ZUMBO AFFAIR SENDS CHILL THROUGH OUTDOOR PRESS

NRA Destroys Long-time Friend

Comment By Craig Moore, 2-26-07

Bill, I just fired off (was that a pun?) a protest to both. Check your email.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 2-26-07

Mike Hiles, , pulicist for The Outdoor Channel, emailed me and wanted to clafify what happened with Jim Zumbo's television proram. Hiles says it is "on hiatus indefinitely while we determine how to edit out the sponsors who have requested that they be disassociated with the show."....Bill

Comment By Tom Pappas, 2-26-07

THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISN'T ABOUT DEER!

I don't know who changed the subject to hunting, but the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights didn't mention the need to keep our larders stocked with game.

The entire document was intended from beginning to end as an antidote to the kind of arbitrary authority to whose disassociation they had mutually pledged [their] lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] Sacred Honor.

If ever in our history we needed the protection of such an injunction as "the right of the people...shall not be infringed," that hour is now.

Tom

Comment By Mike L., 2-26-07

That's great Tom... but what does any of that have to do with Jim Zumbo's comments? If it's true that the 2nd Amendment isn't about deer, then you shouldn't worry about someone who suggests that hunters need not use AKs for sport. Zumbo was talking about hunting, period.

I support the right to bear arms, but I totally disapprove of the NRA's fear-mongering.

Comment By Suede, 2-26-07

What a sad day for sportsmen. This kind of stuff feeds the perception that sportsmen are itchy-trigger-fingered morons. Although I can't say I disagree with that assessment regarding those who "hunt" with assault rifles-- just how bad a shot are they?

The NRA has once again gone WAY over the edge.

Comment By mike, 2-26-07

Power corrupts and the NRA's power has made it a sick and twisted organization. The only silver lining in this story, if there is one, is that evil eventually always overreaches itself, eats its own young, and thereby destroys itself from the inside out and, if these socalled hunters and shooters turning on Jim Zumbo isn't a horrific example of this process in action, then I can't imagine what would be. I can only hope that Zumbo survives this treachery, stronger and more influential than before, and remembers that revenge is dish best served cold. The NRA needs to be beaten back to where it now belongs, in the dark and sleezy shadows along with its sister institution, the KKK.

Comment By Rob Bailey, 2-26-07

I am having a hard time understanding how this is a NRA lead attack on Mr. Zumbo. He made a very dumb and irresponsible comment about a rifle that he admittedly knew nothing about. It wasn’t as if he said it was a silly way to hunt and didn’t see the sense in it he called the AR type rifles a “terrorist weapon”, this was grossly irresponsible for a person with his credentials and hunters, sportsman and target shooters were rightly justified to be outraged with his comments.

As far as gun nuts and gun rights zealots, how do you expect the shooting & hunting community to react? His comments come right on the heals of the Democrat leaderships reintroduction of the Assault weapons Ban H.R. 1022, which would make illegal many configurations of the very popular Benelli shotguns just because they have a pistol grip. It is silly feel good political nonsense. If the shooting and hunting community seem over protective, you bet we are. Every time we turn our backs someone is vilifying us for standing up for what we believe in.

Mr. Zumbo was not railroaded, he is being dealt with severely by a group of people who believe that the second amendment protects more than your grandfathers old LeFever side by side or your dads pre 64’ Winchester Model 70. He simply made the same error that the Dixie Chicks made with their comments about President Bush, HE FORGOT WHO HIS AUDIENCE WAS.

I personally have never shot or handled a AR type rifle but after this controversy I am seriously thinking of buying on just to try it out. However, since a quality AR or AK type rifle can go for $1000 and up it may prove to be cost prohibitive.

I personally have been a fan of Mr. Zumbo for a long time and I would hate to see him lose everything over a very careless comment. I hope he can come back from this but he has to remember his words carry a lot of weight as a representative of our community, words that can very easily be used as propaganda on opposing websites.

Comment By Art, 2-26-07

This is not about hunting!!!

This is about that fact that one of our own (gun owner/shooter) commited treason, by calling for a ban on rifles based on thier looks alone. That is all "Assult rifles" are, cosmetic.
And yes I said treason!!! He turned on every American and called for a destruction on the second ammendment, by wanting to ban a firearm.If we allow ANYONE to start banning ANY firearm, it will not stop with just that firearm.
The Brady Bunch want to ban all firearms!!! Even your .22lr. Go to thier web site and see for yourself.

