Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

petronius

(26,580 posts)
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 01:12 PM Nov 2013

I've seen a few posts about the Guns & Ammo editor being forced out

over a 'pro-control, anti-gun' editorial - here's a PDF of the column that was linked in one of those posts. Looks pretty mild to me, although I bet he really sucker-punched a lot of readers between that second and third sentence...

"Note carefully: Those last four words say "shall not be infringed.""

"Fuck yeah they don't!

"They do not say "shall not be regulated."

"Wait, what? What!? <head-pop>"

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

sarisataka

(18,197 posts)
1. The article sounded very reasonable
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 01:24 PM
Nov 2013

I think he summed it nicely

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe they have a right to use them irresponsibly

That is it in a nutshell.

I intend to let Guns and Ammo know I will be cancelling my subscription for kowtowing to extremists.

petronius

(26,580 posts)
2. Indeed - as far as I can tell the only 'control' he overtly supported
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 02:50 PM
Nov 2013

was a training requirement for shall-issue CCW. I support that myself. It would be reasonable to ask whether a hard requirement of 16 hours is too much/not enough/just right, or what the content of those 16 hours ought to be, but demanding a writer be fired merely for saying that it's a good idea - and actually firing him - is ridiculous...

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
7. I thought of it as saying a CCW permit is an "operator's license" for a CC pistol.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 12:19 AM
Nov 2013


Hardly revolutionary, IMO.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. I like his reply
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 04:02 PM
Nov 2013

and like him, I also fear for 1A
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/228229

I think some of his detractors should take a Florida CCW class full of former New Yorkers and Chicagoites who couldn't figure out cylinder release on a revolver.

Angleae

(4,469 posts)
4. How is this even remotely a 1st amendment issue?
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 04:19 PM
Nov 2013

The magazine has the same right to determine what is published within it's pages just like DU has.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. Yes they do,
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 04:50 PM
Nov 2013

and true it isn't an 1A in the legal sense, but it could be described as colloquial sense, but a better term, IMNSHO, would be political correctness. While PC is usually associated with left, it can apply to any ideology.
In this case, the magazine didn't seem to have a problem with what he said, otherwise the editors would not have printed it. They did. What got him fired was backlash from what sarisataka described as extremists trying to impose a form of political correctness to silence those who deviate from the orthodoxy they want. I agree with sarisataka.

Of course this isn't the first time it happened, see Jim Zumbo, Bill Ruger, and Dan Cooper.

spin

(17,493 posts)
10. Did those New Yorkers and "Chicagoites" think the cylinder release was the safety? ...
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:25 PM
Nov 2013

If so it reminds me of the time when I was reading a really good detective novel and the hero pulled out his S&W Model 60 revolver and flipped the safety off. There's no better way to totally ruin a good action novel than show you know absolutely nothing about weapons.

So I emailed the author and explained to him that only a few unusual or rare revolvers have a mechanical safety lever and the S&W Model 60 is not one. He emailed me back and explained that he had done a lot of research to make his novel as realistic as possible and even had a close friend who was a retired NYPD detective review his writing. However he admitted that he unfortunately had no knowledge of firearms and had failed to research them. He promised to do better in the future and even sent me a copy of his newest novel.

Firearms do not usually play a significant role in this writer's novels but now when they are mentioned, I can see that he has done some necessary research.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
8. Similar to Jim Zumbo's ouster at Outdoor Life, and the end
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 01:10 AM
Nov 2013

of his T.V. show in the space of 3 days when he questioned the use of "assault weapons" for hunting purposes. Pisses me that ammo companies would weigh in like that. I wonder who they were.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
12. Meh, his fundamental misunderstanding of rights set my teeth on edge.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
Nov 2013

Reading between the lines, he sees it is a privilege, though one he feels he will always be qualified to exercise.

And that bullshit re well-regulated? He should know better.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
13. Here's an interesting comparison with HuffPo folks demanding a writer be fired.
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 01:16 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/controversy-over-richard-cohens-comments-on-the-de-blasio-family/2013/11/12/3c37f900-4bda-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_print.html

I've never read Cohen stuff before, but I guess the Washington Post readers on HuffPo are demanding his immediate removal for "racism".
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»I've seen a few posts abo...