BREAKING: Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal

Our friend at the Military Arms Channel broke the story, but it looks like the anti-gun diatribe penned by Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf [dissected by RF here] earned him a one way trip to the unemployment line. Editor Jim Bequette wrote a statement on the issue, and MAC got the scoop. You can see the original image at the link, or make the jump for the transcribed version.

From Jim Bequette, Editor Guns & Ammo Magazine:

As editor of Guns & Ammo, I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s Backstop column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning Guns & Ammo‘s commitment to the Second Amendment, and I understand why.

Let me be clear: our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment is unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers like Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction from the pages of Guns & Ammo.

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — and, most importantly, Guns & Ammo’s. It is very clear to me that they didn’t reflect the views of our readership, either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

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 ask your forgiveness.

Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of Guns & Ammo Jan 1. These recent events have convinced me I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new Guns & Ammo editor will be Eric Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications like Book of the AR-15 and Trigger. You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.

Guns & Ammo will never fail to vigorously lead in the struggle for our Second Amendment rights and with vigorous young editorial leadership, will do it even better in the future.

It’s yet to be seen whether this will have any impact on G&A’s advertisers, but if RECOIL’s similar issues are any indication then this may very well turn out to be a relatively minor speed bump (a roughly Dick Metcalf sized speed bump at that) in the grand scheme of things.


  1. avatar g says:

    That was quick.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      F’n-A. The Dude abides.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you. Let’s roll!

    2. avatar Jim Jones says:

      The worst part is that he’s not sorry at all. From apology, we learn that he was leaving in January anyways. Essentially, that piece was his big middle finger to the entire RKBA community on his way out the door. What a coward. He was a Fudd until the end (well-regulated does not mean what he thinks it means. He obviously never read Heller). Guess he still harbors some bad feeling about the changing of the guard at the NRA in the 70s.

  2. avatar Swarf says:

    Quite the… recoil.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That was painful.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        It deserves my highest praise: I shall hold my nose and run screaming from the room.

    2. avatar Rougaroo says:

      Nice reference to the Recoil magazine events of last year.

    3. avatar Nate says:

      Ding ding ding, give this man +1 internets for the day!

    4. avatar Danny says:

      Did I open The Truth about Knives by mistake? Because someone posted something here with an edge.

  3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Another one learns the hard way.

    Notice how these turn-arounds keep getting faster, not slower?

    1. avatar sizzlin bacon says:

      But why run the op-ed in the first place? It was deemed “printable”, therefore the guy above must have agreed to some extent. No one prints something in a media that doesn’t have any discussion forum. You can’t comment on the article, blogs and other online sources do that.

      Dick Metcalf should have been canned once that piece of trash was turned in.

    2. avatar B says:

      It looks like Dick already had his walking papers and decided to tell the readers what he really thought, and not the 30 years or whatever of what he thought his target audience wanted. Maybe the editor gave Jim the benefit of the doubt and didn’t realize just what Dick was saying, since it seems they actually wanted something slightly controversial to get a discussion. Instead they got an article repeating almost every lie the gungrabbers have made in one was purportedly a 2A supporting periodical.

    3. avatar Oregon Hobo says:

      Indeed, that was fast.

      Surely I’m not the only one who wondered right from the beginning how hard it could possibly have been to predict the outpouring of wrath that resulted from this column?

      Now suspend that answer and follow me on a parallel train of thought for a moment if you will.

      Let’s suppose for a moment that Mr. Hindery did in fact gain control of all those gun & outdoorsman mags in order to perpetrate sabotage and espionage of this country’s gun culture from the inside.

      Would the only way he could do so be simply to shut down all those publications? That might be momentarily effective perhaps, but he would lose a lot of money, and the laws of the market dictate that others would simply pop back up to replace them anyway, under control of someone else.

      Suppose that instead that Mr. Hindery decided to use the resources at his disposal to embark upon a trolling expedition for a long list of committed pro-gun advocates (AKA political enemies) as a gift to his favorite political client? The people who called, emailed, otherwise expressed their displeasure to Guns & Ammo are not just a list of subscribers. They comprise a list of motivated enemies of gun control (many of whom are not on the subscriber list at all). …and now our good buddy Leo has this list in his hands to do with as he pleases.

      While Bequette’s apology seems refreshingly genuine in this age of mealy-mouthed “I’m-sorry-you-got-mad” CYA press releases, and my first reflex was to forgive and forget, perhaps it’s time we pay greater heed to the unpleasant but unavoidable truth that G&A as well as those other 16 publications of Intermedia Outdoor Holdings are now the property and tools of the enemy and have been so for some time. Even if Mr. Hindery is not doing anything shady with our names, is there a reason we would want to patronize a company owned by such a premiere Obama donor with our own money?

      No one likes cutting off a leg, but gangrene is gangrene.


      1. avatar bontai Joe says:

        Hmmmm, something for me to ponder a while. You make some very valid points

        1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

          If you guys want to vent your frustrations, instead of picking on the Dick Metcalfs, try picking on the idiot rednecks such as these morons who give the rest of us a bad name:

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          No, screw that. Those guys are just (presumably) drunken idiots. Those guys are nothing. You don’t see the Brady Campaign and many other members of the civilian disarmament movement lining up to fellate those two nincompoops like you do with Metcalf. They are not well-respected long-term names in the industry who have a platform in a major national magazine and could be presumed to speak for a large portion of the gun-owning community.

      2. avatar D says:

        Hi, “hobo” neighbor!
        [I live in Washington…]

        I agree with your point that the idea might have been to compile yet another list.


        How many lists do already include me?
        One more, following my angry email demanding immediate firing of that author, makes no difference.
        Let me give you some examples:
        – Bought more than one firearm: check.
        – None of those firearms are for “sporting purposes” (like, AK?..): check.
        – Reads “subversive”, anti-government websites: check.
        – Buys preps (food, medical supplies, ammo) in bulk: check.
        – Posts on pro-2A forums: check.
        – Bought bulletproof vests: check.
        – Communicates with people who are in similar lists: check.

        …and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam.

        What’s another list?..


        There is an even more important consideration:
        whatever is coming, it IS coming.
        You cannot hide from that shitstorm, because it’s going to be huge.
        You literally CANNOT HIDE from it.
        You WILL have only 2 options: go to camp and die there, or fight (and maybe die in the fight).

        However, there still is another option: fight peacefully NOW.
        I do not believe that everything is lost already.
        There is no way any more to win “within the system” (elections, petitions, etc.), but there is still some – however small – chance to stop THEM from coming.
        That’s what I am hoping to happen.

        It’s simple: either be on yet another list today, or be in a single “deceased” list tomorrow.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Now that was a very profound and sincere apology. I am inclined to forgive and move forward.

    1. avatar Rougaroo says:

      I do not feel it was sincere. In this day and age there is no excuse at all for that. His Mea Culpa is only to try and save the magazine. They should still be boycotted so no one acts so ignorantly in the future.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Hmm. Interesting. I see a lot of merit in what you are saying.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        I feel the same way. Yo Jim! You expect me to believe you didn’t read Metcalf’s abortion before you published it? I ain’t buyin’ it. OR G&A.