The second ammendment can not be devided into hunting or shooting guns. It MUST stand firm, that we have a right to own ANY firearm we chose. Or we will become servants to the government.

By the way. The NRA had nothing to do with this. Your report that we are trained by them is WRONG. (There is no "them" cause "WE" are the NRA)

And it is so nice of you to refer to us a nuts and zealots, instead of gun owning Americans. You should write for the Bradys....oh Im sorry you just did.

You sir are a moron!!

Comment By James H. Macklin, 2-26-07

Remington Arms does not manufacture or sell these types of rifles. They are used by many people for target shooting and hunting for the reason that they are reliable and accurate when properly setup.
The AR series of rifles is now among the most accurate rifles available. The AK has two main benefits, they are cheap and the ammo is cheap... many farmers and ranchers use them for predator control because rust doesn't harm them.
As far as claims that the NRA did this, I doubt that. I've been an NRA member for over 40 years and am on the Internet daily. I never say any mention of this until a few minutes ago when Google alerted me to your article. I do get several newsletter from the NRA and so far, none of them mentioned this incident.
BTW, I do not own an AR, yet. I do or have had some sniper rifles marketed by Remington as the 40XB NM target rifle, the same basic rifle currently being bought by the US military for combat.

Comment By BCL, 2-27-07

"What a sad day for sportsmen. This kind of stuff feeds the perception that sportsmen are itchy-trigger-fingered morons. Although I can't say I disagree with that assessment regarding those who "hunt" with assault rifles-- just how bad a shot are they?

The NRA has once again gone WAY over the edge."

I've never heard of anyone hunting with assault rifles. Assault rifles are select-fire and/or full-auto-capable and thus have been regulated by the federal government since 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act). It would be humorous to watch someone try to hunt with an automatic weapon. The ignorance here is pathetic.

Comment By bearbait, 2-27-07

You have to wonder if this is a delayed reaction to the last Nov. elections, and it is intended to put on notice the ascendant Democrats whose constituents include the radical left gun-banners. A horse escaped, and the door is late being closed. I would have to guess that Zumbo is the feared example to elected officials who don't know their constituents. Wide publication of the Zumbo dust up, and how fast he was dumped, has got to be noticed by members of Congress. A Congressional mistep, careless comment, can earn the same vitriol. I can see the mental tap dance going on in the little bright minds of all those new graduate students who do the work on Capitol Hill. There will be dance classes for Congressmen and women this week, put on by their media aides.

Comment By Andrew Frechtling, 2-27-07

Mr Schneider seems to be confused about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not a protection against people who may vehemently disagree with you and who might engage in a boycott of your sponsors. It's a defense against government censorship.

No one denies Jim Zumbos his right to foolishly call an AR-15 a "terrorist" weapon and suggest it be "banned" from hunting. No one denies our right to call him on it.

As for me being an NRA-trained thug.....let's drop the name-calling, please. I am a retired Air Force fighter pilot with twenty years in the service. When you call me a "thug" you're disparaging me and all other vets who own and use military style weapons.

Comment By Bill Massey, 2-27-07

Bill Schneider doesn't understand the First Amendment. It does not protect you against PRIVATE GROUPS severing their ties with you or verbally attacking you for your words. The First Amendment is not a protection agaist criticism. It is not a protection against peer pressure. It is not a protection against angry reactions. It is not a protection against your life being destroyed because you become hated for your words. It does not protect you against the need to be "ultra-wary" for your words. It is not a protection against a "chilling atmosphere" created by private groups, no matter their size.

Nor should it be.

It protects you against GOVERNMENT attacks on your free speech -- nothing more.

Comment By John D Farquhar, 2-27-07

Well #1 NRA was about 3 days behind most everybody else at cutting ties with Mr Zumbo. So the NRA was not the 800 lb gorilla.
But the big picture here, is that if we all remanin in small little encampments they overtime, will get us all.
Weather you are a person that only hunts, or only owns a handgun for self defense. or target shoots, wether it's a muzzleloader or a semi auto 50 BMG rifle, we need to all come together, as gun owners, & not stay apart because of our special interests.

Comment By David Johannsen, 2-27-07

Mr Zumbo played right into what the gun banners have been trying to do for decades, i.e. specify which kinds of guns are good and bad. Worse yet, he bought into their circular reasoning: ugly black rifles are evil because they have no "sporting purpose" and it's wrong to use them for the sporting purpose of hunting because they're evil. If you show yourself to be on the side of the gun banners, don't be surprised if people who don't like the gun banners start not liking you very much either.

Comment By Mike L., 2-27-07

A reminder to you folks: Zumbo NEVER said that assault rifles should be BANNED. He suggested that they shouldn't be used in the course of hunting--he seems most concerned about PERCEPTIONS of hunters. At least, that is what I see from his statements quoted above. He thinks that assault rifles have a poor reputation--that they are, for instance, used by mujahadeen and insurgent groups--which he does not, as a hunter, want to be associated with.

Comment By mike, 2-27-07

Of course the NRA was about 3 days behind in its response! By lagging behind a bit and letting its perverted minions do their dirty work without apparent direction from mother, the NRA's management can look like they're only responding to and not pulling the strings on their henchmen and thereby look like they're only reflecting and not crafting the wider opinion. It's just a standard and pretty basic political tactic; it's fake; it's one of things that makes the NRA such a sick, cowardly, and twisted organization in the first place. The NRA needs to be reformed, starting with a complete change in its management, staff, and volunteer leaders from the top all the way down and moving from there to the establishment of a relevant and enforced code of ethics and then to a full policy restructuring.

Comment By Bill Idjurint, 2-27-07

It wasn't the NRA telling members to "attack" ... it was members, and non-members, demanding the NRA, among others, dump Zumbo.

It's because Zumbo was a famous pro-gun, pro-hunting writer for so many years that his comment (which he didn't merely apologize for, but has made a FULL retraction of) was so damaging.

It's because Zumbo's initial comment was SO damaging, and that even the likes of yourselves won't print his FULL retraction, that he can't simply have a *pass* on this. He must be made an example of. Ask him ... I'll bet he agrees with that statement.

He didn't simply suggest that a bolt-action might be preferable. He essentially called AR/AK owners "terrorists".

You people don't seem to understand. If you take a bolt-action rifle, give it a pistol-grip, paint it black, put a flash suppressor on it, and exchange the floor-plate with a detachable 10rd box-mag, precisely in what way is that gun less *acceptable* for its intended purpose?

These people aren't bad shots. Quite the contrary. They're shooting varmints ... sometimes, as fast as they can pull the trigger ... and not missing.

They're not misguided.

Imagine your embarrassment should you ever *realize* that you, in fact, are.

I don't *worship* "black rifles" ... or the NRA. I only own one AR ... and I don't even really like it that much. But I'm not stupid enough to dismiss the fact that, one the Brady Bunch passes a list of what's not *acceptable*, there will be NO ONE to keep them from ADDING to that list.

Australians can't own a PUMP shotgun. Go check that out and get back to me before you say one more word.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 2-27-07

Jim Zumbo's retraction/apology has been making the rounds in cyber-space. Since several people have mentioned it, here it is....

The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.

Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

Jim Zumbo

Comment By bikeboy, 2-27-07

It's HELL when you're held accountable for the words that fall from your mouth, or spring from your keyboard, huh?

I'm an NRA Life Member and I MIGHT (nudge nudge, wink wink) own a "black rifle." In fact, I MIGHT shoot a whistle pig with it on occasion. Since it's semi-auto, it is NOT an assault rifle (someone as well-versed as Zumbo should understand the distinction, even if Mr. Schneider doesn't). Even an assault rifle isn't a "terrorist" rifle unless a terrorist is operating it. Zumbo put his foot in his mouth... I'm willing to forgive him. I say stupid stuff now and then, myself.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 2-27-07

Wow, your post really brought out the gun nuts, didn't it?

I own a number of guns. Always have, always will. I, however, don't support those that demand that right, that fear that right will be taken away, that clutch at their pearls as tightly as they clutch at their penis extending pistol grip shotgun.

I've trained in many weapons, I pride myself in my small stock of weapons and reloading equipment. It's a hobby, but it's never a lifestyle. Those that live by the gun will die by it as well. It's foolish to believe the Brady group is as powerful as they would make it out to be. It's a voice amongst many, a group that is offset by the gun-nuts and both are moderated by responsible gun owners.

What those that have posted here are doing is fear mongering, exactly as the NRA has done to boost it's membership and cash. It's pathetic and it's going to be dangerous if it continues.

