ZUMBO AFFAIR SENDS CHILL THROUGH OUTDOOR PRESS
NRA Destroys Long-time Friend
By Bill Schneider, 2-26-07
Jim Zumbo is (or was, I should say) probably the most well-known and influential hunting writer in all of America. The banner on his website is “Hunting is spoken here,” and he has been among the most outspoken defenders of the hunting and gun ownership throughout his storied 40-year career, including being a loyal member of the National Rifle Association for those 40 years, even helping the gun group set up the Great American Hunting Tour. He has authored several books on hunting, and he may be the only person ever to hunt deer in all fifty states.
Now, gun rights zealots call him Jim Dumbo and a wet-behind-the-ears neophyte and refer to his website as “Powered by the Brady Campaign.” In less than two weeks, these attack dogs effectively destroyed the career of their good friend, all because he said one thing in 40 years that they didn’t like.
On February 16 on his blog on the website of the Outdoor Life Magazine, where he has worked since 1962, most recently as hunting editor, Zumbo made a comment that makes sense to most Americans. (I can’t link to it because Outdoor Life immediately removed it and replaced it with Zumbo’s termination notice.)
All this happened late one night after Zumbo had been coyote hunting in Wyoming with a Remington Arms PR rep to test out a new bullet. Earlier that day, Zumbo had heard about a new trend of using M-16 and AK-47 knock-offs (sometimes called “black” rifles) for hunting. I had to piece together what Zumbo said from several articles and websites, so this might not be the exact context, but it’s close. Jim Zumbo unintentionally caused his sudden retirement by making this comment:
“I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
“I call them ‘assault’ rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.
“Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”
Immedately following the posting, Remington Arms severed all ties with Zumbo; Outdoor Life fired him; and the Outdoor Channel canceled his weekly Jim Zumbo Outdoors program because sponsors (Remington, Cabela’s, Mossy Oak and others) pulled their ads.
How did this happen? I almost hate to say it, but the Internet provided an easy way for gun zealots who worship black rifles to orchestrate a massive smear campaign. Zumbo quickly apologized, saying he would go hunting soon with an assault rifle and “I should have gone to bed early” instead of posting on his blog, but gun nuts dismissed his sincere apology as self-serving talk from a guy trying to save his job. They called for a boycott of Remington and Zumbo’s other sponsors, sent thousands of e-mails to Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel demanding Zumbo’s termination, and lit up the blogsphere with vicious attacks on one of the best friends they ever had, all akin to an uncontrolled cyber-firestorm destroying everything in its path.
Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel value advertisers like Remington much more than any personality, so they instantly bowed to the pressure. All Zumbo’s sponsors did the same, sending a shock wave through my profession, outdoor writing.
Knowing what just happened, if I needed a new shotgun, even though I’ve faithfully used by Remington Model 870 for 42 years, I definitely would buy a different brand, not because the company sponsored a Brady sympathizer, but because it didn’t have the ability to forgive one mistep by a long-time ally.
Some outdoor writers came to Zumbo’s defense such as Tony Dean of South Dakota and Pat Wray of Oregon, but most were apprehensive about entering the flay. The message was clear. Say the one word the gun rights snipers don’t like, and the only job you can get is greeting people at Wal-Mart.
Wray, who writes for the Corvallis Gazette Times said it best in his February 24 commentary: “Something very strange happened in the world of outdoor communication this week. One of America’s best known hunting writers slipped and metaphorically cut himself, so a few thousand of his closest friends ate him alive.”
In his column, Wray blamed the NRA for the overreaction. And when I looked on the NRA’s website, the gun group actually boasted about the destruction of Zumbo’s career as an example of what happens when somebody crosses them.
“The ensuing wave of grassroots response in support of the Second Amendment is a clear indication that America’s gun owners will act swiftly and decisively to counter falsehoods or misrepresentations perpetuated by any member of the media – whether it is one of the major networks or a fellow gun owner,” the NRA stated in its release severing all ties with Zumbo. “It is our hope that Mr. Zumbo will use his energy and talent to help preserve our Second Amendment, America’s First Freedom, by ensuring that no one else falls prey to the tragic demonization of gun owners.”
Wray called the owners of military-style rifles “a crowd of vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals” and blames the NRA making them so. “For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense.”
I see this whole affair as chilling, because, as I remember it, the Second Amendment comes right after the First Amendment. On the scale of things, owners of military-style firearms represent a small part of our population--those of us who support using them for hunting, also small. Yet, this group of NRA-trained thugs can not only eat a good friend alive like meat thrown into a school of piranhas, but they can and have made other outdoor writers ultra-wary about saying anything that might cause their own fate, which is the goal, of course.
To me, it seems like outdoor writers are giving the black rifle Gestapo their victory with their silence. And not just writers. Where is the outrage from millions of hunters who agree with every word Zumbo posted on his blog? Where are the thousands of emails to Remington, Outdoor Life or the Outdoor Channel from hunters who wouldn’t be caught dead hunting with an assault rifle? Why aren’t they coming to Zumbo’s defense?
Without the outrage, without those thousands of emails, we can put this one down as an ugly “W” for a fanatic minority.
Footnote: Just in case you agree, I’ll make it easy for you. Here are the email addresses: Outdoor Life (olletters@time4.com), The Outdoor Channel (info@outdoorchannel.com), and Remington Arms (tommy.millner@remington.com).
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I don't know who changed the subject to hunting, but the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights didn't mention the need to keep our larders stocked with game.
The entire document was intended from beginning to end as an antidote to the kind of arbitrary authority to whose disassociation they had mutually pledged [their] lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] Sacred Honor.
If ever in our history we needed the protection of such an injunction as "the right of the people...shall not be infringed," that hour is now.
Tom
I support the right to bear arms, but I totally disapprove of the NRA's fear-mongering.
The NRA has once again gone WAY over the edge.
As far as gun nuts and gun rights zealots, how do you expect the shooting & hunting community to react? His comments come right on the heals of the Democrat leaderships reintroduction of the Assault weapons Ban H.R. 1022, which would make illegal many configurations of the very popular Benelli shotguns just because they have a pistol grip. It is silly feel good political nonsense. If the shooting and hunting community seem over protective, you bet we are. Every time we turn our backs someone is vilifying us for standing up for what we believe in.
Mr. Zumbo was not railroaded, he is being dealt with severely by a group of people who believe that the second amendment protects more than your grandfathers old LeFever side by side or your dads pre 64’ Winchester Model 70. He simply made the same error that the Dixie Chicks made with their comments about President Bush, HE FORGOT WHO HIS AUDIENCE WAS.
I personally have never shot or handled a AR type rifle but after this controversy I am seriously thinking of buying on just to try it out. However, since a quality AR or AK type rifle can go for $1000 and up it may prove to be cost prohibitive.
I personally have been a fan of Mr. Zumbo for a long time and I would hate to see him lose everything over a very careless comment. I hope he can come back from this but he has to remember his words carry a lot of weight as a representative of our community, words that can very easily be used as propaganda on opposing websites.
This is about that fact that one of our own (gun owner/shooter) commited treason, by calling for a ban on rifles based on thier looks alone. That is all "Assult rifles" are, cosmetic.
And yes I said treason!!! He turned on every American and called for a destruction on the second ammendment, by wanting to ban a firearm.If we allow ANYONE to start banning ANY firearm, it will not stop with just that firearm.
The Brady Bunch want to ban all firearms!!! Even your .22lr. Go to thier web site and see for yourself.
The second ammendment can not be devided into hunting or shooting guns. It MUST stand firm, that we have a right to own ANY firearm we chose. Or we will become servants to the government.
By the way. The NRA had nothing to do with this. Your report that we are trained by them is WRONG. (There is no "them" cause "WE" are the NRA)
And it is so nice of you to refer to us a nuts and zealots, instead of gun owning Americans. You should write for the Bradys....oh Im sorry you just did.
You sir are a moron!!
The AR series of rifles is now among the most accurate rifles available. The AK has two main benefits, they are cheap and the ammo is cheap... many farmers and ranchers use them for predator control because rust doesn't harm them.
As far as claims that the NRA did this, I doubt that. I've been an NRA member for over 40 years and am on the Internet daily. I never say any mention of this until a few minutes ago when Google alerted me to your article. I do get several newsletter from the NRA and so far, none of them mentioned this incident.
BTW, I do not own an AR, yet. I do or have had some sniper rifles marketed by Remington as the 40XB NM target rifle, the same basic rifle currently being bought by the US military for combat.
The NRA has once again gone WAY over the edge."
I've never heard of anyone hunting with assault rifles. Assault rifles are select-fire and/or full-auto-capable and thus have been regulated by the federal government since 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act). It would be humorous to watch someone try to hunt with an automatic weapon. The ignorance here is pathetic.
No one denies Jim Zumbos his right to foolishly call an AR-15 a "terrorist" weapon and suggest it be "banned" from hunting. No one denies our right to call him on it.
