G&A release

Long apology...his association with G&A has ended.

Does an editor not look at an article before it is printed, or was DICK the editor?

The editor should have fired himself as well.

That's what I was getting at.

The internet killed G&A long ago. Barely john worthy except to replace TP.

The problem is a bunch of people read that article and thought it was a good article. Metcalf is the only one going to pay the price when numerous people need to also.

Gun people will forget and keep supporting all the rest there that thought that article was ok to print.

Dink

I guess I'll still send the letter to the editor that I wrote today even though the two things I suggested, the firing of Metcalf and the resignation of the editor, have already taken place. I want their corporate masters to fully understand the mistake that was made in publishing Metcalf's ignorant and foolish column.


RS

Good. We don't need traitors in our ranks posing as one of us.

Maybe Sarah Brady or Mikey Bloomberg can offer him a job for his loyal service.

Some people must buy G&A, but I do not know who they are.

Seems like G&A spotted the gorilla in the room only way after the fact.

Can't even imagine how they would ever think that that his editorial would not start a fire storm.

Steve

Who is Dick Metcalf and what did he do?

They DID know it was going to raise a fire storm, Jim said so in his apology, something to the effect that he did so anticipating a strong debate. It was printed solely to increase attention and readership.

They got what they wanted, and more.

Ed

Never enter their minds it would become a major story and they would get the backlash they received . They are in recovery mode and someone had to go down, so i would bet Dick volunteered and got a really big severance check . Like Jim Dumbo he will let it calm down and then ease back in through the back door . People in this country have short memories .

It's a top news story on Yahoo news now as well.

Well...it's a sad thing but not really. [bleep] Dick Mecalf. I'd cry for his sad-assed firing, but I'm too busy laughing my ass off.

Well they got attention...located a traitor...and dumped a lousy writer. Hat Trick!

Excellent news.

Speaking of lousy handgun writers, that Chuck Taylor should have wrote for Mad Magazine.

He did resign.

They should have canned his azz a decade ago simply because he was a pompous azz of mediocre technical and shooting ability.

And, how does G&A stay in business as it's been nearly 20 years since it was worth reading.

Great news.

The comments on anti-guns and anti-ammo Facebook page are great (I stole the anti-comment from there).

It's to bad most people are only blaming Metcalf and posted they would still buy the magazine if he were fired.

There are a whole bunch more Anti-gun people at that magazine.

Who did Zumbo write for when he went anti?

Dink

Now don't you be disparaging Mad Magazine, friend!

Wonder if either or both are still employed by Intermedia Outdoors.

TT

Not even good for TP, The pages are way too slick.

What did Chuck do? He used to write ok articles.

Dink

Ignorance in some leftist blogger's rant on the Web wouldn't surprise me in the least, but such ignorance being published (i.e., written by a writer and then read and approved by an editor) in one of the most prominent gun magazines is inexcusable. I'm glad decisive action was taken.

Just another idiot out of a job. He sucked IMO.

Good riddance.

Has Dick Metcalf responded at all?

I'm sure the stock holders had something to do with the firing.

The editor wasn't clear in his letter, but Metcalf was fired and the editor was supposed to leave January 1st, but he has resigned effective immediately. Intermedia has to be going bonkers. It's like like they ran the the Porsche over a cliff. I don't see G&A recovering.

I'm going to make it a point to buy the next 2-3 issues to bolster sales for doing the right thing....


Mike

bingo!!!

However, the real bottom line is that what Dick Metcalf said was not a problem until the explosive push back from readers (and probably advertisers) hit the fan.
At THAT point, it became important to the editor. Not before.

i know in my case i sent them an email to cancil subscription a couple of days ago, they acknowleged it yesterday with a refund coming.
i mentioned metcalf as a reason for stopping it, although i have to say wasn't really happy with it before.
Interesting they are owned by the same media outlet as shotgun news.
I have taken that for years partially from having known the original owner and family.
lately the articles just seem like shill articles for various manufacturers to stimulate sales.

You ain't gonna get an honest product review from any of them, period...

They beat around the bush, carefully wording everything. It's the same old generic crap you see so much you can recite it in your sleep.

Praise, followed by a minor critique with a big "But" at the end, closely followed by more praise...

Predictable, boring and usually a waste of eyesight.