        This is nothing but a weaselly backtrack and damage control. Not a genuine apology.

      3. avatar dirk diggler says:

        and as editor, is our apologist going to take a major pay cut or donate his yearly salary to the SAF?? Just curious because otherwise, when you were gonna make a change in a few months, this strikes me as shallow. Hell, why not just name Shannon Watts(TM) as the new gun reviewer?

      4. avatar ropingdown says:

        If both Metcalf and Bequette don’t show up as editors at one of InterMedia Outdoors’ other properties like North American Whitetail, Game & Fish, or Shotgun News I’ll be surprised. In fact, the misbegotten editorial probably lends Metcalf cred among one of the more sedate strictly-hunting publications. Now that IMO Holdings includes the Sportsman Channel and The Outdoor Channel, there must be lots of editing work to be done within the group.

        It’s amazing how concentrated the ownership of gun publications and outdoor-orieted cable TV has become with the help of Private Equity and the Wall Street advisors.

        1. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

          I seem to recall that Metcalf was just recently given the prime column spot at the end of the mag.

      5. avatar Ringo Foursquare says:

        Well, he did fire himself. That’s somewhat of an indicator of sincerity.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          He already has another job with the parent company.

      6. avatar Chuck in IL says:


      7. avatar BDub says:

        Yes, I don’t actually blame Metcalf – he penned what he felt, cause he knew he was on his way out. Good for him…bye. But the Editor, presumably read that piece and approved of it, and if he were really sorry, he should probably step down himself, but he is still there, and still editing, and vetting what messages do make the pages of G&A.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Again, reading comprehension. The editor, Bequette, was on his way out in January, and is now leaving sooner. There is no indication that Metcalf was going anywhere.

        2. avatar BDub says:

          Edit: I just reread the letter, and its the Editor that was on his way out. For me, that makes his apology even less-sincere. But it also makes me question Metcalf’s involvement – what did he stand to gain for throwing himself on that grenade? Did he really feel that way, and the editor concurred? Hmm?

          Edit: Yes Matt, you beat me by seconds.

        3. avatar Blue says:


          What about this line?

          “Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended.”

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          There is no indication Metcalf was going anywhere prior to this incident. BDub’s comment made it sound like Metcalf knew he was on his way out, and wrote this as a last word. There is nothing to indicate that is the case. The editor, Bequette, was leaving (and is now leaving faster), but from the way it reads, there is nothing to indicate Metcalf was on the way out.

        5. avatar Blue says:

          Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood and thought that Metcalf wasn’t leaving at all.

  5. avatar Travis says:

    I’m glad they apologized. I was upset about having to cancel my G&A. I would have, but am glad I no longer feel inclined to.

    1. avatar sizzlin bacon says:

      You took the bait! Hook, line and sinker!

      1. avatar Don Whitman says:

        I believe continuing to subscribe to the magazine is a mistake. To allow the column to be published in the first place tells you what the AIM of the publication is all about as well as the upper management of the owners.

        Goodbye G & A magazine…I’ve been reading you since 1972.

  6. avatar Clay says:

    Oh SNAP! hahahaaaaaaa

  7. avatar Rydak says:

    Well that was a solid response, The editor canned Metcafe and replaced…himself (albeit early)

  8. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Wow, that was good. Well done Mr. Bequette. Apology accepted.

    In keeping with my word from an earlier post, I will call and renew my subscription. Thanks for the decisive action there.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      Metcalf will find a new home where his heart is happy; The TSA

  9. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    Hey, look, they did the right thing.

    If this was his final column as a retiring editor, that at least partly explains why they didn’t apply the usual standards and scrutiny.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    I was stunned by Metcalf’s mealy-mouthed editorial because G&A had been the most hard core 2A defender among all print media. This mea maxima culpa, along with Metcalf’s termination, will go a long way toward restoring G&A’s tarnished reputation.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Now if only they could print a gun review that didn’t give every gun a glowing review.

        1. avatar Kris says:


        2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          and that sir, is why I absolutely love this site, thanks for the laugh!

        3. avatar Gregolas says:

          Thank you WB! Printed it out. Hilarious and true.

      1. avatar Federale says:

        Yeah, I wonder how that works out.

      2. avatar ggrimes2 says:

        Thank you, for the past several months it seemed like everything was about the AR platform. I’m pretty sick of hearing about the AR or the new short magnum rounds that seem to give the G&A folks a woody. The mag got thinner and everything was about the latest AR ad-nausem platform, option, package, sight, grip or barrel length. I love my AR but come on they rode that horse into the ground then proceeded to eat the remains. FYI there are “other” guns out there and many deserve a review. To go from exhaulting the AR platform too let’s have “gun control” over those types of weapons makes most hyprocrite’s look sane and all of us look like fools.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      Certainly one can say that Bequette’s departure comes on a less angst-provoking note than that of Richard Venola, the previous editor. Now there was an effective defense, two mistrials and the charge eventually dropped, with one shooter and one unarmed neighbor, both AOB. Wish I’d been in the courtroom for a day or two.

      I thought Source Interlink kept G&A in their big buy of Petersen properties. I was wrong. They sold the gunzines to InterMedia Outdoors in a private deal. “You can’t tell the players without a program…”

      Recoil, though, is published by Source Interlink.

  11. avatar MattG says:

    I think that is a sincere apology, he made no excuses, and it’s good that Dick will be riding off into the sunset. I’m still wondering just what the hell this editor was thinking, I don’t know what would possess him to think this would generate “healthy debate”. History shows that the gun owning public does not stand for these kind of attacks on our rights from within, and any idiot could have told him no good would come of this. I wonder how many subscriptions were canceled or not renewed?

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      I think “Healthy Debate” was the weakest point in an otherwise heart felt mea culpa
      Don’t worry
      Dick will be all over CNN/MSNBC

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Piers and Dickie, sittin’ in a tree…. (you finish!)

    2. avatar PCnotPC says:

      He wasn’t thinking, and pretty much admitted that himself. He was already making his way out the door and was probably busy clearing out his desk when he approved that column.

      Props to Jim Bequette, though, for “hastening” his own departure, even if it was only a couple months.

  12. avatar Byte Stryke says:

    You signed off on it, you printed, you own it. You can no more un-ring that bell than Zumbo.
    Your Yellow stripe is showing, no amount of “Sorry” Can cover it.
    Climb into bed with CTD and Dick’s.

    1. avatar ST says:

      The Editor and Metcalf have left the building.

      As far as I’m concerned, the matter is satisfied.Both parties are on the unemployment line where they belong, and the turncoats littered all over the industry will at least keep their mouths shut.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Very true. Unfortunately it is now in print for fodder from the Gun Ban Lobby for the next 100 years kind of like the 40% silliness from the early 90s.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      That’s a mature response.

