Sunday, January 5, 2014

Poor Dick Metcalf.... Not

So a longtime gun writer gets Zumboed for supporting a widely unpopular requirement and saying it's ok to 'Regulate' firearms, showing he's not payed any attention to the gun control debate for the last 20 yrs or so outside of his ivory tower.

He gets lots of love from the gun control groups and lots of hate from the pro-right side.  Which side does he choose to support

So now, months later, he does another 'Boo Hoo Me' interview for the anti-gun (and facts) NY Times:
His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.
'Broaden the discussion' iow 'Why won't you knuckle-dragging rednecks just shut up and let us ban guns already?"  Good job dipshit, you just helped out the gun control crowd some more with your whining.  Maybe you hadn't noticed that in NY, they're confiscating guns based off of 'regulation'.  In CT, gun owners are being forced in lines to register guns that will likely later be declared illegal and confiscated or be fined/made felons. 

This is why your dumb @ss got fired Dick. This is the types of 'regulations' they want.  Good job Dick.

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


Greg Tag said...

If a Catholic priest writes a monthly column for Catholic Digest, and then his Christmas column says " I dont think the Incarnation really happened", Father Fudd is gonna get fired, at the very least, because espousing that kind of opinion is counter to everything the publication and the institution it serves stand for; his new opinion, however heartfelt, is supporting the enemy and he is no longer fit for his position.

Zumbo, and now Metcalf have espoused the enemy's ideogical position.

It's as if a robber enters the bank, and the security guard says "lets find middle ground - you can steal $10,000, but not $20,000".

Some things are not compromiseable, there is no grey area.

About Lincoln's Secretary of War, Gideon Welles, who was accused of incompetence on worse, a pundit wrote :" Gideon go where you can do no harm, Gideon retire to an onion farm".

Metcalf go - anywhere, but go. You arent one of us. Maybe you never were.


Weer'd Beard said...

His article was stupid, and overall vastly less offensive than Zumbo's.

Still Dick's desire to constantly double down on what is a poorly written, and poorly thought out article shows just how little we need him around.

Unknown said...

Does dick not have any friends to explain to him what "well regulated" really means?
I sometimes wonder if these reporters who suddenly go off the rails are being paid fat checks.

We're now close to 100 years of moderation and compromise, let's see what it got us:
1934: NFA law
1968: GCA
1986: Hughes amendment bans full auto firearms.
1994: Assault weapons ban and brady background checks
Luckily the AWB went away in 2004, but just look to CA to see what their idea of moderation and compromise gets you.

I say no more, not one more inch.

Patrick H said...

The thing is, he could have had a good debate about what is the limits of the Second Amendment. We've all had that debate. But instead of just fostering a debate, he TOLD us how it was, and why we should accept that. And he got his words wrong too: if he doesn't understand well-regulated, how could we have a debate with him?

Archer said...

Anyone interested in pitching in to a list of Second Amendment proxies, designed to ridicule the leftist interpretation of "well-regulated"?

Example: "A well-regulated lower intestine, being necessary for proper digestion and waste evacuation, the right of the people to keep and eat fiber, shall not be infringed."

Who's interested?