Bill - reality check on this one:

"Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use."

You'll see a lot of military and police snipers using bolt action .308s. Often, it's a customized Remington Model 700.

Otherwise, great column and a very reasonable course of action to forgive Zumbo, rather than burn him at the stake. I'd say if the blockheads at OL and Remington can't figure this out, some of their competitors will. Like the man said, no such thing as bad publicity.

"That seems easy. Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use. They’re our enjoying a quality hunt, not fighting wars or drug cartels."

This is an ironic observation, since Jim Zumbo in his more recent photos, is shown most of the time holding onto a rifle, equipped with telescopic sight, black synthetic stock, gun-metal gray or Parkerized receiver/barrel etc., which would be more than appropriate for use as a SWAT or military sniper rifle on any occasion. So much for the old-school mentality that is supposedly preferable among the "traditional" hunters. Back in the traditionalist days, the glossy wood stocks and polished bluing were implemented so the hunter could display his fine rifles in glass cases during the off-season.

I once asked some "black rifle" hunters what features attracted them into using their particular rifles out hunting. I was told that it was a utilitarian issue for most. Many of these folks didn't want to have a shiny wood stock while out scraping through the brush, rocks, and cactus, only to have a $350 stock ruined in one day.

I'd hazard a guess as that is the reason you see black-rifle inspired synthetic stocks bolted onto Zumbo's rifles too.

And they noted, if their rifle malfunctioned, they could field strip it in a matter of minutes, and be back to hunting.

I could relate very much to those two issues. When I was 16, I took my brand new Parker Hale SS1500, 7mm bolt action, gold plated trigger/shiny wood stock/polished blue barrel out elk hunting. Fell onto a rock with it the first day, and put a huge dent in the nice wood stock. A couple of years later, I went elk hunting again (same bolt action rifle), and had a primer pop out after firing off a round to test to see if my scope was still on after falling hard with it. The primer came out of the spent shell as I was extracting it, which jammed in between the receiver and the casing. My day of hunting was over because I couldn't get the spent casing removed from the bolt action's receiver.

And Drover is correct. The U.S. Army's M24 SWS (Sniper Weapons System) is nothing more than a Remington 700 with a bull barrel and a synthetic stock. Before the Army adopted the Remington/SWS platform, the U.S. Marines had used a variant of the Rem. Mod 700 since the mid-1960s, designated as the M40/A1/A3. Great information on the military/police applications of the Rem. Mod. 700 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700

As long as a hunting tool is able to quickly dispatch an animal, and is used responsibly and ethically by the hunter, there shouldn't be any issue as far as I am concerned.

If we are to take the argument at hand to its ultimate conclusion, and we are all supposed to hunt with the same type of rifle, there really isn't any need for a .300 Win Mag, or other high-powered rifle like that. For all intents and purposes, we could all use the 112 year old design of .30-30s, which are a heck of a lot more traditional than the scoped, high-powered, synthetic-stocked sniper rifles of Zumbo's preference. But, then again, if we all did that, there really wouldn't be any real need for someone like Jim Zumbo and other TV salesmen, to peddle the newest and latest gadgets on behalf of Remington and other sponsors, now would there? Why would Remington need to keep him on as their employee? I think Mr. Zumbo finally is starting to recognizing that potentiality after reading his most recent comments on this issue.

I think this particular issue had been bubbling under the surface for quite a while, and I now believe Zumbo was publicly spanked, simply to send a message to hunters who think they don't need these "black rifle" owners to keep their bolt action "Bambi-zappers" from being confiscated. I don't think they could be more wrong. As a matter of fact, I think that mentality is currently creating a multitude of anti-hunters, especially in the wake of Zumbo's lapse in judgment. Perhaps Mr. Zumbo will be afforded the opportunity to educate those who hold the beliefs that Zumbo espoused in his blog, into recognizing that "Black Rifle" owners, have been steadfast supporters of hunting, up until now, but that may in fact be changing due to the the derisive, arrogant and divisive attitudes of the so-called "traditional hunters." Hunting's ranks are shrinking, while the "black rifle" crowd is growing by leaps and bounds. Something to think about before taking these folks for granted any more.

Read the new Cook County, IL law banning weapons and the proposed bills SB 16 and HB 873 currently before the IL legislature. May not get your 870 but can get your 1100. THEY DO WANT TO GET ALL OF YOUR FIREARMS. Sen Feinstein of California stated: If I could it would be turn them ALL in Mr & Mrs. America.

From the LA Times:

Firefighters responding to a house fire in a Norco neighborhood were greeted with a dangerous surprise: gunfire. Lots of it.

Authorities on Thursday found a cache containing more than 1 million rounds of ammunition and 75 firearms, ranging from small handguns to assault rifles, throughout the burning home and in a shaft and tunnel under the garage.

see
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ammo3mar03,1,6136155.story

No doubt protected by 2nd amendment rights and the NRA. Glad I didn't live next door to the fireworks. However, I'd better not say anymore lest I be attacked by the NRA and some of their members. That is what Jim Zumbo would probably tell me.

Zumbo wouldn't be in the wrong if he had said, "I don't think they should be used for hunting, or I believe there are non-sporting". My Dad has the same opinion...

He was wrong for adding the "terrorist" label to them. That's what everyone of these articles misses. I'm not a terrorist, I own and I serve our country. I think he would be offended if I called his mother or wife a whore, because they are not. I doubt he would accept my apology for it either, I doubt many men would. That's the point, I'm not a terrorist and to be compared to them is a slap in the face.

Bill,

Zumbo was not (and I'm not sure is YET) a "staunch supporter of the Second Amendment". Calling AR-15's "terrorist" weapons and by extension those of us who own them "terrorists" isn't a good way to make me or other REAL supporters of the 2nd A give much of a damn about him!

As far as I can yet tell all he cares about is whether a gun is usefull in hunting. Well that ain't what the 2nd A is about.

And any "hunter" who doesn't understand that EVERY rifle, shotgun, revolver, and pistol, are in the sights of the gun-haters is stupid.

Zumbo appeared to be an elitist "hunter". Not a gun-owner, not a shooter, and definitly NOT a supporter of the 2nd A.

Zumbo was well established enough to become disengaged from the masses who were his audience. Hunting to him became an entitlement. It always amazes me how the big time outdoor editor types seem to be able to hunt all year in places where the locals have trouble drawing a tag every decade. His life of privilege had become one big disconnect.

That Zumbo was dragged down like Saddam, an internet rope around his neck, should not surprise you media types. I was once a logger, and "a rabid minority" has run the public land timber process for 30 years. No logging was never what national forests were to be about. The forests were to be the primary source of local raw materials, on a sustainable basis. Letting them burn is patently insane, but the rabid minority is now in control, just like in the Zumbo dust up. It is the new American way.

In summary, my message for the Gun Guys is stop attacking people and work together with hunters to build stronger support for the Second Amendment.

Stop attacking people? Who called whom the "black rifle Gestapo"? Who called whom "attack dogs"?

Your "message" would be a bit more effective if it weren't dripping with hypocrisy.

I would like to make an argument in defense of Sen. Pete Domenici and Congresswoman Heather Wilson and all the people who got caught in the mess of the fired prosecutors.
Over the last few days I was thinking to myself "how is it possible that the republicans are out of power, but still have so many ethical problems"?

To answer the question, I have to go back to communication…

When the democrats have a problem with an elected official they do their research. They find a small thing they can pin on him, and then make a big noise. They demand an investigation. They demand that the Department of Justice should appoint a 'special' prosecutor.

A nice fellow sits at home one night listening to the news, and he hears that Sen. Someone Democrat… is demanding an investigation into Somobody Republican, and not just an investigation, but the Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crime. What is the first thing that crossed his mind? "A special prosecutor….This is a serious crime". Now you can come and knock on his door and tell him that the special prosecutor came up with nothing but the only thing he will now likely remember is "this guy is a criminal". The Republican, under suspicion, is already a shade grey in everyone's mind. So the democrats get the job done.

What happens if it's vice versa, and the Democrat is under suspicion?

The Republicans hear that there is a criminal investigation going on involving a Democrat. What do they do? They call (the arrogant, selfish) prosecutor, and ask him (not demand him to investigate) about the investigation… Don’t you think that a phone call to a news reporter is worth more money then to call a prosecutor?

Ultimately, the voters decide who is eligible for office, largely based on ethical behavior. The republican lack of conveying misconduct to the public is a major factor in their current political status, which doesn't seem to be bettering.

The most recent Supreme Court decision directly relating to the Second Amendment is the Miller Decision of hte 1930s. The Court wrote that essentially all citizens are members of "the militia" but that the amendment covers only weapons that suitable for militia service (this reflected a couple of earlier state court precidents). Our right to own sporting rifles is based on the common-sense observation that there's no point to banning them if ownership of _military_ rifles and pistols is sacrosanct.

Beginning in the 1960s judges opposed to the right to keep and bear arms falsely claimed that the decision meant that only the guns used by the National Guard were protected. The Supreme Court admission that "the militia" consists of all citizens they rejected as "mere, nonbinding dicta" (whatever that means).

There is _no_ way to interpret the Miller Decision as recognizing an individual Constitutional right to own nothing but pretty hunting rifles. To fail to defend the right to own military-style rifles (even if we draw the line at full-auto) is to forgo any Constitutional protection whatsoever. The stakes are that high, and this is why Zumbo had to be swiftly and emphatically corrected.

What ol' Bill doesn't understand is that I'm not a member of a rabid
minority, I'm a TERRORIST according to Zumboy. I am one of the happy majority that let my feelings be known to the sponsors of Mr. Zumboy. If his words cost him his sponsorships, Xin Loi. It was his words that sparked the event, his First Amendment Rights, but with those rights goes the Responsibility of protecticn his brother gun owners. A Responsibility he does not think he does not uphold. So Bill, tell me why he has First Amendment Rights and I don't, when it comes to voicing our opinions to the sponsors he enjoys for his opinion about we Terrorist.

I don't hunt, haven't since I spent 23 months in Ground Combat in Vietnam, but I shoot weekly and I own "Terrorist" Weapons according to Zumboy. And I'm not afraid to voice my opinions to those who sell products that sponsor or did sponsor Zumboy.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

The Zoom appears to be yet another mini-Limbaugh with little regard for the truth or reality -- take your blinders off for a moment and try to remember the name Ken Starr or a non-issue called Whitewater or perhaps a group called Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth." The Republicans birthed the process he seems so concerned about -- now own up to it and quit whining.

Bill, you wrote: "Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use. They’re our enjoying a quality hunt, not fighting wars or drug cartels."

I hunt with a 70 year old 12 gauge Browning over and under because I can shoot it well and it's beautiful to feel and see. I hunt with a 47 year old Weatherby 300 because it is lethal and deadly out to 500 yards. It is also a work of art. I hunt with a 32 year old Remington 700 BDL because my dad gave it to me, and it kills with one shot any game animal I see. I never even thought about recoiling from a certain firearm, but just appreciate the history beauty of the ones I have.

I don't care what firearm people use for game hunting, so long as they can shoot straight and dispatch an animal with one shot. That involves the right caliber, the right distance, and the right circumstances.

I am truly amazed at the conversation on this topic. Mr. Zumbo made a mistake and attempted as complete an apology as a human being could muster. He has lived a life doing much for the hunting and sporting arm community for a long time. Where is the forgiveness for his admitted mistake and the recognition for a lifetime of achievement?

Bill Schneider thinks his Remington 870 "street sweeper" is safe? Ask Australian gun owners....
From the LA Times 27 Aug 97:

"Since July, more than 500,000 semiautomatic firearms and pump-action shotguns have been relinquished to the Australian government, which has written more than $260 million in rebate checks ranging from $60 to several thousand dollars. After the barrels are bent in a hydraulic press, the weapons are ground to bits and used for scrap metal."

You see, Bill, to the gun grabbers your good ol' 870 is a "high powered assault street sweeper good only for killing a lot of people at once."

Zumbo made a foolish and thoughtless statement, got called on it, but has seen the light and is back in the fight on the side of the 2nd. Check out his letter to the CCRKBA where he plromises to educate the hunting community on this issue.

Two thoughts:

HR-1022 shows clearly that gun bans, and gun prohibition is not off of the table. Clearly, attempts remove inconvenient freedoms will continue.

If assault weapons are so bad, why do we keep trying to give them to the police? Since they are citizens, not soldiers, by definition they only encounter the same threats as other citizens. Since they continue to push for AR-15 rifles in patrol cars, and pump shotguns, the threat is clearly there. Why is it that the law abiding citizens should be denied the same arms as the police, who are also just citizens?

Calling folks "rabid minority" and "zealots" is not likely to endear them to your cause of "work together". In fact, it makes you a hypocrite. It is not the 'black gun' advocates that are dividing our camp, it is the elitist hunters. We did not call for their guns to be banned or call them terrorists. They cannot say the same. I just can't say elitists and hypocrites enough when it comes to the supporters of Zumbo, but at least I didn't call you zealot or rabid. You and Zumbo can say anything you want, but if you bite the hand that feeds you expect to go hungry for awhile.

You naively say "a plot by the Brady Bunch to take my old 870 away, but I don’t believe this is close to reality."

Sorry. But Cook County (Chicagoland), Illinois just last week BANNED pump shotguns, including your "old 870." And there is a well-supported bill in the Illinios legialature to do the same statewide. But, your in Colorado so who gives a **** about your fellow gun owners in unfriendly states (at least the 15 most populous by my count).

It's the "I got mine. Screw you." attuitde that Zumbo and Schneider display that plays right into the hands of the gun banners. With stupes like you, they believe they CAN win.

Well, Bill, you are certainly giving them "aid and comfort."

Here is the Cook County ordinance that I have found:

http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm
06-O-50

ORDINANCE

Sponsored by

THE HONORABLE LARRY SUFFREDIN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER

Co-Sponsored by

THE HONORABLE JOHN P. DALEY AND JOAN PATRICIA MURPHY

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS



Amendment to the

“Cook County DEADLY WEAPONS DEALER CONTROL Ordinance”



WHEREAS, the Federal assault weapons ban, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended, 18 USC Sec. 921 et seq. expired on September 13, 2004; and



WHEREAS, the County Board desires to (1) amend Ordinance 93-O-37, as amended by Ordinance 93-O-46 and Ordinance 99-O-27, Article I, Section 1-2 by striking and deleting language in section 1-2; and (2) amend Ordinance 93-O-37, as amended by Ordinance 93-O-46 and Ordinance 99-O-27, Article VI, by deleting and adding language as stricken through and underlined below.



NOW, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE HOME RULE AUTHORITY OF THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AS VESTED IN IT BY THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1970, HEREBY AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, AS FOLLOWS:



ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS



Section 1-2 Applicability.



(a) This article shall control the licensing of all firearms dealers within Cook County except in home rule municipalities which have a separate municipal ordinance specifically regulating the licensing of firearms dealers.



(b) Pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(c) of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, if this article conflicts with an ordinance of a home rule municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction.



ARTICLE VI. ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN



Section 6-1 Definitions.



As used in Article VI of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meaning:



(a) “Assault weapon” means:



(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:





(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;



(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;



(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;



(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or



(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;



(2) A semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;



(3) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:



(A) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;



(B) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;



(C) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;



(D) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or



(E) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.



(4) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:



(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;



(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;



(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;



(D) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or



(E) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;



(5) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.



(6) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;





(7) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:



(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:



(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;



(ii) AR-10;



(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;



(iv) AR70;



(v) Calico Liberty;



(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;



(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;



(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;



(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;



(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;



(xi) Saiga;



(xii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;



(xiii) SKS with detachable magazine;



(xiv) SLG 95;



(xv) SLR 95 or 96;



(xvi) Steyr AUG;



(xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;



(xviii) Tavor;



(xix) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or



(xx) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).



(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:



(i) Calico M-110;





(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;



(iii) Olympic Arms OA;



(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or



(v) Uzi.



(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:



(i) Armscor 30 BG;



(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;



(iii) Striker 12; or



(iv) Streetsweeper.



(b) “Assault weapon” does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or satisfies the definition of “antique firearm,” stated in this Ordinance, or weapons designed for Olympic target shooting events.



(c) “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.



(d) “Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:



(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.



(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.



(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.



(e) “Muzzle brake“ means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.



(f) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.



Section 6-2 Assault weapons and large capacity magazines - Sale prohibited - Exceptions.



(a) No person shall manufacture, sell, offer or display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire or possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. This subsection shall not apply to:





(1) the sale or transfer to, or possession by any officer, agent, or employee of Cook County or any other municipality or state or of the United States, members of the armed forces of the United States; or the organized militia of this or any other state; or peace officers to the extent that any such person named in this subsection is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon and/or large capacity magazine and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;



(2) transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a non-functioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person.



(b) Any assault weapon or large capacity magazine possessed, sold or transferred in violation of subsection (a) of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and shall be seized and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-2 of this Ordinance.



(c) Any person found in violation of this section shall be sentenced to not more than six months imprisonment or fined not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, or both.



(d) Any person who, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Ordinance, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine prohibited by this section shall have 90 days from the effective date of the ordinance to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution hereunder:



(1) To remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from within the limits of the County of Cook; or



(2) To modify the assault weapon or large capacity magazine either to render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as an assault weapon or large capacity magazine; or



(3) To surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the Sheriff or his designee for disposal as provided below.



Section 6-3 Destruction of weapons confiscated.



Whenever any firearm or large capacity magazine is surrendered or confiscated pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance, the Sheriff shall ascertain whether such firearm is needed as evidence in any matter.



If such firearm or large capacity magazine is not required for evidence it shall be destroyed at the direction of the Sheriff. A record of the date and method of destruction an inventory or the firearm or large capacity magazine so destroyed shall be maintained.

Approved and adopted this 14th day of November 2006.

The swift reaction to his comments wasn't censorship, and anyone who paints it that way needs to open their eyes. Zumbo was entitled to say what ever he liked, and he could have continued to do so on his own dime. He wasn't entitled to our financial support while doing so.
Enough said.

This episode shows why the general public fears guns and gun owners. The gun nuts get all wound up over someone, in this case someone who has been a good friend, speaking their mind and they rush out to tear him apart. Easily angered, emotional people with guns make the rest of society nervous. It's time for hunters to break with the gun nuts.

Why thank you Bob, nice divide and conquer attitude (Are you on retainer with Sarah's communication department, or just a freelancer?)

Bob's right, all you hunters go over there and ignore all those rude peasants and "gun nuts" with the SKS rifles and AR target guns.

Only one out of four gun owners hunt. That makes the hunters the minority in this issue by along shot and if you don't think they are coming after your "street sweeper" 870's and Remington 700 "sniper" rifles soon, guess again.

Cook County is now trying to get their in-place AWB passed in the entire state of Illinois and there is a Democrat majority in Congress that will make sure that HB 1022 gets to a floor vote in the house and the senate eventually too.

All you over and under guys better get over to the same side of the table as the rest of us, or sit there later wondering why the state just closed your gun club, now makes you register your side by side, and limits the number of boxes of AA #9 you can buy at one time?

Zumbo screwed up and knows it. Read anything he's written since the blow up. Hunting is just a byproduct of the second amendment, not the reason for it.

Isn't terrible how Jimmy the Greek's career was ruined after he made those racist comments?

For those with no detectable sense of humor, the above sentence is IRONIC. Look up "irony" in the dictionary.

Fact is, Zumbo insulted a large number of his fans by calling them "terrorists." His employers wisely decided that he had become a liability and terminated his employment.

News flash here: The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never has been about hunting. It =is= about safeguarding the individual American's right to defend life and liberty from criminals and tyrants.

People =should= be passionate about something so important. Frankly, nothing disturbs me more than people who are complacent about having their rights trampled....

HR 1022: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1022 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(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.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:

`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.

My first premise is this: the Second Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of ALL personal level weapons. (except, possibly, bombs, because of their indiscriminate, un-aimable nature) My second premise is this: the 2A is not about hunting or sporting purposes, at least, not specifically.

We never said that it was wrong for Jim Zumbo to choose to hunt only with wood-stocked, blued-barreled hunting rifles. That's his choice, and we have no argument with that. We took offense because he said that the black semiauto rifles should be banned from hunting. They are as legitimate for hunting as any traditional semiauto rifle is. And many ranchers want a varmint gun that is reasonably accurate, rugged, and reliable after rattling around in the truck all day.

But the real insult came when he said that they were "terrorist rifles". Therefore, by extension, he called all owners of these rifles "terrorists". He is (supposed to be) one of us, yet right then, he betrayed us! Of course we were angry! Wouldn't YOU be, if you owned one of these guns?

The First Amendment argument doesn't fly, either. It says that government may not censor what we say. It does NOT say that we must listen to and/or agree with what is said. If we choose not to associate with someone with different views, we are within our rights to do so.

The worst effect of this, though, is the Shady Bradys were handed a whole case of political ammo. Their strategy is to divide and conquer, by demonizing, then banning guns by specific types. They also want to say that the only legitimate reason for a gun is hunting. That's how they sucker you (us) hunters into siding with them against guns that you don't own. Then they work to outlaw hunting, and, voila! No more reason for gun ownership. And they won't take away your hunting rifles. They'll call them sniper rifles first.

Jim Zumbo has admitted his mistake, and is trying to make amends. Good on him! But there are a lot of elitist "holier than thou" hunters out there still, and you, Bill, appear to be one of them. In fact, Bob, a post or two ahead of mine, actually called for a break between hunters and "gun nuts". Don't you realise that you are playing right into the Shady Bradys' hands?

We must remember that we are gun owners first, whether we are hunters, plinkers, competitive shooters, or just keep and bear arms for self-defense. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or we most assuredly will [be hanged] separately.

RJ, I believe the following is the Zumbo statement:

>>>>“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’."<<<<

I don't accept your extensions of meaning that Z is labeling ALL owners of such weapons as terrorists. Read the last paragraph of Z's statement. He is talking about terrorists around the world who use these types of weapons to terrorize. Taking someone out of context always distorts meaning.

Perhaps the ranchers with the varmint problems should have access to the HK 416. Much more accurate and rugged. These weapons can be buried in a pile of dirt, dunked in water and they come up performing as intended without a hitch.

So, you think the Gun Guys are the extremists because they let Zumbro go?

We can trust the gun ban-ers because they are the reasonable people who really don't want to ban your 870?

It's writing like this that feeds the Brady's and sets back the work of those who fight for our gun rights.

Craig, if I apply logic, I can see that calling the rifle a terrorist weapon does not automatically mean their owners are terrorists. But most people that the Bradys speak to do not apply logic, and they will infer that he who has a "terrorist" weapon must be a "terrorist". After all, say the Bradyites, why else would someone want such a weapon? Don't the Bradyites constantly say that these guns aren't meant for hunting, or target shooting, but are meant to kill the maximum number of people in as short a time as possible? And don't they deliberately confuse semiauto rifles with full-auto submachine guns? You know they do, and you know people make inferences like this all the time.

Wow, Schnieder is totally clueless. The essence of the problem is that people with an attitude like Zumbo, Petzal, and Schneider are NOT supporters of the Second Amendment. We don't need the "help" of such people in defending our rights.

RJ, as an aside I am offended that people keep applying Mr. Brady's name in such an insulting way. The man had half his brain shot away in service to our country and our President. If as a result of this experience, he and his wife are anti-gun, so be it. I don't agree with them but I don't use that disagreement as a license to denigrate his name. When gun advocates do this they drive away people with that rhetoric. It is greatly self-defeating.

To hold up the emotional disabled and logically confused to justify similar vitriol and rhetoric to beat back the gun grabbers only further digs a hole. I just wish there was a consistent, logical, unemotional, and accurate argument rather than the knee-jerk reaction as we have seen against Mr. Zumbo. Why hasn't this situation been used as an opportunity to educate the uninformed about why he was wrong while demonstrating an intelligent, calm, and rational message? Trying to censor heretical thought only makes a martyr out of those people who are abused for voicing such opinions. We should be continually shaping opinion and educating the uninformed. Beating the sh*t out of someone like Z after a lifetime of leadership in the hunting community and the NRA only feeds the fears of others, and that is contrary to our mutual interests.