    3. avatar Kevin A. says:

      So, what you’re saying is that people aren’t allowed to make mistakes or errors in judgement, and that if they do, they’re cursed to wear a scarlet letter of shame for the rest of their lives? By your logic, G&A might as well just become “Shannon Watt’s Gun Disarmament Weekly.”

      1. avatar sizzlin bacon says:

        Isn’t this a black and white issue? Either you are for gun control or you are for gun rights…right?

  13. avatar KCK says:

    Mr. Bequette, should you not have had the discussion/argument with Metcalf prior to publishing and find the incompatibility and let him go. This way the ideas would have stayed in his head and not on your magazines pages.
    He expressed his thoughts. They may be wrong but that is not a mistake. We all have our opinion. You didn’t fire him for his opinion. You printed it so in effect you fired him for your mistake. If he holds those opinions I can see that you should have parted ways.
    Now, should you be punished for your mistake when you don’t hold those same 2A views?
    Maybe some stripes to your back but probaly not the guillotine.
    We are walking a tight rope on gun rights and G&A made it a little more breezy.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Bequette canned both Metcalf and himself, in that order. It’s not often that you come across someone with enough character to publicly admit to making a mistake and then acting to correct it, both in a very public way.

      Say what you will, Jim Bequette has my respect, Metcalf does not.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Give it six months and look through Intermedia Outdoors’ operations. I wound be surprised if both these guys aren’t there somewhere.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    “I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.”

    Really? Your problem was you were thinking, but you were not thinking critically.

    “I miscalculated, pure and simple.”

    You’re damn right!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The “exchange of ideas” did occur. Very briefly!

      1. avatar Pulatso says:

        Indeed. It was about a sentence from each side. G&A:”We should consider restrictions” PotG: “BURN IN HELL.”

  15. avatar great unknown says:

    Hardly the unemployment line. Within a few weeks he’ll be working for MAIG, MAG, or some other Bloomberg sock-puppet, running around the country giving speeches: “I was once a stupid gun-rights supporter, but now I’ve seen the light.”

    And he’ll be making some nice money doing it.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Maybe working for the the asstronaught and his meat puppet?

  16. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Wow the ink wasn’t even dry and he’s out the door.

  17. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    So I dont know if you’ve noticed, but we talk a lot here about being able to own machineguns. Or at the very least if you dont want to own something like that, not saying that your neighbor shouldnt be able to also.

    1. avatar Pete Mack says:

      I am a bit ambivalent about machine guns: they are not obviously a weapon of self-defense. They certainly don’t cut down on risks to bystanders. (And I can’t imagine they should be allowed in movie theaters. Or, for that matter, bars.)

      1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

        Don’t be too quick, Pete. There are those on this site who seem to think rocket launchers are okay, citing that it would “infringe” on their right to bear arms if there were any attempt to “regulate” them.

        1. avatar Dúnadan says:

          Governments possess armored vehicles, no? Considering the original intent of the Framers in drafting the Second Amendment, where exactly would we be wrong in believing such weapons should be legal?

  18. avatar Rydak says:

    Click on his name and check out his web site….the answers are all there. lol

  19. avatar ChuckN says:

    Now, if only every other pro-gun magazine and organization
    could act this quickly and decisively.

  20. avatar ensitue says:

    So was Metcalf a Navy Boy like JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Bush, Space Kadet Kelly?

  21. avatar dudebro says:

    excellent CYA but did not bequete clear the article?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      If he’s the editor, then he’s the one who clears the article. The buck stops with him.

      1. avatar dudebro says:

        yet he skates. no matter. I dont read that rag and metcalf looks uber douchey anyway

        1. avatar charlie Taylor says:

          He did not “skate”. He’s resigning.

  22. avatar rawmade says:

    I love how Hornady backed him up 100% and laughs at everyone saying they will.boycott calling it unrealistic, then once hes fired Hornady releases a press release saying they don’t agree with his views and SOMEONE else wrote that “other” email response

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Do you have a source for that? I heard the name Hornady mentioned in a comment thread elsewhere, but didn’t have context. I’d like to read more about it.

      1. avatar rawmade says:

        Hornadys Facebook. They admit to both but say the first email was from a rogue employee

  23. avatar Andy says:

    The G&A facebook page has gained more than 50,000 followers since Dicks story broke.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      As someone else pointed out elsewhere, “Liking” or “Following” their page is the only way to get their updates to display on your feed. It doesn’t actually mean you “Like” them, it just means you’re interested in what they’re saying, at least for a while.

      1. avatar rawmade says:

        Theu are getting bombarded with support from antis on their FB now

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I pray they crash it. … hmmm… We could help!

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          It’s November. The White House weekly roundtable on gun control has been meeting for months under Valeri Jarrett’s leadership. They are scheduled to ignite another phase of anti-gun activism this month, without the contribution of Biden, who’s running for Pres, and who proved ineffective the last time. With an army of Organized for Action volunteers, expect to see an interwebs onslaught. If nothing else it should distract people from the budget, IRS, debt limit, Bengazi, and other minor matters.

  24. avatar alpo says:

    Bequette probably didn’t actually read the editorial. But that would be admitting something worse than bad judgement.

  25. avatar DJStuCrew says:

    I’m not a Republican. Hell, I’m an atheist. I’m also well-versed on the Constitution, and Metcalf was seriously in error. He twisted the mention of “regulated,” which in the amendment refers to the militia, to mean “guns.” (First error.) Secondly, as a writer of his stature and with such a long, storied career, one would think he understood how the word was being used — common knowledge among constitutional scholars. “Regulating” the militia was synonymous with training (as in “to keep in good working order”). This was specifically mentioned given that our militia was not a professional army, but made up of farmers, shop keepers, blacksmiths and other common folk. When “called up,” they most certainly would need some “regulation.” But in peacetime, no such regulation is required. As Hamilton warned, requiring citizens to maintain a constant state of battle readiness would require a time and energy committment that would, itself, be tyrannical.

    Metcalf knows this. Or at least he did at one time. But off he went into fallacyland and now Sarah Brady is tweeting him love notes. G&A is right to fire him. Why he went down that path is a mystery. Is it old age, alcoholism or a simple lapse? In any case, he was wrong and it’s obvious to anyone educated on the topic.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      Like Obama. Dick used to teach the US Constitution, at Yale

    2. avatar William Burke says:


      The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

      1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

      1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

      1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

      1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

      1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

      1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
      The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I’ll put it out there again. There’s a document from a Scottish politician who put forth the first idea of “well regulated militias” as a check on the power of kings. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

      A Discourse of Government Relating to Militias, from 1697 or 1698, by Andrew Fletcher.

      If you read this, you can immediately discern that our Founding Fathers read this document before drafting the US Constitution. The phrase “well regulated militia” was already in use in political philosophy during the period. Many ideas from the Scottish Enlightenment were integral to our nation’s founding, this was hardly the only one.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        That was a fun read and an interesting interpretation of history, the displacement of the armed vassals under barons…by the mercenary armies of monarchs/tyrants. Thanks.

      2. avatar BDub says:

        Thanks for posting. I have grown fond of collecting writings on this subject.

  26. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    Apology accepted.

  27. avatar ensitue says:

    Well hush my Puppys
    Dick works for:
    today serves as the Technical Editor for InterMedia Outdoors
    Owned by one of Obama’s Largest contributors
    Employees of Obama donor Leo Hindery Jr.’s media conglomerate Intermedia Partners, which now owns most of the top gun-culture media outlets in the country, believe that Hindery plans to gut and destroy all of them

  28. avatar tron says:

    This is bullshit. it’s not even on the guns and ammo webpage.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Are you saying it’s bullshit as in “it’s not true?”

      MAC said it was a scoop exclusive to him over at The Bang Switch. It may not appear on their website for a couple days, but it will eventually, as well as I’m sure it will appear in their next print edition.

      1. avatar tron says:

        I just find it hard to believe. why wouldnt you get this out on your website, and get the message out that boycotting the magazine isn’t necessary?

    2. MAC is as reliable and straightforward a source on the intertubes as there is. If he’s claiming to have this as a scoop from G&A, there’s absolutely no reason to doubt him. Period.

  29. avatar Blue says:

    I hope the door knob catches him in the gonads on the way out. Good for G & A for dealing with it.

  30. avatar KY1911 says:

    While it is true that Mr. Metcalfe should be held accountable for the content of his column, a magazine shouldn’t be going out the door without the approval of the editor. One of two things happened: Mr. Bequette approved the published column OR Mr. Bequette failed to properly govern his magazine. Either way, the buck stops with him – not Dick Metcalfe. Bequette should go too.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      You might want to read the article/response again…

      Bequette IS going, effective immediately.

  31. avatar Blue says:

    The thing that troubles me though, is why did the editorial staff allow that garbage to get by in the first place. I guess Metcalfe will be touring with Mark Space Cadet Kelley.

  32. avatar ensitue says:

    This is odd:
    Jim Bequette’s linked in page shows him as Editorial Editor for the IMO group as a whole, so has he been promoted into the Corporate Hierarchy?
    Was Metcalf’s treason the key to that promotion, all designed to throw unfacts to the Anti- Constitution Crowd that his master and commander L. Hindery Jr. so adores?
    Was the Money worth more than your soul, Jim Bequette?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      It sounds quite plausible. Thank you muchly for bringing it to everyone’s attention. I’m very grateful for your work.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      I personally think it’s part of a ‘repositioning’ strategy. Leo Hinery is a very successful and widely admired cable and schlock meister. Didn’t he create the original NY Yankees cable channel. He did create TCI. He was on the board of The Home Shopping Network. It might charm you to know his Intermedia Partners VII also owns the entire back catalog of Soul Train. I doubt very much the conspiracy mongers are right about Hinery having a plan to buy and destroy all the major gun pubs. The internet essentially makes that pointless, should he bother. (RF is there, ready to pick up the pieces.) Gun and outdoor pubs (and websites…) make money. Hinery has clearly squeezed every possible cost out of the operations of the entire Intermedia Outdoors group. No surprise. When you leverage a partnership that’s what you have to do. Seeing Hinery here and Burkle controlling Source Interlink does give me pause. Both men can be assumed to have a desire to affect what the firearms community thinks, sway opinion. Time will tell. “It’s all about the Benjamins.” Clicks. Views.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        My better etiquette loosened by two large glasses of wine, I have to ask: RF, were you inspired by Robert Petersen’s segue after his founding of Hot Rod? Is there any better sense than to observe the masters? No.

  33. avatar ensitue says:

    Has Metcalf admitted to penning that Piece of Poison?
    Could it have been our Dear Editor’s parting Kill Shot as he knew he was headed safely to L. Hindery Jr.’s IMO Corp which has very deep ties to the Democratic Party ?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      We may never know for certain, but I like your line of thought. Thanks again for all you do!

  34. avatar Blaine Nay says:

    It seems to me that Dick Metcalf was scapegoated. This willingness to compromise away gun rights is deeper at Guns & Ammo than one writer. His boss accepts a bit of responsibility for printing Metcalf’s essay in favor of gun control. But only one head rolled — Metcalf’s. I hope there will be much more introspection at Guns & Ammo regarding the Constitution and the God-given rights it would protect if followed.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Except you’re wrong. Bequette is leaving too. Jesus Christ the reading comprehension is fucking horrible around here tonight. You’re like the 274th person that’s said that.

      1. avatar ensitue says:

        Bequette did NOT leave, he was Promoted out of that lowly position to a higher paying position in the same Corp. before he OKed the Metcalf piece. He was simply a chair sitter until his replacement moved in.
        Please try to keep-up
        OH wait, I forgot who I was talking to. Hey Matt FL how’s Sunstein as an employer? BTW despite your yearnings, I gotta tell you his wife is NOT that hot

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          OK, and? He was leaving anyway, and now he’s leaving faster. I don’t understand the point. The conspiracy theory stuff is just silly.

      2. avatar dirk diggler says:

        drink bourbon. it makes it go smoother

        1. avatar William Burke says:


    2. avatar ensitue says:

      Metcalf is still working for L. Hindery Jr.’s IMO Corp as a Tech Editor so he has not been fired either.
      It’s Recoil all over again, no surprise either, I bet L. Hindery Jr. owns it as well

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        No. Ron Burkle, Bill Clinton’s buddy and mega-money man, controls Source Interlink, which owns Recoil. I’m not a big conspiracy fan, but Burkle and Hinery are definitely both solid Clinton pals, and Obama supporters in the interim. Birds of a feather flock together. Time will tell if they use their ownership to try and influence gun-owner opinion, soften up the resistance. Are gun mags that profitable, or is a longer agenda at work? With gun, car, and porn pubs, it’s about the money. But with guns, there’s a political twist.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      If Metcalfe was scapegoated, then a lawsuit will follow as surely as dawn follows dusk. Pass the popcorn.

    4. avatar ropingdown says:

      The only introspection there will be at Guns & Ammo is about how bare the bones will be when Intermedia is done cutting costs. It’s a business. Look at the featured writers for G & A over the years. Every one of them was building their own little empire in the ‘gun enthusiast’ world (Cooper, Ayoob, etc.). I find it an interesting example of how money gets together with an interest group, a fan group, hobbyists, in order to grow a business. The old saying is “sell to the classes, live with the masses. Sell to the masses, live with the classes.” What that says about the publishers of The Double Gun I hesitate to say.

  35. avatar Steve says:

    I’ll accept it. The one who needed to go (Metcalf) is gone. Sucks about Bequette, but he did sign off on it, he knows it, and therefor he’s stepping aside. Sure, it was already planned and only pushed up by 2 months, but not much more could be done (and I really wouldn’t even ask for more).

    G&A learned from the Recoil debacle and although they were quiet for a few days, did get something done to most everyone’s satisfaction.

    I’m fine with discussion, I’ll talk about what is and is not an infringement just like the next guy, but if you’re applauded by the Brady Bunch, you screwed up.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Could it be that he wrote the article WITH THE INTENTION of cozying up to the B-B-Bradys?

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:


        1. avatar ensitue says:

          So, Matt FL, the PPL you disagree with are conspiracy nuts, are you following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals numerically, because that’s #12 IIRC, ?

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          MattinFL, you may not like conspiracy theories which exceed the demands of Occam’s Razor. However, it isn’t inane to note that gun publications have been bought up over the last six years by two guys, Burkle and Hinery, neither of whom is pro-gun, and both of whom have signed on as supporters of anti-gun politicians. It isn’t about conspiracy. It’s about the irony. It’s about neither guy being a gun enthusiast. It’s also about one of them gutting the cost structure of his publications. No conspiracy needed. It is simply interesting to note two such guys on the same path. And then both of them having an editor write an out-of-character “we really need more regulation” piece. On the other hand, it’s nice to know there are well-heeled acquirers out there looking over the gun-pubs market….

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I do acknowledge the irony you speak of. But as for a grand conspiracy, I just don’t see it. But that’s no less true for virtually every other time the conspiracists come out to play around here (which seems about every day lately). I’m a skeptic at heart, but that doesn’t mean I’m skeptical of the official line because I think there’s a larger game afoot, it means I’m skeptical of both sides. Furthermore, I tend to believe that the simplest explanation is likely the most accurate (as opposed to the impossibly intricate conspiracy theories), and the reason I believe that is because most of the time the simplest explanation is the most accurate.

          Occam’s Razor is highly applicable to most situations in life, and equally so is Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

  36. avatar tfunk says:

    Not sure why this was added as a reply?

    What is interesting to me about this is in the same issue a reader’s letter takes G&A to task for not being pro-active in warning gun owners about pending legislation over the past year. The response was “timing” and also…”please see Dick Metcalf’s The Backstop article in this issue”. To me that says “we didn’t warn gun owners because we agree with regulation”.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      Don & Tfunk
      I Agree
      Lord knows what sort of pressure the IRS/NSA/EPA can put on these guys but the current regime has been putting Boots On Necks for years, Gibson Guitars to name just one
      Of Course in L. Hindery Jr.’s IMO Corp it looks to be all voluntary at Corp level

  37. avatar shawn says:

    Jim is editor and approved it to be printed. He should be fired, too. See a bunch of hypocrites defending him.

  38. avatar Craig says:

    Never got a single issues of G&A, never planned to, and this helped drive the umpteenth nail into the coffin. I really don’t understand why anyone would buy print magazines since there’s a vast amount of knowledge available online for the price of a wireless connection.

    1. avatar Joe B says:

      I like print media because it’s easier to read while taking a dump. Plus it’s fun to receive things in the mail.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        That, my friends, is the most cogent and persuasive argument for print media that I have seen.

  39. avatar Michael Bane says:

    OUTDOOR CHANNEL is not…repeat, not…owned by Intermedia. OC is owned by Kroenke Sports and Entertainment of Denver.

    Michael B

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      The offer by Intermedia was announced in November, 2012, as if it were a done deal. It wasn’t. The final accepted offer by Kroenke occurred in May, 2013.

  40. avatar bill says:

    I am still using my G&A collection for a 300 yard backstop.

  41. avatar jakee308 says:

    What? Like he didn’t read that piece before he allowed it to be printed?

    He deserved to fire himself. How could anyone think that those comments were supportive of the 2A?

    And apparently MOST EVERYBODY saw them for what they were.

    You can bet that those comments will be coming out of some gun grabbers mouth or on their blog or something somewhere as some sort of vindication for THEIR fascism.

    I’ll give him props for at least reacting correctly and swiftly. Something that doesn’t happen much these days as everyone’s a special snowflake that never makes mistakes, and if they do, it isn’t their fault and if it’s their fault, they meant to say something different and if you still hold them accountable, they’ll say you’re being insensitive or racist.

    (sound like anyone you know in the news lately?)

  42. avatar George says:

    Anyone who takes this “apology” at face value is being suckered by a shell game.

    The key thing to remember is: Jim Bequette was already promoted BEFORE he chose to publish this garbage. He is NOT losing his job. He is laughing up his sleeve as he rides off to be a big pay hike at the same company. He is being rewarded for this betrayal.

    If Bequette resigns from THAT job, then, and only then, will I accept his apology.

    His accomplice, Metcalf, is playing the same shell game. He has a different job at the same parent company to fall back on.

    This is just a classic con job.

  43. avatar David says:

    The distressing thing is Metcalf’s calculated betrayal. How long has he been waiting to perform this deed? I wonder what his reward will be? It is sickening to realize that there are probably many Americans waiting for the opportunity to betray their fellow citizens when the time is right.

  44. avatar josoul88 says:

    Pretty sure this has already been mentioned, but it’s kinda funny reading this on their site. They had no idea this would be them on the other end of it,handing out “im sorrys”

    1. avatar Joe B says:

      It makes me even more sick to read the comments to that article. Many are by G&A readers who actually support the Recoil article. There are a lot of Dick Metcalfs out there.

  45. avatar J in StL says:

    Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

  46. avatar J. Elink says:

    “I denounce myself”

    —Dick Metcalfe

    (and this time, he means it.)

    Next time we see this guy, he will be at the side of the road, displaying a sign saying, “Will trash gun owners for exclusive rights to a dumpster of your choice”.

  47. avatar Chris says:

    Yeah, fuck everyone who thinks differently from us!

    1. avatar David Kachel says:

      People who think differently, have their place to voice their opinions, on virtually every news site and editorial page in the mainstream media. They have all the exposure they could ever possibly want or need. They DO NOT need it in the pages of the gun magazines they would dearly love to bring to an end. This is not a free speech issue. It is a Trojan Horse issue.

  48. avatar Mac Schong says:

    Wow just shows how f’in looney some of the people in our own house (of proud gun ownership are). And I’m not talking about the brave Mr. Metcalf. I’m taking about the folks who put their emotions first, and leave their logic in the gutter, in calling for his resignation. Firing a dude for exercising his first amendment rights? For saying that there are maybe some people out there who shouldn’t own guns? Get over yourselves. Go relax a bit. I might actually buy a subscription to G&A for being brave to, gasp, print what some might call an opposing point of view.

    The shallow echo-chamber that has come to represent the RTKBA front has been giving all gun owners a bad name for far too long. Give Mr. Metcalf back his job!

  49. avatar J Evangelista says:

    When a gun magazine editor gets a big thank you from the Brady Campaign, his career is over.

  50. avatar Andy says:

    I wonder if Ruger will cut him out of their show on Wednesday night?i used to respect the man at one time he was very inciteful on gun issues,I guess someone from the left got to him.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  51. avatar racer88 says:

    Too late…. already cancelled subscription.

    How Metcalf’s editorial got through without scrutiny is curious.