As for me being an NRA-trained thug.....let's drop the name-calling, please. I am a retired Air Force fighter pilot with twenty years in the service. When you call me a "thug" you're disparaging me and all other vets who own and use military style weapons.
Nor should it be.
It protects you against GOVERNMENT attacks on your free speech -- nothing more.
But the big picture here, is that if we all remanin in small little encampments they overtime, will get us all.
Weather you are a person that only hunts, or only owns a handgun for self defense. or target shoots, wether it's a muzzleloader or a semi auto 50 BMG rifle, we need to all come together, as gun owners, & not stay apart because of our special interests.
It's because Zumbo was a famous pro-gun, pro-hunting writer for so many years that his comment (which he didn't merely apologize for, but has made a FULL retraction of) was so damaging.
It's because Zumbo's initial comment was SO damaging, and that even the likes of yourselves won't print his FULL retraction, that he can't simply have a *pass* on this. He must be made an example of. Ask him ... I'll bet he agrees with that statement.
He didn't simply suggest that a bolt-action might be preferable. He essentially called AR/AK owners "terrorists".
You people don't seem to understand. If you take a bolt-action rifle, give it a pistol-grip, paint it black, put a flash suppressor on it, and exchange the floor-plate with a detachable 10rd box-mag, precisely in what way is that gun less *acceptable* for its intended purpose?
These people aren't bad shots. Quite the contrary. They're shooting varmints ... sometimes, as fast as they can pull the trigger ... and not missing.
They're not misguided.
Imagine your embarrassment should you ever *realize* that you, in fact, are.
I don't *worship* "black rifles" ... or the NRA. I only own one AR ... and I don't even really like it that much. But I'm not stupid enough to dismiss the fact that, one the Brady Bunch passes a list of what's not *acceptable*, there will be NO ONE to keep them from ADDING to that list.
Australians can't own a PUMP shotgun. Go check that out and get back to me before you say one more word.
The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.
Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.
They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?
But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.
My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.
I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.
Jim Zumbo
I'm an NRA Life Member and I MIGHT (nudge nudge, wink wink) own a "black rifle." In fact, I MIGHT shoot a whistle pig with it on occasion. Since it's semi-auto, it is NOT an assault rifle (someone as well-versed as Zumbo should understand the distinction, even if Mr. Schneider doesn't). Even an assault rifle isn't a "terrorist" rifle unless a terrorist is operating it. Zumbo put his foot in his mouth... I'm willing to forgive him. I say stupid stuff now and then, myself.
I own a number of guns. Always have, always will. I, however, don't support those that demand that right, that fear that right will be taken away, that clutch at their pearls as tightly as they clutch at their penis extending pistol grip shotgun.
I've trained in many weapons, I pride myself in my small stock of weapons and reloading equipment. It's a hobby, but it's never a lifestyle. Those that live by the gun will die by it as well. It's foolish to believe the Brady group is as powerful as they would make it out to be. It's a voice amongst many, a group that is offset by the gun-nuts and both are moderated by responsible gun owners.
What those that have posted here are doing is fear mongering, exactly as the NRA has done to boost it's membership and cash. It's pathetic and it's going to be dangerous if it continues.
Perhaps Zumbo had the DC sniper massacre on his mind. The weapon was an AR 15. Perhaps he was thinking about the lethality of a round of .223 on deer size animals. Kind of light for a one shot kill anywhere except a brain shot. Don't know. I believe Mr. Zumbo erred in his analysis of military style firearms as I have always believed it's the guy pulling the trigger rather than the shape of the firearm. However, I believe he should have more closely questioned the use of such weapons by responsible hunters that should live by the code, "one shot one kill." Accuracy and lethality of the shot versus spraying bullets all over the place. I have no problem with these firearms for home protection use, but I do not see any ethical reason for hunting use that puts meat on the table. However, that is my opinion, and noone should be threatened by it. In turn the holder of such opinions and the expression thereof should also not be threatened. The 1st Amendment and the 2nd go hand-in-hand. One washes the other. There are those that argue the technical application of the Bill of Rights only to government interference. They are right! That being said our society has evolved to have many institutions of powerful quasi-government. What protects us against their belligerence? 1st and 2nd Amendment expressions should be embraced and encouraged as they are two hands on the same body.
In the faith that I have, there is always room for redemptive sinners that seek a return to the pews. I think Bairbait has it right that this is not about a reformed Jim Zumbo. It's about the exercise of power to send a chilling message to the politicos.
Nor do I think they're paranoid, given that NY representative Caroline McCarthy just entered a bill into Congress to re-issue and strengthen the 1994 ban, making it permanent this time.
Nor are its members any less tolerant of gun control advocates than the NAACP is of white people who use the `N'-word and defend Jim Crowe segregation.
So lets keep things in perspective.
I am sure Jim Zumbo's career is not permanently ruined. As people come to realize that his apology was sincere (assuming that it truly was), he will be forgiven. Likewise, as it becomes clear over time that the Democrats' retreat from gun control is permanent, the gun lobby will lose interest in politics.
The NRA isn't paranoid, it just uses those that are.
"I've never heard of anyone hunting with assault rifles."
That's what Zumbo's comments are about, people hunting with assault rifles, moron.
And all the pro-NRA, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions that are on these comments reveal how the NRA has trained you well for your fish-treats. It's frightening. And you all want assault rifles.
Hey, why not legalize shoulder-fired grenade launchers? SAMs?
1. Falling for the "assault" nonsense for semi-autos.
2. Falling for the hunters vs shooters vs collectors divide and conquer.
3. Falling for the traditionalist vs modern divide and conquer.
4. And especially falling for the "sporting firearms" test nonsense.
I'm proud to be a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA. Zumbo was a total idiot. His high standing earned him the hard fall for writing this screed that will be used by the enemies of us all. I'm sending more money to the NRA to thank them for punishing the enemy of the Republic that Zumbo has become.
“I call them ‘assault’ rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.
“Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”
The NRA was late to this story. The REAL story here is that this all happened via the internet in 36 HOURS. 10 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor over a similer story by an equally stupid "hunting" writer. Of course NOTHING happened, the letter wasn't printed or even acknowledged. Today, the masses really do have power.
Now, Dumbo, I mean Zumbo still hasn't gotten it. His apology still says "oh if I had only know that someone actually hunted with these, then I wouldn't have made that comment". Dumbo doesn't realize that the 2nd A is about the "right to arms" not the right to have arms so you can hunt!
He is an idiot and we don't need him and he was not on our side. MAYBE the NUGE will edgumicate him but at 67 years old after haveing written for over 40 years about hunting I'm not holding my breath.
Opponents of racism show a similar intolerance for dissenting opinions. I say accept both apologies, but don't tolerate a second lapse from either of them.
The framers were incredibly intelligent and thoughtful as they authored our constitution. The constitution is unquestionably one of the most impressive and profound "governmental" documents in history. Everyone must remember, however, that the framers were not omniscient. This is easily illustrated by the questions I posed above. They had no contemplation of such weapons as we have in today's world. I believe the constitution, if written by our forefathers today, would be slightly different on the 2nd. Gun control is important, necessary and reasonable.
By the way, I am a democrat, I own and use many guns (typical hunting weapons), I hunt, I fish, drive a truck and so on. I also cannot stand the NRA. 692 days 18 hours 27 minutes and 11 seconds until Bush leaves office as I write this.
As far as where to draw the line on citizens owning arms, I think it should be when the weapon becomes indiscriminent. That means when you hit more than you are aiming at - LAW's, hand grenades, etc. I have not yet decided if full auto is indiscriminent or not, but lean towards yes.
Sure, Jim Zumbo has a right to his opinions. But he also has to see the consequences of what he wrote.
As the Supreme Court said in 1939, the "militia" when called to duty were expected to appear bearing arms in "common use at the time". That is common to the military or having a utility to the military. The clear inference is that the militia would appear bearing arms similer to the standard arm then used by the army. Now that is the M16. The rank and file in the army don't "carry" tanks, rockets launchers, atom bombs, machine guns, or even grenade launchers. It would be easy to estabish a test (as the court has done for numerous other situations) to resolve the ridciculousness of the above claims. Simply that the arms should have a utility for INDIVIDUAL use both in service in the militia and in private self-defense. As such FULL AUTO arms (since they are "select-fire") could easily be included. Certainly handguns would be included, as would short-barrell shotguns (18 inches). In the interest of compromise, since the 1934 NFA did restrict general ownership of full auto weapons, the court could also say that the militia be restricted to semi-auto arms only (the feared EBR "evil black rifles") that were the subject of Dumbos screed.
But, in NO WAY is it necessary for the SC to include the right to keep and bear atom bombs in order to protect the right of individulas to have arms (rifles, including at least semi-auto EBR's, handguns, and shotguns). To claim so otherwise is just stupid!
