imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2014, 12:51 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,580
Default Dick Metcalf controversy

For those not in the know:

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

What do y'all think?
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2014, 01:33 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2014, 02:09 AM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-08-2014, 03:01 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,580
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
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.
As usual, you summarize my sentiments exactly.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-08-2014, 04:15 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-08-2014, 05:48 AM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
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.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-08-2014, 09:01 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
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.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2014, 12:53 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention which has been praised and denounced... served hero and villain alike... and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history."

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” - Alfred North Whitehead

Last edited by Spartan198; 01-08-2014 at 12:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-09-2014, 12:06 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
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.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 01-09-2014 at 12:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2014, 07:05 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.