Dick Metcalf controversy

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

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.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

I don't think people realize, NOT even acknowledging something can be infuriating to folks.

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.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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. .

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.

[funkychinaman]

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.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

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.

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.

[SPEMack618]

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.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

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.

[SPEMack618]

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.