The so called 'hunters' who slam the NRA are no better educated than the gun hating Brady group and sympathizers. Zumbo basically attacked and insulted a huge group of the shooting public and he paid the price for it. And it also showed an incredible lack of understanding and naivete by writers like Bill Schneider to the insidious pressure and relentless attacks by the gun haters. WIth friends like these, we don't need enemies. With ignorant ramblings like Bill Schneider's, we don't need the Brady bunch to ban all our guns.
Lexington, KY 40502
I used painfully extreme examples to make the point that virtually every reasonable person believes in gun control (as do you) yet the very utterance of these two words among so many of the faithful NRA members I have encountered over the years incites a debate in which they proclaim that the right to bear arms includes completely unfettered ownership of fully automatic weapons if not nukes.
It is good that you have an understanding of case law pertaining to gun control issues but you missed the point. There are great numbers in NRA membership who would insistently argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong... that the framers of the constitution intended something less restrictive. I guess the real point is that the NRA (much of its membership) is really out of step with an incredibly large contingent (perhaps the great majority - don't know) of gun owners in this country.
I do not know anything about you or this website except for your comments on the Zumbo affair. I wonder if you are as misinformed about firearms issues as you appear to be, or if you simple are trying to drive a wedge between various segments of the firearms fraternity?
The Zumbo controversy began with a noted hunting writer's suggestion that military style firearms are something used only by terrorists and that the government should ban them from hunting.
The poor man obviously does not understand that Americans have a long tradition of using military firearms to hunt--the rifle of the first buffalo hide hunters was the Springfield trapdoor "needle gun", for example, and the origin of the modern bolt action rifle is the Mauser and Springfield military rifles.
Many modern hunters carry guns with "military" style camo plastic stocks and dull metal finish, even if they are bolt guns or pump or auto rifles and shotguns. Some look exactly like the bolt guns used by marine and army snipers.
If we are going to ban the AR-15's because of their appearance, where do we draw the line? Why not go back to single shot or even flintlock rifles if we are going to impose on our fellow sportsman our particular notions of firearms asthetics?
Zumbo made some arrogant, insulting, and misinformed remarks, and he got his comupence not from the NRA, but from grassroots gun owners who felt betrayed by one of their own.
You seem to know no more about the First Amendment than you do about the Second: "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. . . ." Zumbo exercised his First Amendment right to publish a stupid remark, and several thousand gun owners exercised their Second Amendment right to ask his editors and sponsors to fire him. How is that censorship?
You seem to have some real problem with those of us who understand that all of our freedoms ultimately rest on our ability to protect ourselves and our families from governmental abuse of power, by armed force if necessary. You call us "Black Rifle Gestapo", a "fanatic minority", "gun rights snipers", and in a burst of almost Agnewian alliteration, "vicious, vengful, vitriolic jackels". Pretty strong language to use toward folks whose only crime is their refusal to compromise where essential liberties are at issue, isn't it?
Have you ever actually talked to a supporter of restrictions on gun ownership? I have, you see, and I can tell you that they are usually completely ignorant of the history of the Second Amendment and of the use of firearms in America. They are motivated by an irrational fear of guns and a sick aversion to self-defense and to defying government. Those who do understand the issues often will tell you, if you listen long enough, that they want to ban all private ownership of guns, although they realize they must start by getting the support of some gunowners for "reasonable compromise".
I am happy to agree with you that the NRA has become a bloated bureaucracy, largely devoted to preserving the salaries and perks of those in authority. However, many of us know far more about the Second Amendment than anyone at the NRA, and we do not need them to tell us when our rights are threatened. You seem to have some agenda with the NRA that goes beyond Mr. Zumbo--why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
if any NRA member thinks the 2nd A protects a-bombs, then they're an IDIOT. my post didn't say all NRA members were smart. but, the NRA obviously does not think the 2nd A protects a-bombs.
and, your post was silly, anyone with a passing knowledge of the history and case law on the 2nd might consider it stupid. i did and i think you are.
Herr Schnieder has commanded that all NRA thugs stop writing their zealous opinions! Cease and desist using assault computer keyboards! Only qualified professional writers may publish their opinions!
You do not need to write an opinion. That is why we have professional writers. No one needs a 101 keys or more on their civilian sporting keyboard. 84 keys is the maximum keyboard capacity allowed with a permit. Manual typewriters are allowed without a permit as long as the ribbon is kept locked in a separate container.
I think this is more of a snobby hunter looking down his nose at anything he doesnt use personally.
As far as having to many rounds while hunting I believe a lot of states have a 5 round clip rule so whats the big deal??
Jim Zumbo got fired because he foolishly offended a large group of his sponser's customers. They had every right to be offended. These days you had better think long and hard before you even imply someone is a terrorist. It's not a word to throw around lightly.
If any spokesperson for any corporation in America said something in public as offensive as Zumbo's original blog entry, he would have been fired too. The NRA has nothing to do with it, except that they joined the list of people who let Zumbo go.
And speaking of REAL terrorism, Mr. Zumbo is very much like the "Judenrat", the "Jewish Police" who helped the SS round up other Jews for deportation. Like them, he thinks he can throw others under the bus to buy himself a little time. They were both wrong. The Nazis' goal was NO Jews. The anti-gunners and anti-hunters' goal is NO guns, of ANY kind for anyone but themselves and their lackies.
As for the 1st Amendment, it guarantees the right to free speech, NOT the right to free speech WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, or even CONDEMNATION. That's a LIBERAL idea, and one of which as a LIBERAL, I am quite proud. Obviously Mr. Schneider and his friends in AHSA disagree.
You missed the point. I was one of the Wray-esque jackals calling for Zumbo's censure, and I _am_ a writer. I have nothing to do with the NRA, nor did the NRA have anything to do with Zumbo's demise. The entire event transpired over a weekend, when business was dozing off and looking the other way. By the time Monday happened, the blogswarm was all over.
Many in writing circles, apparently yourself included, are in absolute denial that this was a grassroots movement in it's simplest form. Had you read the burgeoning list of dissent in Zumbo's comments, the conclusion was inescapable. Zumbo erred, badly. Zumbo had a career killing mistake, plain and simple. He severely underestimated America's taste for modern military arms.
Call me a zealot if you wish, I'll eventually learn to like the term. But as an assault weapon [sic] owner, I've had enough of taking the blame for the actions of other irresponsible people. Or worse, having **my** rights sacrificed for naught in the name of meaningless political expediency and posturing in Washington and elsewhere.
I find it fascinating that Brady, yourself, et al persistently peddle the notion that the NRA somehow orchestrated this assassination, and "real americans" are secretly supporting Zumbo. I suppose this must be the left-wing version of a conspiracy theory.
take your psychobabble elsewhere, you know as much about that as you evidently do about guns.
That Remington 700 Bolt Action with a Leupold Scope is a "sniper rifle", you can even buy a "Police Model"
The Remington Model 97 is a "trench shotgun", the Model 12 could be used as one too.
That Browning Bolt Action Rifle with the ported BOSS system, has a muzzle compensator for faster "follow-up shots".
The Benelli M1-Field can be used to shoot 9 hand thown clay targets before they hit the ground.
That Winchester .30-06 ammuniton you use for deer, is "cop killer", it can penetrate most police body armour.
The anti-gunners want to take all of them away, "obviously" no one needs the above items to hunt.
Don't think it can happen? Ask our friends in the UK and Australia.
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Position Statement
Jim Zumbo Comments on Assault Rifles
February 23, 2007
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a long tradition of supporting the shooting sports industry and passing on our hunting heritage to future generations. Jim Zumbo, a long-time supporter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the shooting sports industry, has made significant contributions to our organization during his career. We consider him a great friend and an advocate for hunters.
As a writer for our magazine, Bugle, Mr. Zumbo has supported our hunting heritage and our public outreach efforts. Through his writing for other publications, Mr. Zumbo has been a strong supporter of habitat enhancement and protection – cornerstones of the Elk Foundation’s mission as a wildlife conservation organization.
We believe the extreme reaction to Mr. Zumbo’s recent statements regarding the use of assault weapons in hunting is disrespectful in light of his many contributions to the hunting and conservation communities. We realize there are many opposing viewpoints on this issue, but we believe that Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions.
Mr. Zumbo’s second term as a member of the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation expired this month under the terms of our by-laws. The end of Mr. Zumbo’s term on the board is entirely unrelated to the current controversy.
We appreciate all of Mr. Zumbo’s contributions to the Elk Foundation, to the shooting sports industry, and to hunters over the years.
By having piled on Jim Zumbo and torn him apart like a pack of wild dogs for his remarks, destroying his life and his livelihood, EVERYONE involved in his demise has proven himself unworthy of the rights so many have fought and died for over the last two centuries.