Comment By Don Wikey, 2-27-07

The NRA is as much at fault for the villification of Jim Zumbo as Mary Joe Kopeckne is responsible for Ted Kennedy never making it to the presidency. It was Ted's fault that "he crossed that bridge when he came to it" as it was Jim's for not realizing tha "black guns" shoot just the same as the PC gun in his hands (assuming there IS such a thing as a PC gun)

Comment By Craig Moore, 2-27-07

Bill, thank you for posting the Zumbo apology. Given the ferocity of reaction to Jim Zumbo, I can't help but feel we are watching a Geico caveman commercial where the overly sensitive, troglodyte is in therapy. When did the firearm ownership community turn into a bunch of whiny fragile liberals? ;)

Perhaps Zumbo had the DC sniper massacre on his mind. The weapon was an AR 15. Perhaps he was thinking about the lethality of a round of .223 on deer size animals. Kind of light for a one shot kill anywhere except a brain shot. Don't know. I believe Mr. Zumbo erred in his analysis of military style firearms as I have always believed it's the guy pulling the trigger rather than the shape of the firearm. However, I believe he should have more closely questioned the use of such weapons by responsible hunters that should live by the code, "one shot one kill." Accuracy and lethality of the shot versus spraying bullets all over the place. I have no problem with these firearms for home protection use, but I do not see any ethical reason for hunting use that puts meat on the table. However, that is my opinion, and noone should be threatened by it. In turn the holder of such opinions and the expression thereof should also not be threatened. The 1st Amendment and the 2nd go hand-in-hand. One washes the other. There are those that argue the technical application of the Bill of Rights only to government interference. They are right! That being said our society has evolved to have many institutions of powerful quasi-government. What protects us against their belligerence? 1st and 2nd Amendment expressions should be embraced and encouraged as they are two hands on the same body.

In the faith that I have, there is always room for redemptive sinners that seek a return to the pews. I think Bairbait has it right that this is not about a reformed Jim Zumbo. It's about the exercise of power to send a chilling message to the politicos.

Comment By Frank Silbermann, 2-27-07

I don't thing the NRA is any less reasonable about the 2nd Amendment than the ACLU is about the 1st Amendment.
Nor do I think they're paranoid, given that NY representative Caroline McCarthy just entered a bill into Congress to re-issue and strengthen the 1994 ban, making it permanent this time.
Nor are its members any less tolerant of gun control advocates than the NAACP is of white people who use the `N'-word and defend Jim Crowe segregation.
So lets keep things in perspective.

I am sure Jim Zumbo's career is not permanently ruined. As people come to realize that his apology was sincere (assuming that it truly was), he will be forgiven. Likewise, as it becomes clear over time that the Democrats' retreat from gun control is permanent, the gun lobby will lose interest in politics.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 2-27-07

Sorry, Frank, but there is too much money for the gun lobby to stop the calls of "they're comin' fer yer guns!". Money is the fuel behind the fear, and there are too many that are too dependent upon the contributions of radical gun-nuts for them to stop anytime in the future. Caroline McCarthy's bill will die before long, it won't go anywhere. Too many Democrats owe their careers to the gun lobby, to those that support the gun lobby. Despite the over-reaction and over-generalization of those commenters above, not every liberal or Democrat is a gun grabber or in favor of radical gun control, especially here in the West.

The NRA isn't paranoid, it just uses those that are.

Comment By Suede, 2-27-07

Hey BCL, talk about ignorance--

"I've never heard of anyone hunting with assault rifles."

That's what Zumbo's comments are about, people hunting with assault rifles, moron.

And all the pro-NRA, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions that are on these comments reveal how the NRA has trained you well for your fish-treats. It's frightening. And you all want assault rifles.

Hey, why not legalize shoulder-fired grenade launchers? SAMs?

Comment By John Kern, 2-27-07

In his recent comments, Jim Zumbo reflected the sentiment of just about all of the sportsmen I know. I am disappointed over the reaction especially from the NRA, and I am about at the point of wanting to resign my NRA life membership. I am getting increasingly concerned with the view of the organization that seems to say that every gun is a good gun and is appropriate for any purpose. The "American Rifleman" magazine is becomming an embarrassment to many hunters and other sportsmen with the volume of articles and advertisements for military style "black" rifles and handguns and associated gear.

Comment By schreinervideo, 2-27-07

Hunters: you have finally met your true enemy. Congrats.

Comment By CA Nobody, 2-27-07

Zumbo stepped in it several differnt ways all at once.

1. Falling for the "assault" nonsense for semi-autos.
2. Falling for the hunters vs shooters vs collectors divide and conquer.
3. Falling for the traditionalist vs modern divide and conquer.
4. And especially falling for the "sporting firearms" test nonsense.