Bill, et. al.

You BETTER WAKE UP SOON! Those nice 870s are based on a Law Enforcement arm, and as such may be subject to the HR1022 ban which now has 12 sponsors in the Senate:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, [/I]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[/I]. 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.'.

You do know what shotgun the FBI uses right? McNeil used one against Platt and Matix? Remington 870 shotgun...

"I have to ask, why then did gun manufacturers make guns that did not look like military weapons in the first place?"

Ummm...they DO look like military weapons. Bolt-action hunting rifles are derivatives of the Mauser bolt-action military battle rifle the Germans used in WWI and WWII, and they LOOK like Mausers. For many decades, actual military Mausers were popular hunting guns.

.30-06 Springfield is a military cartridge originally designed to kill people at extreme ranges, and .308 Winchester was also developed as a military round.

I'm sure there were some old-guard curmudgeons around who sneered at the military-style bolt-action repeaters and their military calibers, and made jokes about those who didn't hunt with "traditional" falling-blocks or lever guns. The more things change, the more they remain the same...

BTW, the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 was the U.S. Marine sniper rifle in Vietnam, and the Remington Model 700 is the current military issue sniper rifle.

Craig, what happened to MR, Brady is indeed a tragedy. That does NOT give MRS. Brady the right to use ad hominem attacks against gun owners and their guns, lie about us, or slander us, but she does all these things anyway. As long as she uses such shady tactics, I will call her Shady Brady.

Your continued defense of Jim Zumbo indicates to me that YOU are one of those elitist hunters who look down on anyone who has a "politically incorrect" gun, and you might even be a Brady shill. Did the words of Ben Fnklin reach you at all?

Brady? Paul Helmke? These are the idiots who say the actions of .12% of the population who use guns to committ crimes justifies disarming the other 99.88% of us?

Look, anyone who can read and use a PC can find out the FACTS about how the number of guns, gun bans, etc. have NO effect crime rates in about an hour. Any one can find the FACTS of how 60-80% of violent crimes are drug related, or perpertrated by those with criminal records. Any one can find the REAL numbers showing murder rates rising and falling over the past 20 years (peeking in 1993), even as gun ownership increases quite steadily. Any one can find that while only 62 kids under age 14 died tragically by gun accident in 2004, 2026 died from MV accident, 699 died by drowning, 238 suffocated, etc. Any one can be quite sure of the fact that less then 3% of ALL rifles, including so called semi-auto "Assault weapons" are ever used illegally.

ANY one who says guns are the problem, and who attempts to "prove" this myth through deceit is a liar, or an idiot. These folks purposely lie, mis-lead and mis-represent the facts, all promote their sick view to remove an inalienable right. They don't trust you any more then the lowliest murderer. I take THAT personal. They don't deserve respect, they deserve nothing but contempt.

RJ, I have never once defended Z on this column or on Bill's previous one. I have consistent said he committed a mistake and have also pointed out that he repented. I have also advocated forgiveness and using the situation to our advantage. Much like having a reformed substance abuser speak the gospel of changed behavior. Your name calling me or Mrs. Brady only further illustrates the problem that I tried to respectfully state. Instead of lowering or merely joining the discourse of personal attacks I ask you and everyone to consider raising the bar.

Regarding Z's remarks, I see his point. Hunters are finding less land every season to go to the field for many reasons. One such reason is that farmers and ranchers are just plain fed up with irresponsible hunters that leave gates open, drive off the roads, and shoot up the country side because they don't take the time to learn how to hunt. On any opening morning of deer season in Montana the sound of multiple, rapid fire can be heard. Why? Farmers and ranchers do not like this. We as hunters have to continually sell our images as responsible game harvesters. The image we project with an assualt style weapon versus a traditional hunting rifle may just make the difference. Trying to split hairs with a farmer or rancher because he reacts to the style of firearm is just not productive. Also, hunting with a .223 versus a .270 or higher caliber may also be a factor in the landowners mind. Bias or prejudice, it just doesn't matter in order to get the "yes" to hunt. That's what I believe Z was talking about-- land access and appealing to the holder's of the "yes."

Calling Mrs. Brady names after what she has had to live through should give anyone pause. If you had to feed, cloth, and wipe the ass of your brain damaged spouse perhaps you may be bitter too and lash out at the instrumentality that stole their lives.

When you talk about "support for the Second Amendment," do you mean the real one that says the federal government will not interfere with the arming of state militias or the fantasy one that people think gives them an individual right to own firearms?

Yep rm, really hard to confuse "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." with "the right of states to arm militias". Of course you too could spend about 1/2 an hour looking up the words of the framers, the amendments proposed by the state's ratifying committees, the debates in Congress and the Senate with regartds to protecting individual rights, etc. etc. etc. but then you just might learn some truth. That may be a bit hard though, so...

...just read the US Consitution, Article 8 where it says: Congress is "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"; and you can see how stupid you sound.

Ignorance is no excuse for re-interpreting bills protecting natural rights.

"The Democrats have taken gun control off the table. They don’t want to get mired in an unwinable war over gun control and lose Congress back to the republicans. A maverick dem might throw in a bill, but it’s going nowhere. "

A number of people who have written about the Zumbo affair have made similar statements and it is simply not true. The democrats would like the shooting sports community think that but I will tell you that, after having worked on the Hill for 30+ years, the issue of gun control is *NEVER* "off the table." Never!

As of this afternoon there are at least 44 bills that have been introduced in the Congress which would further restrict the rights of gun owners. The most onerous being McCarthy's HR 1022.

Most probably will not, as is usually the case, make it out of committee but still they're still there in the system and the antis such as the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Americans For Gun Safety, and many others are up on the hill every day trying to push the legislation along. Satements, like those made by Zumbo, only aid and abet their mission.

Best

"... or the fantasy one that people think gives them an individual right to own firearms?"

That's great, Ha!

That must be the "fantasy" one that the DC Circuit Court just upheld earlier today, right? The one that holds the DC ban on gun ownership by private citizens is unconstitutional?

The gun control landscape just got a lot more interesting for people like you, Sarah Brady, Sugarman and the rest of the Eloi type elites.

Better strap in it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I could not read your entire column.

I am an "attack dog trained by the NRA and pretending to be grassroots". I don't think so, I do not belong to the NRA and this middle aged Realtor in MN wrote plenty of letters to Mr. Zumbo's sponsors urging them to drop him. You "gun writers" are unbelievable, you think you have the right to air your opinion with no repercussions ever.. Does anyone else have this "right", if so please tell me whom as I need to change careers so I can say anything I please and never fear any repercussions. You think Zumba and you are immune to all consequences of your actions and writings, dream on in your fantasy world.

"It’s not about ballistics; it’s about image." That's what the gun-banners are promoting. Any half-truth or lie they can promote to create the image that gun's must be banned.

What have we learned from this Zumbo (not Dumbo, Zumba. etc) affair? I have read a large number of comments over the last two weeks. Everyone seems to be a gun owner, most were hunters. No one wanted to eliminate guns yet the vitriol that has been spewed against fellow gun owners and hunters has given me pause. The divide is as wide as the Grand Canyon and this is with two parties that agree on the major points—amazing!

Regarding Bill Schneider, he and I have had some major disagreements on a variety of issues but I have always felt him deserving of the highest respect for his personal honesty and courage of convictions. He writes an opinion column here at New West that generously allows us the opportunity to rail back with our own opinions. That is called give and take in a public forum. Mr. Schneider speaks up for his profession and a brother professional of his craft. I admire that even where he and I disagree because it takes guts and personal honor knowing that a storm of protest awaits. He is not a gun grabber or an advocate of gun grabbing. Portraying him thusly is a cheap and silly character assignation that only works against our mutual interests of protecting the 2nd Amendment.

The Zumbo controversy and today's ruling by the DC Court of Appeals are interesting when studied together. When Mr. Zumbo first remarked about his abhorrence to military style firearms, he must have forgotten as some respondents have noted that our scoped bolt actions were once military arms, just as the flintlock muskets would have been "militia" arms as defined by US v. Miller in 1939. That technology is a moving target should be obvious, no pun intended.

People, meaning all of us, have the right to own and use pretty much whatever we want to, the Second Amendment does not guarantee it as much as affirmed it as a pre-existing right before our Constitution was even written, as endowed by Our Creator as free "men."

Since Senator Feinstein has repeatedly sought legislation to ban so-called "sniper rifles" in the past, and Cook County (Chicago) is about to ban pump and semi-auto shotguns, I think those folks that think that the 2nd is only about hunting had best wake up and smell the cordite!

Hey guys,
Zumbo screwed up, lets get over it! As one personally scarred from political battles with the Anti-gunners I live by and believe the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Zumbo is one of us and our friend. If we let the Antis split us up we will loose.
Remember there are about 80,000,000 (legal) gun owners in the US and only about 5,000,000 belong to the NRA and other actual pro 2nd groups. Lets oppose the gun grabbers, not go off "half cocked" and destroy OUR OWN.

Sorry RM, thats Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution; and then just to be double sure, find out about the Militia Act of 1792 - the ones passed just after the Bill of Rights? You will see there that Congress did indeed (go figure) provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, NOT the states. They also called for each citizen to arm themselves with musket, ball etc. etc.

'Nother correction: HR1022 is (duh!) in the House, not the Senate - sorry! Too excited over the DC ruling!

"I’m no gun expert. And I’m sure some traditional hunting rifles are ballistically similar to military weapons, but I have to ask, why then did gun manufacturers make guns that did not look like military weapons in the first place? That seems easy. Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use."

Some traditional hunting rifles shoot the same calibers as those military weapons. The only difference is what they look like. The problem with this country is, PEOPLE JUDGE EVERYTHING BY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. SWAT and Military snipers use those same traditional hunting rifles, they just take off the wood stocks and put plastic ones on. Same rifle, different look. If you think back to the American Revolution, were the rifles used to make America free the same rifles the people used to hunt to put food on the table? Yes, yes they were. As most of the soldiers used their hunting rifles as battle rifles. It doesn't matter what they look like, they're still the same thing. A simple tool.

Otherwise, very good article.

shield20 said: "Lets oppose the gun grabbers, not go off "half cocked" and destroy OUR OWN."

This is precisely the message that was being sent to Mr. Zumbo, and other elitist "Elmer Fudd" hunters with his public spanking. Don't feed certain gun owners to the wolves simply because you don't like how their gun appears, lest you be fed to the wolves yourselves. Yet we see the elitist Elmer Fudds doing just that, even today. They simply don't get it yet. Maybe with more and more discussion on this issue, they will finally start to see the light, but somehow I doubt it unless they are spanked just as hard as Mr. Zumbo.

Whoops... Made a mistake on who I was quoting. Apologies to shield 20

Bill,

The problem is that you're arrogant and naive. I don't mean that as an ad hominem. I think your last columb showed that you think that posting your opinion, which is harmful to everyone's firearms rights, online is more important than helping the cause. That is arrogance.

You probably didn't realize that by doing so you would become a contributing author on the brady campaign's website - even though that was an obvious conclusion. That's being naive.

The problem is that OUR enemies do not make distinctions between "high-powered sniper rifles" and "assault weapons." Hunters, apparently, do.

Here's your contribution: http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/

Just like Zumbo, you have given aid and comfort to the enemy. Your (even unwitting) collaboration is the reason that you receive vitriolic emails.

You refer to the group that got Zumbo ousted as a angry minority. This is further evidence of your arrogance. Every year the ranks of hunters fall, and the numbers of "shooters" rise. Shooters spend far more money and support far more of the firearms industry than do hunters. Hunters might buy 200 rounds a year for their rifle (maybe). Shooters go through several thousand. Hunters support service-side economic benefits but these have far less to do with the firearms industry. Hunting cabins, guides and airlines may indeed profit greatly from the hunting sports. Shooters buy more guns and more ammo. There's a reason that firearms and ammunition suppliers back the shooters.

Moreover, because many if not most hunters only support the right to own "hunting" firearms, shooters and self-defense advocates have to take on the political battles for firearms rights while the hunters sit back in their cabins stirring chili. This makes the shooters and self-defenders a far stronger political and economic force.

Why? Because of unity. The NRA migh have only 9% of voters as its supporters. But it can routinely deliver 7.5% of that vote to an endorsed candidate. 7.5% of the vote accounts for a 15% vote swing. That is a HUGE effect electorally. The NRA's clout comes from the fact that many people use the second amendment as a one-issue vote, or at least as a litmus test.

I do. I would guess that a good number of hunters don't. They share the law-enforcement mentality of "as long as I can have my gun, I don't care if anyone else can have theirs."

That's not an effective attitude when confronting forces who have the theory of "as long as one gun remains in private hands, we've failed."

Think before you type. Collaboration with the enemy, Vichy French Style, is unacceptable. You can bet your rear that if my firearms are taken from me because of hunter apathy and I live through the encounter, I am going to spend every election supporting candidates who vow to outlaw hunting. Maybe that would get the hunters to care.

John, I read what you wrote and I refer back to what Bill wrote and the two thoughts completely miss. Here is the guts of Bill's message:

"Most important, my column wasn’t even about guns or gun control. Nor was it about whether assault rifles should be banned or whether they are or should be used for hunting. It was about how scary it is that a rabid minority can so successfully attack somebody personally, destroy his career, and then boast about it and warn other writers not to cross them unless they want some of the same.

That still scares me. Even more now, after receiving some of the emails talking about drive-by bayonet attacks and reminding me about guys with concealed weapons permits--and a few others that probably could be turned over to the sheriff for investigation.

Concerning our right to bear arms, guys, both Jim Zumbo and Wild Bill agree with you. But let’s stick to attacking the issue of gun control, not attacking people. And get a grip."

Now, accepting as true that Bill has received messages insinuating bodily harm, I would call those messages "angry" and I hope they are only from a rabid minority. To think this attitude and behavior is the mainstream of gun owners is more than a little disconcerting.
As regards those that asked for Zumbo's head, they weren't looking for an apology or a converted heretic that found religion, they wanted him drawn, quartered, and his parts displayed throughout the realm as an example. Wouldn't it have shown real backbone to accept his apology and use Z to profess his return to the faithful? What is it about the angry rabid types that can't think beyond their lust for vengence and punishment?

I think Outdoor Gun and Fishing writers should be band. They serve no real purpose .So why are they allowed .
Oh! I know 1st AMENDMENT Well I happen to like the 2nd AMENDMENT It kinda protects the 1st. I don't hunt but I own AR's and I just bought a AK . I thought Uncle Sam paid and trained me for 13 yrs to fight terrorist and defend peoples right to keep and bear Arms ,along with rest of the Constitution . Not just the part about hunting. Where is the hunting part again? I can't seem to find it,in my copy of the Constitution.

Bill,

You really are naive if you believe what you wrote in this weeks column about Democrats taking gun control off the table. They are only waiting for a more opportune time to push their agenda.

The intent of the ANTI-GUN crowd (NOT ANTI-ASSAULT RIFLE) is to ban ALL FIREARMS, not just what they term “assault rifles” or what they euphemistically termed at the time “Saturday Night Specials”. If anyone is so naïve that they believe hunting rifles won’t someday be a target of the anti-gun crowd, when in the anti-gun terminology they are already referred to as “Long Range Sniper Weapons” they are fooling themselves.

Someone once said that a wise man will make sure his brain is engaged before putting his mouth in gear. Jim Zumbo didn't and he paid the price. While the first amendment protects his right to free speech, he should have remembered that (1) He works for a magazine that sells it's product to the shooting fraternity (2) He is sponsored by companies that sell their products to the shooting fraternity (3) that the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with the right of the people to own whatever firearm they choose, and for whatever legal purpose they choose to use it.

Jims Feb 16 column, posted on Outdoor Life Magazines web site (which has since been taken down, along with the rest of Jims articles-and an apology posted in its place) contained the following quote regarding AR-15s being used for hunting…..which is what ignited the firestorm.

“As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that his employer and sponsors would not want to be associated with or represented by a person who (on his employers web site, giving the impression that Outdoor Life agreed with him) basically said that citizens who own semi-automatic firearms are domestic terrorists?

If Jims statement was just that he disagreed with the utility of the AR-15 or any other rifle for hunting purposes, he would have been okay, but Jim chose to apply the “Terrorist” label to those firearms, which is why he’s in forced retirement today.

All actions have consequences, even stupidity. Jim Zumbo should have thought about that before he opened his mouth to insert both feet.

Additionally, Jim should have remembered (1) the article he wrote back in 94 regarding Smith & Wessons sellout to the Clinton Administration and what happened to S&W;. (2) That all gun owners are in the same boat when it comes to the gun banners. To quote Abraham Lincoln “A House divided against itself cannot stand.”

"Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

I wish Jim good luck in his retirement. Hopefully the door won’t hit him in the brains on the way out.

I read your original article, heard about the barrage of hate that daring to say assault rifles are used by terrorists unleashed. This was never saying that everybody who owns one was a terrorist, but people who want to go off the wall will never look for what is really said. They twist it. And we have seen a lot of that in the last years-- from many sides and over many issues. The ones who do it are delighted when they win something but don't realize they are losing something more with denying any viewpoint to be expressed except for their own.

Terrorists have never just come from other countries; some are right here in our own nation. Because your readers here don't happen to be one, doesn't mean nobody is. The fanatical response of some of your readers just validates the concern that people like me, who believe in gun ownership, own a lot of them and have a concealed weapon permit and yet still do not see why anybody needs to own an assault rifle. I wrote about this subject in my own blog and got the same basic response you did although not as angry. Why can't people discuss things without it turning into threats and vendettas? I really don't understand it.

Rain,

Because there is NO VALID reason for banning semi-automatic rifles, no matter how scary they look. They are a non-issue with regards to crime; they are a great choice for many various defensive situations, they are typically well-built, well engineered, and well supplied with spare parts, ammo, etc. The cosmetic parts that make them so-called assault rifles are for functioning (pistol grip), ease of use (muzzle brake/suppressors, detachable mags), safety, ease of maintainance, etc. They are accurate, reliable, and easy to shoot. Until full autos areunrestricted again, they also are the next-best choice for the people to own in defense of a free state.

In the bigger picture, it must be understood that the new bans would include MOST semi-autos, including any based on a military or LE design. I like my Garands! I like my Carbines! I like my M1a! I like ALL my guns - and don't want ANY of them banned for NO GOOD REASON.

We should ALL be angry at ANY attempt to remove or infringe upon a natural inalienable and constitutionally-protected right. "Fanatic" should be an understatement.

Oh. and of course in the right calibers, they make GREAT hunting rifles!

Well, gosh, their public statements certainly make them sound too dangerously rash, impulsive, belligerent, and unstable to be allowed to have guns.

Hey - and since when has "need" had ANYTHING to do with what free people in a free society can purchase, own and use? That aside, I NEED to own semi-auto rifles for the same reason I need all my guns - in case I need to shoot something! I WANT certain semis because I have determined that they usually have the best combination of features that allow me to fullfill that need. (see above). I NEED semi-autos because it is too hard and too $$$ to get a full-autos. Get it now?

I think Jim Zumbo understands the issue now a lot better than some of his "supporters."

From Jim:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/45/37/

February 28, 2007

Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts and unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.

I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.

I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.

The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.

Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”

I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.

I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.

I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.

Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo

I don't hunt at all, I shoot paper and jugs and cans and bottles with my AR15.

I will shoot at coyotes when I am at my friends ranch if they come after the rat terrier that always goes camping with me.

Some of Mr Zumbo's detractors were NRA but I bet most were not.

You old hunter types are way out of date, most of the internet commandos see the NRA as "RINO's" who only look out for hunters.

I know about 70 gun owners & not one hunter!...guess what else?
I have 16 guns and am a vegetarian, I use a knife to collect my food and it doesn't try to run away if I bite it without cooking first.

It's not about hunting anymore and the Zumbo madness was spontaneous combustion, what he did was the same as yelling the N word in Harlem if you're not black.

I am glad Mr Zumbo has had a change in heart and I forgive him.

I have an experiment for Bill. Title another article the Zumbo affair, the body would only consist of random words. How many vitriolic letters would result, finding coherence where none exists? Are we sure that some of the readers actually read the articles. Craig Moore has done yeoman's duty on this blog trying to elaborate and explain but I am afraid it is hopeless on this topic.

Here is something that although was said a long time ago, I think it is as applicable now as it was then. This is the way I see the Fudds, guys like Jim and Bill:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor – He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, He wears their face and their garments, He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men, He rots the soul of a nation, He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear"

Marcus Tullius Cicero 42BC

Just substitute "Gun Community" for Nation and you get the idea of how I feel about the Elitist Fudds.

Sad, that it has to be this way, but I've always supported hunting even though I don't hunt, but that the way I feel about the Elitist Hunting Fudds who would sell the Shooter, Collectors, and Self Defense Gun Owners down the river of politics. I've always disliked "Sell Outs" whether it be Judus, Benidict Arnold or guys like John Walker, Jr.. Truly Sad.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

Mr. Smith, just a couple of thoughts. First, you are not respectful at all. Name calling. Second, you don't appear to read and digest the thoughts provided; you merely react with the type of talking points, emotional polemics, and labeling that are the heartbeat of Moveon.org and its ilk. Perhaps that's what you wanted to communicate.

This discussion clearly shows why most people in our society think gun owners are a dangerous bunch of nuts. In the previous posts Zumbo, his defenders, and hunters who are not emotionally involved with their guns have been called Elitists, Elmer Fudds, the Brady Bunch, and now Judas, Benidict Arnolds, traitors, and people to fear more than murders. Mr. Zumbo lost his job, and Mr. Schneider has been threatened. Makes you wonder who the real traitors and terrorists are.

This country has a gun problem, and if you think otherwise you are in denial. More than 10,000 people are murdered with guns each year--more than twice as many as died on September 11, and we went to war to right that wrong. The NRA and its followers have taken an extreme position on gun ownership that does not address the problem. I know, guns don't kill people--but people with guns do. Guns and gun ownership should be regulated. There is no other hobby that generates this kind of body count, and aids and abets so much crime.

I hunt and the NRA and the gun extremists do not represent my views.

For anyone with an open mind on 2nd Amendment rights, the Attorney General's opinion issued in 2004 is rather illuminating: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Mr. Moore, just a couple of thoughts. Your right I don't respect Traitors who would throw their brothers of the Gun Community under the wagon to save their own little piece of the gun/hunting pie. Second, where I live, if it smells like a skunk, has a polecats coat, and sprays like a skunk, then it must be a skunk. Same goes for those who turn on the Men and Women of the Gun Community.

But of course, on the East and West Coast, the more exclusive and sophisticated of our hunting comrades can rationalize anything from being Fudd Elitist to being a Traitors to the Second Amendment, Freedom and Liberty. Just as long as it feathers their own nest. Nothing I haven't seen before.

What I see that is good comming out of this Zumbo Situation is that the Fudd Elitist, such as Bob are comming out of the closet. Is that sound a door slamming, Bob?

We are in a Culture War for Freedom and Liberty in this country. Too bad the Elitist can't see it or more likely, are afraid to see it.

For me, the Fudd Elitist just remind me of the Anti War Activist of the Vietnam Years.

I don't hunt and those who believe in Freedom, Liberty and the Second Amendment do represent my views.

Respectfully,

Mike Smith

Mike,
My wife was glad to hear that I've reached elite status; she never thought I'd amount to anything. Now that I'm elite, I'll feel better driving to work tomorrow in my 19 year old beater truck. But elite or not, I refuse to stop dressing like Elmer Fudd.

Respectfully,
Bob Fudd, Esq.

Quote: "This country has a gun problem, and if you think otherwise you are in denial. More than 10,000 people are murdered with guns each year..."

No, Mr. Craig, we don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem. Take away your guns and mine, they will still be armed. Just like Washington D.C, just like Great Britain. Even analysis from the Center for Disease Control and the statistics of other government agencies have shown that gun control does nothing to reduce violent crime.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is so profoundly important (the prevention of tyranny) that even if a lack of gun control actually increased crime (it does not) I do not believe it justifies the disarming of our country.

Mr. Smith, it was readily apparent to me that you were not a hunter. It was not necessary to point out the obvious. NOBODY is throwing their brothers under the wagon. You are in love with emotional rhetoric versus logic, calm thinking and rational debate. There is nothing you have said that is even close to hitting the target.

What would it take to convince Mr. Schneider that the Brady Campaign wants to ban his "old hunting guns?" If I point out that they have done exactly that in Cook County, Illinois and that they're best buddies with IANSA, which pushed through a ban on pump shotguns along with semi-autos in Australia in the 1990's, would that do it?

The people who are trying to tell you that hunters are NOT exempt from the gun banners aren't guessing. The gun banners have been pretty open about what they want to do. If I haven't done enough research here, email me and I'll be glad to put together a list of links to primary sources. It's not that difficult to do.

Don, I posted the wording of the Cook County ordinace above. Please quote the wording that bans "old hunting guns." Also, please point to any legislative intent statements from officials or other authorities which would interpret the ordinance to apply as you suggest contrary to the plain meaning of its wording.

Don,
I think the problem is that we have extremists on both sides of the issue--those who want to ban all guns and those who oppose any restrictions on guns. We have a problem with gun violence, and guns should keep guns out of criminal hands. I think background checks, certified gun sales (nothing sold at swap meets and through the classifieds in the paper), licensing, shooter safety certification, and no assault rifles are good options. What do you think would help?

The NRA at one end of the spectrum, and the extreme gun banners at the other, both make a lot of money off the all or nothing positions. Zumbo was right to question the utility of an assault rifle as a hunting firearm. The extreme response was wrong.

My observation about the "assault" type rifles is the ammo is abundant and cheap. You get to be a better shot by shooting a lot at targets. That happens only if you can afford ammo. I only shoot the big game gun at paper to see if it is still properly sighted in. I shoot gophers with my .17 rimfire, and target shoot with my Volquartson 10/22 which has all the features the gun banners don't like. I don't have a .223 or any other military type guns but if I had the place or time to shoot more, I would because of the cheap ammo.

The other observation about guns is that most of the hunting calibers are produced from military brass that has been modified to become some wildcat cartridge that gains favor enough for ammo to be made available to the public. The venerable 30.06 and all its offshoots are born from military brass, and Zumbo, if my memory serves me, shoots a lot of game with his 30.06. He is a beneficiary of military assault gun development.

We all should be happy that the right to own and bear arms has such staunch defenders. Our government's founders knew that the greatest threat to our young democracy would be from within. That is why have the right be armed. If we were not, some tin horn bully would hold the countryside or the country hostage eventually.

But for now, we get to have the NRA to serve as that tin horn bully...

Mr. Moore, it is appearent that from you reply that I have hit your target center mass and I have also hit the your a nerve in your view of the folks who are shooter and not hunters. You reply has neither fact nor merit. As far a throwing Gun Owners under the wagon, your admiration for our friend Zumbois evident and he has already tried that and it has backfired on him like a shotgun barrel filled with dried mud. You lack of facts and the pure emotion of "Zumbo is a good guy" and dislike for owners of semi autos attitude speaks volumes for your denigration of the American Gun Owners.

Son, you want facts, try this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070307a.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/03-06-2007/0004541057&EDATE;=

Mr. Moore, should you want more facts, I'm sure the gentlemen at the Illinois State Rifle Assocation could enlighten you.

Don, nothing you post will convince the Elitist Fudds that the Gun Banners want their "Hunting Guns". I had the esteamed Senator from Ohio tell me in the late 80s when I ask him if we just gave him the "Assault Rifles", what's next. He replied that we would have to ban those "Deadly Sniper Rifles" like they killed Jack Kennedy with. When I ask him what a Deadly Sniper Rifle was, he asaid "You know, those ones with periscopes on them". I did not argue with him futher.

Its truly sad that the Fudds don't realize the importance of the Gun Owners of this country being united in the defense of the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the US Constitution.

Mr. Moore, As far as hunting, as I said I stopped hunting non human animals after Vietnam, but I did spend the next thirty four years seaking out those animals who prey on our fellow citizens.

Respectfully

Michael Smith

Mr. Smith, again there is nothing respectful in what you write. Again, you don't appear to read and digest the thoughts provided; you merely react with the type of talking points, emotional polemics, and labeling that are the heartbeat of Moveon.org and its ilk. I have never defended Mr. Zumbo. In fact I'm on record here as saying he made a mistake. Those are the real facts. The rest is pure fantasy in your own mind.

You write, "As far as hunting, as I said I stopped hunting non human animals after Vietnam, but I did spend the next thirty four years seaking out those animals who prey on our fellow citizens."

Really?, do tell more. By the way say a prayer for the children of Dunblane. Their anniversary is on the 13th of this month. Falling right on the heals of that massacre was Port Arthur in Australia. Those are real facts Mr. Smith. The type of facts that lead to political knee-jerk reactions. Like the AG's opinion that I linked above for guys like you, we have the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, there is no constitutional protection for particular types of arms. The AG's opinion steered cleared of this as has the NRA.

Mr. Zumbo, your apology is sad and pathetic. I guess this shows that you endorse the paranoid and intimidational approach to our side of the issue. I know and you know too, Jim, that you are actually a sane and thoughtful man, and are (wink,wink) just trying to save your professional (and probably literal - as you've realized by some of these posters) ass.

Craig, are you an Anti Gunner Poser. Again remember the skunk, you sure sound like it. You souind like the typical Brit when it comes to guns. What you need to read Craig is the Circut Court of Appeals Rulings, for the 5 Circut and the DC Circut. It would give you such a better understanding of the Second Amendment.
Especially the SCOTUS Ruling in Miller vs The US. I believe the hold of that Supreme Court was that the guns that are Constitutionally Protected are Firearms suited for Military Use.
Jesus, get a grip son.

Craig, what you need to understand is that the AG holds very little sway as far as the legal interpertation of the Constitution. Its better than nothing, but not as good as Federal Appeals Court's Rulings. The only thing that trumps them is SCOTUS.

Tell us Craig, are you a Disarmed Subject from the UK or Australia?

Respectfully

Michael Smith

Zumbo did rather err. I can't think how an informed individual, like Zumbo at least should be, could make such statements worthy of the Brady crowd and Screaming Matty (VPC).

An AR15 .223 is differentiated from another .223 how? Certain features of convenience and style. If we're going to go around picking on certain guns because of style, maybe we should set up a dress code for hunting... no vest older than 20 days on the hunt, like John Kerry... sound good to you?

Should we start insisting that woodland camouflage fatigues and Army boots are big no-nos? Gotta go for the Mossy Oak or some such "non-military-style"?

Bill, this is the level of lunacy that the rest of us--the ones you hoitie-toitie hunter types (as differentiated from just regular folks who hunt) have designated "gun nuts" to set yourselves apart from and above--this is what we see coming from some hunting writers. And it rankles. And we've been seeing this tripe for years.

Perhaps Zumbo just became a lightning rod for it; perhaps he's the only one who could withstand it.

Bill, you started off with a reasonable enough question, which I'll paraphrase: "Didja really have to do your best to destroy the guy?"

Perhaps the backlash was called for, perhaps not. As I implied above, this backlash has been building for years, as the rest of us defend your right to hunting guns as part and parcel of all guns covered under the Second Amendment...

...and the Bill Schneiders of the world go on serenely in pollyannish sense of security, not realizing or appreciating what we "nuts" have done for you, and in fact, crucifying us at zero hour, calling us names and trying to marginalize us--the actual majority of gun owners! Wake up! Without us, your rights would already be gone, you political milquetoast.

Bill, it's well publicized and been so for a couple of years now: they're coming for your 870. See comments from others, above, about what's happening in Chicago, if you're really so oblivious. And Carolyn McCarthy's AWB will get you, if it passes. (God forbid!)

And on that note, Bill, what blindness leads you to suggest that "gun control" is off the table? How can someone so literate be so completely ignorant? How?

I mean, let's look at this: if the Republican congress of the last few years didn't repeal a whole lot more than it repealed, why should Democrats even pretend to hide? Get real: they're out there, they're ON it, and they're coming for... they won't stop until you don't even have a BB gun, Bill.

It's time for hunters of the Bill Schneider ilk to wake up. Your rights are staged at the wood chipper. The rest of us need your help, and expect that you will respect our tastes and preferences in re: guns, and defend our rights along with yours.

So, now we are way past malicious destruction of Jim Zumbo, firing parting shots (pun intended) at Wild Bill and poor old Brady, and are into dissing hunters as "Fudds." You people (and I use the term very loosely) can try to spin it any way you choose; but, the problem is still the same and it is now no longer the anti-gun crowd. The cure has become worse than the disease. The problem, no matter how belligerently wackos try to change the subject or deny NRA culpability, is now the NRA and its rabid trailerbilly attack dogs. Plain and simple, argue all you want and you and the NRA will just be digging yourselves in deeper; the problem is now the bad name that the NRA, its tactics, and its attack dogs are now giving everyone who owns a gun. Come out of denial; change your childish attitude; reorganize and reform the NRA; and establish new mangement, new policies, new tactics, and a new and more adult approach to the issue.

I grew up in a blue collar town and me and my friends were hunting on our own by the time we were 14. Most of used hand-me-down guns from our fathers, uncles, and grandfathers. None of these adults owned a pistol or assault rifle. But there was one guy in town who did own quite a few pistols and assault rifles--nonhunting guns. He had a love for guns, not hunting. Our parents thought the guy was a little odd because of it. I've met a lot of guys like that since then, and many were a little odd. This discussion has flushed a covey of them.

I hunt with the gun that my father gave me 30 years ago when I was a teen. Its pretty well worn. My truck is nearly as old. I hunt on public land near my home. I am not elite, and I don't know where these guys get the elite Elmer Fudd nonsense. It's a pretty poor way of arguing your point. Name calling and threats make people think that maybe there should be some kind of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of bullys and hot heads.

As far as protecting the constitution--give me a break. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, but the gun nuts had no qualms about silencing Jim Zumbo.

Hunters need their own gun organization. The NRA is on the wrong side of too many issues. I wouldn't feel safe in my own hunting camp with these guys around.

Well, Bob, I sure won't be arguing with you. I may have a few more guns than you and perhaps a slightly newer, but pretty banged up ranch truck; but, our histories are similar and our attitudes might be similar. Although I'm a bit of an Elmer Fudd myself, I've used a wide range of firearms and I'm actually not nearly as bothered by people's choice of guns as much as by the way in which they argue their point. My experience with the NRA is that they do get on the wrong side of some issues, for the wrong reasons and under the wrong leadership. They go way overboard way to quickly and its just counterproductive and frustrating to see it. I agree with your closing comment. If these people are going to routinely go directly from a discussion of hunting and politics into threatening others with talk of their concealed carry permits, then I also wouldn't feel safe in my own hunting camp with these guys around.

You're shooting blanks, guys. There is no First Amendment issue here; the Amendment reads that CONGRESS shall make no law abridging free speech (etc.).

Has Congress made a law here? Nope. And if anyone has suggested a law be written to silence Zumbo, I missed it.

On the other hand, Zumbo did advocate outlawing mil-style rifles for hunting. And the amendment that governs the subject of his recommendation forbids not only Congress, but ALL government and perhaps arguably everyone else, from infringing it.

So guys, there's no comparison. Your argument is a red herring, doesn't connect. And Schneider uses this baloney, too.

Why use rhetoric that calls an AR-15 and look-alikes "M-16 knock-offs," thus implying switchable weapons instead of semi-auto-only ones? If Schneider cares about truth, he wouldn't use that rhetoric. He would have said AR-15s and AK-47s. But he uses it. Why?

Well, it could be that he's just mad enough at NRA for calling it like it was when a bunch of outdoors writers decided to make whoopie with the Sierra Club. Mad eough to lie, smear and muckrake? Looks like it. I guess the truth doesn't set Schneider free.

Or maybe Schneider is simply anti-NRA. I'm not much of a reader of outdoor magazines, although I consider myself a somewhat advanced outdoorsman. Therefore, I don't know if Schneider's anti-NRA view comes from something older even than the great outdoors-writers-associations-divide or if he just always had problems with NRA and sees an opportunity to snark at it.

Schneider even lied on his friend Pat Wray. Schneider reports that Wray called those who own military style rifles “a crowd of vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals.” No, he did not. Schneider, if you think that's what you read in Wray's article, you are mistaken. It doesn't follow that "owners" are automaticall those things: only, per Wray, the folks in the lynch mob. And that, let me suggest, probably includes many who do not own such guns.

But Wray, also the apologist, says that Zumbo "slipped and cut himself." No he did not. He jumped clumsily and sliced a large contingent of gun owners across the back with his bayonet. It was, at best, an unthinking thing to say. However, if the incident is Zumbo's only "sin," I say forgive him and let's get on with it.

Schneider also uses the language that NRA "severed all ties" and "boasted." Did you read the release? The NRA SUSPENDED relations, and more or less wished him a quick return to grace, if you read what was written there.

I suppose you could call it a boast that the grassroots yanked Zumbo's head, but really what it was is a statement to politicians that they had better watch out; gun owners have no patience, even within ranks, for advocacy of Second Amendment infringements.

And lest we forget, Schneider also made the patently false statement that gun control is off the table. It is not and never will be until all politicians and their sycophants recognize that it is a single-issue impeachment of their ability to accomplish any other of their goals. That has not yet happened.

What I find most distressing about Zumbo's remarks is what I've seen repeatedly by outdoors writers. They're in denial about what the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups want to do. Even with all the evidence, they still hold to their pollyanna mindset, and think it's NRA that wags gun owners.

Let me educate you, Bill: the NRA is far, far too willing to compromise. Its rhetoric is generally too mild and doesn't rise to the level it should. Once in a while, when someone at NRA labels Waco Incident perpetrators "jack-booted thugs," or exposes CNN for a false and propagandistic report about "assault weapons" perpetrated by and with Sheriff Jenne of Broward County, Florida, and his sycophantic deputy, the moderates among us cheer.

The "radicals" (a la Thomas Jefferson) just wait. They are the silent ones. Staying off lists, staying off the radar. Not NRA members, not even JPFO members. Not Gun Owners of America members. Not writing to gun manufacturers about wrong-minded editorials. Not militia members. Just... waiting. That's who the radicals are, Bill. Thankfully, I only know of them--not where they are or who they are. You could be looking across the table at one now, though; there are a lot of disgusted people out there.

I'm a moderate. I am actually fool enough to think that by education and sheer obstinacy we can wake America up to what's being done to it--mortgaging huge expanses of land to international bankers as collateral to get loans to pay the debt servicing on our outrageous deficits. Dissection of our rights and freedoms. Even in Montana. Stuff like that.

NRA is the "big tent." It can't afford to sound too radical to its members, because a lot of them are like you--they don't even understand that an AR-15 is simply a .223 semi-auto with a sexy body and some bling. They think that because it looks military, it must be a real, honest to goodness assault rifle, ewwwww, evil. And with that level of education among GUN owners, yes, the public thinks, "Oh my gawd! They're shooting Bambi with Uzis! Fifty caliber machine guns!! OHHHHHH, NOOOOOOOO!" Thanks to our magnificent state propagandists, the media. Pravda for a New Century.

Outdoors and hunting writers should not EVER pander to this foolishness. They should not be afraid to say that we're not really talking about machine guns, just look-alikes. EDUCATE.

That's what Pat Wray did in his article, despite a couple of errors in judgment. I respect that--one who educates and doesn't just pander to the ignorance of the average Smith and the average Wesson.

By repetitive "compromise," "We'll give up this corner if you'll just stop attacking us for now..." we get nothing back. And the anti-gunners don't stop coming up with new schemes. And then we compromise some more, another corner gone.

The NFA should never have stood the test of Congress or courtroom scrutiny, and neither should any anti-gun law. But look where we are now; by 'give and give' "compromise," where we've gotten nothing and given bits and pieces away, we're now in a hole where all auto-loading weapons (whether semi- or full-auto) are under attack, and anything over 50 caliber is under attack--and sooner or later, that will count your mythical Remington 870.

So don't blame it on NRA, unless you're going to pound them for repeated compromise leading to the level of frustration out there. Blame apologistic writers who refuse to see the field. Blame government and uneducated--or worse, disinformed--voters who don't know an assault rifle from a bowie knife. Blame folks like me, who are fed up with your nonsense and nonsense like it, and a corrupt government and a corrupt populace.

I didn't write any letters about Zumbo. And I think I might have considered him to have learned his lesson as soon as he apologized (I do think that, by the way). So let him up; let him breathe.

But stop faulting those who reacted. THEY were right to react. And unfortunately, the Schneiders of the world are not getting the message that we're tired of hearing your incomprehensible denial that they're after your hunting gun. They are. And you can't stop it by shutting your eyes and plugging your ears, screaming, "I can't hear you; I can't hear you" over and over when we show you the evidence. You can only change it by joining forces with NRA, GOA, JPFO and others who recognize the threat.

Can you wake up, Bill? Can you? WAKE UP!!

Mike, note the above. Note how name-calling came early on. Zumbo did it first. Should gun owners have responded more cerebrally? Sure! Let it be known also that I am irritated to be advised that some have threatened violence or hinted at it. Sorry folks; that's ... unlawful, illegal, amoral and inexcusable.

My point, Mike, is the whole issue is charged. Gun owners are tired of being shot at using the very most deadly weapon known to man: the government. We don't like those who advocate it; we don't like those who are apologists for those who do.

Don't do it, and you won't be the subject of withering verbal attacks. Don't do it, and gun owners won't be inclined to hit you where it hurts: your pocketbook. Get a clue: "they" want your guns, all of them. And they'll never stop. Not unless it becomes so incredibly impolitic that ... well, too impolitic.

Well Jim can do some hunting now and pay for his hunting trips out of his own pocket like the rest of us and buy his own hunting equipment like we have to do as well.Jim won't be able to hunt on those game ranches anymore as well at 6,000 a shot where the animals are nearly tame. Jim will have to fight for public access to public land to hunt on like we have to. Join the real hunting world Jim. Yes Bill, can't feel too sorry for Jim. He wil be a 'common hunter' now no more free rides.

Kldimond, you are my hero! You nailed it, friend. Your cogent comments are stellar, and I'm cutting and pasting them for reference in later responses on these issues. High marks for not yielding to the politically correct, keeping the discourse to a civil and well-reasoned tone, and sticking to facts and straight talk.

I have long since reconciled myself to the fact that people like Schneider, Zumbo and others will always view us as fanatics and nuts. They have their own ideas about "common sense gun laws", and they do not see the big picture in the same way as we do. And the anti-gun lobby will lean on them and their words at every opportunity, beckoning all of us to listen to their reasonable compromise positions. It will all sound so sensible to our senators and representatives when they come to vote on HR 1022 or similar proposed legislation, just like it sounded "right" in 1994. Never again, I say. We will never again fall asleep at the wheel on Second Amendment issues.

It just amazes me how so many folks who read your excellent comments, and my own words here, are "afraid" of us, thinking our positions to be unsupportable and unreasonable. Those people must live a comfortable and secure life to think that way. We are the least of your worries, and free people of this country should be thankful (but never will) that there is a large portion of the population that is uncompromising on gun rights. If we don't stand fast on the fundamentals, we will lose on the details later on. That's why I am so thankful for the DC appellate decision, because maybe the SCOTUS will finally settle this once and for all, and we can dispense with a lot of the restrictive legislation on the books.

Other countries like Canada and those in Europe will be aghast at such developments, bemoaning our "fetish" with guns. What the hell do they know? They're all being slowly subsumed into Muslim culture anyway (see America Alone by Mark Steyn). So much for tolerance and multiculturalism. They can stomp their feet and bitch while I empty a few 30-round mags at some steel plates at the 600-yard berm. And I'll feel good knowing that if push ever came to shove, I'm a rifleman, in the best traditions of what made this country great. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Wow, wdelaune, thanks! Hope to see you around!

Amazing how many Fudds think that Shooters are stopping Zumbo from exercising his "First Amendment" Rights. I have never seen anybody of the Shooting Community say that Zumbo doesn't have the right to say what he wants......

Its just that we are going to hold him accountable for what he says. Just as every adult I know is held accountable for what he or she says. Does anybody think that if a person makes a Racist or Anti US Statement that they won't be held accountable by some folks.

The Fudds need to wake up and have a reality check on what has been said and done because of the written statements of Zumbo on his blog. You want to defame good men and women, you had better be prepared to "Stand To".

It has been extremely intresting for me to see how some "Hunters" feel about our Second Amendment Rights. I never had a clue that so many hunter resented the Shooters in the Gun Community.
I and everyone I know in the Shooting Community has always supported hunting in any way we could, too bad it is not always
reciprocal.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

Mr. Smith, again you are not respectful at all. You stand reality on its head with your continued strawman arguments that have NOTHING to do with the points made. It is YOU who are separating yourself from the hunters, not the other way around. Please tell me how you intend to punish us as you threatened above. I'm still waiting to here how you intend to carry out your boast.

wdelaune again demonstrates why the general public thinks all gun owners are dangerous. His rant about Europe and Canada being subsumed by Muslim culture is wholesale racist paranoia. He follows it with "I'll feel good knowing that if push ever came to shove, I'm a rifleman". It makes you wish there was some sort of behavioral screening at the gun shop. I think deep down, some of these gun nuts want to shoot somebody.

This thread is full of veiled threats. My favorite, so far, is kldimond's "The "radicals" (a la Thomas Jefferson) just wait. They are the silent ones. Staying off lists, staying off the radar. Not NRA members, not even JPFO members. Not Gun Owners of America members. Not writing to gun manufacturers about wrong-minded editorials. Not militia members. Just... waiting. That's who the radicals are, Bill. Thankfully, I only know of them--not where they are or who they are. You could be looking across the table at one now..." Maybe he's threatening Bill, or maybe he's just trying to share the paranoia.

When 10,000 people are murdered with guns every year in this country, you won't convince people that guns are OK by threatening them with your gun. If society ever decides to ban guns and they take my hunting gun, I'll blame the gun nuts.

Oh Bob, oh Craig.

Where to begin? Ah. The "beginning" is as good as anyplace...

Craig: The only disrespect I see in Smith's comments is calling certain hunters "Fudds." Personally, I think the argument is strong and actually is diminished by the name-calling. The rest of the post is quite excellent.

You say he stands reality on its head. However, you make no argument and don't even point at an example; you merely make the declaration. And one can see without great psychic powers that the probable reason for that is that you don't have an argument, just an insistence--worthless for meaningful discussion.

Strawman arguments? Is that a term you can define, with an example you can demonstrate, or is it just something you read somewhere, and it sounded good? Looks like the latter, since you don't substantiate that one, either.

You further assert that it's what Smith calls "shooters" who are separating from hunters, and not the other way around. Once again, an unsubstantiated argument, and obviously false...

I have seen no case of shooters separating from hunters in support of gun rights. Ever. Or on ANY rights. The only separating we're doing is strictly acknowledging the separation already done by those who stab us in the back.

On the other hand, some hunters live in a little magoo world of oblivion and denial, and eschew rather solid evidence that their gun rights are under threat. That's not such a problem, although it's lamentable.

The problem comes when these folks decide that "shooters" are "nuts" (watch that "N" word!) and that it's ok to pick on people over vain little differences like the configuration of the weapon firing the same ammo the same way as the guns the magoo-it crowd thinks are "more sporting."

That is one of the major issues here. I will say it again: if it weren't for the "shooters," who acknowledge the threat and understand Niemoller ("...no one left to speak for me"--after all the others that he didn't bother speaking to protect were done away), you wouldn't have any hunting rights--any that included the use of guns, anyway. NRA know this, and that's why they've tilted ever-so-slightly the "shooters" way.

You ask how anyone intends to punish the people who magoo the issue. Punish? The expression Smith used was "hold accountable." There is a difference, and if you fade into the assertion that it's mere semantics, then either you're uneducated or just playing games.

Holding someone accountable is any number of things. Mostly, what I see as a "threat" in this is that you'll be exposed and possibly eventually cast as a poseur if that's what you are. That may lead to other things--as it did in Zumbo's case (up to this point). Or maybe not. I see no reason for a non-paranoid to think there's anything like an illegal or immoral threat attached to the accountability issue.

But then, I think you knew that, and were hoping no one would call you on that fact and make sure there was no misunderstanding about it. That way, you make these wild assertions and maybe lead someone where the truth ain't.

Bob, Bob, oh Bob:

Talk about paranoid! You see threats where they aren't being made. My comment wasn't a threat; it was, as is really pretty obvious form the context, a characterization of how wrong folks like you are to suggest that the NRA is "radical." The NRA is politically TAME.

This sends me back to an earlier comment where I said I didn't agree with threats. And I don't.

But is THIS what is being called a threat?? My goodness, Bob, what a frightening world you must live in, since you're looking for threats everywhere--veiiiiiled threats... OOOOOh. And apparently "finding" them.

You go around calling people paranoid because they lay out scary facts and realities, and then you come with this little chestnut? Check in with your psychiatrist, "Bob." You're projecting.

Ah! And Bob, you exposed yourself. You are flatly anti-gun, aren't you? So, your 3/12 post was just a big, all-out lie? Juz' a good ol' down-home boi with a 30 year old truuuck and a 30 year old guuun yore Daddy give ya? It sounded pretty contrived when I read it, but this last post seems to prove it.

I don't think you have a gun to worry about losing. I think you're a troll. A skillful one, but a troll nonetheless. Let's see... A skillful troll, going around seeing threats where they don't exist, seeming to try to suggest the rest of us don't need anything but a "30 year old gun" and then bemoaning 10,000 murders committed mostly BY criminals with violen felony records ON criminals with violent felony records. A propagandist.

Let's put this in perspective, "Bob," shan't we? There are, per FBI statistics (or there were in 2003, the latest year I found quickly), 14,408 murders in the U.S. Firearms were used in 9,638 or 66.9%. The rest (4,770) were committed using Knives (12.6% of all murders), Personal Weapons--fists, feet (6.55%), "Other" (5.63%), Blunt objects (4.52%), and combined drowning, poisoning, tosses from windows, explosives, fire, narcotics, strangulation and asphyxiation (3.8%). Makes you wonder what that "other" category entails...

In short, there are 5,000 other murders in the U.S. than by guns. And when you think of it, considering that there are some 275 million people in the U.S., 14,500 murders is not too shocking, and neither is the 9,600 portion of that done with guns. An estimated 50 million households and 80 million individuals owning guns must be behaving pretty reasonably.

And to make matters worse for your "point," the argument is a straw man (I DO know what the term means), wherein you've taken a number that seems large and tried breaking it away from context to set it up as a "proof" that guns are evil. But when you look at the real facts and numbers, your argument not only fails because of use of ploy (straw man) rather than reason, but because the context shows that murder rates aren't completely nuts or done using guns disproportionately.

Yes. Murders are all lamentable, but let's keep it real.

Yes, Bob. You used a straw man and impugned all gun owners, yourself (if you even really are a gun owner, which I doubt) included. I think you're a troll, come here to propagandize against guns, using a pseudo identity (anyone else notice the writing style difference between the 3/12 "Bob" post and this latest? Check it out!) to try to gain credibility and sympathy.

I've got to hand it to you, though. Unlike your usual Brady/VPC sort, you at least didn't try to pass that nonsense about 30,000 a year. Skillful.

Bob, I think it's daft to look at what's happening in Europe and not have some concern about what's going on with the culture there. There is an aggressive culture (not a race) that is stepping into Europe and polluting ideas there. Heh, sometimes for the better, but not always. We see Britain being quite concerned about terrorism there, and we have some cause for concern here.

If terrorism comes to my door, Bob, Craig, whatever your name(s) is (are), I have a problem with anyone who has undermined my ability to defense. That's what I see Smith saying.

To characterize the will to defend as the desire to shoot someone is just despicable misdirection and outright mendacity.

Go back to New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, wherever you're from, Bob/Craig. The West doesn't need your surrenderist rhetoric.

kldimond, unless you and Mr. Smith are the same person, you are a very a presumptuous soul to know what he had in mind. I suggest you butt out otherwise. In the meantime try actually reading the comments here rather than merely guessing at what's been said and responding with meaningless pettifoggery.

Craig/Bob,

Son, take your head out of your fourth point of contact and your vision will clear up considerably. It will also assist you in reading
and comprehension of the English Language. Time to take the plane back to San Fagsisco, the UK or what ever little land sissy boys such as you can be scared in all the time. I love the way you use the words Presumptuous and Fettifoggery. I'll put my money that you're a swish in the UK or from the UK. Does that sound "Respectful", Son.

kidimond,
I look at Fudds as those who believe that the only use a firearm is as a tool to hunt with. I have many friends who are true hunters and gun enthusiast. They have their hunting guns, the self defense guns and their "Original Intent" guns.
Too bad Craig/Bobby can't understand that concept. Most swishy boys usually cant. I believe that you outed Craig/Bobby.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

I've been called lots of things, but before entering this discussion, I'd never before been called a Fudd, a skillful troll, a swishy boy or, worse yet, "from the UK".

In spite of the name-calling, I'm still not convinced unregulated gun ownership is such a great idea. Police go through extensive shoot-no shoot training with annual firearms recertification, so why shouldn't you be required the same rigorous training and recertification for a concealed weapons permit?

We all agree that we need to keep guns away from criminals, so why do we allow guns to be sold in swap meets, gun shows, and the newspaper classifieds without criminal background checks?

I had to go through hunter safety certification, so why shouldn't all gun owners be required to go through a gun safety class?

In a time that we are worried about terrorists and terrorism, why is there no restriction on the number of guns and amount of ammo a person can buy?

Why do you need to own an assault rifle?

Why do you think there is so much more gun-enabled crime in this country than any other industrialized nation? Is it because there are so dog-gone many guns and the laws are so lax?

It would be great if someone could answer these questions without name-calling, threats, and claiming to save the Constitution.

Craig: Wow, got a little red in the face, didja, when I took you apart? Perhaps if you simply had a point and argued it better, ou wouldnlt have to be embarrassed like that. See Smith's comments. And your advice is indeed better applied to you: try reading the comments instead of reading into them as much as you can crank into them.

Smith: Bwahahahahahahahahaahah! ROFLMAO!!!

Bob: How DARE you respond with a sense of humor! How uncivil! :>

Do you realize that your questions read like a Brady Campaign brochure, and have been answered only sixteen trillion times by NRA, GOA, JPFO, Second Amendment Fondation, and on and on and on?

But ok, one more time, for the guy with enough guts to step up...

Police go through extensive shoot-no shoot training with annual firearms recertification, so why shouldn't you be required the same rigorous training and recertification for a concealed weapons permit?

Many states require some pretty good training to get CCW. Plus, most people who have the license are avid about getting the training anyway. Civil and criminal liability for accidents and misjudgments serve as deterrents to untrained behavior.

Further, police are expected to go looking for trouble--not to create it, of course, but to find it and deal with it. CCW holders are not.

Mostly CCW holders will only deal with a situation if it is coming directly at them or someone they know; police have to take in many aspects of a scene and make that critical decision on inference from action and appearances alone--not knowing any of the players and often not knowing the real circumstances.

There is a theory--one to which I subscribe--that exercising a right means there is no fee and no qualification to do so. That doesn't free one from liability if he does something negligent or incompetent.

We all agree that we need to keep guns away from criminals, so why do we allow guns to be sold in swap meets, gun shows, and the newspaper classifieds without criminal background checks?

Actually, some of us are aware that anyone who wants a gun--especially for a criminal purpose--and no matter where in the world they are or how illegal it is to buy or possess a gun--they'll get it.

Contrary to the pronouncements of the Brady Campaign, et al, very, very few violent criminals get their guns at any of the venues you mentioned; usually they buy them from a fence or other criminal colleague.

Basically, as I and many others see it, it doesn't make sense to restrict trade when those restrictions will only impact those who don't want a gun for illegal purposes anyway--when the restrictions will harm the law-abiding only. Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws and aren't inhibited by laws against their purchasing and keeping a gun.

Further, where laws banning these venues have been passed, they haven't been able to show any kind of beneficial results. This is probably because so few criminals buy guns anywhere from off the street anyway.

I had to go through hunter safety certification, so why shouldn't all gun owners be required to go through a gun safety class?

This goes again to the idea that having to pass a test to exercise a right nullifies the right.

I have had a hunting license on and off since I was 10 or so, and took the class again in 1991 just for the fun of it. Most gun owners have taken one or more classes also, just because really anyone--other than a sociopath--who takes up gun ownership is awed by the responsibility of it.

I absolutely advocate that gun owners take all the classes they can get, but strongly oppose requiring it to take possession of a firearm or to carry it in self-defense.

In a time that we are worried about terrorists and terrorism, why is there no restriction on the number of guns and amount of ammo a person can buy?

Would it do any good? Some states do have these restrictions. Research seems to suggest they don't provide any benefit.

Further, how many decent Americans are there by comparison to criminal and terrorist dirtbags? Personally, I'd rather live in a community where everyone wore a gun, because I'd know the good guys outnumber the bad guys many times to one

You know that scene in a movie where a crook goes into a cop bar and tries to rob it--finds a hundred guns all pointed at his head? There's the idea...

Why do you need to own an assault rifle?

First, most Americans don't own assault rifles. An assault rifle is switchable--full auto machine gun to semi-auto fire. It's pretty hard to get machine guns through respectable channels these days, although I was offered one once at a garage sale. For $200. Yes, I entertained the idea, but decided against it; I figured it was probably as hot as the sun and would convict me on ballistics of something I hadn't done.

What we casually call an assault rifle these days is really just a semi-auto rifle with, as I said in an earlier post, a sexy body (the machine-gun style stock) and some bling (mil-style scope and sling, stuff like that). Most are in .223, which is really a pretty small caliber, hardly sufficient to take down a big game animal.

And in the end, why do I need to need it? Maybe I just want it. Do you need as much car as you drive? As much money as you make? As much se... ah, never mind... As much house as you have? Do you really need that big of a knife? Did you need that big or expensive of a steak? This could go on for a long time...

These "do you really need" questions are more like hubby and wife over the dinner table questions than something appropriate to citizen-government discussion.

And once again, "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions. The founding generation were pretty smart folks, and an understanding of WHY they pressed for certain guarantees is really useful to answering this kind of question.

Why do you think there is so much more gun-enabled crime in this country than any other industrialized nation? Is it because there are so dog-gone many guns and the laws are so lax?

No, it's because there are so dog-gone many laws and the guns are so lax.

Bob, we aren't really as out of line with the rest of the world as you think. I try to remember crime stats and comparisons, but I just haven't really focused hard enough, I guess, to be able to spout them off.

One point that a lot of people miss is that the best research on the subject finds that there are some 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the United States by non-military, non-police individuals.

The research did not count those uses where the would-be victim didn't see the attacker, the gun was not actually presented, and a couple of other specifics that I'm too tired to remember right now. So the figure is conservative. That's one use about every 14 seconds!

Obviously, most of these uses don't involve even a shot fired.

But getting back to your question, where there are a lot of guns doesn't necessarily correlate with high crime. Virginia has pretty good stats and Washington DC's are terrible. Virginia has relatively lax "gun control" and a lot of gunnies; DC has the strictest anti-gun laws anywhere. And yet it's the murder capitol of the world.

Chicago has pretty tough gun laws, but look at its crime rate. Los Angeles is pretty strict, and look at its crime rate.

Since the near-total ban on guns in England and in Australia, their crime rates have increased dramatically.

Guns are certainly not the sole determiner of crime rate, but where they are legal and prevalent, crime tends downward.

Also, if you compare rural (and armed) U.S. areas with rural areas of other coutries (particularly Canada/US), the crime rates are low. It's when you get into the cities that things go nuts.

And what do we have in the cities? Congestion, extreme competition, intense time-orientation, smog, fast pace, crowding, gangs, money, drugs, etc. And when you look at who kills whom, guess what? You find that it's usually violent felons killing violent felons, even when it's a "crime of passion."

