Guns & Ammo Official Response to Metcalf Article

I just received the official response from Guns & Ammo regarding the Dick Metcalf article in the December 2013 issue. This is an exclusive breaking story.

Guns & Ammo official reponse


MAC is an avid shooter, former MCSF Marine, NRA member, Oath Keeper and is commissioned as a Colonel by the Governor of Kentucky. Known for his videos on the Military Arms Channel, he also writes for The Bang Switch, for Shotgun News (Be Ready!) and freelances for Guns & Ammo. MAC has been a life long shooter who has an interest in all things that go "bang" but gravitates towards military type firearms.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle PlusYouTube

  • Disciple of Night

    Wow. That didn’t take long. You’d think that after what happened to Cheaper Than Dirt, some companies would be a little more careful what they publish, just as a business measure. Then again, a man’s entitled to his opinion.

    • Douglas Ortego

      He sure is. There are consequences to all we say or do.

    • Gimpy

      Please forgive my ignorance, but what happened with Cheaper Than Dirt?

      • Dave Calhoun

        If I remember correctly, when the whole brouhaha over a second proposed AWB came up, CTD was one of the first to hop on the Dick’s Sporting Goods bandwagon and stop rifle sales. They also tried to cash in on the run on magazines by upping prices to insane levels. The gun community, shal we say, was not amused, and they lost a butt-ton of business over it. Many (myself included) still have not gone back.

        • Jordan

          I will never go back which is actually inconvinient for me because i live within 25 miles of their mckinney tx. Gun store

          • Bob Anderson

            I haven’t purchased from CTD since they stopped the AR sales and started scalping their rim-fire ammo. They will get no more business from me.

            • magyud

              The scalping was by far even worse than the stopping of AR sales.

          • N703

            If I recall correctly, the two locations in the DFW area are not affiliated with the online seller, except by name. I’m not 100%, but I recall reading somewhere that the stores prices on the same items wasn’t even close to the online store’s prices during “the panic”, and when asked, they confirmed their affiliation by name only.

            If I’m incorrect, please let me know as I do live 20min south of the McKinney location.


        • Charles Cherry

          Nope, neither have I

          • SDH

            Yeah I’ve signed them off also they wanted $99. For a pmag, screw them.

        • Dave doesn’t remember correctly

          You are very wrong.
          CTD temporarily stopped firearm sales because their website couldn’t handled the thousands of online orders. Like many internet retailers CTD didn’t show “real time” inventory of firearms, ammunition or magazines.

          They stopped sales until they could update their ordering process.

          If you read their actual “Dear customer” press release rather than internet rumor you would know this.

          • reply to jackwagon

            @Dave doesn’t remember correctly, I see you conveniently bypassed Dave’s comment on magazine price scalping, or do you think $50+ pmag offerings was concern for their “Dear customers”?? Not ever doing business with CTD again either by the way. All the way with you on this one, Dave.

            • Chief58

              Their P Mags were as high as $100 at one time not just $50..I haven’t been back to that site since I saw that $100 P Mag..

          • Jeff Henderson

            Can’t believe you bought that story. Or are you a CTD hack?

            Here it is straight from their mouths:


            Go ahead and defend that.

          • mark c

            They published that letter after they had said they are stopping all sales of ‘assault weapons’ because of the recent events, that letter was an attempt to cover their rear but was a poor attempt. Combine that with the gouging of ammo and accessories they will not be getting any business from me

          • jmike50

            Well, without regard to why they stopped firearms sales they continued to rape their customer base on magazines and ammo. And that is the reason CTD is so hated and despised by their customers.

          • sam

            i don’t think you read it. if you did, your comprehension is off.

          • Paul

            But, that doesn’t make their prices right. They are higher than Gander Mountain times 2. I read their reasons for the page being down but wouldn’t and won’t give them the time of day with all their high prices.

          • Robert Moody

            $99 for a used aluminum mag for an AR. I will never do business with them again.

          • Kicking Brass

            That is completely false and a poor excuse. This was their original post:

            “Cheaper Than Dirt! is suspending online sales of firearms effective immediately. We are reviewing our policy internally, and will continue to be the leader in the outdoor industry with our full line of gear and accessories.”

            Cleaning it up after the fallout is disingenuous.

            Other websites that did not have live inventory did not suspend sales to review policy. And then add in the gouging. CTD is done.

          • David Hauser

            Excuse me, but YOU are wrong. When that debacle happened, I had a brand new rifle on order from them, all paid for in-advance, to be shipped to my FFL. They called me to tell me they had cancelled the order, claiming they’d accidentally sold it to someone else after I’d already paid them THREE WEEKS beforehand!

            So I asked to order another rifle, and the price had TRIPLED. So I asked them to just send the extra magazines I’d ordered at the same time and had wanted shipped with the rifle. They old me they had cancelled the ENTIRE order and those magazines would now cost $56.00 each instead of $14.99.

            Between that incident and the FOUR-WAREHOUSE dealy-doo they’ve set up which creates massive shipping charges unless you only order from one warehouse, CTD has ruined what was once a great source.

          • Druanna (@Druannawow)

            They put that flimsy excuse out well AFTER they started getting hit with the tidal wave of backlash and realized they had just lost a ton of business.
            Had it actually been about what that excuse claimed, they would have posted it on the website simultaneously with the action of taking the rifles down. But they didn’t – because that wasn’t the reason – as their facebook status update proved.

            Don’t mistake backpedaling excuses for truth.

          • 2ASupport

            actually CTD pulled all firearms after the Sandy Hook incident. anyone who has knee jerk business practices like this deserve no business from 2A supporters. i dont know where you heard about website issues, but you are severely misinformed on the matter.

      • lm

        CTD, as I recall being a customer at the time it happened, suspended sales because prices on items in the open market were rising faster than their system could handle. They made an economic decision to revamp both for effective service and to ensure they could capture the increased value of their inventory. Anybody who has a problem with a retailer capturing the going market rate would seem to have lost the plot on free market enterprise. It was merely supply and demand.