  52. avatar David Kachel says:

    I just read about the Metcalf editorial scandal. It is good that he was fired but that is DEFINITELY not enough.

    Far worse is the offense admitted to by Jim Bequette when he knowingly published the editorial, thinking it would “generate a healthy exchange”!

    Bu!!sh*t! What he thought was that he agreed with Metcalf and that he and Metcalf might be able to convince the stupid right wing extremists who read his magazine to see the collectivist light, and then just like any lefty caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, he backpedalled furiously while pointing a finger only at Metcalf.

    Mr. Bequette and any other left-leaning staff members at G&A need to be gone.

    But if he is fired, I will likely never know. Because I have purchased my last issue of G&A, ever, and I have been buying it since day ONE!! It should have been impossible for such a thing to happen. Rot always begins at the top.

    1. avatar jeff mccale says:

      Amen brother! Right on the money!

  53. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    Mr. Metcalf has his right to his personal opinion. I find it amazing that it took this long for his personal opinion to come out as editor for Guns and Ammo. It will take awhile to recover the spin from this!

  54. avatar Patriot says:

    Give me a break, because his article just magically appeared in the magazine without being read before it went to print. Used all my guns and ammo mags for toilet paper and I won’t be buying another.

  55. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

    I hate to say it, but I tend to agree with Dick Metcalf: For those of you who have not read his column, here it is:

    I agree with Dick in that I feel there should be a training requirement for a CCW permit. We require driver training before we can get a driver’s license and training before we can become a surgeon. Such “training” might be considered by some to be an “infringement” of our “rights,” but the end result is that it helps to ensure safety. Is a course in firearms safety too much to ask of someone who must might kill himself or someone else merely because he or she never received the tools to know how to safely handle a weapon or—most importantly—when or when not to use it?

    Should firearms owners be required by law to keep guns locked up so children won’t be in a position to endanger themselves or their playmates? I have no problem with such a regulation.In my view, such “regulations” do not restrict our ultimate rights to own and/or use our firearms, and show that Metcalf’s belief that certain regulation on our “right to keep and bear arms” is not (nor should be) an “infringement.”

    The idea that Dick Metcalf’s intent was to compromise the 2nd Amendment is nonsense. I didn’t get that out of the article, and I fail to see why gun owners are upset, unless of course, they fear that the gun-grabbers will twist Metcalf’s opinion into what they feel is an anti-gun stance.

    As for firearm regulation: We already have it in the form of background checks when we wish to make a firearm purchase. I live in California, I just purchased a shotgun and AR-15 and was pleased to hear from the gun store owner that purchase applications are scrutinized, and the resulting background checks have resulted in several mental cases having been denied an easy over-the-counter purchase. Does this mean that it would be impossible for someone hell-bent on mass or serial murder to achieve those ends? Of course not! But….I would rather trade my “right” to simply walk into a store and walk out immediately with a firearm for the knowledge that it would be difficult for a nut case to do the same.

    If we gun owners refuse to bend just a little, I’m afraid that we will play right into the hands of those who are waiting in the wings to ban firearms completely or make firearms unusable by eliminating our sources of ammunition and other firearm-related supplies by regulating them out of existence.

    I am surprised that Metcalf was fired. You may not have agreed with what he had to say, but at the very least, it was food for thought. Now that Metcalf is gone, it will be impossible for Guns & Ammo to feature a fair debate or meaningful dialogue with Mr. Metcalf, and as a result we will never know how he would have responded to our criticisms.

    1. avatar DS says:

      “But….I would rather trade my “right” to simply walk into a store and walk out immediately with a firearm for the knowledge that it would be difficult for a nut case to do the same.”

      Who gets to decide who is a nut case and who is not?

      1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

        I should have included felons and persons who have been adjudged insane. Such laws naturally won’t filter out everyone who plans to kill people, but it’s better than nothing. If you don’t agree, please tell me why.

        1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

          Here is a rundown on the checks that a person must go through when purchasing a firearm…at least in California.

          Granted, it is difficult (if not impossible) to look into a person’s mind to determine whether he or she is planning to mow down a kindergarten class full of kids, but right now background checks are all we have. They are not perfect.

    2. avatar SteveA says:

      KUDOS to Mr. Schmidt — apparently not all gun advocates blindly challenge anything that imposes procedures and regulations to gun ownership. I love guns – but I recognize them as dangerous items that require some rules and knowledge — This does not stop me from owing and using them. I wish more people recognized that as does Neil. Good job sir!

    3. avatar Bruce B. says:

      “If we gun owners refuse to bend just a little” Well, now we know why California is in such sad shape. Gun owners who are willing to “bend just a little.” Till the state tells them how much ammo and what kind of guns they are allowed to possess. Till the state has confiscation squads. Till the next round of legislation outlaws private gun owner ship all together. It is indeed much easier for the state to keep it’s boot on your neck when you are willing to “bend just a little.” How’s that dirt taste by the way?

  56. avatar jeff mccale says:

    This crap gives the gun haters more ammo! Look, even their own want gun control!!! Look, when their own start being “rational” about gun control they fire them! LOOK!!! PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

  57. avatar SteveA says:

    How dare he say that “Gun owners should use guns responsibly” — That heathen!!
    Only a moron would believe that dangerous, deadly items like firearms should require training or registration — just like cars do (Of course there is no amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear automobiles — if there was it follows there would be no drivers education or licensing and registration process).
    Kudos to SPINELESS Guns&Ammo for letting a person go just for MAKING SENSE. Obviously it insulted the collective intellect of the Gun advocates.
    Its not like anyone that owns dozens of guns (like me) would ever believe that registration or responsible ownership is to be commended.
    After all – I dream of a world where infants are given Glocks as rattles and AK47’s as teethers.
    What is wrong with you people? When did gun ownership become synonymous with a lack of common sense.
    Guns & Ammo — you should be ashamed of yourself. Publishing an article proposing responsibility is not blasphemy, but throwing an employee to the wolfs because of narrow-minded opinion holders is weak.

    1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

      Well said, Steve. I know that you are using sarcasm to prove a point, but there are some members here who don’t agree, although I have read none of their posts that elaborate. It seems that they have confused “responsibility” as being somehow a threat to gun ownership, forgetting that the word has nothing to do with “infringement.” With rights come responsibilities, and I think that Dick Metcalf merely was trying to point that out.

  58. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

    How bizarre. Incidentally, I just finished that issue of G&A the night before last and his column was on the last page. So, G&A is terminating Metcalf’s employment now? Why? They published his column, it didn’t appear out of nowhere. If anyone needs to go, it is the editor of the column, or the publisher, not the writer.

    1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

      Culpeper, I definitely agree. Have you read the posts of those people who would lynch Metcalf merely because he brought up a valid opinion? It’s sad that I can only think that those same very sheep-like people never read the article thoroughly, nor did they think before spewing out their own ill-conceived vitriol in this thread.

      I too am a subscriber to Guns & Ammo (as well as Shooting Times, Guns, American Hunter, Rifleshooter and Varmint Hunter). I have never experienced such disrespectful and yahoo-like replies to what is nothing more than a tempest-in-a-teapot. Frankly, I like G&A and will continue my subscription with no apologies.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Actually, you are overlooking how dangerous it is for punks like Metcalf to be advocating gun control. It is bad enough when it is done from the Bully Pulpit of the White House and liberal outlets like CNN, MSNBC and other magazines. But damn, from a gun magazine? What the hell happens when I open my National Rifleman and find a pro gun control editorial in there from a Metcalf type ass-hole?

        It is just Metcalf and his opinion, it is the platform which he has.

        1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

          Like many other posters here, you obviously did not read the article Metcalf never expressed his desire for “gun control.”

        2. avatar Blue says:

          That makes you flat wrong on 2 accounts because Metcalf was arguing that the 2nd Amendment support guns being regulated.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          No, of course not. Expressing a desire for gun control would clearly have been a bridge too far. What he did do is chronically misinterpret the meaning of “well regulated,” and use that to leave the door open for further government regulation being OK, and even recommended.

        4. avatar Blue says:

          Here you are Neil:

          “Way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,”
          “Let’s Talk Limits.” “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

          Regulation is Gun Control and the fact is Gun Bans are a type of regulation.

  59. avatar EdNope says:

    The People have spoken! Let this be a warning to the gun-grabbers — WE WILL NOT sit quietly by as you attempt to take away our god-given rights, freedoms and liberties.

  60. avatar Puyallup Devil_Doc says:

    When is Cheaper Than Dirt doing this?

  61. avatar jesse says:

    i’m a supporter of all my constitutional rights and i know the 2nd amendment protects the others. with that being said, some limits might seen reasonable, BUT the reason we don’t like someone lecturing us about gun control is simply this, the gun controllers are always trying to coddle the real criminals, and instead they want to blame the gun. secondly, sure common sense should prevail when speaking of the limits of any right, BUT why should law abiding gun owners get preached to when most violent crime in this country is being committed by democrats and there is not one thing being done to reign in the crime epidemic by addressing the problems honestly. we know that most gun laws are just gun grabs, and in they are not designed to seriously go after the criminals. most criminals will not stop breaking laws because of gun laws. most women are at a natural disadvantage to a man, and even more so if there were no guns at all. so eff off to anyone who doesn’t have the circles to tell the truth.

  62. avatar Sam says:

    Wait hold on, is Bequette leaving as well?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Yes, he was leaving at the end of the year, and that timetable has now been accelerated.

      1. avatar Sam says:

        Thank you, the last paragraph of the apology was bit ambiguous since Metcalf was a tech editor while Bequette was a managing editor.

  63. avatar cubby123 says:

    Well ,I guess they took my advice and CANNED HIM!

  64. avatar Jon says:

    Not really sure I fit in with this group here anymore…I agree with the article written….

  65. avatar Pete Mack says:

    Umm. He just said that a 16 hour training course is not an unreasonable restriction on concealed carry. This is not at all the same as restricting the right to own, or even carry, guns. (Nor, for that matter, is a background check!!)

    1. avatar Blue says:

      It depends on the state. Cali is very tough to get a ccw license i as is some other areas. Have you been unaware of the battle in Illinois? There are still plenty of “may issue” situations out there.

    2. avatar Bruce B. says:

      Most trainers in Illinois are charging around $300.00 for the 16 hour course. The application fee is $150.00. If a drivers license cost $450.00, what would be the outcry from the civil libertarians? Or a more apples to apples example. What if we had a $450.00 poll tax? Would that be an infringement on your constitutional rights? I’m an Illinois Certified Trainer. I stand to profit from this egregious law. And even I can see what a travesty it is, and would applaud it’s revocation. I believe in training, obviously. But it should not be mandated by the state to exercise your constitutional right. A right becomes a privilege when the state says, “No, you can’t.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Very good point. Plus, there are plenty of drivers with a license out there that are terrible including LEO. We have a local cop that has had about 8 wrecks, most of them he was at fault, over the past 5 years.

  66. avatar anthrogirl says:

    It’s a shame Guns & Ammo can’t stand behind its author. Metcalf’s column was discussed in planning meetings. It was approved, it was written, it was edited, it was fact checked, it was run past legal, it was approved again, it was mocked up and it was eventually printed. Dozens at G&A people touched or worked with this article. To think that Metcalf somehow did this on his own, without knowledge of other G&A editors and his boss is laughable. A small group of subscribers threatened to pull subscriptions which made G&A and their advertisers nervous. So instead of Jim B. stepping down, he did the cowardly thing and fired the author. Jim said” 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 ask your forgiveness.” And then instead of falling on his sword, he shot Metcalf.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      it never should have been approved because it is going to be used by The Gun Ban lobby like Bloomer’s MAIGgots and Mark and Gabby.

  67. avatar Carl says:

    After just recently buying a 2-year subscription to Guns and Ammo, I doubt that I’ll receive all 24 issues.

    It is obvious that the magazine is about to fold. This is clearly evidenced by this stunt of having Metcalf write such a ludicrous piece. The sole purpose is obviously a desperation move to do something – anything – that might create a bit of attention.

    In the (small) minds of some, any publicity is good publicity.

    The managing editor is a traitor to the Constitution even more so than Metcalf.

    Oh, yes, he is also a liar.

    1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

      Right. Let’s hang ’em high!

  68. avatar Jeff Tucker says:

    He just wanted to promote a healthy exchange on gun rights. Bullshit. The only exchange there should be is what do you prefer to carry? Or perhaps to others who are not of us, why do you choose not to carry? Any “regulation” that could “infringe” is not open to discussion. Can it, just like Metcalf. And goodbye to the editor as well. You were leaving anyway. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Good riddance to both.

    1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

      So, you are against any type of safety training because you think it is “infringement” to take any steps to prevent accidents? You must be joking! Your “reasoning” escapes me.

      1. avatar tfunk says:

        Mr. Schmidt, you are hereby required to attend 3 years of mandatory safety training before you are allowed to keep a firearm in your home. You can thank me later.

        1. avatar Neil Schmidt says:

          That is not what I inferred, nor was it my intent. Had you read my comments closely you would have come to a different conclusion. I said nothing about long-term training. Is it too much to consider maybe a half-day, or would you sacrifice lives at the alter of an absurd idea that no training makes complete sense just because you feel it is “unconstitutional?” You can’t have it both ways.

        2. avatar Bruce B. says:

          If you look at the safety record of the states that require NO training for a CCW, it is on a par with all the other states.Counter intuitive, I know. I believe in training. I also believe the state should not be writing requirements and restrictions for a right. We used to have literacy tests to vote. They cost a lot less and took much less time than firearms training, yet they were declared unconstitutional. Why do suppose that was?

      2. avatar Blue says:

        The problem is he is saying that the 2A give the government the power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The idiot ignored the shall not be infringed part. No one is saying to shoot yourself in the eye.