Considering the gang problems we have in this country, I find it remarkable that 2003 only had 14.4 thousand murders. And I find it meaningful that even with the massively greater ease of use of guns, they are only a little less than twice as used for murder as are other means. If the prevalence of guns really made the difference, we'd see a wider spread.

And on that note, a closing comment: gun ownership has been on the increase in this country for years now. And crime has been generally decreasing. There may be no correlation, but what we do see is that more guns don't make for more crime.

kidimond,
Your explination to Craig/Bobby is excellent. Too bad he will never understand.

Me, I quit explaining to the Anti Gun Set in 1994. Now I just tell them what will happen if they try to confiscate my firearms.
This was written sometime ago and pretty well expresses my feelings on the subject of semi auto guns.

" guess I'm just tired of the endless attempts to find a "stealth" method to do away with all firearms – most recently by the use of lawsuits aimed at bankrupting firearms manufacturers by holding them responsible for what some criminal does with their product.

Tired of the skewed reporting and glaring omissions in "news" stories.

Bet you didn’t know that, in the Appalachian Law School shooting of several years ago, the incident ended when two students got their guns and subdued the killer without firing a shot.

If you missed it, it’s not your fault. You see, in more than 200 reports, that little factoid was "conveniently" left out.

I’m tired of gun owners being portrayed as ignorant, gap-toothed simpletons whose only source of amusement is shooting anything that moves.

I’d be willing to stand a cross-section of gun owners up against any of the anti-gun crowd and bet hard money on which end of the IQ pool would be deepest. You see, I’ve sat around too many campfires listening to doctors, judges, airline pilots, business owners, teachers, and just plain hard working people talk. Most times, I decided to keep my mouth shut in order to not lower the level of discussion.

I’m tired of being told that the Constitution guarantees such things as abortions (nowhere mentioned), but does not recognize an individual’s right to "keep and bear" arms - even though those words can be read by all who care to do so.

I’m tired of hearing that we need just one more "reasonable gun law" when there are already thousands on the books that seem to be studiously ignored.

I’m tired of finding that most - if not all - of such proposed laws are nothing more than dishonest attempts aimed at the eventual confiscation of all firearms.

I’m tired of bringing reasoned and well-researched arguments to discussions of this topic only to be ignored or treated with polite contempt.

I’m tired of being told that I should take moral guidance on this issue from the likes of - let’s say - Ted Kennedy and others of his ilk. Sorry, I’ll have to check with Mary Jo Kopechne and get back to you on that one.

I’m tired of seeing concrete and obvious examples ignored.

Washington, D.C. and New York City have some of the toughest gun laws on the books. Their crime rates have been repeatedly shown to be (guess which) higher/lower than cities wherein gun ownership is less restricted.

I’m tired of being told that guns are the problem when, on any given day, I can turn on the news and hear about the latest atrocity we – as a society – have suffered. Therein, I inevitably find that: (1) it’s been perpetrated by some useless accretion of carbon with a "rap" sheet thicker than a telephone directory; and (2) said individual was still on the street because of a justice system that’s become more "system" than justice.

I’m a father, a former little league coach, an honorably discharged veteran, and a past president of the local PTA. I’ve been married to the same woman for 34 years. I’ve never been arrested and my last run-in with the law was a speeding ticket back in the mid-70’s.

I vote in every election. I give blood regularly. I have a degree in English Literature and another in Marine Biology. I spent a year in a Benedictine monastery studying to be a priest. However - because I choose to own firearms - to the major networks, liberal politicians everywhere, and the likes of Sarah Brady, I’m nothing more than a "gun nut."

I’ve finally accepted that there’s never going to be a balanced presentation of "my" side of the argument and I’m tired of that, too.

I guess I’ve finally reached the point where I’ve decided I will no longer be "reasonable" while the other side has never before, does not now, nor will they ever accord me the same courtesy. Therefore, I have a message for the anti-gun zealots out there. It’s from someone who’s perfectly normal and is basically your next door neighbor.

There used to be a bumper sticker that said: "You’ll get my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from the trigger."

You made fun of it and derided those who believed in the spirit of the idea it propounded.

Unfortunately, it’s not much seen any more and I’ve been unable to find one for my own use. Because of this, I’ve had to go out and make up one of my own.

It says: "When you come for my guns, bring yours. You’ll be needing them."

I think that about covers it.

Larry Simoneaux"

Too bad the Bad Boys like Craig/Bobby can't understand this. Me, I've always know that Freedom and Liberity comes with a price.
A price the likes of Craig/Bobby are not willing to pay and never will be willing to pay.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

MS, I've read that before. It's right on, in many, many ways.

Always remember, Michael, we aren't only talking to Craig and Bob and you and me. One never knows whose curious, willing-to-learn eyes are on the page.

That's why I almost always will answer these questions. 1. If I do, then a good explanation is out there; 2. If I don't, then these questions burn in the mind of someone who doesn't know what you and I know. And most people don't have time or energy to go seek out the answers, so the question becomes an indictment if it goes unanswered.

kldimond, Thanks for explaining your views in answer to my questions. Contrary to Mr. Smith, it did help, and I understand your views better now. We may not agree on all the points, but thanks again for taking the time to explain your views on the subject.

The Results of Zumbos words with the Anti Gunner Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-21575.html

"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"

Bobby, It appears to me that Marcus Tullius Cicero had guys like you, Zumbo and Crig pegged whether back in 42BC or 2007AD.
, you Fudds are a great help to the Second. I believe MTC was right about murderers being less dangerous.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

Mr. Smith, I hadn’t intended to respond to you any more, but just one more and done. Your disingenuous remarks about me and others and your obsession in repeating those remarks do more to help the gun grabbers than any Carl Levin. You see conspiracies like Hillary does. You scare people. And scared people are willing to sacrifice some of their rights to alleviate that fear. Please understand this is merely a realistic observation of the way society works. The 2nd Amendment is not without regulation by a frightened populace. Convicted felons forfeiting their rights prove this. Here’s where the fear comes in. Hunters like myself have a specific outlet and purpose for their firearms. We take the time to build loads, memorize drops, and practice like Olympic athletes who overcome age, fatigue and human body limitations to make that one shot count. Our ultimate purpose is to humanely harvest game in a man vs. animal challenge. We then enjoy the fruits of that harvest on our dinner tables. Our home defense needs are more than adequately address by No. 4’s if the need ever arises. In your case, the military style weapons with .223 is far to light to be effective in the field with one shot without inflicting unnecessary suffering on a deer size animal. A shotgun with a folding stock and a revolving magazine is impractical for bird hunting or shooting slugs at deer. So what is the outlet purpose for your weapons; to break paper or something more? Are paper holes enough for you or do secretly wish for the confrontation to let it fly? You don’t strike me as a paper target kind of guy. You sound more like a weekend militia type that whips himself into a snit as a way to justfy his obsession. The next POTUS, Guiliani, Romney, Hillary, or Obama, will not share your view. Their Justice Department will be molded to reflect their views. Contemplate that as you continue giving the gun grabbers incentive to regulate people like you. You are the 2nd Amendments greatest threat. That's the reality and my final comment here.

Craig,

Sonny, I don't have anybody quoating me about what bad things Semi Auto guns are. You need to get a grip on reality and grow up. Your judgement of the 5.56X45mm shows that you're the type of boy who always talks the talk, but has never walked the walk as for as man hunting goes. I just figure you for the group of Cowards who don't have the guts to stand up for their beliefs. So I guess you know where that puts you, Sonny.

The difference in you and me Sonny, is that my guns are for self defense of me and my family and my country. Something Liberals and Socialist like you will never understand.

Can't stand the heat, it is best for you to get out of the kitchen, Sonny.

Jungle Work

Mikey Sunny,

Thanks for dragging this discussion down to it's end with a bunch of schoolyard name calling. Like Craig said, people like you do more to drive the anti-gun movement than anything else. You can't talk about guns without saying something about "man hunting" or some other violent BS. Hunters like me will have nothing to do with nuts like you, Sunny.

Zumbo did right by drawing guys like you out into the open.

Dearest Little Bobby,
I hope this doesn't upset you, but the Second Amendment is about Violence. Pure Unadultrated Violence to throw off the yoke of an oppressive Government. Jesus, guys like you want to make me puke. The liberal mindset of let the other guy do it, I can't get my hands dirty with Violence. Bobby, your being a member of "the let the other guy do it" club does not impress folks.
Gutlessness and cowardice does not a good impression make.
Bobby, try reading the US Constitution and Bill of Rights sometime, study what the Framers said about it, you might learn something.

Bobby, I hope and pray that I didn't offend you or Craig by using the word "Sonny". But I promised my elderly mother that I'd quit using the word a**hole so much. Basicly Sonny, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Mikey.

Since you commented on this column, I thought you might also be interested in this week's post...Bill

Guns, sex, Lies and Democrats
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/guns_sex_lies_democrats_and_the_nra/C41/L41/#comments

No one hear seems to care what happened to good ol Mr Zumbo.
At the age of 67 losing his tv show, the sponsors for all of his once in a life time hunting trips,magazine articles and public appearances. After 40 years of hunting Mr Zumbo was forced to retire. What do you if your a big game hunter forced into retirement ..........get real a job?

Personally, I don't care what people shoot, but when I see someone out with "black gun" and they are hunting... I dunno, I think they're into hunting for different reasons than I am. In fact, I get a little edgy around that kind of hunter. He's not the sort of hunter my grandpa or my dad or my uncle is - and that's who taught me to shoot and taught me to hunt.

People can hunt with what they like - fine. But, when I see some guy with his SKS or AK or AR and they are even near the same field I'm hunting... I think they came from a different planet than I did in my education of firearms. Probably not bad people either - but their weapon of choice is not my thing. I think it's just plain strange.

I tire of the reputation that a gun owner is some type of redneck. And I find that people who tend to sport the "black rifles" tend not to enhance our image, as gun owning people, to the general public.

Personally, I think the "black gun" toting individual (who gun stash is, in bulk, those type of guns) tends to be the nutjob who becomes the reason you keep firearms yourself. The traditions of hunting and shooting passed down from our forefathers has become lost on them. They own firearms for different reasons, mostly stemming from the insecure notion that our great nation is going to cave in at any moment and they'll have to "mow down the zombies". Perhaps, but I'll keep the traditional, beautiful guns that are as much a part as family history as they are to presue a sport and protect myself.... rather than think the world is going to implode and therefore purchase the first military grade weapon I can get my hands on. (and yes, i know the Rem 700 is a sniper rifle - I think here we are really talking about military suprlus short barrel sem-automatic variety)

Whatever, this is bound to offend some nutjob that oil's his AR's synthetic stock every night.. but know when you share the same piece of ground I hunt on with you - you are reguarded with some suspicion amongst your fellow, casual, gun owners. We think you're a bit odd.

Fuck you Bill.

>>In summary, my message for the Gun Guys is stop attacking people and work together with hunters to build stronger support for the Second Amendment.<<

I agree 100% - "hunting justifies the 2nd" types stick with the gun owners and "evil terrorist gun owners" will stick side by side with everyone who wants to have a "golf club hunter" guided hunt or blast the heads off of ground dwelling rodents...

I'll take that deal... and in Texas, I will take a "black rifle" hunter over the typical 7mm Mag dragging, box sitt'n in "dear hunter" with a six pack of beer - ANY DAY!

I believe the story is based on bias right from the start. Jim in his own words called black guns and the owner of black gun some very harsh names and cut them off at the knees as not being Americans. Many of us black gun owners have suffered injuries that we feel every night we go to bad and every morning we get up to start our day that we received fighting for America in the bowls of hell, war.
Jim's conduct cost him and not gun owners. People need to understand Jim went over the line and made this all persoanl by attacking other people and the firearms they like to shoot and want to lawfully be able to keep owning.
You have based your views on twisted make believe and not the core truth and actions of what Jim said. Jim attacked the United States Constitution and brave freedom loving Americans for no good reason but for one simple fact, he's full of himself. May be not now as much as he once was but the words he used were clearly of an elitist looking down on other firearm owners.