Dick Metcalf Responds

Dick Metcalf, the former technical editor for Guns & Ammo, responds to his termination following his pro-gun control editorial. He writes:

If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

From its inception as "Cooper's Corner" in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded--some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).

In today's political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute "NO!" And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term "well-regulated," and how they are used and misused.

I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?

I call B.S. on Metcalf's comments. First of all, he is obviously confused as to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and, in particular, the First Amendment. The Constitution acts (in theory, anyway) as a restriction on government action. Metcalf exercised his First Amendment right when his editorial was published without any government restriction or interference. He doesn't have a Constitutional right to anger his readers without repercussions. He deliberately chose to be inflammatory and succeeded. His equating the response to a "riot" is disingenuous--in fact, it is downright dishonest. There are no mobs gathered outside his house.

Second, Metcalf suggested further regulations on what is already one of the most regulated rights under the Constitution. Gun owners have "compromised" for decades, but never once has the anti-gun crowd compromised. They simply bide their time, taking an inch here and there. Most gun owners have had enough, and said "no more."

Third, Metcalf speaks of "public safety." Yet, as a gun writer, he should be aware that if you were to remove black-on-black homicide from crime statistics, the United States would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. If he wants to spark a debate, maybe the debate should be why such a small portion of our population is responsible for so much of the death and violence.