ForumGarden

You may have heard about this on the news recently.

Last month, Dick Metcalf published a column in Guns & Ammo cautiously explaining that gun enthusiasts should not necessarily oppose all limits on firearms ownership. "I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement [of the Second Amendment] in and of itself," Metcalf wrote. "But that's just me…"

The veteran firearms writer and his editor, Jim Bequette, thought that the article would "generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights," as Bequette later put it. Instead, it "aroused unprecedented controversy" among the gun rights crowd, Bequette acknowledged last week in a groveling apology to his readers. He went on to announce his resignation and Metcalf's firing.

So these intolerant, uncompromising tea-bagged-brained cowards cause a person whose been doing this job for decades to be tossed out because he didn't toe the line and had a short-lived desire to think critically.

What's most amusing to me is that many of these asshats would probably be accusing me of bullying them if they were to join ForumGarden - indeed a couple of them have probably done just that.

Former Gun Columnist: "Two Major Firearms Manufacturers" Got Me Canned | Mother Jones

So thats what you guys call Freedom of Speech.............I'll have have a large fries with that

This is right up there with the furor over an article where the (woman) writer opined that young women should avoid getting falling down drunk in public so they can keep their wits about them in case of predators.

The screams from the so called feminists were deafening. They said it blamed the victim and excused the rapists. I disagreed and said it was only common sense and that the author wasn't saying women *shouldn't* drink, just not to the point that they pass out and make themselves vulnerable. Man, did I get attacked for that.:-3

Bruv;1440396 wrote: So thats what you guys call Freedom of Speech.............I'll have have a large fries with that


Freedom of speech has nothing to do with being accountable for what you express. He was fired for expressing an opinion that is different than company policy. He wasn't jailed. Just like if you called your boss an idiot. He may be an idiot but you likely will lose your job. Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to that speech.

Wow Wisey........that sounded like I got your dander up.

In my opinion having the audacity to question the way your country handles important topics involving life and death issues,epitomises free speech.

According to the article he "cautiously explained that gun enthusiasts should not necessarily oppose all limits on firearms ownership"

"I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself," Metcalf wrote. "But that's just me…"

Not being able to express an opinion for fear of losing your job is not conducive to a free and fair society, more along the lines of old fashioned serfdom....

Bruv;1440422 wrote: Wow Wisey........that sounded like I got your dander up.

In my opinion having the audacity to question the way your country handles important topics involving life and death issues,epitomises free speech.

According to the article he "cautiously explained that gun enthusiasts should not necessarily oppose all limits on firearms ownership"

"I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself," Metcalf wrote. "But that's just me…"

Not being able to express an opinion for fear of losing your job is not conducive to a free and fair society, more along the lines of old fashioned serfdom....
Didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was just trying to express that if a person doesn't toe the company line they likely will lose their job. Do I think he should have been fired, heck no. Especially since it probably went through some if not many editors before it was published. He got fired because of the backlash of the gun rights people who were raising a ruckus and threatening to un subscribe from the magazine thinking it was turning against gun owners. He most likely will sue and make a lot of money over getting fired.

Fair enough, but everything you say makes it worse.

I am not arguing with you, just saying it shouldn't work that way, the tail is wagging the dog, the people with the money are pulling the strings.

Bruv;1440424 wrote: Fair enough, but everything you say makes it worse.

I am not arguing with you, just saying it shouldn't work that way, the tail is wagging the dog, the people with the money are pulling the strings.


That the source of the censorship is an external lobby does not make it anything other than censorship.

It is modern day slavery, they have swapped iron chains for economic chains.

Bruv;1440429 wrote: It is modern day slavery, they have swapped iron chains for economic chains.


Like it wouldn't happen to anyone, anywhere, working in the Private Sector? I find that hard to believe.

eta--just thought of those 2 dumb DJ's in Australia who pranked the nurse in England during the Royal Pregnancy. They were fired. I'm sure there are more examples anywhere in the world where someone deliberately or accidentally misspeaks in the Private Sector & loses their employment over it.

It's more fun to snipe on the US.

I can't think of any similar situation here that has got anybody fired, I might be wrong.........perhaps somebody could come up with one.

It wasn't as though he had done anything other than suggest a deviation from what you have now but with a few conditions.

He didn't even do that, Bruv. All Metcalf did was give his opinion on one small common sense condition of responsibility regarding legal carry. He even ended his comment with "but that's just me" which is like saying "I hope you'll excuse me for saying that".

But what really sticks in my craw about stuff like this is the hypocrisy that these cowards constantly cry about and erect the strawman argument of being bullied by everyone else, especially the big-bad-liberal-socialist-commie-black Hitler in the white[man's] house.

I realize, BTW, that not every gun owner is like these big-mouthed cowards.

YZGI;1440423 wrote: Didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was just trying to express that if a person doesn't toe the company line they likely will lose their job. Do I think he should have been fired, heck no. Especially since it probably went through some if not many editors before it was published. He got fired because of the backlash of the gun rights people who were raising a ruckus and threatening to un subscribe from the magazine thinking it was turning against gun owners. He most likely will sue and make a lot of money over getting fired.As he should!

What did he think was going to happen when he took the job for a publication that pushes an agenda of "everyone needs more guns - that's the solution to everything"? Did he not know that expressing an opinion contrary to that agenda would not be good for his job security?

Wandrin;1440461 wrote: What did he think was going to happen when he took the job for a publication that pushes an agenda of "everyone needs more guns - that's the solution to everything"? Did he not know that expressing an opinion contrary to that agenda would not be good for his job security?As he stated, this is a new trend.

In an interview on Sunday with Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show, Metcalf pointed out that similar columns he'd penned in the 1970s and 1980s for Shooting Times hadn't sparked anything close to such a controversy. "We expected we would generate a conversation," he said. "We didn't think we were going to incite a riot."Again, what he wrote was nothing.

As an aside, I wrongly thought I had rattled Wisey's cage, and Snooze has talked about my 'snipe on the US'

Why do you people across the pond take this 'pull up the drawbridge' stance, we are just discussing, it is not personal or anti American to talk about stuff.

I don't know what the fuss is all about really. All this bloke proved is that some of these gun lobbyists have a brain, thought processes and a willingness to compromise................... I'm more confused over that, it's shot my ideas about them down.

AnneBoleyn;1440446 wrote: Like it wouldn't happen to anyone, anywhere, working in the Private Sector? I find that hard to believe.

eta--just thought of those 2 dumb DJ's in Australia who pranked the nurse in England during the Royal Pregnancy. They were fired. I'm sure there are more examples anywhere in the world where someone deliberately or accidentally misspeaks in the Private Sector & loses their employment over it.


I think you've read something wrong some where along the line Anne. They weren't fired. In fact one of them just recieved an award .

Radio 'top jock' award for nurse death Australian prank DJ is 'disgraceful' says Keith Vaz - Australasia - World - The Independent

SnoozeAgain;1440451 wrote: It's more fun to snipe on the US.Oh, here we go with the "I'm an offended American" defense. A line of defense Accusable enjoyed invoking. Regardless of what you think of yourself, I know you're smarter than this.

Please, if you can't speak on the subject like an adult who doesn't become offended easily and be reasonable regarding criticism go post in a thread more favorable to your interests.

Stfua

SnoozeAgain;1440493 wrote: StfuaLookie here! A direct insult! Good job! Have you been in therapy?