I'm proud to be a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA. Zumbo was a total idiot. His high standing earned him the hard fall for writing this screed that will be used by the enemies of us all. I'm sending more money to the NRA to thank them for punishing the enemy of the Republic that Zumbo has become.


“I call them ‘assault’ rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.

“Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”

Comment By ruble, 2-27-07

NRA terrorizers.

Comment By Scott, 2-27-07

Bill,

The NRA was late to this story. The REAL story here is that this all happened via the internet in 36 HOURS. 10 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor over a similer story by an equally stupid "hunting" writer. Of course NOTHING happened, the letter wasn't printed or even acknowledged. Today, the masses really do have power.

Now, Dumbo, I mean Zumbo still hasn't gotten it. His apology still says "oh if I had only know that someone actually hunted with these, then I wouldn't have made that comment". Dumbo doesn't realize that the 2nd A is about the "right to arms" not the right to have arms so you can hunt!

He is an idiot and we don't need him and he was not on our side. MAYBE the NUGE will edgumicate him but at 67 years old after haveing written for over 40 years about hunting I'm not holding my breath.

Comment By bikeboy, 2-27-07

Craig Moore states that the "DC sniper" used an AR15. I believe that's incorrect... my recollection is that the rifle used by THAT particular terrorist was a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic. (Which, to the best of my knowledge, shares that menacing, "black rifle" appearance that we all apparently either worship or fear.) But that's a rather nit-picky detail.

Comment By bearbait, 2-27-07

Zumbo was isolated by special hunts, private pack-ins, a hunting life of great privilege, and he just plain lost connection to his constituents. He was not friendly at the shows. He came, did his lectures, collected the dough, and boogied. Indifferent, arrogant, disconnected, and then he found himself bitten on the ass by reality. The Great Wakeup Call. For him, and for Americans. We have to be Henry Fonda in "Sometimes a Great Notion": "Never give an inch." Even to apologists.

Comment By Craig Moore, 2-27-07

Bikeboy, you are correct. I believe the DC snipers used a Bushmaster XM15 which was modeled after the Colt AR15. As I recall, Bushmaster advertised this weapon as a post-ban carbine when it first came out. Here is the Bushmaster site: http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/ I wonder which model is the firearm of choice for serious hunters who believe in one shot kills on deer, antelope, or elk?

Comment By antikook, 2-27-07

I cannot believe the kooks and hatemongers responding here. So the guy makes some mistakes in a column.. big deal. Get over it. If his gist was that using an assault rifle to hunt game animals was unsportsman-like or irresponsible, then I should think that real sports hunters would agree. Just because you CAN go out and do it doesn't make it ethical or right. Geez... guess I know who to call next time I want to use Law's rocket or bazooka to hunt for game. Or maybe just a bandolier and fire a few 3-round bursts. Does this sound like extreme rhetoric? Well, maybe some of the kooks here need to look in the mirror. The extremists responding here are an embarassment to all responsible sportsmen. As for the NRA, like G.H.W. Bush, I walked away from the NRA when Wayne LaPierre and the right-wing kooks decided special interest politics was more important than things like hunter safety and marksmanship programs. Me... I intend to use my old Model 70 30-06 to hunt deer next time I'm out West as real sportsmen have been doing for many years... Not an AR-15.

Comment By Frank Silbermann, 2-27-07

This story is very much like the uproar over Michael Richards and his racist rant. He, too, lost a lot of opportunities, despite his apologies.
Opponents of racism show a similar intolerance for dissenting opinions. I say accept both apologies, but don't tolerate a second lapse from either of them.

Comment By elfman, 2-27-07

"Art" somewhere up above here refers to the right to own "firearms" and that the framers of the constitution meant for us to have the right to own "ANY firearm". Well, the constitution actually refers to the right to bear "arms"... not "firearms". Hmmm... so what is the definition of "arms"? I think it wouldn't be that broad of an interpretation to believe that the definition of "arms" could include just about anything... rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, etc. Hell, one could make an argument that I, as an American, should have the right to bear nuclear weapons. I believe that all you gun control hating NRA people believe in some sort of gun control (or rather "arms control") if you ask yourselves the right questions. So, I ask you NRA members... would you support my right to own nuclear "arms"? If not, where do you draw the line. How about RPGs? Where do you find the constitutional provision that limits my rights to own such weapons?