        • RPM509

          In that case, my demand for CTD products has hit an all-time low.

    • Brig

      I just found this. IMHO this is another ‘Don Imus’ moment. A guy speaks his honest opinion and is crucified. What’s the difference between the 2nd amendment crowd and the venomous left?

      • sootsme

        Guns & Ammo represents themselves as a voice for the pro firearms and 2nd Amendment friendly community. Anything other than “…shall not be infringed.” is contrary to their stated position, and should definitely not be coming from their paid staff. If they wish to entertain guest writers with differing opinions, that is another matter…

    • David

      He is entitled to his opinion but we subscribers to the magazine don’t want to hear it because we are paying for it. I can hear that garbage for free on my local media every day.

  • Smi

    Definitely the only acceptable response to this situation.

  • Erik Polta

    Good riddance!!

  • Rob.G

    Apology accepted!

    • MAC

      I agree, they did the right thing.

      • PeterK

        I’m glad they did. I grew up on this magazine, would be sad to see it ruined.

        • Charles Cherry

          Same here, when others were buying marvel my nose was in a gun rag. Had it rolled up in the back pocket between classes in high school

          • Kurt ONeill

            Try taking a gun magazine to school these days!

      • BHirsh

        Looks like the editor who passed that piece of junk got the axe, too….

    • bigred2989


  • Pingback: BREAKING NEWS: Guns & Ammo responds to Metcalf article()

  • Holyface

    The nut jobs over at CSGV are having a field day over this.

  • Brian Lepkowski

    Shezzam. The people have spoken.

  • Tony

    Wow, the advertisers must have started backing out quickly or their FaceBook page must have been swamped. There is no room for compromise with the 2nd Amendment, we get nothing out of it except our rights are stripped away.

  • http://facebook larry

    I followed Dick along time and still cannot believe this is happening. Apology accepted.

  • The Loyal Dog

    Is this guy losing his job? If he okayed the article, he should bear just as much responsibility for the content as the guy who wrote it. That just doesn’t sit right with me …

    • Dan

      Yes, as he stated, he was planning on leaving in January, but is being immediately replaced.

      • The Loyal Dog

        Oh! I’m sorry! I confused the names halfway through the article and thought that Metcalfe was the one being let off immediately. Sorry to waste your time!

  • Reef Blastbody

    I’m reminded of the Roman tradition of falling on one’s sword as the ultimate form of atonement for transgression.

  • Joel Taylor

    There can be no compromise with the gun banners. This isn’t just a stubborn stance. It is survival. For many years the gun banners have demanded that we compromise with them and we have. They then turn around and put up more laws and demand more compromise. Their strategy is simple, Compromise us to death. They never honor any compromise we make with them but merely demand more. They paint us as unreasonable because we refuse to compromise. We have been compromising for almost 100 years and all it has gotten us is a steady deterioration of our rights. You cannot compromise with those who will not honor the compromise. The compromising is over and it is now, “from my cold dead hands.”

    • Paul Skvorc


    • Zach

      Bingo Joel!

    • sootsme

      To put it in simple terms, when you play win-win with sharks you get to be shark food…

  • Robert Kovac

    This should prove to those who question the power and speed of social media, that the people do have some control. It is unfortunate that Dick was terminated and Jim is stepping down early but these are delicate times to be messing with our Constitutional rights.

  • Jim Adkins

    While I will accept the apology, I wonder how they missed the fact this would enrage gun owners. We are being attacked from all sides. It seems the powers in DC are determined to blame all gun owners for every crime committed with a firearm. We’re looking for a safe haven, a place where we feel we’re among friends. A place we can learn, discuss and advance responsible gun ownership, not where they want to restrict and limit our 2nd amendment rights. It will take some convincing for me to renew my subscription.

  • Jacob O.

    This is nonsense. I have been saying what Metcalf said for years. Go to these open carry states and start hanging around ranges with these gun owners. Do you guys really want every swinging dick to start shooting when someone robs a wal-mart while you are there. I have personally seen how well the average owner can shoot these days. I am sorry i am HUGE supporter of our right to bear arms but these days no one is taking time to learn how to handle and shoot their weapon correctly. MAC you can tell these people hard it is to accurately hit your target quickly and in a defensive manner when you have minimal practice. Taking a course will not hurt you. it will weed out the very immature and recklessly dangerous potential gun owners. Responsibility is key. This is just one way to show it.

    • will cor

      false: no one is advocating for total citizen armament. also, false : gun related accidents have been declining for decades while gun ownership has been rising. todays gun owners like to be informed, and like to practice safely.

      • Michael Ross

        Wrong. Gun SALES are up, not gun ownership.

        • http://Wood Aidan

          Actually Michael both are up… admittedly gun sales are up more than ownership but new gun owners are joining the ranks everyday.

          • Crustyrusty

            I’m sure that the increase in gun ownership is on the down low… COMSEC and all that. The pollsters don’t need to know.

    • J Hutson

      yes it is key, but we must not allow government to hold that key lest they lock our guns up over ever expanding requirements. Giving the government the ability to regulate arms, training requirements or anything relating to the 2A, is like giving the fox a key to the henhouse. As has been shown by our compromise, the more we compromise, the more they demand and restrict. Everyone should train, but we should not allow government to decide what is enough in order to be able to bear arms.

    • NateMA

      I agree. I have seen very unsafe practices at ranges before, and everybody has seen the news stories of people dying in accidents. Matt posted a piece on this site earlier today about a woman who died shooting a .500 magnum. It is idiot moves like that that give anti-gunners more evidence to use to take away the 2nd amendment. The more of those we can prevent the better. Learning has never hurt anybody.