In case you folks haven't figured it out yet, you have handed the anti-hunters and anti-gunners an enormous propaganda victory. They didn't have to do anything to achieve this victory. Hunters and shooters gave it to them on a platter--for free.
We may look back on this past week as the time when we truly lost our rights; nay, when we truly gave them away.
Also, his apology seemed quite complete to me. He could have gone on to say that he was sorry he was ever born, because the end result was his making a comment against assault rifles. I don't think that would have appeased those who were most deeply offended (on such little provocation), however.
The internet and freedom of speech, just like guns, are tools. They are useful but can both be very damaging. This story is really about a bunch of pro-gun zealots letting everyone know how very irresponsible they are with the tools they are have. I don't think either should be taken away, because having the government take away my rights scares me. On the other hand--like anyone who is uneasy about a mob of angry gun nuts-- these people scare me too.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-27-09.asp#anchor6
you funny guy :), but looks aren't everything!
There is a great deal of talk about "accountability", that Zumbo got what he deserved.
I wonder, the next time some lunatic goes ballistic with an assault rifle, will the NRA accept its "accountability" in terms of facilitating putting that weapon in the crazy's hand?
Or will any of you?
And please don't respond with talk about amendments, 1st or 2nd. Amendments are words-- I'm talking Littleton, DC sniper-- real tragic events.
Just as the car companies, Ford, GM, etc., etc., don't have any responsibility, nor accountability, nor culpability when a drunk driver uses a car to kill someone, neither do the gun manufacturers (or even retail sellers assuming the retail sale was within the law) have any responsibility, accountability, or culpability when a criminal misuses a firearm. Ditto for the NRA.
Or are you suggesting that we hold ALL organizations responsible for the actions of un-related third parties?
Do you suppose we should prosecute the ACLU because one its former chapter presidents was just arrested for having child pornagraphy? After all, the ACLU is defending the "man-boy love association" under the theory that "speech" is protected.
No, didn't think so. Guess you comment doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Right now they are trying to divide owners of traditional pattern hunting arms from millions of other decent, honorable, responsible firearms owners, who happen to enjoy collecting and shooting the firearms described here, in some of the most dangerous legislation in years, HR 1022:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
NOTE THAT Section 3(a)(30)(A) includes in its list of "assault weapons":
RUGER MINI-14 Ranch Rifles (and presumably Mini-30's)
M1 CARBINES
SAIGA HUNTING RIFLES
KEL-TEC pistol caliber ranch/utility carbines
HI-POINT pistol caliber ranch/utility carbines
THOMPSON semi-auto replicas
NOTE FURTHER WHAT IT SAYS IN Section 3(a)(30)(L) as further definition of an "assault weapon":
"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."
end quote
FOLKS, THIS CATCH ALL WOULD INCLUDE:
M1 GARANDS!
BAR's whether in hunting configuration or not!
SKS rifles with a non-detachable magazine
Springfield M1A's and semi-auto M14's
Any traditional pattern hunting rifle built on an AK type action
AND, it empowers the ATTORNEY GENERAL to UNILATERALLY DECLARE these and similar firearms as "non-sporting" and therefore "evil assault weapons". Does any firearm owner really want to give this sort of power to the next JANET RENO?
This legislation goes on to declare as an "assault weapon", any rifle with "A PISTOL GRIP". What sort of "pistol grip" would that be? How many of you own a semi-auto hunting rifle with a wooden pistol grip stock? For that matter, what is it about a "pistol grip", or a "barrel shroud", or a "telescoping stock" or a threaded barrel that makes a rifle inherently more lethal if a CRIMINAL chooses to murder innocent unarmed people?
How does restricting such firearms from millions of law-abiding people prevent a single criminal from preventing mayhem if they are so obsessed. The DC "shooters"murdered people ONE SHOT AT A TIME. Any bolt action rifle, even a single shot breach loader, would have been every bit as deadly. In fact the vast majority of hunting rifles are chambered in calibers that are far more lethal in their wounding effects.
In the case of Littleton Colorado, Harris and Klebold spent as much as a year planning their attack. Apparently in a complete lack of parental supervision or concern, they acquired standard shotguns that in no way could be construed as "assault weapons and proceeded to saw off the barrels. They also acquired a semi-automatic TEC DC-9, and a semi-auto 9mm carbine, which in terms of it lethality to unarmed high school kids is no more or less deadly than any other 9mm semi-automatic pistol, or for that matter, any medium frame revolver. In strict objective terms of wounding effects, standard shotguns used by hunters and others for centuries are the most deadly of these weapons. Harris and Klebold also were armed with nail-filled pipe bombs.
Most recently, in the Utah mall shooting, the bad guy was carrying a simple shotgun.
The solution of the gun grabbers therefor is to seize EVERY firearm from law abiding, responsible citizens, in the false hope that our lives and liberty will somehow be safer if only criminals, police and the military possess firearms.
Into this climate stepped Jim Zumbo. Mr. Zumbo certainly had a right to write what he wrote. THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. In a climate where the gun grabbers are seeking to turn us against one another, his inflammatory statements could not have made them happier. No sooner had Mr. Zumbo labeled AR's and AK's as "terrorist rifles associated with terrorists", then the Brady Bunch was touting it with glee as a "see we told you so" moment.
No sooner had a spontaneous grass roots groundswell rejection occurred on the web, than the Brady Bunch et al. and unthinking sympathizers began to label (and libel) those who were overwhelmingly critical as "gun nut zombies controlled by the NRA". This, even though the NRA itself was exceeding slow and cautious in its reaction.
Further, it is a matter of record that Mr. Zumbo has publicly acknowledge that, in his words, he "blew it big time". While it may not be perfect, he has publicly (and I believe sincerely) apologized for the damage he has caused. It is my hope that he will follow this up with sincere, dedicated action to help mend fences and fight for the Second Amendment rights of ALL firearms owners.
In Conclusion:
Hunters need to recognize beyond ANY DOUBT that the gun grabbers are on record as ZEALOUSLY devoted to eliminating ALL privately owned firearms, including their center-fire, bolt-action long guns. And, if hunters now turn their backs on millions of "ugly gun" owners, how can they expect that those betrayed will rally to THEIR SIDE when the Brady's come after traditional hunting rifles and shotguns?
IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE ALL UNIFY AND RESIST THE GUN GRABBERS
That means all of us: the urban woman concerned for her personal safety, the hunter, the cop, the soldier sworn to defend the Constitution, the target shooter, those who consider themselves part of the self-reliance movement.
The words of Martin Niemöller should serve as a warning:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
As far as I know, the SOLE purpose of the ACLU is not to advocate on the part of child molesters. That is the worst analogy I've ever heard.
I am a gun owner; I am a hunter; I may get a handgun; I am not part of the "brady bunch" or any other of the social pinatas you all love/need to bash.
But there is one purpose to assault weapons-- to discharge as many bullets as possible. It is not a hunting weapon. It's purpose is to KILL PEOPLE.
The NRA is culpable because its sole purpose is to advocate on behalf of ALL guns, including those whose sole purpose is to KILL PEOPLE.
It is telling that the DC sniper used an assault rifle in his spree, even though it only discharged one bullet at a time. It was because he was a militant whacko, just like all other people who feel the need to purchase an assault weapon for "fun".
If you could make these weapons so they only discharged one bullet at a time, then I, and the rest of America, would have no problem with them.
Feel free to post more of your nonsensical responses from the windowless basement of your mother's home.
What an illogical statement "If you could make these weapons so they only discharged one bullet at a time, then I, and the rest of America, would have no problem with them."
The DC sniper (who was Muslim by the way) used an EBR (evil black rifle) capable of sustained semi-auto fire with at least 20 round magazines, yet they fired 1 round in each attackt. Well, they could've used any of Suedes "good" bolt actions rifles to do that. And, if they had used a .30-06 there probably would have been more kills.
By his logic it is the high-power rifles (as opposed to low-power "assault weapons") that should be banned.
Another witless gun-owner, that despite being hit over the head time and time again by the anti-gun crowd, just can't get it into his head that IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT GUN YOU OWN, THEY WANT TO BAN IT!
I have a lot of complaints with the NRA, but if it wasn't for them Suede and all of the other stupid gun-owning "hunters" like D(Z)umbo would have already lost their pretty wood-stocked rifles.
Zumbo has no one to blame for his dilemma other than himself. His first amendment right to speak his mind comes with an equal responsibility to accept the consequences for them.
As it is, Denny Hansen of SWAT magazine is attempting to educate him by sending him through an AR-15 class in the hopes that he will gain some understanding of what he was talking about, since he had no knowledge of the subject beforehand. Zumbo has learned at the ripe old age of 66 what most of us learned at 6: If you can't say something nice about someone else, don't say anything at all.
No "astro-turf." No "false flag" operations by the Joyce Foundation. Just "an Army of Davids" using the internet to express their opinions.