  69. avatar Blue says:

    @ Pete Mack: Even the 1939 SCOTUS ruling disagrees with you since automatic weapons have a military purpose. The reason they didn’t like sawed of shotguns is they claimed they did not have a military purpose. Furthermore, you should take a look at what the Finns did to repel the Soviets in WWII when the Soviets were in league with the 3rd Reich. They defeated the Red Machine despite being heavily out numbered and out armed. They operated in units made up of neighborhood militia units. The 2A isn’t there for just now but the future should it fall to the people to make a stand against an enemy. Who knows, in 50 years it could be the Mexicans, Red Chinese, or someone that isn’t even on the current radar. Look at our military strength between WWI and WWII. Our unorganized militia was probably our best defense for a 15 year period.

  70. avatar Dúnadan says:

    Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

  71. avatar Bevin says:

    I just have one word.


  72. avatar David Lampman says:

    I plucked this from a comment section about an article entitled “Senate Gets Second Amendment Wrong” @
    I thought I would pass it along as it defines and explains the 2nd better than I have ever been able to and shows how Metcalfs premise was all wrong from the beginning.

    “Liberals like regulations, so they hear “well-regulated” and think “Goody! We get to impose restrictions!” Every time they try to translate the 2nd Amendment into Modern English they expose their profound ignorance of Western culture.
    A “well-regulated militia”, in this context, is akin to a “well-regulated” clock, they even used the term “regulated” in reference to clocks back when you had to wind them up. It means a “regular” militia, a “reliable” militia, or a “well-maintained” militia.
    In modern vernacular, the 2A would be translated thusly: “A reliable militia of the American people is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited by any laws.”
    Regardless of whether or not Americans actively participate in military drills or they are highly disciplined, they are a para-military reserve force endowed with the legal right and duty to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Liberals, perpetual children that they are, may not like the fact that being an American comes with responsibilities and duties, but that’s what the Founders were saying. As an American citizen, you are a member of a para-military force, and as a member of a para-military force you are free to own any kind or number of weapons with whatever magazine capacity you choose to use in defense of this country against anyone who threatens it.
    That is the meaning of our 2nd Amendment.” Unquote

    I have been an avid Guns & Ammo reader and fan for more than 30 years. I never really cared for Metcalfs articles or his presence on G&A TV. He seemed a little aloof to me. OK so he’s gone. We have a new editor. Lets move on. Everyone makes mistakes. I for one will be looking forward to my next G&A just as I always have and I’m sure the guys and gals at G&A will continue to support the 2nd amendment in the future just as they have in the past. Dick Metcalf not withstanding.

    David A. Lampman
    G&A Subscriber

  73. avatar John P. says:

    This what Justice Scalia wrote about & used in Heller about the militia and right of the people.

    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled underfoot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[136]

  74. avatar Brian Lowery says:

    If this Bequette was as adamant as he claims he would’ve never allowed the article to go to print in the first place. I think this “apology” is nothing more than BS damage control. He hoped a “dialogue of ideas” would start? That sounds identical to some of the lines I’ve heard Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al use. The axe shouldn’t stop swinging until Mr. Bequette is beside Metcalf in the unemployment line.

  75. avatar Caleb says:

    Ya’ll should read Metcalf’s “apology”. He really is pro gun control.

  76. avatar monk says:

    The purpose of the Second is not to defend the right to bear arms because that right is inherent (part of the right to defend oneself) and doesn’t require government approval. Rather, the Second uses that right to justify the regulation of militias.

    Given that, gun control doesn’t contradict the Second. Rather, the Second is an example of gun control.

    1. avatar Brian Lowery says:

      “Well regulated” has nothing to do with limiting the use or access of. It has nothing to do with federal regulations as we understand them today. Regulated refers, in 18th century vocabulary, to something that is well prepared. A group is a “well regulated militia” by 18th Century language if they can march in tight formation, fire, and reload their muzzle loading weapons with efficiency and discipline.

      1. avatar CharlieKilo says:

        “well-regulated” = good working order

        1. avatar Brian says:

          Isn’t that pretty much what I said?

        2. avatar CharlieKilo says:

          No, not exactly…. I’m not trying to start a debate/disagreement, but “efficiency and discipline” can or may not be construed as “good working order”. “well-regulated” can be applied to more than just militia, as in the cases of courts, or clocks, or minds. It’s important to understand “well-regulated” outside of the context of a militia, at least in my mind. If people focus in on just the militia phrase, you can lose them in the minutiae of the statement.

          Here’s a reference that I usually link out to:

        3. avatar CharlieKilo says:

          As a side note, I wasn’t intending to reply to your post, but to the post above yours. Oh well…

        4. avatar Brian says:

          I too understand the term “well regulated” as I say those words at least twice a month, every month, as part of my fraternity, which is not militia related. I gave militia related examples because technically that was the context of the discussion.

  77. avatar CharlieKilo says:

    Apparently, Metcalf thinks his firing is somehow tied to 1st Amendment infringements. Let’s highlight how much he actually doesn’t know about the Amendments in the same month, shall we? The Bill of Rights talk about how GOVERNMENT is restrained, not private business. Free speech is free, but it can have consequences. He didn’t understand what “well-regulated” meant (good working order) and then went on to write an article that it meant regulation (or codification). Then, he makes a response and puts it out in the open, apparently not understanding the 1A. Are we seriously supposed to even entertain an apology from this guy when he so obviously “doesn’t get it”?

    His personal feelings on getting canned:

    “How do I feel about that? Disappointed. 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?”

    Sure we believe in Freedom of Speech. But, no one prevented you from speaking and summarily looking like a 2A noob when talking about “regulation” and “well-regulated” as if they were synonymous. What do I fear? Ignorant or misinformed voting public. You, Mr. Metcalf, have contributed to that ignorant and misinformed voting public. You are as much the enemy, as the enemy itself. Instead of trying to rationalize or justify his position, he should have taken the responsibility and quietly slipped away, perhaps to come out of hiding after serving the appropriate penance, down the road. But no, he wants to make excuses or provide “reasons” for his ignorance. I’d like to think that we are a people of personal accountability and responsibility.

  78. avatar scott larson says:

    Regardless of their (Metcalf’s and Bequette’s) true intentions with the article, the outcome is that they willingly and knowingly handed ammunition to the enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Treason, plain and simple. For those of you who feel empathy for these two fools, I feel contempt. It takes a doubtful and subversive mind to pen, publish and plant the seeds of doubt about our Constitution. Those seeds will certainly sprout, take root, and grow. We must stand tall and proud in the face of such unforgivable malice towards our Constitution and those that so painstakingly wrote it, and for all those that sacrificed their lives defending it. These two impostors were obviously hiding their true feelings for years, and knew exactly what they were doing, how it would be received, used, circulated, and leveraged by their league to sway opinion and weaken resolve, and advance the corrupt idea that power and control belongs to government, not The People.

  79. avatar Bintash says:

    I’m glad they apologized.
    an apology for all

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email