The framers were incredibly intelligent and thoughtful as they authored our constitution. The constitution is unquestionably one of the most impressive and profound "governmental" documents in history. Everyone must remember, however, that the framers were not omniscient. This is easily illustrated by the questions I posed above. They had no contemplation of such weapons as we have in today's world. I believe the constitution, if written by our forefathers today, would be slightly different on the 2nd. Gun control is important, necessary and reasonable.

By the way, I am a democrat, I own and use many guns (typical hunting weapons), I hunt, I fish, drive a truck and so on. I also cannot stand the NRA. 692 days 18 hours 27 minutes and 11 seconds until Bush leaves office as I write this.

Comment By don.wikey, 2-27-07

Two things: It is the bullet, not the gun. the .223 is an excellent varmint round. The 7.62X39 is an excellent medium size game round. BTW, that is the AR-15 and theAK-47.

As far as where to draw the line on citizens owning arms, I think it should be when the weapon becomes indiscriminent. That means when you hit more than you are aiming at - LAW's, hand grenades, etc. I have not yet decided if full auto is indiscriminent or not, but lean towards yes.

Comment By elfman, 2-27-07

You can put me in the "decision made" category... A fully automatic rifle is usually pretty indiscriminate. Hell, most semi-autos are indiscriminate considering the competency (lack thereof) of your average shooter.

Comment By Chas S. Clifton, 2-27-07

Don't blame the NRA. It was individual bloggers who brought down Zumbo, and their point is simple: how can the Second Amendment right be protected when a writer like Zumbo tries to turn one group of legal gun owners against another group of legal gun owners?

Sure, Jim Zumbo has a right to his opinions. But he also has to see the consequences of what he wrote.

Comment By scott, 2-27-07

Anyone above who thinks that the 2nd A can be read (or that gun-owners in general or the NRA think this) to protect the private possesion of tanks, rockets, atomic bombs, or even grenade launchers is an IDIOT!

As the Supreme Court said in 1939, the "militia" when called to duty were expected to appear bearing arms in "common use at the time". That is common to the military or having a utility to the military. The clear inference is that the militia would appear bearing arms similer to the standard arm then used by the army. Now that is the M16. The rank and file in the army don't "carry" tanks, rockets launchers, atom bombs, machine guns, or even grenade launchers. It would be easy to estabish a test (as the court has done for numerous other situations) to resolve the ridciculousness of the above claims. Simply that the arms should have a utility for INDIVIDUAL use both in service in the militia and in private self-defense. As such FULL AUTO arms (since they are "select-fire") could easily be included. Certainly handguns would be included, as would short-barrell shotguns (18 inches). In the interest of compromise, since the 1934 NFA did restrict general ownership of full auto weapons, the court could also say that the militia be restricted to semi-auto arms only (the feared EBR "evil black rifles") that were the subject of Dumbos screed.

But, in NO WAY is it necessary for the SC to include the right to keep and bear atom bombs in order to protect the right of individulas to have arms (rifles, including at least semi-auto EBR's, handguns, and shotguns). To claim so otherwise is just stupid!

Comment By Thomas S. Jones, 2-27-07

Another bunch of tripe slamming the NRA. The NRA offices were still slumbering when the groundswell of individual PEOPLE started the wave that attacked Zumbo. The crowing of the NRA was aimed at calling attention to the effectiveness of grassroots tidewaves. To call all of us who reacted to such an insult, 'attack trained jackals' is no better than the perjoratives slung about so freely by the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd. But at least THEY don't make their money from 2nd Amendment supporters, like Zumbo and his (former) sponsors do, thus the dig.....

The so called 'hunters' who slam the NRA are no better educated than the gun hating Brady group and sympathizers. Zumbo basically attacked and insulted a huge group of the shooting public and he paid the price for it. And it also showed an incredible lack of understanding and naivete by writers like Bill Schneider to the insidious pressure and relentless attacks by the gun haters. WIth friends like these, we don't need enemies. With ignorant ramblings like Bill Schneider's, we don't need the Brady bunch to ban all our guns.

Comment By Mary Alice, 2-27-07

Think of casting a wider net. I financially supported 14 Democrats this year, none of whom live in my home state of Kentucky. To my delight 12 won. I clicked on the Columbia Gorge so I could get your newsletter. I have no idea what it is but I will find out soon and that's a good thing.

Lexington, KY 40502

Comment By elfman, 2-27-07

scott... you seem to be a very angry man. The 2nd amendment is read every freaking day by people who interpret it many different ways. Many of them are "idiots" exactly as you have described. Look among your fellow NRA membership and you will find many, many idiots. I have spoken with GREAT numbers of them over the years and there MANY who DO believe that the "right to bear arms" includes any damn thing they want! I disagree. It seems you do too.