Scary, huh? To guys like you, it should be. Remember, we can fact check your ass.
That's silly and totally inaccurate. One pull of the trigger = one shot. They're useful for shooting varmints, they're useful for target shooting, and in some states they're useful for deer hunting. It's just a gun and it's not even full auto like a machine gun.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
Mr. Zumbo put his foot in his mouth; deep, deep in his mouth.
I am a Patron Member of the NRA and I didn't hear a thing from them on Mr. Zumbo - early on I read the quote of what he said and knew his goose was cooked.
I would expect that if I were to make a comment that was blatanty offensive to my employer I would be fired. It looks to me like Mr. Zumbo did just that.
Remember this when they legislate against your "high powered deadly sniper rifles". After all, since large game animals measure almost 12 to 18 inches through the vital zone, surely there can be no proper sporting purpose for a highpowered, deadly sniper rifle that can place three shots into 3 or 4 inches at 300 yards. You elitist hunters with your deadly weapons need to be controlled. Anyway, enough on that. WAKE UP, we will hang together or we will hang apart . . .
And a word about what Zumbo said about state fish and Game departments outlawing assualt weapons for hunting: Doing so would in now way infringe on 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment says that you can "keep and bear arms". It says nothing about what you can and can't use them for. Game and Fish Departments broadly determine how and when game may be taken. For example, they usually prohibit fishing with dynamite; or rifle hunting during bow season. This is one way in which they regulate what weapons are used to take game, and I see no difference in outlawing assault rifles for hunting. Doing so would in now way infringe on second amendment rights.
I find it dangerous that this turned into a mob mentality when many have never seen the actual writing. What if someone had hacked the story, got the firestorm started and off it burned. I realize this is not the case here but . . .
So . . . the only explanation I can see is since it appears he posted it on Friday night (the party night of the week) is – perhaps he was drunk when he wrote his blog and everyone knows that if you mix guns and drinking your gonna get yourself in trouble.
He should hire a good publicist, say he was drinking (even if he wasn't) and go into rehab. Then everyone could forgive him(most everyone has done a stupid thing thanks to booze). Spin it off into a reality TV show where contestants took turns shooting targets with a variety military weapons hosted by Jim.
Since the government has been in the pockets of the NRA for about 50 years now, it seems that the NRA is what needs overthrowing!
>You have proof of that? If the NRA has controlled the government, I guess we would not need an NRA since we would not need an NRA to keep an eye on the elitist tyrants in Washington.
And a word about what Zumbo said about state fish and Game departments outlawing assualt weapons for hunting: Doing so would in now way infringe on 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment says that you can "keep and bear arms". It says nothing about what you can and can't use them for.
>The Constitution says for the "security of a free state" I see you did not get your moneys worth from school. I suggest you read some state constitutions, and it will clearly tell you, and it has nothing to do with hunting, so if some state decides to ban hunting, and hire state troopers to kull game, you will be up shit's creek without a paddle you boob. Also, tell me why a gun with a bayonet lug, a pistol grip or a flah hider has no hunting purpose, but if I take them off, it is good for hunting. You sir, are clueless.
Game and Fish Departments broadly determine how and when game may be taken. For example, they usually prohibit fishing with dynamite; or rifle hunting during bow season. This is one way in which they regulate what weapons are used to take game, and I see no difference in outlawing assault rifles for hunting.
>Based on COSMETICS? Do you have the ability to think?
Doing so would in now way infringe on second amendment rights.
>You are obviously not too bright since you cannot spell, not knowing the difference between "know" and "now". You are right they can ARBITRARILY ban guns on COSMETICS, next will be your scoped rifles because "you do not need that to hunt". They banned everything but side-by-side shotguns in Austria because you do not need anything but those to hunt. Get you head out of
your ass.
If a gun fires bullets that can penetrate level II body armor, those are "cop killer" bullets; the gun and the bullets should be banned.
If a gun fires bullets that cannot penetrate a level II vest, it has "no sporting purpose" and should be banned.
(I didn't figure this out myself, I read it on a blog somewhere this
weekend. I wish I could credit the original source)
Of course, Brady, Schumer, Kennedy, etc, will still have access to guns themselves because they are special.
The K-O-O-K-S are on parade here. I assume you have been forwarded this conversation, as I doubt most of you read New West on a regular basis. Just more proof how nutty and rabid you folks are.
As for posting my hunting license number, that's none of your gd business, Mr Patriot Act. Rest assured I'd have a real tight grouping at 300 yards and have earned the meat in my freezer.
I understand why you all think you need assault rifles-- you're not man enough to defend yourselves otherwise, and crazy enough to think "the elitists" wants your guns.
NRA = Nutjobs Razing America
Besides a lifetime of non-sensical NRA policies, the NRA's insistence that assault weapons are legitimate hunting weapons is enough to piss me off. Because here's the long picture:
- The number of hunters in this country is declining. Most of this is tied to the advancing age of hunters, who are not being replaced by younger hunters. Why not?
Because society at large takes a look at people shooting wildlife for fun with assault weapons, and it isn't pretty. It's hard to recruit new hunters in that embarassing atmosphere.
With fewer hunters, that means eventually hunter's rights decline in terms of where and when we can hunt. Not good.
Besides-- don't pretend the NRA is about hunters' interests. It was only THIS year that they finally spoke up against the Bush administration's drill at any cost, sell off public lands, game be damned policies. Where have they been for 6 years?
It's a front. They don't give a d about game or hunters. So real hunters need to look out for ourselves now, and leave kooks like you behind to explain your weird weapon fetishes to the rest of America.
What do you hunt Swede? What caliber? What game? How many calibers in an inch? How many grains in a pound? Boy, I am so glad we have people like you in the shooting sports. Well, you guys aren't really shooters, maybe a few shots a year, and not really gun owners because you only own guns during your precious hunting seasons. I am not bitter, and I am not wrong. You are up against a firearms, political, history, and debating expert. The only thing that may save you is that I do not have much time becaue I work with kids with Learning Disabilities, but I may have some time here to help you, an adult with a Learning Disability. You are so funny, I would not need morphine, believe me, but this is infantile, I would not come looking for a windbag, clueless man like you. You remind me of the old farts at the club, who huff and puff when we shoot our service match rifles on the range and make comments and scoff like a bunch of old women. THey would come out there and make up "safety" violations and other BS harassment. They could not win an argument on merit, so they would start screaming and name calling, or like in your case, bringing someone's namhood into question, or calling them a kook, you know, when you cannot win a debate, name-call, then crawl back under your rock. They wonder why young people do not hunt? Who wants to associate with a bunch of old, drunk, farts? Guess what, mind your own business. So bitter? It is you dumb ass? You are full of hate. Shut up, you do not know me, and you do not know my age, who are you to say "bitter"? Look at yourself and the drivel, pathetic and shallow bullshit about people blasting wildlife with "assault-weapons" for fun. You mean they are tearing up these animals because they have bayonet lugs and flash hiders? You are a clueless piece of poop. Fat old ass, my ass. You assume too much Ma'am. I am a young healthy man with a 140 IQ, a decorated disabled war-time Vet, ride an antique Harley, degrees in Criminal Justice, History, Education, teach Rifle, Pistol, Personal Protection, how about you? Stop acting like a woman, and state some facts. You mean to tell me that people are more careless or less careless because of cosmetic features of a gun? You do not know what you are talking about.
> Besides a lifetime of non-sensical NRA policies, the NRA's insistence that > assault weapons are legitimate hunting weapons is enough to piss me off. > Because here's the long picture:
Piss you off? Oh, poor you? You lose sleep over this? Have you sought professional help? WHo is the kook here? You are not from one of those blue nanny states where everyone minds everyone elses business are you? The NRA insists that people use guns with bayonet lugs for hunting? So if the NRA told people to cut their bayonet lugs of, that would be OK with you? You are full of it. What makes a so-called assault weapon unsuitable to hunt with. BE SPECIFIC. Why is a Remington 7600 OK, and a semi-auto with a bayonet lug not. Answer the question.
> The number of hunters in this country is declining. Most of this is tied > to the advancing age of hunters, who are not being replaced by younger > hunters. Why not?
Gee, I wonder why numbers are declining, who wants to hang around with a mean jerk like you? Who calls other other gun owners kooks, or makes comments about their man-hood because they want to have military rifles as the Founding Fathers of this nation envisioned. Read the Militia Act of 1794 Swede. You should be ashamed of yourself. Quit while you are ahead. If this was a debate in front of an audience, you would be exposed as a poltroon. Look it up. Don't you think you are part of the problem? You think it is the NRA fault? NO. Is it the fault of people with bayonet lugs on their guns? DON'T BLAME US. DON'T BLAME US, OR TRY TO "DIVORCE" US, LIKE ZUMBO. GET IT. I don't hunt, I do not care to hunt, I am not a selfish asshole like you. I use my gun ownership as per my oath to the Constiution, how about you, oh, your narrow self interest and fuck everyone else. Right? I know why many youngsters do not hunt, being a Junior Conservation Club Direction, so you are not talking to a kook here, nor some old fat guy, you fucking punk. It is because of assholes like you harassing them at gun clubs, shooting ranges, and hunting camps with the stupid, shallow, HOSTILE remarks they cannot back up with facts.
