450Bushmaster.net

Have you guys seen this?
http://www.thebangswitch.com/guns-ammo- ... f-article/

Is there a link to the original article? I've seen the response letter from the editor, but haven't seen the original article.

Colohunter wrote:Is there a link to the original article? I've seen the response letter from the editor, but haven't seen the original article.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-con ... r-2013.pdf

..t

I tend to agree with the editor's first inclination - that the article would promote a lively discussion. It apparently did, but a very one sided discussion critical of the article. So be it. Having a different opinion is not a firing offense in my book. I would expect this type of retaliation from a liberal publication toward someone who published a "pro gun" article, but not the other way around. We all know that there are restrictions on some types of firearms and how they and others may be used or carried. We may be from the "ban nothing" side of the issue or take the approach Metcalf did in trying to define his opinion of what is regulation versus what is infringement.

Having a different opinion is not a firing offense.

Sorry. I see no reason for a prominent gun magazine having an editor who is in Kahoots with the incrementalist progressive gun grabbers. That's like having a Muslim writing for a Catholic Magazine.

Texas Sheepdawg wrote:Sorry. I see no reason for a prominent gum magazine having an editor who is in Kahoots with the incrementalist progressive gun grabbers. That's like having a Muslim writing for a Catholic Magazine.

10x

Or..... Look at it this way.... We should let Michael Moore post editorials on this forum?

In all honesty, do any of you really think he was fired for ONE editorial? He is a rather difficult individual and I think that the article was just the final straw.

Having written a few articles for gun mags, the "editorial sword" is ever present. Nothing gets into print that has not been reviewed by at least two other staffers. Also, in an effort to remain relevant, the corporations that own the popular gun rags are making some pretty big changes in content, style, etc., in hope that they can maintain some "popularity." The 20 and 30 somethings that all went out and bought 9mms and ARs are not going to listen to an old grizzled Illinois gun writer of old.

Also, while we may get riled up, the article was not anti-gun per se. It was more of an explanation of one man's understanding of the 2nd Amendment, granted, some of his points I do not agree with at all.

I think there are several underlying lessons to be learned.

Let the people speak:


http://www.msnbc.com/news-nation/metcalf-resigns-guns-and-ammo

Last I looked the poll was 1169 for yes and 201 for no.
Of course it might be a little skewed, having grown up in Chicago and all.