    • D. Hide

      You must have missed a lot of the responses to the article, which apply to your statement here as well: Government-required training serves only as another hoop to jump through and another roadblock to be closed off whenever they feel like it. Between states with Government-required training and those with no or very little required training at all to obtain a CCW (CHP, CPL, whatever) there is no difference in the rate of firearm-related accidents. It’s not only useless, but harmful in precisely the same slippery-slope way magazine capacity bans have been.

      That’s a big reason why people got so mad, another is the shock of hearing it come from such a long-time no-compromise kinda guy in a magazine they’ve come to trust (I’ve never read it myself and am not subscribed). In any case, I’m ready to bury the whole issue with G&A. The apology is here and sincere, the future will be better.

      • Jacob O.

        you make a very valid point and i didnt think of that.

      • sootsme

        “Between states with Government-required training and those with no or very little required training at all to obtain a CCW (CHP, CPL, whatever) there is no difference in the rate of firearm-related accidents.”

        What part of “…shall not be infringed.” refers to “(CCW, (CHP, CPL, whatever)”? Compromise is compromise in any form whatsoever, and strictly against our Supreme Law of the Land, as well as Nature’s pre-existing Law that any being may do what they will to ensure their own safety and well being, short of compromising that of another. In our Founders’ day, I would have been thought redundant for even saying this. How far we have fallen…

    • Obrien Jamas

      bull….. HUGE supporters fo right to bear arms understand that the gun control movement uses every suggestion of compromise to push further towards total bans. Responsible gun owners in this country do not have a record of creating mayhem at your local walmart… Why? Because such actions bring consequences. The gun problem in this country lies with the criminal element who do not pay attention to any laws or regulation. This is why you have tough gun control cities like Chicago and Washington DC piling up bodies, and places with open carry or shall issue CCW with little to no gun violence.

      • sootsme

        You might better ask: “Have you seen how some cops shoot?” See LA and NYC in particular. I am aware of very few, if any, reports of lawful civilians freaking out with guns, or shooting folks that aren’t asking for it.

    • Charles Cherry

      Jacob, in order for me to accept your premise based on this statement, “seen how well the average owner can shoot” you are going to have to show your support data. There is no historical data of armed citizens missing their mark and hitting a bystander. This needs to be stated over and over, firearm ownership should never be based on a score of the number of bullet holes in a target.

    • NateMA

      We accept having to take a safety test, they accept CCW reciprocity across all 50 states and get rid of “may-issue” like here in Massachusetts. You have to give to get in politics.

      • http://Wood Aidan

        My problem with this is who’s idea of safety are we going to abide by? I keep loaded,unlocked, fire arms in my house for protection. I know many people who would cringe at the thought. I don’t wear gloves or eye pro when I go shooting… 15yrs in the military and I shot the same way. Now people post pics of them at a range without eye pro on social media sites and they’re instantly blasted by other gun owners,

        • NateMA

          You have every right to do that. I do the same. However, when my 3 year old nephew and his mother comes over my house to visit I make sure they are all in a safe, have a trigger lock on it, or in a holster on my hip because kids get into things and the last thing I want is for him to find one and shoot himself.

      • Druanna (@Druannawow)

        I’m sorry, but there is no “give to get” with natural rights.
        Once you “give”, it’s no longer a right, it’s a privilege.
        Privileges can be revoked.

    • Hathaway Noa

      There is no ‘but’ in our right to bear arms. Your straw-man argument has little basis in fact. Go away.

      • Jacob O.

        I dont think you know what straw man means.

    • James

      You are absolutely correct. We should also start requiring training and certification before you are allowed to practice your chosen religion, protest the government, or practice free speech. It is only right, because the pen is mightier than the sword, and religion causes problems all over the world.

      • Jacob O.

        putting those in the same category is asinine.

        • Chip

          “putting those in the same category is asinine.”


    • Kurt ONeill

      Nothing wrong with personal responsibility. Everything wrong with government dictating what your responsibility is…

      • NateMA

        The government makes laws against child neglect. It is a personal responsibility for a person to provide and care for their child. So by your logic there should not be any laws punishing child neglect.

        • Jimmy CZechSix

          “The government makes laws against child neglect…”
          Rights stop when the exercise of those rights negatively effects another. Drinking myself into a stupor on my sofa is full and well within my rights, it is only when I jump into my car and put others in danger that the government may intervene.

          Peaceably walking down the street armed for my own protection is again, full and well, within my rights. It’s only IF my use of that firearm puts others in danger or causes harm to another that the government may intervene.

          Your “child neglect” example is a poor one as that is an action(or rather inaction) which negatively effects another. In that case, another which you are charged with the responsibility and safety of. I have no legal obligation(though a moral obligation is a different story) to see to the needs of a neglected child that is not mine/in my charge.

        • sootsme

          The neglect occurs long before some kid finds a gun and gets in trouble with it. Our kids grew up with loaded guns in the house, and knew what they were about from the beginning. They also knew even before that not to mess with anything that did not belong to them without asking first. Also, they were supervised by their mom and myself at all times until they were old enough to have demonstrated that they could be trusted. This is called responsible parenting, which often requires turning off the idiot box and actually paying attention, interacting, and teaching by example. Radical stuff, eh?

    • Colsrob

      Like it or not but, those “swinging dicks” have rights too. Not rights that they are allowed by the likes of you or someone in an official position, but the natural rights that they are born with, which are ‘protected’ by the Constitution.

      You may not like it but you SHOULD be fighting for their rights as they are the very same ones that you wish to take advantage of. If you think otherwise then, you are no better than the gun grabbers that use the very same language to try and justify their actions…rights be damned.

    • Kevin J. Kehoe

      Bull crap when I have had the fat blue line tell me I have no need to practice , cause if I shoot u I am exempt.
      There is way more to worry about with them because they like killing and are poor shots.
      Exemptions exist but the line is silent.

    • Chip

      “… i am HUGE supporter of our right to bear arms but…”

      You lost it at the But. You can’t be supportive of a Right and at the same time allow restrictions. You support the Right, or you Don’t. It really is that simple. Either you trust your fellow man with Firearms, or you don’t.

    • Longbow


      Are you some form of superior being who believes he knows better than others do about what is best for themselves. Would YOU go shooting up a WalMart at the slightest provocation? No? So the problem isn’t with you, its with all those OTHER people, who aren’t…you.

      You have personally seen how the average shooters can shoot these days? That means you see yourself as above average. That means that everybody who isn’t…you… should have to submit to a background check, performed by you, and training standards dictated by you, and then get a permission slip granted benevolently, by you.

      You are a huge supporter of the right to bear arms, but, but, but…! But you don’t really mean it. What you mean is that people should be allowed to have their toys IF DADDY/GOVERNMENT/YOU grant them permission to do so..

      You are correct in one statement, Taking a course of training would not hurt you. It would be beneficial in most cases. What you said though, is “…it will weed out the very immature and recklessly dangerous potential gun owners.” Excuse me? Potential Gun Owners? And that is to be decided by.. YOU?

      Hey Jacob, I’ll say the same thing to you that I would say to Metcalf if he was here.

      Go fuck yourself.

      • Jacob O.

        You missed the point entirely. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” -Abe Lincoln.

    • Pete

      Give an example where CCP shooter injured or killed an innocent by-stander. Last time I checked, it was LEO’s shooting innocent folks, or even themselves. Remember the cop who shot himself in the foot while speaking to elementary kids about gun safety?

    • John Pas

      “I have personally seen how well the average owner can shoot these days.”

      If that is the litmus test to determine suitability for carry, disarm the majority of LEOs.

      “Carry for me but not for thee” seems to be your motto and slippery slope is your style.

  • Pingback: BREAKING: Guns and Ammo Magazine Fires Long Time Editor Dick Metcalf Following Gun Control Column()

  • Mark7Seven

    There IS justice in the world!

  • David Planchon

    I would think the editor should take more responsibility in that ultimately he knew what he was printing and still printed it. It’s probably true he doesn’t agree with Dick’s opinion but then why let him publish such a piece, at least in such a manner leaving no room for counter points.
    Personally and professionally, if one of my employees were Dick and I had given my blessing to the publication my head would have been on the block right next to his.

  • NateMA

    I can see Dick suing the pants off G&A for a 1st amendment violation over this. He says something that his boss doesn’t agree with and he gets fired. Seems like he could have a case for free speech violation

    • J Hutson

      They didn’t violate his 1A, he said his piece. There are consequences for your words, especially in a gun magazine that’s pro gun, taking an anti stance isn’t smart.

    • Stephen

      so why did you publish it anyways? you knew it was bad! But you published it anyways, why? Excuses, excuses excuses!
      I am done with your rag, let the sheep read on!!
      If you published it, you agree with what he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      this rag is starting to sound like my congresscritter!!!
      Sad day as I bid you farewell

    • Sez Eye

      not sure why you see a 1st amendment violation. No one has taken away his ability to say what he wants. What appears to have happened is a severing of a business relationship. Dick has no constitutional right to force G&A to print his articles.

    • Dan Cannon

      The First Amendment protects your right to free speech from the government, not private entitities such as your employer. Things you say, can and should have an impact on your career.

    • Matt in FL

      The First Amendment deals with the prevention of free speech by the government. It has nothing to do with what is said or not said at G&A or anywhere else private. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    • NateMA

      I didn’t say I think he has a GOOD case, Haha. It’s because part of the 1st amendment is that a person needn’t fear repercussion if he says something that does not cause harm to another. He can TRY, probably won’t get anywhere though, since it is a private publication and the editor DID have to sign off on publishing it.

      • Matt

        Nate, the 1st Amendment is not applicable in a magazine just as it is not applicable on a website, such as Facebook (huge history of censoring conservative pages). Both are private property, just as a magazine is. The 1st Amendment only protects your right to public free speech.

        • NateMA

          Thank you for clarifying. And thank you for your service as an officer of the law.

    • DCox

      Good grief, NateMA, do you even know what the 1st Amendment states? How in the world can you even make a comment that a person working for someone can say/write something contrary to the company’s values, be fired, and for a moment think this is what the 1st Amendment is about?

      It is total constitutional illiteracy like this among U.S. citizens that has gotten us into this defensive posture regarding the 2nd Amendment. I don’t mean to come across rude, but man. Please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are for you, me, and our posterity.

    • Ralph

      This has nothing to do with free speech, the owner of the mag can do what he wants and fire anyone he wants and it still hase nothing at all to do with the 1st Amendment!

    • Tim

      NateMA – have you read the 1st amendment lately? Nothing in the 1st amendment restricts an employer’s right to fire an employee over any reason at all (unless that employer happens to be the government). Congress didn’t fire Dick. The government didn’t fire or censor Dick. And if you think this is come kind of 1st amendment violation, you must not know Dick.

    • NateMA

      Guess I learned to never think out loud on the internet. Thanks guys for showing me my ignorance! I love how we can have a civil conversation without any name calling or insults!

      • Terry S.

        Don’t forget, now days civil discourse without vilifying seems to be the dominion of only the conservative American. It never works with a liberal. We all need to remember that, while we all may have a slightly different slant, most everyone on this site is passionate about our 2A rights. That should be all of our over riding concern and unifying objective

        • Rational Skeptic

          “…civil discourse without vilifying seems to be the dominion of only the conservative American. It never works with a liberal.”

          Whua?!?!?? Are you saying that only American Conservatives refrain from demonizing and name calling, but American Liberals actively demonize and name-call? I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying here.

          What I read is that you believe all Conservatives engage in civil discourse, while Liberals create monsters out of molehills; examples of Liberals demonizing/name-calling would be how they said universal healthcare would create death panels, how Obama isn’t a real citizen and wants to enforce Socialistic/Communistic/Tyrannistic rule, and that the UN is coming for your guns… Wait, I can’t remember if those are liberal arguments or conservative talking points… Whatevs.

