Friday, November 8, 2013

Guns and Ammo Editor Resigns over an Article that Dared To Tell the Truth

It seems like there's one thing you can't do if you're the editor of Guns & Ammo magazine: run a column endorsing gun control.
That's what Jim Bequette found out this week. On Thursday, he announced that he was resigning immediately from the helm of the gun-friendly title after readers revolted over an article by contributing editor Dick Metcalf which ran in the magazine's latest issue.
"Way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement," Metcalf wrote. "The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be."
Cue outraged readers. "Guns and ammo for gun control? Unsubscribed!!!!! Fire Mr. Metcalf," one wrote on the site's Facebook page.
In response, Bequette told readers he had made a huge mistake, had fired Metcalf and would be resigning right away:
I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.
Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of "Guns & Ammo" on January 1. However, these recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.
You see, gun-rights fanatics, like the subscribers of Guns and Ammo, don't care for the truth. They want to live in a black-and-white fantasy world where rights are absolute.

28 comments:

  1. Mike, magazines are entertainment media, no different than television or radio. The simple fact is that if you tick off your audience, you'll be looking for a new job. You have but to refer to the many other entertainers who have lost their jobs because they said something that offended the sensibilities of the audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baloney. How many sports mags go out of business because they have the temerity to write an article on how the Steelers suck. How many news magazines go under for writing that Michelle Bachmann is something less than stable?

      The plain fact is the vast majority of gunowners agreed with Metcalf's op/ed.

      But let's assume--for a moment--you're correct. That Metcalf pissed of 100% of G&A readers. You then have to ask yourself what kind of audience the G&A is---that they can only read publications that toe a very tight line with what they believe.

      Delete
    2. Jade, they wouldn't fire the editor if a vast majority of their readers agreed with the piece.

      Delete
    3. The kind of readers that don't waste their money on crap publications that do "tow" some dumbass socialist retard line, just look at the death spiral of the dead tree media..... Conservatives are the ones with all the money don'tchaknow....

      Delete
    4. Jade, have you failed to notice how we're here, refuting your nonsense regularly? But it's pleasant to read something that isn't stupid, something that isn't constantly advocating for the violation of our rights.

      Delete
    5. The offense was to point out that rights are not absolute. You guys should be embarrassed.

      Delete
    6. "You then have to ask yourself what kind of audience the G&A is---that they can only read publications that toe a very tight line with what they believe."

      Jade, keep in mind that we're dealing with private property rights. The owners of the magazine get to decide what gets printed. Just like progressive media get to pick who writes or appears on their venue.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, I'm not embarrassed to stand up for rights.

      Delete
    8. Greg, you're dodging again. It't not about standing up for rights. It's about denying that rights have limitations.

      Delete
    9. Mikeb, stop lying about me. I'm not dodging. Guns and Ammo is the wrong place to advocate for violations of gun rights.

      Delete
    10. Unlimited rights begets unlimited infringement. Whereas "reasonable regulation" may preserve rights for future generations. You are tying your own noose, much to our bemusement.

      Delete
    11. Greg, are you saying that any restriction at all is a "violation of rights?"

      Delete
    12. What was being discussed in the magazine would be a violation.

      Delete
    13. ""Way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement," Metcalf wrote. "The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.""

      That's what was being discussed in the article and what caused gun lunatics like you to get all upset. And you, at your most reasonable, insist this is a violation of rights? How, exactly?

      Delete
    14. The problem is that any discussion of gun control takes place in the current atmosphere. This is not some academic conversation over what might be. Too many, you included, wish to impose massive violations of our rights, and they all, you included, label such things as reasonable and common-sense regulations. You and your fellow travellers must believe us to be stupid, since you keep telling us that your proposals would only be a minor inconvenience. Or perhaps you trying to silence the doubts of gullible people who are considering taking your side. Whatever the case may be, do you really imagine that Guns and Ammo is the place to shovel that shit?

      Delete
  2. The problem with you, Mikeb, is not that at heart you're a liar. It's that so much of what you believe isn't actually true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Explain, please. Is it false that all rights have limitations? Is it false that fanatical gun owners who deny that obvious fact are wrong? Or are you just doing the infantile trick of accusing me of what I so often have occasion to call you - a liar?

      Delete
    2. Note that I didn't call you a liar here. I said that you're deluded.

      With regard to the magazine, we don't need a "healthy exchange," especially not in a venue for guns and gun supporters. We've heard what your side has to say, and it's bunk.

      Delete
    3. Step one: "The problem with you, Mikeb, is not that at heart you're a liar. "
      Step two: "Note that I didn't call you a liar here. I said that you're deluded."

      You're too much, Greg.

      Delete
    4. We have to take special note that Greg did not call someone a liar.

      Delete
    5. So I said that you're not a liar at heart, and you call that an accusation that you're a liar. Mikeb, what is your first language? Reasoned communication ain't it.

      Delete
    6. Let's try that again.

      You said, "The problem with you, Mikeb, is not that at heart you're a liar. "
      The you followed that up with, "So I said that you're not a liar at heart,"

      When one says "your problem is not that your a liar, it's something else," it means that you are a liar.

      Greg, you're the FUCKING LIAR. It's there in black and white. You can't tell the truth even when repeating what you said two comments ago.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, stop being an asshole. I said that at heart, you're not a liar. Are you too stupid or too much of a jerk to accept that concession?

      Delete
  3. Yeah, the Guns & Ammo audience isn't one you want to piss off! They'll show up and blast you screaming about FEMA camps and Fiat Currency and then guns and ammo sales will increase...

    Hmmm, why that clever bastard!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It funny how you keep talking about us gun owners who oppose gun control are a small extremist faction, and most gun owners welcome new felony restrictions on their hobby. Yet it seems most everyone in the community is an "extremist". Should most Guns & Ammo readers be singing praises of Mr. Metcalf in your mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily. This could be the result of a minor very hostile fraction of the readership. I can't believe the majority of them is so blind and stupid as to actually believe rights are without limits, notwithstanding the archaic wording of the 2A.

      Delete
    2. Why would they react to a small fraction? Capitalism will respond to where the money is.

      Here's the thing. We don't have an unlimited RKBA- we haven't had it for 80 years. You guys pretend like it is 1934 and we are arguing over the constitutionality of the NFA. So why are you trying to make this point now? Just to counter those of us who feel we should roll back every piece of gun control on the books? No, that's not your goal. You are trying to remove any and all levels of scrutiny applied to the right. You are giving credence to the slippery slope. Because we've allowed some infringements- we can now do whatever we want.

      Delete
  5. I'm just wondering what the feedback would be if a staff writer from a gay & lesbian magazine wrote an editorial suggesting that fags & dykes give up their rights and go straight.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete