Slow day and he had a hard time dreaming up some spin.
Doesn’t he have it backwards here? “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
Isn’t the constitution to regulate government not the other way around?
“all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
Inalienable Rights! Not Granted By Government!
IMHO Dick was being used by Leo Hindery, Jr. Managing Partner of InterMedia Partners (guns and ammo, shooting times etc) as a feeler to see how the shooting community would take to modifying their stance on gun control
Hindery is an Obama bundler and an anti gun POS who has caused me not to renew my subscriptions to intermedia gun mags.
Richard is right --- Dick is wrong.
Just like A&E, they could fire him or keep him, subject to the people that pay the bills opinion. The Reader and/or the Viewer.
Metcalf lost. Phil Robertson won. Both for the same reason.
From the article: “Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced.”
And, rightly so. To allow any encroachment on these rights is to invite the libtards to take even more, and more. That is precisely why we are in the state we are, today. Creeping socialism.
The dhimmicraps well understand ‘death by a thousand cuts’, and they are content to play that game to advance their socialist utopian goals.
The “shout fire” analogy doesn’t work, no one is proposing to surgically remove vocal cords.
Not that I don't believe the NYT (cough), but I'd like to see documentation of said death threats; followed by documentation that these threats were received from actual subscribers to G&A.
History shows that the Left tends to create "events" that support their narrative. Of course, this is due solely to the fact that we racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc. conservatives don't behave in the manner in which we are characterized and the agenda must be advanced, regardless.
A comment by Metcalf: “Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
Well, if your argument starts from a firmly principled stand, then the spirit of compromise demands that you move away from that principled stand and toward the position taken by your adversary. So, to that extent, at least, compromise does entail giving up some incremental element of your principles.
In the current political environment, it will be best that true conservative, Constitutional voices remain quite firm and NOT compromise. If that results in gridlock, so be it.
This is not a time for pastels, as has been said.
This article is front page center, directly below a picture of a starving Afghanistan boy being held by a completely black burqua-clad cypher (a person or thing of no value or importance; nonentity).
Hey Ravi, why don’t you write a column criticizing abortion, affirmative action or fag marriage and see how fast the NY Slimes boots your dot headed ass out the door.
Good review of the Slimes article here:
THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS.COM
New York Times Champions Dick Metcalf – And Reveals The Truth About Gun Reviews
By Robert Farago on January 5, 2014
The New York Times’ article Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns “exposes” gun journo “extremism.” It’s based on an unsurprisingly sympathetic profile of Dick Metcalf. You may remember Mr. Metcalf as the Guns & Ammo writer given the old heave-ho after writing a column suggesting that government regulation of gun rights isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Suffice it to say, Warren Zevon’s Poor Poor Pitiful Me. More specifically, this: “Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices . . .
He says he is still contemplating how a self-described “Second Amendment fundamentalist” who keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach has been ostracized from his community. “Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
Yes. Yes they do. Keeping in mind Senator Barry Goldwater’s famous quote “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Now for the juicy bit. In its effort to diss gun journalism in general, the Old Gray Lady reveals that Guns & Ammo’s reviews are bought and paid for . . .
Fudd.
"...shall not be infringed.
Dick Metcalf went pfffft.
I fail to see the problem here.
See, to me, compromise is when 2 sides argue their points and willingly trade off equal points to achieve a goal that both partys can walk away feeling like they gained as much as they gave up. This new meaning of compromise just doesn't fly with me... the one where your opponent demands you give up 10 things that they don't want you to have and you "compromise" by only letting them have 5 while getting nothing in return. This is the sticking point for the magazine readers and all 2nd Amendment proponents alike... we've played this game too many times and "compromise" just never seems to work out for us in what we consider a fair manner. Therefor, we ain't buyin anymore "compromise".
Sorry, I read something like this and one thing will get stuck in my craw and I just can't get past it. There is no "compromise" any longer... be it regulation/restriction of the 2nd Amendment or any other increase in government, taxes or regulation. Our real problem is how few people have come to realize that the brakes are out and we are heading towards a steep grade... and they will never recognize it until we have crossed the point of no return.
A 67 year old guy in the writing game how long and suddenly it seems he come out with something which, presumably, he failed to come out with previously> Hmm.
Wow, he sounds like Scalia.
two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors... if he continued to work there.
I wonder what Metcalf's opinion would be regarding a requirement for 1600 hours of training?
In Arizona and Vermont there is no permit required and no training requirement. Is there blood running in the streets there? No.
How then does Metcalf determine that a requirement for ANY training is not an infringement? Does he simply think that, because he considers the infringement minor, that it is then not an infringement?