I'd much rather ask a friend who has spent coin to buy the item and used it, than rely on some gun rag that lives off advertising dollars to give me the straight skinny on a piece of equipment.

That goes double when it's a product from one of their major advertisers.

This board has been infinitely more valuable when it comes to opinions on products than all the gun rags in history put together.

The old Soviet news agency TASS had about as much credibility as these gun mag reviews do nowadays..

I look forward to what JB, Wayne Van zwoll have to say and that's just about it.

JM-

Ditto

I have to agree with this. I very, very seldom buy a gun magazine anymore. Plus there is the fact that magazines and paperbacks, the latter especially, have doubled in price in the past few years. You pay more and get less.

Another thing is that half the magazines anymore are these real thick compilations and if you don't watch out, it's stuff you've already read before. Plus over half of the mag is a catalog that's half-assed itself.

...and they normally cost about a ten-spot.

Outdoor Life.

I have not read the rag since the issue that said the Taurus 1911 was as good a any other 1911. About 15 years ago.

G & A stopped being relevant about 20 years ago.

ML

Sorry, I'm not impressed.
Bequette published the Article, he read the article, he knew what was in the article, he knew what the article meant, IMO he Agrees with the Article. Then when his subscribers get pissed, he fires the author of the article. That's pretty Chicken [bleep].

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Metcalf is gone, we have enough problems trying to protect out rights, we don't need people like him writing anti Second Amendment articles in the future.

Then Berquette, throws us another bone saying he is resigning as well. Well, not really resigning because of his actions, just resigning a few day/weeks early. Thanks for nothin.

IMO there is no apology that can fix the damage this article will generate. The Antis and the Bradys will wave this article in our faces for months to come.

I read Metcaff's article last night, twice. If you read it carefully, all he was trying to say is everything in the world has rules attached to it, and he didn't have a problem with Illinois requiring 16 hours of instruction prior to getting a CCW permit.

His point was he believed some training in firearms safety and handling was reasonable a not an infringement. He closed by saying "that's just me" on the subject. I don't have a problem with the discussion. It's a valid discussion.

Problem is that it was far too easy for the ANTI's to grab that and make a headline a la:
"GUNS and AMMO Supports Gun Control".

Metcaff thought he was writing only to savvy gun owners on a mutual topic of interest. In reality, his was a political Op Ed that he is not prepared to defend once it is dissected and misrepresented now, and for years to come.

Metcaff overstepped his boundaries without realizing the consequences. He knows now.

I wouldn't have fired him, I'd have made him write a retraction.

The dude (Bequette) resigned (was forced out) along with firing Metcalf, how is that chicken shyt? He fell on the same sword he used on Metcalf.




http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/

If I recall correctly,this will be the second time in Metcalfe's gun writing career that he has been dismissed for an error in judgement.

The first,if I recall correctly involved issues with checking accounts that he opened for a Smith and Wesson sponsored match,in which money was diverted from real accounts that required cosigners to Metcalfe's account.

Smith and Wesson pulled their sponsorship,and an article was published detailing the whole mess.

It has been a few years and the details of all this are hard for me to recall,but if I am right,this is not the first time Dick has been fired as a gun writer.

I haven't read one in years. All they are is advertising for sponsors.

When's the last time you read a negative review of any product they talk about? I swear you could put a brand name on a pile of dog crap and they'd say it was just as good as anything they've seen.

I'm glad they got rid of him, but it ain't gonna make me put money in their product.

I have taken one of their sister publications, shotgun news, for probably 25 or 30 years. Since the parent corporation, also of guns and ammo bought it, i see quite a few shill articles as i call them appearing, shilling for various manufacturers. They still do have good articles on military weapons around the world, and of course i like to peruse the advertisers. But you can sure see the effect of the parent corporation. I also have a friend that writes for a major gun related magazine. I have heard his complaints about articles submitted being butchered by the editor in charge. Some here could probably relate to that. The forum is a real good source of real information, which is one of the reasons i stay here, other than the entertainment factor.

Huge's thread on the paradox of liberty sort of fits in here.

Is there a link to the article? I haven't bought gun rags in years.

He and the editor can GFT.

Making a living off the gun industry while typing out their stupid ass, leftist, holier-than-thou, thoughts is completely unacceptable.



