Guns & Ammo Magazine editor Jim Bequette resigned for having an opinion on gun control. Bequette ran a column by Dick Metcalf, a gun owner and gun rights advocate, who simply stated that “way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement.”
Bequette’s apology was published earlier today, and is filled with regret about publishing Metcalf’s opinion that guns should, you know, maybe not be available freely to man, woman, and child and that maybe, just maybe, there should be some restrictions. The full apology which you can read here boils down to this:
“In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition (of guns), and for that I apologize. 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 I ask your forgiveness.”
Metcalf’s article which you can read in full here (PDF) simply states that the original constitutional amendments have always been regulated and that guns are no exceptions, which is a perfectly rational thing to say, unless you have some metal penis envy syndrome and want to, I dunno, just shoot the living sh*t out of people that disagree with you. Like a tooootally rational human being. Disagree with me on this article? Come shoot me!
A real argument is brewing over on the Guns & Ammo Facebook page, with reader Vince Wade saying:
I am saddened and disappointed by your decision to fire Dick Metcalf. Ultimately, it makes us look like a bunch of ignorant extremists who have no knowledge of the current status of constitutional case law in general and 2nd Amendment case law in particular.
I am a pro-gun rights activist who has taken the time to educate myself on the current state of 2nd Amendment legal issues – and as far we know at this point he is dead on. The 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection of the highest level to the right of law abiding, sane citizens to keep and bear arms. However, just as with other rights given the highest level of protection SOME regulation is going to be allowed. For instance, the landmark 2008 Heller decision made it clear that government can prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms. It also defines the weapons that are protected as those “in common use” by the public. While this will undoubtedly result in many bans on so called “assault weapons” being overturned, you still do not have a right to own a cannon or a fully armed F16. At least not according to SCOTUS – and in practical terms, that is what matters.
Metcalf, on the other hand, hasn’t publicly replied.