> Because society at large takes a look at people shooting wildlife for fun > with assault weapons, and it isn't pretty. It's hard to recruit new > hunters in that embarassing atmosphere.
For fun? Where? They have licenses? Who is giving them the licenses? Why not blame them? Where is this going on? You know of this? People with guns with bayonet lugs are doing this, but people take the bayonet lugs off, they suddenly stop?
> With fewer hunters, that means eventually hunter's rights decline in terms > of where and when we can hunt. Not good.
You have no "hunter' rights" The states are only "friendly" to hunters as long as they pay the bills, when these states do not make money off you, they will become hostile.
> Besides-- don't pretend the NRA is about hunters' interests. It was only > THIS year that they finally spoke up against the Bush administration's > drill at any cost, sell off public lands, game be damned policies. Where > have they been for 6 years?
You now have a problem with the NRA for the last 6 years, what did they do before that to alienate you? This is the only thing you could come up with? Something smells. What did people who shoot service match rifles at Camp Perry do to you for you to call them KOOKS? The NRA was originall set up in 1871 by former Union Generals to promote marksmanship as per the well-regulated militia. Again, if you know of a group that does more for hunters than the NRA, let's hear it.
> It's a front. They don't give a d about game or hunters. So real hunters > need to look out for ourselves now, and leave kooks like you behind to > explain your weird weapon fetishes to the rest of America.
Yeah sure, right from the Brady bunch, who are you fooling? Who really represents hunters then, WHO HAS DONE MORE FOR HUNTERS THAN THE NRA, and I will ask the question AGAIN. You seem to have problems answering questions, have a selective memory, I have been doing this a long time, and it is starting to smell. Nice assuming that I have semi-autos with bayonet lugs, I do not have to explain my fetish, (fetish-another put down, with a sexual connotation). I guess PETA would say hunting is some sexual blood fetish, you want to play hard ball here? Hypocrite, well that is if you are really a hunter. I do not have them, I collect .22 military training rifles, and shoot service rifle, but understand that jerks like you are the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to kill hunting in the end, not the NRA or people with guns with bayonet lugs. Put your ego aside, think about it, but it is difficult to get unintelligent egomaniacs to admit they are wrong. They become more vicious and will destroy themselves as well as their preceived enemies to prove themselves correct. Sorry, but the truth hurts Swede.
The only thing proved by this string is that anti-gunners argue their points from emotion, instead of facts.
>The NRA is well on its way to being the new replacement for the KKK, perhaps already there.
Well you History teacher should be fired, for you certainly did not learn US History, but you are another clueless American. Michael Moore is right about one thing, Americans are dumb, you Mike are proof of that. Your baseless, factless, unsubstantiated comments are proof that you people have nothing to base your arguments on. The NRA is trying to keep black people in the south from voting? Maybe Roy Innis, a black man, the President of CORE, and NRA Director would like to know that. You people have no ethics and will throw any smear out their to win your right, like communists, you do not care hom much you have to lie, or how many innocent people you have to kill to prove your corrupt system is the best. Anti-gunners are well on their way to being the new replacement for the PROPAGANDA MINISTRY OF THE THIRD REICH. Perhaps you can give us some historical parallels or cite some specifics, oh, I forgot, we are asking people who run on emotion and lies to state facts here. People who run on bumper sticker slogans and parrot what they hear from their favorite Marxist-Leninists
>t is a dangerous lunatic fringe group that attracts dangerous kooks and incites dangerous > thinking in people who do not have the maturity to control themselves. It > needs a full federal investigation of all of its activities to support all > appropriate prosecutions and needs to be banned.
I am sure it has already been done idiot. Again no specifics to back up your charges or baseless assertions. You have a better chance of being struck and killed by lighting than being hurt much less killed by some "kook". Tell us, how many "kooks" have been incited by the NRA? Tell us comrade what is the next civil rights group that needs to be banned if it does not meet your fascist standards for inciting immature people? You are a piece of shit, big brother advocate, the same people the founders of this nation warned us about, and the same reason gave us the Second Amendment, that is why you hate it, it keeps SCUM like you at bay. Go to Cuba or North Korea where there is no NRA, you will be happy there.
You ought to thank Nugent for giving him some respect to post on his website.
It seems that several of this string's posters have mentioned shooting "varmints" with assault rifles. As they do not eat the game, this seems to qualify as "shoot up the... game" for pleasure.
(Some people may quibble with the idea of prairie dogs as game, but the bottom line is that they're native wildlife, unlike oryx, ibex, lions and other critters people import for game farms etc).
While equating the NRA to the KKK is a little hysterical, it seems that some of the pro-assault folks here seem to have gone equally as far with their paranoia. This kind of hateful rhetoric does justice to no one.
So, are you going to buy a snub-nose .38SPL revolver. It's not an "assault weapon/rifle"? And it's not a target or huntng gun, either. I guess that "idiot label" across your forehead is in indelible ink now.
Barry Bright
March 1, 2007
The controversy that has caused you so much consternation was a few days old before I found out anything about it. So yes, it can be hard to keep up on all that’s going on. In the process I realized I had been out of touch because I was surprised by the number of ‘pro-gun rights’ blogs out there.
It seems there once were only ‘websites’ such as the one I used to run: Free Kentucky News. I’ve mostly depended on Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and a few independents to keep me informed on the activities of our enemies.
But sir, the assault weapons ban was first passed in 1994. Even then, many began to prepare for what some say is still inevitable.
Sir I have hunted all my life. I haven’t deer hunted for the last couple of years but I have a squirrel dog, a Norwegian Elkhound, as much to honor what my ancestors did to survive as to enjoy the exercise and the biscuits and squirrel gravy I was raised on.
But my ancestors didn’t have the same kind of dog I do. They had family mutts, most of whom would ‘tree a squirrel’ as my older relatives have told me. They didn’t have the same kinds of weapons either, from the muzzle loading rifle that Daniel Boone supposedly used to ‘bark’ squirrels off a limb, by hitting the limb and letting the concussion kill the prey, to my grandfather’s single shot 12 gauge, the only gun he ever owned, mostly for squirrels and chicken eating predators.
But we live in different times. Some of the hunting shows make it look too easy. Who can miss a grazing deer from 300 yards with a 7mm Magnum and a telescopic site? That gun is too outrageous, you should have to use a spear and the ancient stalk, not a deer stand and feeder.
As a kid growing up on our Kentucky family farm in the 1970s I cut my political teeth on Outdoor Life articles about anti-hunters. I knew then that gun control was wrong but thought we could tolerate it like we tolerate socialism in our once free land. Bill Clinton proved me wrong.
In your apology on The Cody Enterprise website you write: “…there have been flurries of bills to outlaw guns.”
Sir do you not see that there is no ‘flurry’ of activity by our home grown enemies? They have been constant and determined in their actions for decades. “Three steps forward, two steps back’ has been their mantra. Any ground gained is good ground to them.
“Demand more than you expect, settle for less, and you have achieved your goal,” is their SOP. All they have to do is promise a check or a job and millions vote for them. All this is as they planned.
Then sir, you claim you were tired and called people who hunt with ‘assault weapons’ terrorists, or the next thing to it. A 14th century bureaucrat known for his manual on government had something to say about this:
Princes and governments are far more dangerous than other elements within society. - Niccolo Machiavelli
The number of ‘right wing’ blogs out there have increased with the number of keyboard commandos among us. I can’t criticize them too much having been one for years. But for a while I was something else. Not just the Marine Reservist who was called up and followed orders blindly for some shallow official form of ‘patriotism’ that amounts to little more than what any soldier has done ‘for his country’ when the leaders decide it’s time to war.
“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Hermann Goering
For three years I served in the Kentucky State Militia, to share some of my very basic infantry knowledge imparted to me by Uncle Sugar’s camping club. Now let your eyes finish rolling and your snicker die down and try to engage your brain sir.
Surely you heard of what happened in New Orleans and the laws several states have passed to prevent it from happening again? Those people who were just trying to defend their homes, property and lives, would have been in the right to have shot those National Guardsmen and other law enforcement down when they demanded they turn over their ‘Liberty teeth.’
“But they were just doing their jobs.” You are old enough to know where that idea came from aren’t you?
Don’t say “Oh that’s awful.” We send ignorant 19-year-olds over seas to kill other ignorant 19-year-olds all the time so we can keep burning oil and go on our hunting trips. That’s what our wars are about. Freedom, Liberty, is economic. It always has been.
