Dick Metcalf controversy
 

For those not in the know:

http://www.businessinsider.com/dick-...terview-2014-1

What do y'all think?

We've reached a point where many in the pro gun community don't trust the other side .... with ANYTHING. We're sick of decades of them chirping "Reasonable restrictions" and getting on OUR case for being against 'reasonable' restrictions. The problem is simple. They cannot be trusted. Period. Anything remotely reasonable will be turned into UNREASONABLE with the stroke of a pen. We have to be wary. Those who are not are fools.

One - registration. People forget that decades ago Cincinnati required registration of so called 'assault weapons' back in the 1980s. They argued 'we're not taking them away from you. What's the big deal?" Surely enough, after the Stockton Shooting in feb 1989, Cincinnati sent letters to all AW owners telling them to 'turn them in'. Saying that they would never confiscate guns was a bold faced LIE.

Two: training and certification. Sounds good and I generally support it, but I don't want an anti gun bureaucrat deciding WHAT training is needed and WHAT certification is needed. They'll go out of their way to make the Training needlessly difficult, expensive and inconvenient and they'll slowly make certification more and more difficult to get or renew, making it either more expensive or eventually giving the power of 'renewal' to another anti gun bureaucrat who decides unilaterally that 'you don't need to own a gun' and declines your renewal.

So my take on Metcalf is that he is a FOOL to not at least acknowledge that the other side has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. Blaming 'hardliners' for not giving ground, ignores the ugly history of the gun control wars over the last 50 years. He assumes we live in a rational word where the opponents can be trusted. Their constant (and provable) duplicity breeds hardline resistance.

I agree with Metcalf's notion that there is some middle ground with regard to gun ownership/regulation, and what fits the rights and NEEDS of the people in contemporary society (which is inherently fucked up due to the government's inability to effectively police ALL crime and defend ALL people). But I understand that there are very few practical solutions that can be instituted, and even fewer that our polarized, agenda-ridden political system will allow. I lean right because I'd rather have total abstract freedom than complete control rendered to an outside party, even though both worlds are fucked and won't guarantee I'll live a long, happy life. But the polarization itself is a problem, and it prevents the final transition from the natural, animalistic state from which humans come, to a real rational, ethically driven modern society. I think what Metcalf tried to do was say this, but he did it in a game dominated by red and blue, or black and white, rather. And since sides are part of the game that we've made of our society, he got shut out by his side for trying to find a logical peace. I'd love for us to find that, and I'd love to have a strong federal government that protects the rights of the people and all of their lives equally, but we as humans fuck that up by wanting more for ourselves than for others.

Agree with his stance or not, does publishing an article with the sentiments he expressed warrant the reaction that we are seeing? I mean, the guy is receiving death threats for what he wrote.

As usual, you summarize my sentiments exactly.

I'm curious as to how you respond to MY post. I opine that though his comments are okay, he does so in a vacuum ignoring just how many times we've been stabbed in the back by the other side. I'm not saying it's correct or right to threaten this guy, but to blithely ignore the other side's duplicity is kinda irritating.

I.e. I say again, it was THEIR constant and pervasive betrayals over 30 PLUS years which turned people INTO hardliners. Please take THAT into account. People don't become intransigent overnight.

Do you think an acknowledgement of such betrayals would've softened the backlash? I don't think it would. It's an unfortunate situation, but that's the world we live in. I don't think any gunowner would want guns in the hands of ex-cons or the mentally ill, and not even Montana is willing to lift restrictions on automatic weapons, and yet we have to throw this guy under the bus for even suggesting that there's a middle ground.

Yes, yes it would. I don't think people realize, NOT even acknowledging something can be infuriating to folks. It's like a very important point is not worth considering. And if it seems like I hammer anti gun people constantly, it is precisely because they're slippery and evasive by nature. You can't pin them down when they are obvious talking garbage.

So never assume that someone acknowledges even the most RATIONAL of points. Lots of people don't. They fail to see what is directly in front of them. What he should have done is mention the long history of duplicity on the other side, and then perhaps suggest a solution to keep them from sabotaging ANY concession made by gun owners.

By NOT even acknowledging the lies and betrayals, this author lost his credibility, even though his suggestion would make sense in a world where there were NO such things as lies and betrayals.

I'm not saying that reasonable regulations are good. I'm saying that the other side can't be trusted as far as you can throw them and they will distort a "reasonable' restriction and morph it into something terrible.

Yeah, the death threats really aren't helping to paint gun owners positively in the eyes of the media. Not that the media has ever really had a positive light on firearms ownership and the gun community, but still. Throwing gasoline on a fire won't help to extinguish it.