I used painfully extreme examples to make the point that virtually every reasonable person believes in gun control (as do you) yet the very utterance of these two words among so many of the faithful NRA members I have encountered over the years incites a debate in which they proclaim that the right to bear arms includes completely unfettered ownership of fully automatic weapons if not nukes.

It is good that you have an understanding of case law pertaining to gun control issues but you missed the point. There are great numbers in NRA membership who would insistently argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong... that the framers of the constitution intended something less restrictive. I guess the real point is that the NRA (much of its membership) is really out of step with an incredibly large contingent (perhaps the great majority - don't know) of gun owners in this country.

Comment By Steve Kropelnicki, 2-27-07

Mr. Schneider,
I do not know anything about you or this website except for your comments on the Zumbo affair. I wonder if you are as misinformed about firearms issues as you appear to be, or if you simple are trying to drive a wedge between various segments of the firearms fraternity?
The Zumbo controversy began with a noted hunting writer's suggestion that military style firearms are something used only by terrorists and that the government should ban them from hunting.
The poor man obviously does not understand that Americans have a long tradition of using military firearms to hunt--the rifle of the first buffalo hide hunters was the Springfield trapdoor "needle gun", for example, and the origin of the modern bolt action rifle is the Mauser and Springfield military rifles.
Many modern hunters carry guns with "military" style camo plastic stocks and dull metal finish, even if they are bolt guns or pump or auto rifles and shotguns. Some look exactly like the bolt guns used by marine and army snipers.
If we are going to ban the AR-15's because of their appearance, where do we draw the line? Why not go back to single shot or even flintlock rifles if we are going to impose on our fellow sportsman our particular notions of firearms asthetics?
Zumbo made some arrogant, insulting, and misinformed remarks, and he got his comupence not from the NRA, but from grassroots gun owners who felt betrayed by one of their own.
You seem to know no more about the First Amendment than you do about the Second: "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. . . ." Zumbo exercised his First Amendment right to publish a stupid remark, and several thousand gun owners exercised their Second Amendment right to ask his editors and sponsors to fire him. How is that censorship?
You seem to have some real problem with those of us who understand that all of our freedoms ultimately rest on our ability to protect ourselves and our families from governmental abuse of power, by armed force if necessary. You call us "Black Rifle Gestapo", a "fanatic minority", "gun rights snipers", and in a burst of almost Agnewian alliteration, "vicious, vengful, vitriolic jackels". Pretty strong language to use toward folks whose only crime is their refusal to compromise where essential liberties are at issue, isn't it?
Have you ever actually talked to a supporter of restrictions on gun ownership? I have, you see, and I can tell you that they are usually completely ignorant of the history of the Second Amendment and of the use of firearms in America. They are motivated by an irrational fear of guns and a sick aversion to self-defense and to defying government. Those who do understand the issues often will tell you, if you listen long enough, that they want to ban all private ownership of guns, although they realize they must start by getting the support of some gunowners for "reasonable compromise".
I am happy to agree with you that the NRA has become a bloated bureaucracy, largely devoted to preserving the salaries and perks of those in authority. However, many of us know far more about the Second Amendment than anyone at the NRA, and we do not need them to tell us when our rights are threatened. You seem to have some agenda with the NRA that goes beyond Mr. Zumbo--why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?

Comment By scott, 2-27-07

elfman,

if any NRA member thinks the 2nd A protects a-bombs, then they're an IDIOT. my post didn't say all NRA members were smart. but, the NRA obviously does not think the 2nd A protects a-bombs.

and, your post was silly, anyone with a passing knowledge of the history and case law on the 2nd might consider it stupid. i did and i think you are.

Comment By elfman, 2-27-07

As I said, you seem to be a very angry man. You might pick up a book on anger. You will find anger can take a significant physiological and interpersonal toll on your life. Your desire to engage in global labeling is indicative of a larger problem you should really deal with before it damages you beyond depair. You will find that choosing to throw such language around as what is "silly"... who is "stupid"... or who is an "idiot" will hurt you in the long run and you will regret having lived your life this way. Best of luck to you.

Comment By Al, 2-27-07

I'm all for sport. But where is the sport in using an AR? An you who think Zumbo was calling AR owners terrorists are well just plain ignorant.