Ultimately the question is do you have a line sir? Do we have a line? Or do we have imaginary promises in political and emotional sands? Do we really believe that train loads of disarmed and cowardly government victims could never roll across our plains? If so we should turn our guns in now.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally. - Niccolo Machiavelli
We should be proud of the keyboard commandos who cost you your jobs. But do we sir, have the resolve to tell our enemies ‘No’ and mean it? If not you need to take up golf, until the eco-wackos decide it’s too hard on the environment.
“I have seen an American general and his officers, without pay, and almost without clothes, living on roots and drinking water; and all for LIBERTY! What chance have we against such men!” -- young British officer to Colonel Watson describing the American militia rebels in Georgetown, SC [Source: 'Marion, The Life of Gen. Francis Marion' by M. L. Weems, Ch.18]
This is the cause they serve, control of all resources and every aspect of our lives. Ignoring that will be our deadly mistake. The NRA should be arming, training and positioning the militias for the inevitable, even if we could prove the inevitable will never come. For the Second Amendment is not about hunting that trophy deer on your wall. You don’t need to hunt anyway, we have grocery stores.
And all of our “Sportsman’s’ magazines should be posting articles on how hunters can hit running “Liberals” and other forms of authoritarians at great distances as a team, and many teams it will take, because that is the hunt that may really matter some day.
“Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?” - Nikolai Lenin 1920
Common Law Copyright by Barry Bright March 2007
WHO! Tell us. The NRA did not take down Zumbo, the rank and file did, and HIS MOUTH.
> burning a cross on someone's lawn as a means to intimidate them into > silence and submission.
Yeah OK. Ask for a refund for your college tuition. Nice analogy...NOT!!
>It is a means of showing that you can hurt them >where they >live, in this case where they make their living, and is thus a
> mechanism for using a form of terror as a political weapon.
You mean like the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Terror my ass. You don't know what you are talking about. Another shallow, know-it-all arrogant liberal, who does not know shit. You are fighting someone who actually knows someone here, unlike your liberal buddies, and your College Prof who got his/her job because he/she could not teach.
>In this sense, > its intended effect is the same as the intended effect of a crosss burning > or a lynching or any of many other filthy, despicable, low-life KKK tactics.
Yeah, non-violent, like MLK, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. You hypocrite.
> Your responses continue to prove my point and extend a string of > dishonorable rhetoric that is demonstrating the problem that Zumbo, > Schneider, and the rest of us wanted to highlight in the first place; so, > exactly who is the idiot?
Your responses prove you are a hypocrite as well as an idiot as well as NOT a hunter. So you want to ban the NRA for using non-violent tactics against their civil rights denying enemies. Who is the real klansmen here Mike? You are going to equate this with lynching? A real lynching? What a feminized metro male, this is what "liberalism" has turned males into, things like Mike, who think like feminists, and talk like them, self loathing of anything masculine. What the left wants, the feminization of men and the masculinization of women, Mike is the result. I see we are starting to talk about penis envy, Mike must have gotten his girl friends up early this morning to come down to the computer lab to do the best Marxist put downs they can come up with, you know the ones their Commie professors taught them. I guess you better go back to your Prof. and ask him for a better analogy than the KKK for the NRA, IT DOES NOT WORK.
I don't know; I kind of see limitations on assault rifles as similar to speed limits, it is a matter of degrees. I think everyone agrees that having someone go 120 mph next to an old grandma on the highway ain't ideal.
By the same token, sure the majority of assualt rifle owners are responsible, but all it takes is one psycho to inflict a great deal of damage with one, a la Littleton High School. A minor transgression removing an individual's rights to own an assault rifle greatly enhances many others' right to life. On balance, it seems like a no-brainer.
The problem I have with the argument that allows assault rifles is that it also could be made for private individuals to own WMDs, RPGs, etc-- if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion. It doesn't seem to acknowledge the reality on-the-ground.
I am interested in what others have to say about this, but please respond in a respectful way, sans the insults and assumptions.
WHAT??? Explain the connection between a gun fring a conventional bullet and a WMD or RPG. This is EXACTLY the type of rhetoric the gun control people use. I feel almost undignified bothering to respond to this assertion. Imagine another sniper incident and this time it's a rel sniping tool, like a bolt-action with a scope. What then? A proposed ban on those guns? This is the logic of the anti-assault weapons/anti-hanfgun people. it's not about numbers, it's about highlighting tragic events and makng emotional appeals to satisfy a philisophical agenda.
Aaron, this is why Zumb does not know what he is talking about. Why should they be banned? Because of what they look like? Is that reasonable to you? The only ban I can think of is because of magazine capacity, the same with pump or semi shotgun when shooting waterfowl, i.e. three rounds. If the law states you can only have a five round mag for hunting, a round mag in a semi with a bayonet lug or a five round mag in a gun without a bayonet lug does not make a damned bit of difference. Agreed? This is a no-brainer. Take the emotion, and illogic out of this.
>I'm not sure he explicitly called for a ban on them across the >board, which most of the comments on this string vociferously >suggest.
He did, he said they was what "terrorists" use, and we should "divorce" ourselves of them based on cosmetics? This is stupid, and not thought out well.
>I don't know; I kind of see limitations on assault rifles as similar to
>speed limits, it is a matter of degrees. I think everyone agrees >that having someone go 120 mph next to an old grandma on the >highway ain't ideal.
It is like banning V8 engine in cars with mag wheels and look like hot rods, while it is ok to have them if the car does not look like a street rod, meaning banning on the basis of cosmetics, not performance.
>By the same token, sure the majority of assualt rifle owners are
>responsible, but all it takes is one psycho to inflict a great deal >of damage with one, a la Littleton High School.
Maybe someone should have told them there was a gun ban in that school? So much for gun bans and how well they work. Would the damage been any less if they took the cosmetic features off the guns that made them so-called "assault weapons"? Was it the cosmetic features that made them deadly? Was it being semi-auto that made them deadly? If so, what we are really talking about there is a semi-auto ban, not an assault weapons ban. That is what their real goal is here, get it?
>A minor transgression removing an individual's rights to own an >assault rifle greatly enhances many others' right to life. On >balance, it seems like a no-brainer.
So should be ban cars because some fool abuses their use of a car? Should we punish everyone because of the actions of a few? If banning cars, alcohol, or anything else because it saves one life worth it? How about suspending the Constitution because it saves one life? You have a better chance of being struck and killed by lightning than being killed by an AW, and this is a FACT.
>The problem I have with the argument that allows assault rifles >is that it also could be made for private individuals to own >WMDs, RPGs, etc-- if you follow the argument to its logical >conclusion.
We are talking logic here. The term "arms" means exactly that "arms" something you can carry in your "arms". If you can carry a nuke, or a bio bomb, good luck, as for RPG's, the militias did have cannons. People can have anti-tank guns in the US, if they get a "destructive device" FFL from the ATF. See Aaron, I know what I am talking about. This is one reason you will NEVER see Sarah Brady debate the NRA face to face, she would be squashed.
A semi-automatic has the potential to fire multiple bullets rapidly, and are easily (and illegally) converted to fully-automatic (I have myself fired one of these coverted AKs in US).
To me, the potential to kill more than one person very rapidly is the tipping point, thus the connection to WMDs and RPGs. If semis were made so they could not be easily altered to be fully auto or 5+ round mags, I would have no problem with them. But I don't believe that is the case now.
I understand calling them "terrorist" weapons was no way to make friends with you, but Zumbo did NOT say he was for banning these weapons outright. What he said was:
"but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity." I think you may be mis-representing the issue here.
> It is like banning V8 engine in cars with mag wheels and look like hot rods, while it is ok to have them if the car does not look like a street rod, meaning banning on the basis of cosmetics, not performance.
My concerns are performance only. Right now semis are easily modified to become illegal, which creates increased danger for others.
>So should be ban cars because some fool abuses their use of a car?
I do not see this as an equivalent metaphor. Cars serve other purposes besides killing. The purpose of automatic weapons is to discharge bullets, which is the same function as if you are shooting people with them.
I believe if you were being genuine about your interests in target shooting, then owning a "black rifle" would not be as important to you, as you could target shoot with other rifles. I believe there is something else going on.
> The term "arms" means exactly that "arms" something you can carry in your "arms".
That seems like a vague and in-exact definition. So are you in favor of dirty bombs that can be carried by one person? Or a small nuclear device? As for RPGs, I'm pretty sure the ATF isn't handing out permits for them willy-nilly.
Of course, there is the larger question of the 2nd amendment. But I'm not sure the framers ever envisioned weapons of this capacity in the hands of regular joes.
Secondly, if concerns about "big brother" are your primary concern, then you're going to need something a lot bigger than an AK to hold them back. More like a blackhawk gunship.
All I can say is that I have fired a fully automatic, and I was not looking to do so. A 19-year old at a firing range offered me the chance with his converted AK. If he had the resources to convert, then it speaks to how easy it is.
