there is a new breed of Gun Owners out there that are not the same ones from 30 years ago. Hell, I am willing to bet that they still believe that the Glock and the rest of the Plastic Wonders are just a passing fad and people will return to wood stock bolt action rifles and 1911s.
Well he couldn’t be a “learned, intelligent expert in the field of 2nd Amendment rights” if he doesn’t know that well-regulated means well-trained- not subject to government regulations.
Or you and I have different definitions of “learned” “intelligent” and “expert”
There needs to be a word for people like him. The term “useful idiot” comes to mind but really doesn’t do the danger he presents justice.
The problem with people like Metcalf is that they can be used so easily against us. Metcalf pens a opinion that there should be some restrictions on the 2A. Anti’s wave him like a bloody shirt, pontificating that “Here is a gun owner, editor of G&A, who says there should be restrictions. The smart gun people agree there should be restrictions. Lets bring back every AWB, mag limit, etc, because those are restrictions.”
Metcalf gives them an inch, they take a marathon. If the antis want to know why we have gotten so hardened and absolutist, it’s because we have learned to not give a single inch anymore. No compromise in bad faith.
[…] Go to this article […]
What is the difference between a dead skunk lying in the road and Dick Metcalf’s corpse lying in the road?
The skidmarks in front of the skunk.
And let’s not forget the G&A publisher who conspired with Metcalf to publish the article. Boycott his ass, too.
This was a deliberate provocation, by two Fudd weasels who were planning on leaving G&A anyway. Read the ex-publisher’s “apology” carefully and you will see…
G&A editor Jim Bequette resigned from his editorial position. He was the person who approved the column. The idiocy of the column should not be blamed on Metcalf alone. A good editor would have pointed out the errors in his column. That is one of the jobs that editors are paid to do.
I heard he was scheduled to move on to a new editorial position at the beginning of the year anyway? Anyone know where he is working today?
Some here have gotten the message that ‘compromise’ means give and take from both sides (re: Pyrotek85 & patrickhenry2nd). I’ll be more than willing to compromise on their ‘universal background checks’ demand if they’ll go for a ‘state to state reciprocity (ownership & carry)’ and ‘SBR/SBS as non-NFA34 act weapons’! Any of you ‘Regressives’ willing to discuss this one? Didn’t think so!
I’ll accept Citizens’ access to NICS for private sales and they take national reciprocity. And also NFA $5 for silencers. Going for SBR/SBS might be a bit too much for the other side to accept just yet
Yet the anti’s idea of ‘compromise’ equals “We won’t try and enact this particular restriction…….until next time and you knuckle-dragging rednecks need to just sit back and accept it.”
Little Dicky accepted the Bloomberg bucks before his editorial was ever conceived; being able to rub elbows w/a Space Cadet and a PR Bitch sealed the deal.
How does Bloomberg’s anus smell Dick, does it smell of roses?
I think we can apply Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
I doubt very much he accepted money from Bloomberg. He was just stupid.