        • jay

          Did you just say that out loud? This being somewhat an echo chamber and all..but DID YOU JUST SAY THAT OUT LOUD?? Do you believe it? Dafuq!

    • Vanessa

      Not true. Metcalf was a paid employee. Free speech is one thing but, when you are working for someone as a writer, you don’t get carte blanche and write something that is in direct opposition to the company you work for. Besides, he already wrote the piece. he got his “free speech”. Guns and Ammo did the right thing by showing him the door.

      If Metcalf tries to sue, then he only confirms what is the truth. He has zero idea of the Constitution. Then again, this is 2013. He may show up at a news conference with Gloria Allred, tears streaming down his cheeks. Ugh.

      • Ralph

        Well stated, the 1st amendment is about protecting ‘we the people’ from the government restricting our rights to speech or worship.

  • Michael Ross

    Hm. Well, forget about everything I’d previously written about maybe considering subscribing to G&A. A bunch of psychotic Larry Pratt types is all it takes you to wet your pants and terminate a longtime employee? That’s pathetic and sad.

    Hopefully what you’ll take away from this is that, when you try to please everyone, you please none. You started off being hated by the juvenile absolutists who think anyone who suggests an AR-15 is not a toy, and now you’re going to be hated by everyone else for letting those aforementioned juveniles so easily silence you.

  • Pingback: Guns and Ammo = Anti gunner - Page 3()

  • Mark7Seven

    I’m genuinely surprised by all the “go along to get along” ready to compromise types that subscribe here. We’ve compromised enough and it’s time to stand up for the Constitution and by God for common sense too.

    Metcalf did gun owners a disservice with what he wrote. He isn’t paid to work for the anti-gun side of things as a contributor to G&A. If he wants to do that I’m sure there is a place for him over at the “Puffington Host”.

    I don’t buy the magazine and have found the TV show to be more about a 30 min. Infomercial than an educational show. Especially the on camera parts that Metcalf does. Was there EVER a gun he didn’t like?

    His departure seems appropriate and warranted. IF he’s any good as a writer then maybe another magazine or blog will pick him up. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

  • Christopher Cherrone

    Why am I being told this is a fake ad?? That no official statement has been made??

  • BlindGunGuy

    MAC, don’t you write for shotgun news (or atleast contribute)? Aren’t they part of the the same company? Just wondering if your still involved with this company, seems like a potential conflict of interest.

    • Matt

      I’ll bite. Where is there a conflict of interest? In what sense?

  • D. Hide

    I’ve never read nor subscribed to G&A myself, but I guess this has opened another can of worms in terms of how strongly we believe in our Right to keep and bear arms.

    When you’re at the range or out hunting, that’s one thing. If you’re in an emergency, that’s another thing. But like someone said previously, this is about survival. If you agree to some regulation, you agree to all of it. Of course you don’t actually agree with all of it, but unfortunately, you don’t have that choice once you decide to compromise – The decision is made for you.

    Some of the responses may seem stubborn or “too strong”, but it is precisely because the opposition is so relentless and unforgiving that has driven many of us to this stance. It is because the opposition has no interest in real common sense or true compromise, but instead full disarmament with no exceptions, that I believe we can’t afford to give them a single inch.

    • Paul Skvorc

      Correct! There is ONE THING and one thing ONLY that keeps us from the same fate as those in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: THE SECOND AMENDMENT! There are THOUSANDS of IDIOTS like Metcalf in the ranks of gun ownership in the US. Were it not for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to “Keep and Bear Arms”, you can bet YOUR LIFE that the “compromisers” would have already sold us into slavery or worse.

      NO COMPROMISE on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. NONE!

  • Ruth Ruth

    So, you approve the article for publishing, and then when there is backlash you throw him under the bus? You sir are an absolute spineless asshole,

    • Lee Ann

      BRAVO! You see this situation exactly the same way as I do Ruth. I’m the editor of the newsletter for a pro 2A organization and if one of the people under me submitted an article to our newsletter that was contrary to our mission I would summarily reject it and, at the very least, question them about it. If they stood by their anti-2A position, I would immediately ask for their resignation. I would NEVER contemplate publishing it and if I did, I would expect to be dismissed from my position immediately!

      Nope – no more G&A for me. They’re only apologizing because they got caught with their pants down. In magazine publishing there are meetings upon meetings about exactly which articles will be published. Then there is the layout department, etc. If I were in layout I’d go to the publisher in charge – in other words – Jim Bequette’s employer and point out the Metcalf article. There are many people that are complicit in Metcalf’s article being published.

    • jay

      I wonder if you fully read and interpreted the apology letter from the G&A editor completely? Both Bob Metcalf AND Jim Bequette are leaving the magazine. I think it fair to leave both his spine and asshole intact and unmolested for now..He’ll need it while filling out job applcations and such..

  • Ray Jackson

    Right Decision…apology accepted. Don’t let the traders infiltrate our fight for our freedom.

  • Roger

    This is a very well written apology that I can accept.
    I am really glad the magazine stepped up and made the right decision to terminate Metcalf.
    I will continue my subscription.

  • Loren Watts

    Jim Bequette Is either lying or thinks gun owners are fools. He is the editor and claims to support the second amendment. Then lets the ridiculous Metcaff article get published. Did they own a collage dictionary or take 9 grade civic’? The truth must be they have moved to the progressive elites why of thinking, that they know better than us simpletons.
    If you want to convince me of your commitment to the cause. The magazine owners should fire the editor with Metcaff or donate 2 million to the SAF. Until then G&A will sit next to the NY Times at the bottom of the bird cage..

  • Carl

    Wrong. Gun sales are up because there are a lot of first time buyers. Women are one of the leading categories of gun buyers, many of them are first time buyers.