In all honesty, I find it hard to believe those who are in favor of "black rifles" are motivated by anything else than the sense of "power" these weapons provide. No offense, but it seems a high price for society to pay to indulge this hobby for a relatively small number of people.
Why didn't you turn him in to the ATF? That's $10,000 and/or 10 years in the pen. Did he drive? Could of got a license plate number. I know why. Because you are full of it. Well, I am done here. Nuff said. Zumbo was wrong and the NRA did nothing wrong.
Gee, isn't that against the law? Hey Aaron, maybe you should go out there and tell them they are breaking the law, and while you are at it, tell them selling drugs is bad too. A "great number" huh? How many is a "great number"? Give us a number. Give us some FBI statistics. Where is this happening? Cite your source? You have a better chance of being killed by lightning, than being killed by a so-called 'assault weapon" and that is a fact. Unlike you, I have facts. You seen to throw out a bunch of bullshit rhetoric, devoid of any facts. Nice humanistic, emotion-based communication, just like Lenin and Marx liked it. Your Prof. trained you well. How intellectually lazy are you? If these guns are illegally owned and converted (meaning illegal) how in the hell is a ban on legal guns going to stop it? It isn't genius. Oh yes, there is always Littleton, the "gun free" school zone, with its own cop on the property, with the two propane bombs. I think we need a three day wait on propane purchases, it would have averted Littleton. Let's see, 13 people killed, when drunks kill that many in a day in the US and nothing is said about it. Littleton, the day the earth stopped rotating on its axis for 13 people, while 1000 times that have been killed by knives, bats, ropes, overdoses. swimming pools, hunting guns, fists, feet, malpractice, drunks, but not a tear for them because it was not an ugly gun.
>All I can say is that I have fired a fully automatic, and I was not >looking to do so. A 19-year old at a firing range offered me the >chance with his converted AK. If he had the resources to >convert, then it speaks to how easy it is.
I do not believe you. What state did this happen in? What was the name of the gun range? What city/town? It is not easy to convert. You have to be a machinist. You need a drill press and sheet metal bending equipment. Either the kid is a machinist or he knows one.
In all honesty, I find it hard to believe those who are in favor of "black rifles" are motivated by anything else than the sense of "power" these weapons provide. No offense, but it seems a high price for society to pay to indulge this hobby for a relatively small number of people.
<I find it hard to believe anything you say. You mean to tell me that someone derives power from a gun because of COSMETIC features? You mean to tell me a bayonet lug gives someone a sense of power, but if I cut if off, the hard-on goes away? Have always been feminized or were your balls cut off in college? What high price does society pay? High price my ass. Tell us? Give us death figures compared to drunk drivers, knives, cars, tobacco, baseball bats. These guns are so far down the list, anyone who has a problem with them, has a mental disorder (hoplophobia), not the people who own them. By the way, fulfilling your responsibility under the state and federal constitution is not a HOBBY sweetheart, and we are not a small number of people, and you better hope that some day you do not find out the hard way.
Everything I have told you is the truth. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your choice.
I hope, for everyone's sake, at some point you are willing to have a constructive discussion. Goodbye.
Unemotional? Engaging in sophistry is unemotional? Being absolutely disingenous is unemotional?
> Everything I have told you is the truth. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your choice.
The truth huh? A "great number" You are running because you cannot back up your sohist rhetoric.
> I hope, for everyone's sake, at some point you are willing to have a constructive discussion. Goodbye.
Nice dodge. Who can have a constructive conversation with a person who cannot make one factual statement, cite one source, or statistic, name the range, state, back up one fact, give any numbers, or back up anything. We ask you to back up what you say and you run away because we are not being respectful, and unemotional? You have a hell of a lot of nerve asking someone to be honest. You should be honest and admit, you got your ass kicked. Do us a favor, before you leave with your tail between your legs, ANSWER and EXPLAIN THE CHARGES YOU MADE.
I was out of town and missed this. Sorry, it wasn't the NRA, and taking your lead from Tony and Pat...both members of the Green OWAA faction that tried to stick it to Kayne Robinson for criticizing the Pew Trust's "hunter and angler" stunts...just shows you aren't interested in disseminating the full context of this particular fiasco. Nor was good old Blaine Harden, for that matter.
Fact remains, Jim Zumbo pulled a Neimoller for whatever reason, calling to ban black guns from hunting use or other sporting purposes, niching them as "terrorist" toys. But I for one am not about to make my gun selections based on what someone else thinks is appropriate, neither in a hunting context nor in a civil liberties context.
Enjoy your 870. Go ahead. It's your right. At least so far. But in return, I expect you to respect the right that I, and a bunch of other Americans, possess...to buy whatever alphabet-soup black gun we might like better. That's what this is all about.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/the_zumbo_affair_afterthoughts/C41/L41/
Guns, sex, Lies and Democrats
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/guns_sex_lies_democrats_and_the_nra/C41/L41/#comments
[Page S3347-S3348]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20mr07-117]
ASSAULT WEAPONS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association leadership
has stated repeatedly that a ban on assault weapons is ineffective and
unnecessary. They assert that guns labeled as assault weapons are
rarely used in violent crimes and that most people use them for
hunting. However, despite these repeated assertions, the list of
[[Page S3348]]
people speaking out against assault weapons continues to grow.
Jim Zumbo, an outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near
Yellowstone National Park, has spent much of his life writing for
prominent outdoor magazines, delivering lectures across the country and
who starred in a highly rated TV show about big-game hunting. Jim has
been an NRA member for 40 years, and, according to his Web site, has
appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities across the country. This
relationship changed drastically when Jim expressed his commonsense
opinion on assault weapons.
Last month, after learning that some hunters were using assault
weapons to hunt prairie dogs, Jim expressed his thoughts in his
personal blog on the Outdoor Life magazine website. He wrote:
Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these
weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to
call them ``terrorist rifles.''
He continued by stating that in his:
. . . humble opinion, these things have no place in
hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people
who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious
concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that
hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of
our ``sporting firearms.''
The reaction from NRA officials was swift and callous. They
immediately severed all ties with Mr. Zumbo. His TV program on the
Outdoor Channel was canceled, and his longtime career with Outdoor Life
magazine ended. In addition, many of his corporate ties to the biggest
names in gun making, such as Remington Arms Co., were terminated.
Jim Zumbo has worked for years to improve the image of outdoorsmen.
As he put it:
As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the
woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public,
an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce
ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them
from the prairies and woods.
We all owe Jim Zumbo a debt of gratitude for his forthrightness, his
honesty and his courage. We must put the safety of our communities
first by taking up and passing sensible gun legislation that includes
renewing the assault weapons ban.
Such talk was not sweet music to gun owners because most don’t hunt. After reading hundreds of comments on these postings, I learned that many gun owners consider hunters an adversary because sometimes hunters don’t pile on to every effort to defeat more restrictive gun laws.
The point of it all has gotten lost in the uproar. Basically, hunters need quality habitat to continue their tradition, and gun owners and their parent organization, the NRA, endorse habitat destruction with their support for anti-environmental politicians and policies. Now comes an intriguing article from David Lien of Colorado chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers xplaining why gun owners must defend hunting and what makes hunting possible if they want to defend the Second Amendment.--Bill Schneider
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/defending_wilderness_and_hunting_defends_our_right_to_bear_arms/C41/L41/
This is the height of arrogance and rationalization on the part of Schneider. These people are digging deep for excuses. This is in a nation where the industrial base has been shrinking and amount of land set aside for conservation has been growing needs to worry about "anti-environmental politicians and policies" oh that is a code word for Republicans? Yeah, I have always grouped hunters in with the environmentalists. Yeah, right. You think we were born last night? Who's payroll you on Schneider? Mr. Schneider, if you genuinely think there is lack of wilderness in the United States, you must be hunting equivalent of Al Gore, but most likely on the payroll of a group who's interests run contrary to "gun owners and the parent organization, the NRA (like the NRA controls gun owners) anti-environmental politicians and policies.
Because outside of the elitist "golf club hunters" bunch, they don't exist...
This WAS NOT something NRA did, in fact the NRA was FORCED into this kicking and screaming at the prospect of LOOSING even more members to GOA!
You don't see someone who does not already think something spew out "terrorist" in connection to the least likely population in the US to commit crimes (legal gun owners) without the underlying elitist superiority floating to the surface.
I know how this works, as a professional I dislike Chinese tools for political reasons, but you would never hear me call an American a "communist" because he is simply a home enthusiast looking for a good deal on a tool! - and I AM a tool snob!
None of you would be supporting him publicly if he had used the "N" word about a black hunter. Just because "black rifle" owning Americans are the "media approved" new "N*****S" and a "hunting is justification for the 2nd" is called to the carpet - WE are overreacting for the "terrorist" comment?