Guns & Ammo Not Scrubbing Dick Metcalf from their website…

So I was over at the Guns & Ammo website this morning reading one of their new articles they just put up and I was curious how serious they were about distancing themselves from Dick Metcalf after he went all… well, you know:

Dick metcalf

A quick “Dick Metcalf” keyword search of their site shows that he most certainly is still alive and well over at Guns & Ammo…

Dick Metcalf 01

Dick Metcalf 02

And here is one from their sister site, Shooting Times. Same thing… he is everywhere:

Dick Metcalf 03

 

‘Yes, we here at Guns & Ammo deplore Dick Metcalf and what he said… we would like to distance ourselves from him and he no longer works for us… but, boy all that Google traffic sure is hard to give up.’

Exit Question: With regard to the whole “Dick Metcalf no longer works for us” thing… if he is still driving web traffic for them and helping advertisers promote all of their products, isnt he still really working for them?

  1. While you are at it you should see if you can get Guns and Ammo to go burn some books at their local library.

    The world will become a scary place if you get your wish of having everyone think and believe in exactly the same thing.

    I want to tell you to go fuck yourself, but I am not that kind of person… at least not on the Internet.

    1. Cute. You are not going to tell me to go fuck myself, just imply that I should do so by saying that you are not going to say it???

      Its also interesting that you are getting so worked up over someone who obviously has differing views from your own… so much so that you are chastising me by calling me a Nazi but not calling me a Nazi and inferring that I am someone who hates anyone who thinks differently than I do.

      Did you follow all of that? You are accusing me of doing the exact thing that you yourself are doing right now.

  2. Progressives get truly BENT when one (or Two) of their own gets outed.
    Obviously the poster never got the memo that No One has lost their job but were simply given a Horizontal Demotion (to Corporate Payroll)

  3. I don’t think they should take his old stuff down if it’s not part of the reason he got fired. There may be some useful stuff up there still. Probably smart to take down anything politics-related, but not technical stuff, which was supposed to be his thing.
    Just my $.02

    1. Fair enough. I just think that its part of the price you pay when you dont vet people properly in the first place, OR you cant possibly tell me that he wasn’t like this around the office and they still let him stay.

      IMHO, it just lowers their credibility to have ANY ongoing association with him.

  4. I read over the article and I honestly don’t see why people are so up in arms. Dick supports proper gun safety and training to ensure proper gun safety. I don’t think he “showed his true colors” or any such nonsense, more so that he is a realist and that instead of feeding into the political rhetoric bull he gave a more middle of the road look at gun rights. I feel he made a good and fair point about “well regulated”. You can’t just go and black out words you don’t like in the constitution to make the sentences read how you want them to.

    Now I will say that personally I feel the biggest issue with the whole gun debate is the politics. Gun grabbers will tell bold face lies and very few gun rights folks can eloquently call them out on it without looking like an extremist. The gun rights extremists make the general gun owner population look like tinfoil hat wearing crazies hiding in fallout shelters waiting or the aliens to attack.

    If you want to help the Gun rights movement then try to be part of a more sane conversation. We cannot debate our way to victory, we need to win hearts and minds. We need relatable talking points that open people up to constructive conversations, not rhetoric that shuts it down.

  5. Well regulated does not mean well legislated. Well regulated means disciplined or trained…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

    The problem with the “sane conversation” and the “reasonable regulation” is that this is a death by a thousand cuts approach to an end goal of all out civilian disarmament. This is not about saving lives or controlling crime. The gun grabbers of this country want and will not stop until they get full civilian disarmament. They have said so themselves:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeq6ZzEQGA

    I am not advocating being an extremist, and I do believe that we should undress their sensationalistic arguments with sound, reasoned rebuttals. However, We will not go along to get along. We can debate our way to victory, and we are debating our way to victory. BUT that path does not involve further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

  6. Not arguing just asking here: So how do we define “trained and disciplined”? Do we allow the states to do so independently or on a federal level? Do we allow every gun owner to go with their own definition?

    In regard to the death by a thousand cuts. I agree that the Gun Grabbers have a “zero guns in America” agenda that they will push though misinformation and outright lies. BUT, I do feel that engaging them in debate is not the way. We will never win them over. We can only try to sway the middle of the road average Americans, and we cannot do that by presenting them with imagery and rhetoric that validates the Grabber’s claims. We need to focus on showing the facts and disproving the lies.

    I just feel that it looks bad when the gun community turns it’s back on a man that suggests that responsible gun ownership might be worth defining in a written document.

  7. Thats a fair question.

    Personally, I dont believe that there is a burden to define ‘Trained/disciplined” or to set a definitive bar that must be reached. For one, it would be the .gov who would determine it and set it into law, and thats kinda like letting the fox guard the hen house and IMO it completely negates why the 2nd amendment was put there in the first place. Also, The 2nd Amendment itself does not define it. It simply broadly says that it should be the goal, and why it is necessary. Additionally, if you look at the lay of the land at the time that we laid out the Bill of Rights, people were not formally trained and there was no formal process to do so. Everyone simply kept arms at the ready.

    You are also right that we will never win THEM over, however, you must meet their claims and engage them in debate if we are to win the rest of the country over. The American people are watching, and any claims (no matter how outlandish they are) that they gun grabbers make that go unchecked will eventually frame the debate as everyone else sees it.

    Back to Metcalf… These are two good reads from someone in the industry who explains it all rather well…

    http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/11/metcalf-canned.html

    http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/11/metcalfs-lame-response.html

  8. I dont believe Dick had a bad idea. We tend to think about things from our own reference frame. At least in my case, I have done dynamic and stress analysis on autocad inventor of firearms designs and done extensive smithing in my home shop, so I don’t need a safety course. But think about people you know especially here in downstate NY who may not ever have had a firearm in their hand before making the decision to buy one. That being said, I agree with shunning him from the community. The reason is the absolute extremism and disingenuosness of our enemies. They have an end goal of the destruction of 2A, as stated above in a “death by a thousand cuts” process. Look at where this POS Cuomo has taken NY, and ask yourself if that is reasonable. Among all the other horseshit in that law, think about the 7 round limit. Who is that against? Is a crimminal who is on his way to commiting armed robbery, and possibly murder going to not violate that law by loading only 7 rounds? What crap! So now instead of possible reasonable compromise, if they say white, I say black, if they say black, I say white. Fuck them!

  9. Those two links come across more macho aggressive than explanatory. You will never appeal to middle of the road America with that vocabulary as it only enforces the stereotypes purported by the Anti-Gun crowd. I understand that those blog posts were intended for gun rights supporters but they are in a public space. Phrases like “Blood Enemy” don’t serve to make a gun owner look rational and we will never get mainstream support if we as a community don’t look rational.

      1. Fair enough. Especially considering that the only people who will notice or be impacted by Dick’s firing are people who are already heavily involved in the gun community.

Comments are closed.