UPDATE: We have apologized to Dick Metcalf for the tone of this article, which was written before he responded to our request for comment. For more on his side of the story at the Aspen Ideas Festival, visit here: DICK METCALF RESPONDS, PART I: Admiration for GSL, says reporter “artfully” miscast facts on Metcalf’s Aspen Ideas appearance
Dick Metcalf, the long-time writer/editor/gun guru, stepped on his first name last year when he penned a December 2013 article in Guns and Ammo which suggested that gun owners surrender their gun rights in the name of “compromise” with gun-hating zealots.
That article set off a firestorm of criticism and quickly cost Metcalf his job with Guns and Ammo, and cost the publication some advertising revenues as the magazine itself was roundly criticized for even running the treacherous piece. People don’t pick up gun magazines to read their senior staff promote gun control.
Metcalf was royally upset when fired from the gun mag.
He remains upset to this day, appearing at the left-leaning (“understatement of the year” candidate description) Aspen Ideas Festival in recent days. The Atlantic did a long story on Metcalf’s appearance. Metcalf was a big hit among the (ahem) left-leaning audience.
What did he say?
He insulted gun owners repeatedly. He mused that his critics write in crayon. He claims some senior gun execs say that a third of their customers “shouldn’t be within five miles of a gun”.
Metcalf holds himself out to be a historian, but he would be a low-information historian. Metcalf doesn’t even know that “well-regulated” in Colonial times means well-disciplined, not “well regulated” as we understand it today as burdened by government regulations limiting (or requiring) actions. In Metcalf’s seemingly addled mind, he thinks “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment means well regulated by government intrusion.
He also equates gun ownership with car ownership, as if a God-given right recognized in the Constitution equates with the privilege of driving a car.
Metcalf goes on to slander the NRA, claiming their numbers of crayon-scribbling members are inflated and inaccurate.
Unfortunately for Dick Metcalf and Michael Bloomberg, all of those checks written to the NRA in crayon cash just fine.
Despite his fall from grace, Dick Metcalf was, as of last year, President of PASA Park in Barry, IL. PASA is the home of the Masters pistol shooting championship and the USPSA national championships. An email asking if Metcalf was still el presidente at PASA has not been returned.
Here’s a teaser from the piece.
…Metcalf analyzed his downfall this morning with Atlantic Media editorial director Ronald Brownstein before a standing-room-only crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival (put on by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic). The nidus was a back-page opinion column that carried the incendiary headline, “Let’s Talk Limits.” It was a headline that, like so many headlines, was not written by the author, and that many vocal detractors did not read past.
Better yet, instead of reading The Atlantic’s piece which paints Metcalf as some sort of victim in his own demise, head over to The Truth About Guns and read the in-depth analysis from Mike McDaniel. It’s long, but a good read.
Back in the day, Dick Metcalf penned an article for Guns & Ammo advocating infringements on the Second Amendment. The Powers That Be fired Metcalf and the magazine’s editor. Anti-gun activists immediately leaped to Metcalf’s defense. They used his dismissal to try to prove that the supporters of firearms freedom are intolerant hypocrites that will not tolerate “dialogue” or the slightest dissent within their own ranks. Where hypocrisy is concerned, such people have no peers, for they demand that in any “dialogue” or discussion of Second Amendment issues, those that support liberty must accept their premises and goals as a starting point . . .
Metcalf wasn’t fired for presenting a contrary point of view. His employment was terminated because he made fundamental errors of history, tone, language and tactics. He badly misstated the history of the Second Amendment and its purpose. In his phrasing and syntax, he mirrored the arguments of anti-gun politicians and activists; his language demonstrated a sloppiness and lack of understanding of the construction of the Second Amendment. He used the precise, deceptive tactics of the gun-banners, arguing for their goals much as they do.
Predictably, it wasn’t long before the New York Times and others used Metcalf to attack Second Amendment supporters. He expressed sorrow and concern that he was excommunicated from the firearms community. Rather than making amends, though, he continued to denigrate those he purports to wish to serve. Now he’s done again in “Why We Can’t Talk About Gun Control.” Interviewed in The Atlantic, Metcalf remains unrepentant, and apparently, clueless…
After reading McDaniel’s piece, you won’t even want anything to do with Dick Metcalf or anything he is associated with.