Guns and Ammo Writer Fired for Advocating Gun Control
PHILLIPS: All right, so here's a question for you. What's more important, free speech or the right to bear arms? One magazine chief just learned a hard lesson. The editor of "Guns & Ammo" resigning after he published a column advocating gun control in next month's issue, you know, getting in the other side of the debate. Well, that didn't sit well with the readers, so Jim Bequette fired the writer of that column. Then he wrote an apology, which in part described the feedback from readers who questioned the magazine's commitment to the Second Amendment. Well, Bequette goes on to say that he was untrue to the tradition, so did he even deserve the heat? Let's talk about it, shall we? Emily Miller from "The Washington Times" and editor of "Emily Gets Her Gun," and Chris Kofinis, Democratic strategist and former communications director for John Edwards. OK, so, Emily, I'm going to start with you. First of all, do you think heads deserved to roll on this?</s>EMILY MILLER, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": I think there's a lot of pressure from advertisers and from readers. It was a business decision more than anything else. I mean, Jim Bequette and Metcalf as well, they really heard a lot of anger from their readers and long-term readers. This is a very old magazine. And two advertisers, manufacturers threatened to leave, because, under pressure, and this is what is so important, is that this year, the Second Amendment is under attack like no other. You go in something like "Guns & Ammo" and you expect to hear absoluteness when it comes to the Second Amendment.</s>PHILLIPS: OK. Interesting. So, I'm hearing a discussion on Second Amendment and then I'm hearing about the power of social media possibly causing someone to cave here because money and advertising dollars come into play. This is a private magazine, obviously, so they can do anything they want, but, Emily, can gun owners not even hear the other side of the debate?</s>MILLER: As a journalist, I would like people to hear both sides of the debate.</s>PHILLIPS: I mean, that's First Amendment.</s>MILLER: Absolutely. And the First Amendment is just as important as the Second Amendment, absolutely. I do not favor more restrictions on the Second Amendment. That's what my book "Emily Gets Her Gun" is about. It's about this attack from the White House and Bloomberg. However, I believe the debate is on facts and the gun control debate is quite simple, is that there's no gun control law has ever reduced crime. If you debate on facts, you're going to win. I do take issue with these people, with the pro-Second Amendment people who don't want to have any debate. At least on the pages of "Guns & Ammo," that's their right, they subscribe to it, they pay for it, but let's have a debate because I promise you guys you're going to win because you have the facts.</s>PHILLIPS: Interesting. OK. Well, then I do want to point out, by the way, that not all the readers ripped the magazine. Some of them actually defended some kind of push for control, which I thought was interesting. Others said it would energize gun control efforts. Saying the column is like throwing a bucket of blood in shark-infested waters is actually what somebody said. Chris, do you see it that way?</s>CHRIS KOFINIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: What it does I think kind of reinforce how the various groups look at each other. What the pro-gun control groups look at is the fact that when you look at, you know, in terms of reasonable, commonsense reforms, now, what this editor was talking about, if I'm not mistaken, was simply training. He wasn't talking about anything, I would say, by normal standard would be considered draconian.</s>PHILLIPS: Yes. That's a point well-made. That was pointed out.</s>KOFINIS: So even though they had such an objective response -- such a heated response to this, I think when you look at the reality, the overwhelming majority of Americans support background checks. The overwhelming majority of Americans support commonsense, reasonable reforms.</s>KOFINIS: And, by the way, and just for the record, the notion that somehow gun control has no impact on gun violence, you know, there's a reason why, for example, we have more gun murders in this country than Canada does or any other European country. It's because we have more guns that are unregulated.</s>MILLER: We're not talking about Canada. We're not talking about Canada. As much as you sound like Piers Morgan, we're not going to talk about England. We're going to talk about the United States, and gun crime and gun murders have gone down 50 percent in the last 20 years as gun ownership has gone up to its highest rates. Secondly, the government CDC study has proven not one single gun control law has ever reduced crime. So, those are just the facts.</s>KOFINIS: No one -- by the way, no one is talking about taking away guns. All that people are talking about is reasonable reform.</s>PHILLIPS: And let's get back to what was being written about in the editorial, OK, because the right to bear arms is not resolute. It's regulated. OK? We know that. As the writer points out as I see here that the Second Amendment says so itself, a well-regulated militia. I thought that that was an interesting way to put it. The writer argues that he was making a point covered by the Constitution.</s>MILLER: Well, the Heller decision, the Supreme Court decision in 2008 clearly explained that the well-regulated militia part of the Second Amendment is separate from the individual right to keep and bear arms. And what Metcalf was writing about was the training requirement for a carry permit in Illinois. It was a pretty narrow column. Illinois is the state that was forced to allow carry rights. They set up this system where it's very hard, it takes a lot of training, it takes a lot of time. Other states make it a lot of simple, take a short class. That's the issue, how much requirement it takes to get carry permits. That's pretty specific to that. It's not about what types of gun you're going to carry or any kind of like assault weapons ban or things like that.</s>PHILLIPS: You what is interesting. I listen to the details both of you lay out. I read the column. Chris, really, what this all comes down to is the power of social media. And it got what it wanted.</s>KOFINIS: It's just -- it's the age we live in now. It's a 24/7 interconnected world where if you -- you know, if you stir up the pot, you're going to get a lot of stings.</s>PHILLIPS: You can start revolutions and you can bring down editors.</s>KOFINIS: Absolutely. It's just the reality of the day and age that we live in. But, listen, in this case, I would say it's isolated because you're talking about a magazine where the audience was obviously very pro- gun. In terms of the wider debate, the overwhelming country believes that, I don't know, it's not I think unreasonable that if someone wants to carry a gun in a concealed fashion, that they should maybe be trained. I know that's kind of crazy to some people, but it's a pretty reasonable response for most.</s>PHILLIPS: No matter what side you're on, I bet you a lot of people are going to be buying that magazine. I can tell you that.</s>MILLER: That's right.</s>KOFINIS: Well, one of us will be.</s>PHILLIPS: Oh, Chris. Chris is going to be sneaking a peek, I can promise you that. He won't let anybody see him.</s>KOFINIS: Yes, of course.</s>PHILLIPS: Emily, Chris, thanks a lot, you guys. Appreciate it.</s>MILLER: Thanks, guys.</s>KOFINIS: Thank you.</s>PHILLIPS: All right. Coming up, new details in that NFL bullying controversy. Alleged victim Jonathan Martin releasing explicit texts that he says he received, what he says he was forced to endure, next. And CNN's Rachel Nichols sat down with Tiger Woods. We have got some of that exclusive interview for you right after the break.