First of all, I'm curious to know whether his "ignoring" of the other side's duplicity in his column is a function of ignorance (willful or not), or simply editorial constraints. It looks as though his column had a word limit, which might have required him to narrow the scope of his argument.

Second, nobody is asking you (or pro-gunners in general) to overlook the untrustworthy reputation of the gun control movement. I'm asking whether it's good for our reputation if the RKBA movement demonstrates this kind of intolerance for views like those expressed by Metcalf.

Right, so are you arguing that RKBAers have the right to threaten their own for not conforming 100% to the party line? I really hope not. Under your logic, those Muslims who threw petrol bombs at Bagram last year after rumors of Qur'an burning had the right to express their anger through violence. While the reaction to Metcalf's op-ed isn't as extreme, my point still stands: Nobody in our society can demand their own special right to be offended.

Nope. Not at all. I'm not condoning the threats of violence or extreme criticism. That's patently ridiculous. But I'm trying to point out that I understand where the extreme frustration (and silly actions like threats) come from. Everyone has their breaking point. I don't have to agree with them, but I can recognize what pushed them to that point. What I wonder is, does anyone else?

Well, that word constraint didn't help him any did it? I still opine that he could have avoided the explosion of pent up resentment and frustration of people 'pushed to the edge' by at least acknowledging the untrustworthiness of the other side. To promote something and APPEAR blissfully ignorant of the malicious intent of the opposing side** does push people's buttons.

**And before anyone else misconstrues my words, I don't mean "well meaning people who are horrified by gun violence who want a solution". I don't hate those folks. I sympathize with those folks. I'm talking about the liars, the charlatans, the people who jump on the bandwagon for purely self promotional reasons. I hate the folks who twist things around, with a real streak of vindictiveness against gun owners



I think we all agree that death threats are stupid and uncalled for. I would never defend that. I DO observe that much of the gun friendly media seems to live in a bubble that doesn't recognize a hardcore enemy when he emerges.

So what's next for this guy? It'd be a real shame for him to lose his career over something, as we mentioned, most people are actually okay with. Gun companies may have railed against him, but it wasn't that long ago that people were up in arms, so to speak, over Ruger and Smith & Wesson for stuff that was much worse.

To be honest, I doubt saying this would have had any difference on the actual outcome. It may have placated the rational reader, but the irrational would have had exactly the same reaction, and these will always be the loudest most outspoken group who get the most attention. I agree with the sentiment of what Metcalf was trying to say, but I don't think he should ever have expected to write something like that (even if 100% true) in the current climate and not expect this sort of reaction.

In my poli sci studies, I've come to realize that the only sides of debate that will draw any notice are the extremes.

Metcalf certainly angered the pro-extreme crowd.

And to be honest, while I'm never going to go to an open carry rally, or counter march an MDA thing, I'm fairly hardline in my view on gun rights. I totaled it up for my taxes and I sent over $1,000 in donations to the SAF, CCRKBA, and the NRA-ILA. Not to mention an email a day and a letter a week to my congressional representation.

Personally, I think Metcalf got what was coming to him.

I can't hear the phrase reasonable regulation and not think of England, Australia, and Chicago.

So does that mean that you think guns should be totally unregulated in the US, with anybody being able to buy and openly carry machine guns and grenade launchers? If not, then you are already accepting that there does need to be some form of "reasonable" regulation, the question is just where this line is drawn.

Also, I have to say that I do find myself rolling my eyes a bit when Americans bring up British gun laws in response to calls for regulation reform. The attitude towards guns in the two countries is so different due to cultural and historic reasons that there is no way that you can reasonably equate one to the other. IMHO using British gun control laws as some sort of cautionary tale for gun regulations in the US is spurious and comes off as lazy to me. Don't get me wrong though, being a British shooter myself I would love it if I was able to recreationally shoot centerfire semi automatic rifles and handguns, but in this country I am an absolutely tiny minority who actually cares about such things, so I don't get to have my way.

Historically, and I mean this with every fiber of my being, and agree it completely, an American citizen could own what ever the hell he or she wanted.

The Revolutionary War American Army fought with cannon primarily owned by a private citizen turned Continental Colonel, Henry Knox.

Privateers wrought more havoc upon the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine than the Continental Navy, John Paul Jones theatrics aside.

And yes, machine guns should be more readily available for private ownership.

I have the traditional American republican (lower case r) disdain for large standing militaries, government telling me what I can and cannot do, and police forces that enforce laws against crime by statue, not crimes of intent.

I understand the difference in prevailing opinions between American and English gun cultures, however, in my research, which may be wrong, weren't most of the restrictions upon English firearms ownership enacted in incremental fashion as public safety measures?

That is my problem with the phrase "reasonable restriction".

Gun rights are the only Constitutionally protected right that are subject to such preversions by state and federal laws.

We, as Americans, wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on the right to vote, and here is my hard liner coming out, I freely equate the ballot box and cartridge box, metaphorically speaking.

I don't think there's an issue with being angry with American left-wing "reasonable restrictions", but that's because those are never reasonable, they cater to exclusive philosophical ideals that do not account for certain freedoms that should hold true for the American people. And those freedoms should not hold true because they are in the Constitution, but because they are the most all-inclusive of any ideal or because they are the closest to being purely or morally right. The restrictions that have been proposed, or at least the major ones, in the last 20-30 years, or even the GCA, are not reasonable, but arbitrary because they are based on empiricism, and not philosophy. That is one flaw of our governing body, that it equates what is right to an arbitrary "majority" perspective (which can lead to 50/50 deadlocks) as opposed to a moral perspective that tries to account for everyone and not over or under-reach. What's more is that in creating a government, or any institutonalized system, is that there are selfish assholes who have personal desires and exploit sensationalism and partisanism in order to make a quick buck or to make themselves content, the ramifications or implications of their actions be damned. This is the underlying reason why we hate ALL politicians.

In the end, this attachment to arbitration, or to ideals that reinforce any form of selfishness, is what is wrong with any topic, especially the gun debate in America. We have people on the left exploiting the political system either for their own agenda and success in the game that is the systemic institution which is man-made and in the grand scheme, irrelevant, and we have people on the right that do the same thing, even if their fight correlates with ours. But there are people who believe for whatever reason that owning a firearm and self-reliance are good things, or bad, and they look at it with varying types of MORAL arguments and not empirical ones. The ones that are more moral are clearly the ones that are correct, and many come to the conclusion that it's more moral to own a gun and defend ones life than it is to not defend ones life. That's a whole other topic in and of itself but that's an overlay of it.

And in an institution where there are numerous semantic differences between person to person, there ought to be some TRULY reasonable guidelines as to who is allowed a gun and who isn't, and they should be based in MORAL REASONING and not EMPIRICISM, which is just observation of data, which can be skewed or flawed by any number of individuals that contribute to it. This is what Metcalf meant, or ought to have meant, that at the very least, what we determine to be the limit for gun ownership in America (or any issue) should not be absolute or polarizing, but that it should be based in what is morally right.

Not what any statistic says. Statistics are empirical and therefore flawed in dictating what is "right" so to speak.

Not what any document dictates, including the Constitution (the Constitution is only valuable if it adheres to a morality that is all-inclusive, bear in mind, and whether or not it does this now, or has ever, is up to philosophical interpretation, which can be and is skewed and dictated properly numerous times in history, depending on morality's current progress. I'm sure the world's worst dictators all had their own "constitutions" and laws of the land which were bullshit and exclusionary)

But in what we philosophically determine is for the greatest benefit of ALL people, a la John Stuart Mill. When we apply this philosophy to law and society, and consider practical application (confiscation would not necessarily work in America, and it would disenfranchise a lot of people) The answer is there.

I say it's closer to the right wing where guns are present, but not reverting to a world where everyone can walk around carrying an M4A1 with an affixed M203. The whole goal of creating a society is to make life not brutish to the point where that is necessary. But we are transitioning from being vulgar predatatorial animals into civilized beings, always, so there will be a need for the means of self-protection from those who choose to be more irrationally animal than those who are rationally human. But it's not a state of nature just as much as it is not a utopia. We're somewhere in the middle, and there should be a REASONABLE limit in that middle ground, and, again, the determining factor for that cannot be on one side or the other because of how morally inconsiderate or self-defeating that is toward human progress.

tl;dr Philosophy morality and rationale, not empirical evidential induction/deduction, because that will be easily skewed or flawed by anyone.

This mentality is still way too similar to the Muslim extremism example I mentioned earlier. You know how idiot liberal apologists for those assclowns will always say, "I don't support terrorism, but I can understand why the Muslim world is so angry at the U.S."? (And then typically they'll cite the 1953 coup in Iran, U.S. failure to pressure Israel more on talks with the Palestinians, etc.) Don't you think that what are you saying represents the same line of thinking?