Travis

They should publish a retraction

The magazine certainly should.



Travis

I haven't read the column... Truth be told, I quit reading anything my Metcalf when H&K released the USP and he made a bunch of highly technical stuff sound like his original work, and then a couple of months later, I read the same thing, virtually word for word, from a USP brochure. Probably not technically dishonest, but certainly blurring the lines. I thought he was a blowhard before, but the article cemented his status as a major league tool.

Well he joins that other Legend in his own mind Jim Zumbo!

Well stated, and spot on...


Good riddance to Metcalf; AFAIC you either support the 2A or ya don't - and he just plain DIDN'T..

NathanL: They both should have been fired!
G&A is now on my NO BUY list.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

This discussion is a sad reminder of how members of the firearms culture have devolved from sane, respectful sportsmen, marksmen and collectors to isolated, paranoid, disaffected crazies.

If that is the future of the hobby, better it to die an honorable death than linger as a refuge for doomsday fantasists.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

To exercise a bit of editor's discretion, here's what you should have wrote: This discussion is a sad reminder of how American citizens have devolved from sane, respectful people into intolerant, self-absorbed, low-information crazies.

But don't worry. I'm not cancelling any subscriptions.

People like you are the reason I have to wait 15 months for a [bleep] tube that makes my rifle not loud.


Travis

This is rich coming from an Obama ball washer.

It's your party that has used every dirty trick in the book to damage all of our personal liberties,especially our second amendment.So you can take your assessment and shove it up your ass.

I am glad the POS is gone.

I'm in Hatari's camp on this one. Metcalf was ragging on the lack of safe conduct by many shooters, which probably irritated him enough that he didn't think through what he was writing.
Getting a CCW is a serious step. You dang well better know what you are doing with what you carry...and I wish more people of all stripes were more competent with their guns.
But government mandates tend to get out of hand, especially in hostile states like Illinois, so it was a huge and dangerous no mans land he was asking to cross. He didn't make it, and somehow I'm not sorry. His argument using driver licensing showed the shallowness of his thinking, for one thing.
So -- sayonara, Dick. Hope your replacement is smarter.

Your post reminds me of why I despise the self-appointed intelligentsia of the world.

I am so f'ing glad to know that you have the superior knowledge to determine how everyone else in our culture should act with regard to their unalienable rights.

By the way, I do not see my right to property, to free-speech, to associate with those I choose, to own firearms, etc. as a hobby you insufferable prick.

You are either a full fledged commie, or live in California. Either way. You're clueless as to the attacks our basic. GUARANTEED RIGHTS are constantly under. You sir should pull your lower lip over your head and swallow...hard

can someone post the article that got Dick canned? I cant seem to find it

I don't give a schit if somebody can't hit the broad side of a GD barn.

It is their right to put a handgun in their damn pocket and carry if they feel like it.

Dick's just another elitist prick. Obviously...



Travis

I read the column and found it a rational discussion of a controversial issue. Basically, Metcalf was saying that no law or constitutional amendment) is unequivocal. The first amendment guarantees free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater.

Same thing with guns; some regulation (hopefully minimal) can be warranted to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals, or to regulate where they can be fired (not downtown or in a crowded area).

Metcalf's column was not out of line. Sorry to hear that G&A took the cowardly path to avoid controversy (and dollar loss).

Sorry to hear people like you enjoy the freedoms we fight for.



Travis

"You're clueless as to the attacks our basic GUARANTEED RIGHTS are constantly under."

Yes, our rights are under attack, but as to "GUARANTEED RIGHTS", they are subject to some regulations, such as to where you can discharge a firearm, who can possess one, the possession of fully-automatic firearms, etc. I think this is what Metcalf was referring to.

You mean like the freedom to just shoot up the town of Havre, Montana in a drunken stupor at 9 AM as kids are going to school? Why don't you do this and then explain to the sheriff (and judge) that you are just exercising your constitutionally guaranteed rights.

You most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theatre. But you must accept the responsibility of the consequences that come afterwards. That is what Metcalfe doesnt get. He believes we should replace responsibility with regulation. He also gets into a rant about the wording if the second and is completely off base. The " well regulated". Meant. Didnt not mean heavily ruled. It meant of similar fashion. This is outlined in the federalist papers.

