DICK METCALF AT IT AGAIN: UNITER OR DIVIDER?
by S.H. BLANNELBERRY on JULY 1, 2014
Dick Metcalf, former employee of Guns & Ammo (Photo: NY Times)
Last November Dick Metcalf was fired from his position as contributing editor of Guns & Ammo for penning a column in which he argued that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not absolute, that reasonable regulations imposed by federal and state governments are not tantamount to infringements.
“Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” Metcalf wrote in the editorial titled “Let’s Talk Limits.” “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”
The veteran gun journalist and historian went on to say that mandatory training requirements for concealed carry permits were not an infringement on one’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
“I don’t think requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry permit is infringement in and of itself,” Metcalf wrote. “But that’s just me.”
For many gun owners the idea that a contributing editor to a flagship publication was publicly advocating for tougher gun laws at a time when the Second Amendment was being heavily scrutinized — in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut — was unbearable, so they expressed their ire, shock and dismay on social media, on gun community forums and in letters to Intermedia, the corporation that owns Guns & Ammo.
The ensuing backlash forced the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jim Bequette, to not only issue an apology but let Metcalf go.
“I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights,” explained Bequette. “I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and ask your forgiveness. … Guns & Ammo will never fail to vigorously lead in the struggle for our Second Amendment rights.”
Yet, while many agreed that Guns & Ammo was correct in it’s attempt to right an alleged wrong, many others saw Metcalf’s piece as a way to bridge the gap between the two sides, a way to acknowledge that “reasonable limitations” and “common sense measures” do exist and can be enacted without the heated exchanges and invectives that typically accompany debates over gun control.
Some folks view Metcalf as a dividing force within the gun community because he openly endorsed rather stringent concealed carry requirements (16 hours is a bit much). On the other hand, his defenders still view him as a uniting force within the gun community because of his ability to appeal to the mainstream, non-gun owning public, which perhaps, in turn, leads to winning over more hearts and minds.
The question then becomes, which is it? Is Metcalf a uniter or a divider?
Well, before one answers this question it might be helpful to consider Metcalf’s recent comments at the Aspen Ideas Festival where he was joined by Ronald Brownstein, the Atlantic Media editorial director.
www.gunsamerica.com/blog/dick-metcalf-uniter-divider/
-agree: :banghead: :banghead: :censored: :banghead: :censored: 