  • Pingback: BREAKING: Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal | The Truth About Guns()

  • Pingback: MAC gets scoop on Metcalf()

  • blainenayBlaine Nay

    It seems to me that Dick Metcalf was scapegoated. This willingness to compromise away gun rights is deeper at Guns & Ammo than one writer. His boss accepts a bit of responsibility for printing Metcalf’s essay in favor of gun control. But only one head rolled — Metcalf’s. I hope there will be much more introspection at Guns & Ammo regarding the Constitution and the God-given rights it would protect if followed.

  • SomeGuyInSandy

    It seems that simply firing, or otherwise cutting ties with Mr. Metcalf. would be the “right” thing to do, but wait. We do have freedom of speech, and a right to our opinions, both of which G&A endorsed by allowing the article to be published. So who’s worse here? Someone who expressed his opinion, or someone who facilitated the dissemination of that idea and then fires the author when their readership objects?

    • MAC

      Did someone deny Mr. Metcalf his 1st Amendment freedoms? I don’t believe they did. He said exactly what was on his mind and for that he brought down the fury of the gun community onto himself. The problem is, Mr. Metcalf made his comments in a privately owned magazine. That magazine has absolutely no obligation to print your comments or anyone else’s, and if they don’t like what you say they have every right to terminate your employment. It’s like private property. You’re perfectly free to say whatever you want on public property, but the moment you step foot into my house you abide by my rules. You can check your 1st Amendment rights at the door. If you insult my wife, you will be shown the door and I have every right to kick you out. Mr. Metcalf is free to start his own magazine or blog and print whatever his heart desires.

  • Mike Oliver

    Looks like a heartfelt apology. I can accept that. However, I canceled my subscription as a result of Mr. Metcalf’s poorly directed editorial and I am undecided on whether I will subscribe again to G&A. Something is still not sitting right with me on this whole thing and until I figure it out, I will hold what I got. It’s probably due to the fact that we have not seen the full extent of the damage Mr. Metcalf brought on by organizations like the Brady Foundation. In any case, I will be out shooting my XDS-45 and XDS-9 tomorrow after just receiving them back from Springfield Armory. Up until now, they have put more rounds through these pistols than I have and that is just wrong! Something I aim to fix tomorrow.

  • Joel Taylor

    I am amused by some of the comments here about open carry states and government mandated training. I live in an state that has open carry and no requirement for a license for concealed carry. I have heard all the “blood in the streets” and “shoot outs at Walmart’ arguments and none of it happened when we became a Constitutional carry state.
    It seems to me to be rather arrogant to assume that because a person open carries that he has no training. I believe in training. My father was an LEO and a Federal firearms trainer. My training began when I started walking. I have openly carried all my adult life (over 36 years now) and only carry concealed when open carry is socially unacceptable. The only time I have ever had to draw a weapon I was carrying concealed and the incident most likely wouldn’t have happened had I been open carrying. I know for a fact that my openly carried weapon has prevented incidents just by being visible.
    These people who demand government mandated training and licenses to carry a weapon forget a very important point. When you allow the government to say who may or may not carry or own a weapon you have given them the power to say nobody may own or carry a weapon. You have essentially surrendered your Second Amendment rights to whoever is in power. This is evident in states with “may issue” permitting as opposed to “shall issue” states. In some states you must provide a reason to carry or have a “permission slip” from your Sheriff. You have given someone else the right to arbitrarily deny you the right to defend yourself.
    There will always be idiots who strap on a gun without proper training just as there will always be idiots on the road who can’t drive. I refuse to surrender my rights because of the actions of a few idiots. I also deny your right to surrender them for me.

    • Hathaway Noa

      It’s an elitist view of the 2A, and a straw-man argument. Like you said, their statements have little basis in fact. It’s pushed by liberal gun owners who are no friends of the 2A.

  • Jay Cook

    Two more bite the dust…

  • Pingback: Dick Metcalf Out As Guns & Ammo Writer - Traction Control at Traction Control()

  • Drmaudio

    I posted a video on Metcalf’s article yesterday (Although I was commenting on his arguments, not the controversy of G&A publishing it). I will link this post on that video.

  • Pingback: Guns & Ammo ????? - Page 3()

  • Dan in the pan

    That blew up like obamacare!

  • William

    Metcalf would have been correct, in my opinion, had he written training should be encouraged, as it is usually a productive use of time by all levels of shooters and a lot of fun. For him to write that there should be government required training and licensing is beyond comprehension.
    I wonder whether Metcalf believes that just anybody should be aloud to publish an article, without any kind of government test or license.

    • William

      OOPS, “allowed”.

  • Mike

    So in other words, he was an anti all along and decided he would let his true feelings be known in the month before his resignation. Its a shame they allowed this guy to infiltrate their ranks.

  • Onray

    Feel like a Native American, slowly loosing all your rights? Being lied to by your Government! Taken advantage of!

  • Suburban

    Don’t care. G&A is a newbie wrag.

  • Pingback: FOAD, Metcalf | Western Rifle Shooters Association()

  • Pingback: More on Metcalf » LonelyMachines()

  • Roger D.

    Jim Bequette allowed it to be printed. Where is his letter of resignation. G&A will remain toilet paper until he does.

    • John Crook

      Did you read the letter? That is written by Bequette and in it he announces his resignation also.

  • http://Facebook Dean

    I vote that MAC should become the successor to Mr. Metcalf at Guns and Ammo! He writes intelligent reviews that are well researched and enjoyable to read. What do you say Tim? Are you going to put your application in? :)

  • Hypnogator

    Well, apology sort-of accepted. It’s become pretty damn clear that you and your staff apparently don’t read the copy that’s being published in your magazine. What next, an op/ed from Bloomberg?

  • Pingback: Gun Nuts Freak The Hell Out Over Editorial Calling For Gun Safety Laws in ‘Guns & Ammo’ Magazine (Video)()

  • john onthelist

    You can’t put that bullet back in the barrel, the damage is done. You can see what the hidden agenda is. My over 10 year subscription just got cancelled. Back issues just became TP.