Metcalfe, according to my thoughts on what he wrote. Feels that by imposing unnessecary limitations on our rights we can disregard the lack of responsibility of some gun owners. This is wrong thinking.

Good observation.

Again. You mistake what the founders menat by "regulated".

A very interesting read in the discussion of "regulated" is the February 1982 Report to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Senator Orin Hatch, Chairman) entitled "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms". It was printed in 31 years ago and is now out of print, but it might be available online.

It is a 175 page report that discusses the historical and legal aspects of firearms regulation.

Thanks for proving what we already knew. You're a [bleep] moron.



Travis

Excellent!!!

Tom

So, what exactly did Metcalfe say that wasn't the truth---or have we become like the far left, just excommunicate those who tell truths we don't happen to like?

Jordan

So, what exactly did Metcalfe say that wasn't the truth---or have we become like the far left, just excommunicate those who tell truths we don't happen to like?

Jordan

Metcalfe was an inaccurate writer to begin with and was of extremely limited knowledge and ability he should have been canned years ago.

You didn't read the article?



Travis

The story made CBS national news this morning, as expected, what an ass.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where does it say anything about regulating the people's right to bear arms. You are either for or against the second amendment and those of you that are parasites, and want to support the regulating of firearms while owning them yourself for your personal pleasure at the cost of everyone else that has fought and continues to fight for this "unregulated" right, join Brentd and the rest of the blood suckers that frequent this site and stay clear of the rest of us that don't sacrifice principles/rights for some misunderstood cause...

He is a traitor!!!!

What a dumb statement, or likely an ignorant one. Its not like that's not illegal in many ways to already do.

Want a news flash? Want to get rid of most DWI? Ban cars... duh.

No. I just assumed he said something like reasonable restrictions are probably Constitutional, which is what our strongest originalist on the Court (Antonin Scalia) says. Now if Metcalfe had said there is no natural right to possess the means to defend oneself or to revolt against tyrannical government, then them would be fighting words. Did he say that? I think there is a natural rights (a right grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God") to firearms ownership that trumps any enactment of positive law, i.e., any Constitutional right. Jefferson and the founders would say the same. As far as the Constitutional right, its inferior to the natural law right and is not absolute. That is just the way it is with Constitutional rights. Read the Heller opinion. All the conservative justices admit an original intent encompassing reasonable regulations/restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. I'd say about 90% of the laws regulations out there (Fed and State) are unreasonable. And I'll tell you the most unreasonable: the notion that because you got convicted of felony tax evasion, or theft (or felony bitch slap) you can never own a firearm again. Don't think that is Constitutional.

Metcalfe may have been wrong. Its the excommunication of dissent I have a problem with. We're starting to act like the far left.

Jordan

Read the article and decide.

And yes, I will happily excommunicate any of his ilk. Somebody thinks along the same lines? I hope you fall out of your deer stand and end up with a see-thru mount sticking out of your forehead.

That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

'Flave 2016!


Travis

I think every gun owner and CCW permit carrier should have some idea of basic safety. I do not think it takes 16 hours to achieve this.

Metcalf apparently had no concept of how defensive the current attack on gun rights and ownership have made the gun owning public. I also consider him of the elitist attitude that he is more equal than others, thinking that it would require extensive training to bring others up to his own firearm competency level. We simply cannot have anyone of that attitude speaking for us in this age if we intend to retain any of our rights.

Yes.

And for the government to mandate that one complete a course before carrying is an infringement on our rights.

If I have a wife, and she needs to make an emergency, 300 mile road trip, I should be able to place a handgun in her hand, and tell her to carry this on her trip, and keep it in her purse when she stops at a rest area, etc. She shouldn't require a special class, or permit. I don't give a [bleep] what her proficiency is. For the government to make her carrying a firearm, an illegal act is an infringement on our rights.

I knew Metcalfe was a [bleep] hack when he touted the Taurus Judge.


Travis

Nailed it.

Early in the article Metcalf wrote the second amendment states "regulated" so firearm ownership is intended to be regulated (paraphrased by me). I picked up on it immediately knowing there's a comma between "militia" and "being" meaning there's a break in what is being said. The Militia is meant to be regulated as in meeting certain standards and ready to go. Metcalf screwed the pooch and is totally wrong in his thought process.