http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/07/guns_ammo_editor_jim_bequette_resigns_fires_dick_metcalf_after_outcry_over.html?wpisrc=burger_bar



Guns & Ammo editor Jim Bequette says he was hoping to generate a "healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights" when he decided to publish a column that veered ever-so slightly from the the usual from-my-cold-dead-hands rhetoric normally found in the pages of his magazine. It's safe to say that effort didn't go exactly as he had hoped.

After a swift and vocal backlash from readers and other Second Amendment enthusiasts, Bequette announced yesterday that he was stepping down immediately, and that the magazine was also cutting ties with the author of the piece in question, contributing editor Dick Metcalf. "I made a mistake by publishing the column," Bequette wrote in an apologetic letter to readers. "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."

So what, exactly, did Metcalf say to prompt such a drastic reaction? You can find a .pdf of the full column here, but in short he defended an Illinois state law that requires gun owners to undergo a set amount of training in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit. The problem, though, at least in the eyes of the pro-gun crowd, was of course less about that specific law and more about the general concept that any gun law could be a good gun law.

"I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly," Metcalf wrote. "And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."

For those of you planning on having that healthy exchange that Bequette dreamed of in our Comment section, the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In Metcalf's view, his fellow gun lovers mistakenly focus on the last four of those words at the expense of the first four.

I read the article in question and knew what he was saying and thought that many would not. What he alluded to was that all rights in the constitution are regulated in some way or as some would think "infringed". You have free speech but can't yell "fire" when none exists, you have freedom of religion but cannot practice human sacrifice, etc...  When I read it I knew there would be a backlash, especially so now. 

Here is a reply from Metcalf:

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/228229

Much of what he says it true.  But, and a big but, some of what he says (advocates) can be greatly abused by the government.  I too have seen an awful lot of folks I have no desire to be around when they are armed.  They're complete idiots.  I'd say require training but make it free (no real infringement) but that kinda sounds a bit socialist

Unfortunately he does not know the meaning of,"well regulated".
It does not mean controlled. It means in good working order.
He flat out advocated more restrictions on our Constitutional rights.
And as usual, when called on his actions he tried to spin what he wrote.
Nobody's buying it.
And, IIRC Bequette was due to step down in January anyway. He tries to make it appear he is falling on his own sword.
Since they are so passionate about limiting our 2nd amendment rights, maybe they should thank us we haven't restricted their 1st amendment rights.