  • Pingback: Dick Metcalf gets Zumboed | The Arizona Rifleman()

  • 18171530

    Good for G&A. That was a very good apology: no excuses, just plain, “I blew it. I know it. I’m sorry.”

  • justsomeguy

    Metcalf should have never written the article, but it still went through editing and publishing before it ever got to us. For Metcalf to be the only one to get the ax is really an act of cowardice by management.

    • John Crook

      Did you read the letter? That is written by Bequette and in it he announces his resignation also.

  • Bob

    …with vigorous young editorial leadership…” In other words thanks for an excuse to can him, so we don’t need to shell out for retirement.

    So much for thought provoking articles. Good job babies.

  • KS_Matt

    A better analogy would be requiring to take classes and be certified by the government you are a competent parent before having children… Come to think about it, that might not be a bad idea after all. Maybe that would mean less Honey Boo Boos in this world.

  • Craig Smith

    Does anybody else find the fact that Dick was on his way out anyway, just a little too convenient? He only departs a month early. I think G&A had this planned, Dick got to come out of the closet and take one for the magazine. They wanted to test the waters for a kinder, gentler, more “reasonable” G&A, but found the waters a bit too deep.

  • Steve

    IF ONLY our Washington DC regime could take such swift and accurate action when they mess up too??!! Of course I have a better chance of catching Unicorn dust in a rainbow BEFORE that happens! Kudos Guns and Ammo for taking swift and immediate action to correct an error……

  • Pingback: "Guns & Ammo shocks readers with editorial calling for gun control"()

  • Pingback: BREAKING: Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal | Clash Daily()

  • SteveA

    What a spineless response!! — I am an avid gun owner and marksman – I own more guns than any one person needs, but the narrow mindedness of America’s gun lobby is embarrassing and dumb. Maybe we should just leave a handgun on every table in McDonalds – in case we need to defend ourselves. If a kid or two gets killed, who cares – that is less important than keeping gun advocates happy!!
    REALLY –
    Is registering a gun, and being responsible for its use, and following guidelines really impinging on your freedom? You register your car. There is a limit to when, where, and how much you can drink, and what you can do when you drink certain quantities.
    Guns and Ammo should have SUPPORTED this article!!!!
    There is nothing wrong with responsible people being responsible — and in fact they should be — mainly because their activities can, and do, affect others.
    As a gun owner and advocate I am embarrassed every time some knucklehead acts like firearms are not dangerous, deadly items – and should require no regulations, registration, or rules. — Go buy yourself an island and move all that share this stupidity there — and kill each other!!!! No one will miss you anyway!

    • Lane

      Along the lines of your comments, this incident bothers me as it shows that open discussion, with some disagreement, is not tolerated by an increasing portion of the gun owning community. Complete adherence to an absolutist view is required among public voices, or firm retaliation will commence.

      I don’t agree with much of Mr. Metcalf’s article, but gun owners should not use intimidation and emotional reactionism to silence all opinions (except those deemed pure). In the court of public opinion, the American audience overall does not sympathize with fanatical ideologues who are quick to bully the “non-believers,” rather than defend their views with mature and reasoned responses.

    • mitch

      Your response is not very pointed. Your comparisons of what is not an enumerated right to what is, would be putting apples and oranges on the table. Imagine if the things you suggest to oppress the 2nd amendment were applied to the 1st amendment. Surely, in the history of man, speech has put more bodies in the dirt than firearms.

      • SteveA

        I suppose you are referring to the fact that gun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment, and therefore you consider it “apples to oranges” versus driving – a “right” versus a “privilege”. This is semantics to a degree – The 2nd amendment does not say anything about what procedures or processes you may need to follow “to bear arms”. As such – the “right” of gun ownership can be preserved, just like the “privilege” of driving – and either may require some steps to pursue without violating the assurance that you can pursue them.
        What is the big deal about registering a firearm, requiring training, or checking your background for felonies or violence before issuing. It is better than losing a loved one to a crime in which the perpetrator was a known offender, but hides behind the 2nd amendment – assuming he has a right to buy a firearm. That right was lost when he became a felon (for instance). As a law abiding citizen I have no problem being scrutinized for the right to own a weapon — and I am not insulted by someone expressing similar (or even dissimilar) views, even in a “holy” book like G&A. Dangerous products require regulations, regardless of whether it was pointed out many years ago on a specific document.

  • Chuck Gaillard

    I applaurd G&Sa action, and appreciate their firm defense of the 2nd. I can’t help thinking, don’t we wish the governemnt- supposedly by-for we the people- responded as well as G&A?
    God bless America- we need Him so bad.

  • Unclezip

    G&A ne Metcalf was testing the waters. They found out it was deep and very, very cold.


    LOL, let me get this right… Editor of G&A and you didn’t know or maybe read what was being printed. Kind-a like Obama not knowing what was going on with the IRS, NSA and all the other BS… Your the man in charge… I curious what your response would have been if it we not for all the readers that stepped up to the plate and called you on it… The article should NEVER have been printed, you allowed it so take what you deserve..

  • Pingback: | New York City Guns()

  • Pingback: Guns & Ammo Magazine Fires Editor Dick Metcalf for His Recent Anti-2A Editorial! | New York City Guns()

  • mitch

    So, Jim, you were quick to throw Dick under the bus. Agreed, probably a good decision. However, I can’t ignore the dichotomy. You fire him, but say it is your fault that it got published. I’m curious what your punishment to self is. If I was Metcalf, I’d be wondering why you let me walk into the fire alone.

    • John Crook

      Did you read the letter? That is written by Bequette and in it he announces his resignation also.

  • Jim Williams

    I agree with Metcalf. Your firing of him is one more case of the gun community shooting itself in the foot. Most gun owners would agree with me. I dearly love G&A, but we need to have a “big tent” approach.