You're still acting as though the cause of rage somehow makes the reaction inevitable, which is a borderline argument that it is justifiable. The point is: Acting the way that pro-gunners are acting towards Metcalf casts doubt upon the RKBA community's confidence in its own moral legitimacy. The threat of violence in response to disagreement is a tool of irrational people; whether their stance is right or wrong is almost beside the point.

Dude, throughout my life, I've been "pushed to the edge" by people who pushed my buttons (bosses, teachers, kids at school, etc.) So have you, I am sure, and so has almost everyone else in this world. That still doesn't give any of us a special right to threaten the people who wronged us with death. Rational, sane human beings who are in control of their emotions and believe that the universe is on their side do not act in such a manner.

I'd have preferred if you tried to claim that the people who threatened Metcalf are not representative of the broader pro-gun community. That you are not doing so is disappointing. Even if you are not condoning death threats, you're still making an argument of moral equivalence.

As YourNameHere pointed out, what you are advocating is an America that is based on Hobbesian, not Lockean, principles of republicanism. Which is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

They were, but that is still irrelevant. America and England are not the same. American gun owners in the U.S. have enormous political clout, while U.K. gun owners never did. So long as that difference exists, there is no lesson that American pro-gunners can learn from the British experience. End of story.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

MT, not avoiding you're response to my post. I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip. I will be out of internet range and what not until next Monday at which point I will do your post justice.

Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me. :D

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.


No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too. :D

HEY! Everyone gets a vacation now and again.

Gotcha. I don't know why I thought you were Active-duty Army. But I still think that what you want is not a realistic hope. The military should (and does) downsize when global threats recede, but having a "small" military will never happen.

You are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the PLO and IRA to the Continental Army; if you are willing to do that, then you are disrespecting the latter by making a comparison to the former. My point is that you share a mentality with terrorists who sought to undermine a liberal democratic republic, not build one. By equating the ballot box and ammo box, what you are really saying is, "Democracy doesn't work unless the government is afraid of being overthrown by force of arms." Does it really make sense to you that the Founding Fathers would endorse such an idea?

I have been on bouts of extended active duty here as of late. Like, above and beyond the one weekend/two weeks a year type deal. Some of that was OCS, and the other part was I got picked to be part of the liaison team between the 3rd ID and the 48th BCT, which involved a lot of active duty work. (and a lot of beer at the Soldier's Club)

I think every O-2 in the military has an idea about how the military should look.

I don't think the Government should necessarily be afraid of the people, but should realize that they govern with the consent of the govern, are answerable to the citizenry, and that the citizens, if the need arise may use their lawfully held private arms to depose a corrupt regime.

Sorry to disappear; I've been busy. It's not that I've been away from IMFDB; just constantly getting distracted whenever I try to muster the energy to concentrate on writing a response. Plus, I sense that I'm playing with fire.

You commissioned? Congrats! One of these days, I may have to ask you about your experiences with that (I'm having serious trouble just getting MEPS to cooperate with my application to USAR because I already applied to the Air Force).

Right, but the problem is, how do you define "corrupt" regime, and who determines when it is time to overthrow it? The current administration has committed a number of acts that many of its opponents regard as evidence of "corruption". I am generally sympathetic to many of those claims. The question is, do those actions give us the right to try and overthrow the administration with our lawfully-held arms?

(And as I am sure you understand, this is a rhetorical question. As a commissioned officer in the U.S. military, I don't expect you to advocate overthrowing your commander-in-chief on the Internet.)

MT, its fine. I have been off saving Atlanta from the snow.

Will post more detailed response in Tuesday.

Atlanta has bigger problems than snow these days.

http://ate.allthatsepic.netdna-cdn.c...ta-zombies.jpg

It's a thorny issue isn't it. there are over 50,000 people living in the city where I live and work. There are 68 sworn officers with my agency. At any given time there are no more than 12-17 uniformed officers working the streets. This is Idaho. A quiet state, but very gun heavy. Probably as much as Texas ,per capita (is that right?), but we don't advertise like Texas. A safe bet that at least half of the population has one or two firearms in the house. If only 25% of those folks have ammo and know how to shoot I and my fellow officers are wildly outnumbered and outgunned.

But we do our job without that being a concern. Why? Because most of the citizens want us out there. They're busy and the don't have the time or inclination to do the job. So they pay me and my fellow officers to do it. We have the support of the majority of the population. We walk a fine line. Piss everybody off and we're gone - whoosh. Am I afraid of the people? No. Are there individuals in the government who are? Yes. Are there folks who want to participate in an armed insurrection? Yes indeed. And if some of them got in charge they'd make the current crop look like really nice people. Good and bad on both sides.

It's a thorny issue. No easy answers.