Sunday, November 10, 2013

Metcalf Still Doesn't Get It

Via his interview on Gun Talk: (listen to the full interview here)
“What I learned… was that they basically see the issue as a freedom of speech, censorship, freedom of the press issue, it’s not really about guns for them anymore,” he insisted.
No you dipsh!t, it's about you playing right into the hands of the anti-gun groups by supporting their calls for 'compromise' and 'discussion' in order to pass more gun restrictions. Had you ever actually read anything they've said or done over the last decade or so, you might have realized there is no 'compromise' except what they want us to give up.  You may notice that they're pretty much the only ones backing you during this.

But the stupid continues:
“I do not believe,” he said, “I cannot personally or philosophically believe that refusing or forbidding discussion of significant issues of any kind because of fear that somebody else might take advantage of it or hold it up as a matter of political weakness should ever close peoples’ minds or close the door to reasoned discourse.”
Again, had you paid ANY attention, EVERY law that the anti's get passed is followed up immediately by another, even stricter law.  When we do try to 'discuss' w/ them, they immediately start demanding we give something up and then end up blocking/banning us when we don't roll over and give them what they want.

Oh, and 'reasoned discourse' is exactly the phrase the Brady Campaign used as an excuse to shut down debate on their now defunct blog. Telling how much he likes their terminology.

Just go away Dick.

Update:  Other funnies:
"Nobody anticipated the massive, overwhelmingly negative outcry" (12:15)
 Just more evidence that Metcalf et al not only don't understand how communication works today but also haven't been interacting but haven't been keeping up w/ the active world of firearm activism outside of their dead tree media.

Around 15:00 he goes on about wanting a conversation w/ gun owners about 'reality' and how the IL CCW bill only got passed by being filled w/ a bunch of crap instead of a clean bill. This is true, it wouldn't have gotten passed clean but then there's this thing called 'strategy'.  If you go public claiming you're willing to accept restriction 'X', then the gun banners will read that and then push for X, Y and Z because they know they can get at least one then will move onto the other ones.

Around 20:00 he goes on about all rights are 'regulated' although he claims to support 'shall not be infringed'. Here's the thing skippy, in many areas like CA, NY, NJ, etc, they've effectively been 'regulated' out of existence.  It was those 'compromises' and 'regulation' that led the the Chicago handgun ban which lasted for nearly 30 yrs. Try and remember that.

20 minutes of excuses. 

Just go away Dick.

Unorganized Militia Gear Unorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Anonymous said...

No way.. he used "Reasoned Discourse"?

Where the hell has he been the last 5 years?

Bob S. said...

Maybe the guy should have pulled his head out of the hallways of the gun magazine and looked around at what gun owners have been doing for the last decade or so.

We've had this discussion and the folks who counsel 'reasonable restrictions' and "compromise" have been in the minority for a long long time -- at least on the pro-rights side.

The problem I see is he wanted a conversation - more accurately he was probably expecting people to hail him as genius for his idea and is shocked that others disagree with him.

He had his say, the readers had theirs -- isn't that what he wanted?

Phssthpok said...

I move that henceforth he shall be given the 'honorary' middle name of Quisling.

Dick "Quisling" Metcalf.

All in favor?

Sendarius said...


Unknown said...

Any time you go to the table to negotiate something you already have, you can only lose.

Jellydot said...

I'm sorry. I still don't comprehend all of the fuss? Isn't a person allowed to have their own thoughts? Just like we are all allowed to disagree with those thoughts.
Metcalf had also mentioned that there are already laws and regulations in place that people don't seem to be fighting...convicted rapist having the right to a firearm...convicted murderers carrying guns....etc
I would tend to think that most people would agree with those regulations. Maybe?
Also, why isn't there more of an uproar for automatic weapons to be had by all and silencers anywhere you go and grenade launchers brought through tours of The White House or court buildings where a plethora of bad things may be going on?
I do think that people should be allowed to protect themselves by any means that they deem necessary, but I also think that they need to prove they're responsible enough to do so without endangering the lives of others.

Thirdpower said...

You lost the second you brought up 'grenade launchers'.

Who are you going to 'prove' it to? Example. The politicians from Chicago demanded an 80hr training for CCW in IL. That's more than it takes to make SWAT. The very people you want to 'prove' it to are the same ones spending millions of dollars to push bills that will keep you from ever owning a firearm.

This isn't a conversation on violent rapists owning guns, this is a fight over whether you get to keep your semi-auto handgun or rifle.

THAT is why Metcalf's opinion got his stupid ass fired. So if you don't 'understand what all the fuss is about' you either haven't been paying any attention the last 20+ years or you're an anti-gun troll trying to drive a wedge.

Jellydot said...

That was my entire point. How far is too far and who gets to decide? When there is a limit on how far you can go, then that means there are rules.
When you recalled the training that SWAT goes through, it should be deemed "reasonable" for an average citizen to not need that much training. But, if that is the case then one may think that the average citizen may need "some" training. If they need "some" training then that is a rule.
Rules need to be followed to ensure safety amongst the majority.
If people need to go through training to prove that they can safely drive a car then why is it unreasonable to go through training to have a firearm?
I also think that people should need to take an aptitude test to procreate but that is an entirely different discussion!
In the end, there is no answer that I have, just more questions. If all of the people who are to have firearms are good and descent people and would only use them for sport and protection then that would be fine. But America is made up of a whole bunch of different types of people with different rational as to what is proper or not. I know that there are some people that I don't want to have a gun.
BTW- I'm an avid gun rights supporter, a life member of the NRA, a CRO, and firearm manufacturer. So, I do pay attention and even though I am first generation American with Norwegian decent I am not a troll.

Thirdpower said...

OK Fair enough. My apologies for calling you a troll.

In the US, anti-gun groups have abused each and every single law passed for 'safety'. In Chicago, IL, they passed a law requiring handgun registration using the exact same reasoning above. It would help keep the 'wrong' people from getting guns, less crime, etc. Shortly after, they closed the registration offices creating a defacto handgun ban.

After Chicago lost its case against the handgun ban, they put into place a training requirement but then forbade any training to take place w/in city limits prompting more litigation.

In every location that has passed a handgun or semi-auto ban, they've either then expanded its definitions or at least attempted to.

Most areas that require some form of licensing for ownership have done everything they can to make it as inconvenient as possible to fulfill the requirements through either expense, location of offices, etc.

Your car comparison is faulty because I can own/operate any vehicles I want on private property w/o any license or registration. A license is only required to operate it on public roads.

I agree w/ you on the procreation thing as well as voting. But the counter is that those who get to make up the tests will insert their own personal biases into them, making the tests discriminatory. Look up 'Jim Crow' laws and the kinds of voting tests they used to require. The same thing would (and does) happen w/ firearms.