New York Times Laments Gun Companies Ending Freebies for Pro-Gun Control Authors

By AWR Hawkins

Dick Metcalf
Dick Metcalf
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -(  In early November former Guns & Ammo (G&A) magazine editor Dick Metcalf lost his pro-gun following – and his job – over a column in which he expressed his support for regulations to the 2nd Amendment.

Since his firing, the perks Metcalf once enjoyed from gun companies have ceased, and The New York Times (NYT) is upset.

The NYT wonders why “moderate” voices are silenced in the world of gun journalism.

On November 5th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf used his G&A column to argue that all constitutional rights have and need regulation, including 2nd Amendment rights. The outcry against Metcalf was immediate and his firing swift. On November 7th Breitbart News reported that Metcalf had been fired by G&A.

According to NYT, Metcalf's life changed completely thereafter – his television show was ended, “gun companies… stopped flying him around the world,” and they've also stopped sending him samples of the newest guns to review.

NYT points out that Metcalf isn't the only former member of gun journalism to which this has happened, but others before him did not fall from so high nor did they fade so fast.

Sitting quietly in his Illinois home, Metcalf told NYT, “I've been vanished, disappeared.” Yet he said he does not regret writing the article in favor of 2nd Amendment regulations. His only regret is that the article “was too short” to capture the full nuances of his beliefs.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for, for and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at [email protected] You can find him on facebook at

  • 8 thoughts on “New York Times Laments Gun Companies Ending Freebies for Pro-Gun Control Authors

    1. Metcalf dug his own grave in the gun world! If he’s willing to compromise with the anti gunners, that’s his business, but I don’t have to read his column. Over the years, the compromises have led to anti gunners wanting a total ban on our gun ownership. The liberals have been nibbling away our rights for years and I don’t trust them. History has proven that each time they pass a law, it’s just a matter of time before they want a little more, until they finally leave us with no way to defend ourselves or our families. With the present administration in power, we’re about to lose quite a few of our other inalienable rights. Maybe the New York Times should hire him to write a column for them on how to dismantle our 2nd amendment rights. I personally don’t read the NYT, and I don’t intend to in the future.

    2. The Constitution is the standard for this Republic and its been under attack since day one. Our rights in the 2ndA area took its first big blow in 1934. Since then its been a roller coaster fight to keep the remaining liberties we enjoy. Every time we loose one we never get it back. And just like a coaster we can never get to the top again once let go. Without, as the physicist says, input of energy from outside the system the ping pong will stop rebounding.

      I like objective journalism, it helps look at thing from a different angle. It may help solve what seems to be a conundrum. How do we protect our right to limited governance and intrusion in our life and also protect each and everyone of us from criminal intent by individuals and society.

      Its obvious taking guns out of society doesn’t stop crime. But what does it do? What effect does allowing people to own guns have on society? The FBI and CDC say it does lower crime. The NY courts say only certain ones cause “unacceptable” crime, how do they know this? Many States want to qualify potential owners before allowing ownership. All these things we should discuss openly find out if they meet the Constitutional test change or drop them if they don’t. We must have open discussions between people that means we the people must be involved.

      Many proposals in the Federal and State levels were never openly discussed. Loopholes in the laws allow undermining the Constitution. And now we find we have politicians and judges that do not think the Constitution is right for American? Got voted in by promising prosperity to all without having to work for it by voters not involved and therefore easily suckered. Sound familiar? So we find ourselves without the means to reverse the unconstitutional laws set upon us because the few in position to protect our Constitution and rights are actively seeking to destroy them.

      Now if we can get “Objective Journalism” we need to discuss these things in open society and inform the uninformed voter. We can’t do that right now because we don’t have an open society to Objective Journalism. Our media is behind the control of information to the voter. And they support unconstitutional agendas. Like these comments, the likely hood of anyone reading them who is not in the gun community is highly unlikely. But I pass them on to the internet community as best I can. And hope they awaken more than one person as I hope we all will do.

      It would be great if NYT would start a column called “Shooters”, set up Metcalf as the editor and let him review allowed and accepted firearms by the NY courts, or the Bradly counsel, or the U.N. ATT that secretary of state Kerry has signed in behalf of Obama and which the ATF is trying to find ways of enforcing. Let him publicly state the good of these bans, restrictions, and necessary confiscations as well as the benefits of registration, random home inspections, and controlled instructional qualification.

      If it ever would be allowed will pro gun comments be allowed? And what will the voters think when they start to understand what the Constitution says and how the it protects them every day. Then see not just 2ndA rights disappear but 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 9th and 10th. Some of these we have already lost as in the 4th,5th and 6th. The 9th and 10th are daily trampled on by the Senate,Congress, Executive Order, and judicial privilege its as if they never existed. And the 1st, The President even demanded free speech be restricted. And religion has anyone read the Mayflower Pact?

      It was wrong for G&A to publish that article without a statement of disclaimer for the content. But not necessarily to publish it at all. At lest we now know how Metcalf really feels. Maybe his “coming out” will help educate others to be better informed voters for the preservation of our Constitution.

    3. Dear NYT: Nobody silenced his voice. He’s using it to complain about having to deal with the consequences of his actions, isn’t he? The crybaby.

    4. I myself lament the demise of objective newspaper journalism. Newspapers all around the U.S. are going out of business, partly because of the Internet, mostly because people are tired of reading all the B.S.

    5. Since he is no longer an employed gun writer, why should gun companies send him freebies to test out and write about? According to the NYT’s thoughts, we should all receive free gun “stuff” since we are writing on a gun website. Where do I sign up???

    6. I switched to Direct Tv just to be able to watch all the Guns shows I love. G & A was one of them. I am for anyone who as we struggle to hold on the what liberty’s we still have. Anyone, that even “Taste” like people who want to adjust our 2nd amendments right or any gun ownership has to go.I read this guys article as soon as I found out he has a phd, like all the current college grad’s are being filled with questioning our constitutional rights. Makes me sick! I’m glad they “Cut Bait” with this guy.

    7. NYTimes is mis-guided on this.
      Dick has not been silenced.
      The NYTimes is available to pay his salary and employ him.

    8. When it comes to the Constitution…you are either for it ALL or against it ALL. There is no middle road…period. I have read the article he wrote and all I can say is…well…I won’t say it here and besides, I try NOT to use “that” kind of language.

    Leave a Comment 8 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *