Dick Metcalf (Guns & Ammo) in the NY Times

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    20,191
    96
    Spring
    The article is pretty lousy. To be sure, there's obfuscation - bringing up the dismissed murder charges against Venola, for example. That's to be expected from the NY Times. The biggest problem with the article, though, is that it misses THE fundamental problem with the Metcalf column. That column (which I hope everybody here has read) accepted the gun-banner's revisionist and wholly inaccurate re-definition of the term "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. His column treated "well-regulated" as equivalent to "limited by written rules", a mistake that no one who's been involved with guns for as long as Metcalf should *ever* make.

    When I read his column, I had to (figuratively) pick my jaw up off the floor. Dick simply doesn't get it. Maybe he never did or maybe, somewhere along the line, he somehow forgot it.

    Whatever the process by which he lost touch with the truth, we're better off without him.
     

    Calbear

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2013
    40
    1
    Austin
    The article is pretty lousy. To be sure, there's obfuscation - bringing up the dismissed murder charges against Venola, for example. That's to be expected from the NY Times. The biggest problem with the article, though, is that it misses THE fundamental problem with the Metcalf column. That column (which I hope everybody here has read) accepted the gun-banner's revisionist and wholly inaccurate re-definition of the term "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. His column treated "well-regulated" as equivalent to "limited by written rules", a mistake that no one who's been involved with guns for as long as Metcalf should *ever* make.

    When I read his column, I had to (figuratively) pick my jaw up off the floor. Dick simply doesn't get it. Maybe he never did or maybe, somewhere along the line, he somehow forgot it.

    Whatever the process by which he lost touch with the truth, we're better off without him.
    Agreed. You instantly lose all credibility as a gun rights supporter when you start citing the words "well regulated" in the second amendment as carte blanche for government regulations limiting gun ownership. It shows that you are just as foolish as the worst political offenders.
     

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    13,577
    96
    .......

    When I read his column, I had to (figuratively) pick my jaw up off the floor. Dick simply doesn't get it. Maybe he never did or maybe, somewhere along the line, he somehow forgot it.

    Whatever the process by which he lost touch with the truth, we're better off without him.

    that's what I don't get. I felt pretty betrayed by him but was I really? Did he ever fully support the 2A in the first place?
    I just assumed he did but boy was I wrong.

    good riddance...dick
     

    wakal

    Just Some Guy
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 88.9%
    8   1   0
    Mar 20, 2011
    1,538
    46
    Zephyr
    Know him personally. Rich little boy from a rich little family, like mafia with guns. Grade A asshole.
     
    Top Bottom