    • NateMA

      Well said. Agree 100%

    • Chuck Gaillard

      Most would agree with you? I suppose you have some evidence of that. When you infringe on a right it is no longer a right, but a privilege. Requiring people to meet government’s idea of acceptablke training can lead to many, many other restrictions as we have already seen across the country. If people use guns unwisely, illegally, they are to be punished. All Americans should not have their rights turned into government-restricted privivleges because of a few incompetents, a few criminals or a few- mentally challenged people. Guns are used much more frequently for protection than for crime, and punishing the many for the acts of the few is simply government-control without juustification.

  • joeblow

    es, there is.

    Employees of Obama donor Leo Hindery Jr.’s media conglomerate Intermedia Partners, which now owns most of the top gun-culture media outlets in the country, believe that Hindery plans to gut and destroy all of them as part of a business plan that has already led to numerous layoffs and the virtual shuttering of prominent television production facilities in Minnesota and Montana.

    Hindery, who was in consideration to be President Barack Obama’s secretary of commerce, is managing partner of Intermedia Partners. The New York-based media private equity fund owns Intermedia Outdoor Holdings, which publishes 17 hunting, fishing, and shooting magazines, including Guns & Ammo, Handguns, Gun Dog, Rifle Shooter and Shooting Times.

    InterMedia Outdoor Holdings purchased the pro-gun hunting and fishing network the Sportsman Channel in 2007, and is now in the process of acquiring the Outdoor Channel, pending the federal government’s approval of last month’s merger between InterMedia Outdoors and Outdoor Channel Holdings.

    InterMedia employees believe that Hindery, a Huffington Post blogger who has contributed to numerous Democratic politicians including Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren, is in the process of consolidating all of America’s leading gun-culture media outlets and stripping them down to virtual destruction.

  • Floyd R Burdett

    I’ll give you a “mulligan” on this one, since you DID take Action! (-:
    The BEST way to determine the meaning of Constitutional phrases is to look at OTHER writings by the same person(s) who wrote the Constitutional Phrase…
    And IF you do THAT you will quickly realize that “Well Regulated” means Well-Disciplined and Well Trained! [as ALL firearms owners/operators should be!]
    It DOES NOT mean GOVERNMENT Regulated! How ELSE could we actually DEFEND against Enemies?! ESPECIALLY against Domestic Enemies…INCLUDING an over-reaching GOVERNMENT!
    It is really a very SIMPLE Right, and is reflected in the very simple way it is written. They had no way of predicting exact ‘types’ of weapons would come to be in the future, nor what would be identified as “Military-Appearing Features”. {After all, aren’t those features there to make a weapon more manageable and more accurate?!!}
    Do we want CITIZENS to have LESS ACCURATE and LESS MANAGEABLE weapons??

  • Pingback: Tonight on The Squirrel Report! | The Squirrel Report()

  • Craig Smith

    It’s starting to look like there are anti-2A posters posing as gun-owners here. When you hear the tell tale “most gun owners would agree with me” when clearly most gun owners don’t. Typical spin tactic of the left on social media.

    • sootsme

      “Most gun owners” and every one else for that matter, can do what they like. I for one will continue to take responsibility for my Life, Liberty, and Private Property by retaining all my options, including keeping and bearing arms. Those who don’t like guns need not have or use them, but this is neither my concern or my problem. Likewise, my guns are not their concern or their problem, unless they threaten me or mine…

  • CharlieKilo

    Apparently, Metcalf thinks his firing is somehow tied to 1st Amendment infringements. Let’s highlight how much he actually doesn’t know about the Amendments in the same month, shall we? The Bill of Rights talk about how GOVERNMENT is restrained, not private business. Free speech is free, but it can have consequences. He didn’t understand what “well-regulated” meant (good working order) and then went on to write an article that it meant regulation (or codification). Then, he makes a response and puts it out in the open, apparently not understanding the 1A. Are we seriously supposed to even entertain an apology from this guy when he so obviously “doesn’t get it”?

  • CharlieKilo

    His personal feelings on getting canned:

    “How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?”

    Sure we believe in Freedom of Speech. But, no one prevented you from speaking and summarily looking like a 2A noob when talking about “regulation” and “well-regulated” as if they were synonymous. What do I fear? Ignorant or misinformed voting public. You, Mr. Metcalf, have contributed to that ignorant and misinformed voting public. You are as much the enemy, as the enemy itself. Instead of trying to rationalize or justify his position, he should have taken the responsibility and quietly slipped away, perhaps to come out of hiding after serving the appropriate penance, down the road. But no, he wants to make excuses or provide “reasons” for his ignorance. I’d like to think that we are a people of personal accountability and responsibility.

  • Vince Warde

    I have written a detailed defense of Metcalf’s conclusions FROM A GUN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE:

  • dandi

    I’m always struck by the dishonesty of people who state, “All the other Amendments in the BoR come with restrictions, so that means the 2nd can be restricted, too.”

    Well, duh. Who is saying it can’t?

    I know very few, if any gun owners who are the “Second Amendment absolutists” liberal gungrabbers keep whining about every time someone speaks against one gun law or another. The fact that there already exists tens of thousands of laws at the federal, state and local level concerning the possession, sale and use of firearms renders the old “absolutist” or “radical’ promoter of the 2A rather moot. There is no big push on to repeal most of the restrictions already in place on firearms. Gun owners have lived with those restrictions for decades.

    What we are trying to do is put the brakes on against the constant onslaught of attempts to further restrict our rights. Gun grabbers, again dishonestly, try to paint this as “uncompromising” as if we haven’t compromised enough with the aforementioned slew of laws we already tolerate, all the while maneuvering in the direction for what is their endgame – repeal of the Second Amendment and confiscation on the British or Australian model or worse.

    So when you here someone patronizingly intoning the old “The Second is subject to restrictions like any other…”, especially a self-proclaimed 2A supporter, you can believe they’re not speaking from the honest heart of a true Constitutionalist.

  • John

    Great write Vince this “What Gun Laws Are Compatible With The Second Amendment?” post of yours. I enjoy reading your article. Of course, some points are open to debate, but in general you outline some interesting points of view.