Gun Writer Banished For Mild Comment; Discourse Deteriorates More

This is how bad our national discourse has gotten:

Seems we can't have a rational political discussion
of guns, or anything else for that matter.

A guy named Dick Metcalf was until recently one of the nation's top gun journalists in the nation, has gone missing because he dared suggest, however gently, that there could be some minor restrictions on gun purchases, according to the New York Times. 

Metcalf suggested in a column he wrote for Guns & Ammo that maybe, just maybe, there could be minor restrictions on gun ownerships. Nothing major, mind you. Just a little.

After all, all rights enshrined in the Constitution have some restrictions. Take freedom of speech: "You cannot falsely and deliberately shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater....the question is when, does regulation become infringement?," Metcalf wrote in his column.

He gave a for instance for gun restrictions He argued that 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is not an infringement.

Judging from the reaction from gun enthusiasts, or at least their leaders, you'd think Metcalf has suggested overthrowing the U.S. government and replace it with a Scientology dictatorship or something.

And therein lies the problem. You can't make it in politics or advocacy unless you're a hard core Internet  troll.

It would have been one thing to argue Metcalf was wrong in his suggestion and that there is no need for training before obtaining a conceal carry license. People disagree all the time, who cares?

It was how people reacted to Metcalf's pretty mild suggestion.  Here's how the New York Times described it:

"The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell hi that two major gun manufacturers had said 'in no uncertain terms' that they could no long do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company publishes Guns & Ammon and co-produces his TV show if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately."

So, apparently, the way to handle anyone who doesn't exactly adhere to the exact party line, and an extreme one at that, is to silence them completely.

This one incident involving gun journalist Metcalf seems to define how Washington works. You have to have an extreme position, and anyone who suggests a teeny, tiny bit of compromise, or a little nuance becomes a pariah.

So everyone is afraid to suggest anything constructive, for fear they'd lose their job. So no ideas get generated, nothing gets done and the nation stagnates.

I get it what happened to Metcalf won't end Western Civilization As We Know It. It's bad for him of course.

But if every idea is shot down because it doesn't exactly adhere to some sort of wacko party line, then things are really going to go off the rails.

Actually, they kind of have, really.

News Headlines: Compassion and Hate

I was struck by the juxtaposition of two of the top national news stories yesterday.

One was the dramatic footage of people in Utah lifting a burning BMW off of a motorcycle crash victim, saving his life. As the reports noted, the car could have easily blown up, killing the people who were trying to help.

The victim was pulled out from under the car, and taken to the hospital. He was initially reported to be in critical condition, but he's reportedly improving, with two broken legs, a broken pelvis, cuts and a burned left foot



But at least he'll live to thank the bystanders who thanked him.

On the other hand, at the Republican presidential debate the other night, moderator Wolf Blitzer offered a hypothetical case in which a young man can't or won't get health insurance, then needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care?

What's the solution? The government pays for it? Charity? Some other funding source? Just let him die?

Some members of the audience, mostly Tea Party members, cheered at the idea of letting Hypothetical Man die. 

Cheered? They cheered Hypothetical Man's death? It's perfectly legitimate to debate how to pay for health care. How big is the government's role? Or should there even be a goverment role?  Should we just make Hypothetical Man come up with the money somehow?

But to cheer at the "solution" to let the guy die instead of saving him, as many commentators have already said, is just sick. What were they cheering? If other people die, there's more money for me? That people who don't or can't get private health insurance deserve the death penalty?

I'd hate to think what other things these people think others should die for. Hey, he was unemployed for a month, and collected federal unemployment money. Off with his head!!

Here in Vermont, we continue to have thousands of people mobilizing with money, donations, elbow grease and more to continue recovering from a huge flood a few weeks ago. On the other hand, there have been a few reports of looting, thefts of relief supplies and scams.

I hope both locally and nationally, the compassionate ones, the normal ones, far outnumber the scumbags who cheer the deaths of people and steal from people who are going through an incredibly tough time.

I also hope there's serious karma for the bad people. Because I wouldn't want to live in a world where pure, 100 greed rules everything