Comment By Der Kommisar, 2-27-07

Attention all:

Herr Schnieder has commanded that all NRA thugs stop writing their zealous opinions! Cease and desist using assault computer keyboards! Only qualified professional writers may publish their opinions!

You do not need to write an opinion. That is why we have professional writers. No one needs a 101 keys or more on their civilian sporting keyboard. 84 keys is the maximum keyboard capacity allowed with a permit. Manual typewriters are allowed without a permit as long as the ribbon is kept locked in a separate container.

Comment By Byron, 2-27-07

Dunno why yer blaming the NRA.. I never heard a peep out of them. And Lord knows they can certainly crank out the "begging/emergency of the week mail" It was a grass roots effort. I personally took offence at Mr. Zumbos comments.. I did my 8 years in the Air Force and have never gotten anything above a speeding ticket and resent his words that I'm a terrorist.. My 223 is fun to shoot and I have just as much right to have it as you hunters have to own your weapons of choice.. Nukes, grenade launchers ok but just because my semi auto has a 30 round clip instead of a 5 doesn't make me a terrorist.

I think this is more of a snobby hunter looking down his nose at anything he doesnt use personally.

As far as having to many rounds while hunting I believe a lot of states have a 5 round clip rule so whats the big deal??

Comment By Nat Mann, 2-27-07

I don't own anything remotely resembling an "assault weapon", at least not under the current definition.

Jim Zumbo got fired because he foolishly offended a large group of his sponser's customers. They had every right to be offended. These days you had better think long and hard before you even imply someone is a terrorist. It's not a word to throw around lightly.

If any spokesperson for any corporation in America said something in public as offensive as Zumbo's original blog entry, he would have been fired too. The NRA has nothing to do with it, except that they joined the list of people who let Zumbo go.

Comment By Chris Morton, 2-28-07

It's strange, on those freezing nights when I was in the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea in '80-'81, I always had an M16A1 nearby (a REAL one, not an AR15), and I NEVER felt like a "terrorist". Yet that's what Mr. Zumbo implied I am because I own an AR15 for protection against REAL terrorists, namely the neo-Nazis I regularly confront and condemn on the internet. And yet to Mr. Zumbo _I_ am the "terrorist".

And speaking of REAL terrorism, Mr. Zumbo is very much like the "Judenrat", the "Jewish Police" who helped the SS round up other Jews for deportation. Like them, he thinks he can throw others under the bus to buy himself a little time. They were both wrong. The Nazis' goal was NO Jews. The anti-gunners and anti-hunters' goal is NO guns, of ANY kind for anyone but themselves and their lackies.

As for the 1st Amendment, it guarantees the right to free speech, NOT the right to free speech WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, or even CONDEMNATION. That's a LIBERAL idea, and one of which as a LIBERAL, I am quite proud. Obviously Mr. Schneider and his friends in AHSA disagree.

Comment By Richard Davis, 2-28-07

Bill:

You missed the point. I was one of the Wray-esque jackals calling for Zumbo's censure, and I _am_ a writer. I have nothing to do with the NRA, nor did the NRA have anything to do with Zumbo's demise. The entire event transpired over a weekend, when business was dozing off and looking the other way. By the time Monday happened, the blogswarm was all over.

Many in writing circles, apparently yourself included, are in absolute denial that this was a grassroots movement in it's simplest form. Had you read the burgeoning list of dissent in Zumbo's comments, the conclusion was inescapable. Zumbo erred, badly. Zumbo had a career killing mistake, plain and simple. He severely underestimated America's taste for modern military arms.

Call me a zealot if you wish, I'll eventually learn to like the term. But as an assault weapon [sic] owner, I've had enough of taking the blame for the actions of other irresponsible people. Or worse, having **my** rights sacrificed for naught in the name of meaningless political expediency and posturing in Washington and elsewhere.

I find it fascinating that Brady, yourself, et al persistently peddle the notion that the NRA somehow orchestrated this assassination, and "real americans" are secretly supporting Zumbo. I suppose this must be the left-wing version of a conspiracy theory.

Comment By Larry Dreadon, 2-28-07

The NRA did not destroy Mr. Zumbo, He did it to himself. I am not certain which I find most objectionable; his original statement on banning AR's or his non-apology.

Comment By scott, 2-28-07

elfman,

take your psychobabble elsewhere, you know as much about that as you evidently do about guns.

Comment By Pete, 2-28-07

Don't forget that your Ruger Mini-14 is an "assault weapon", they even make a full-auto version (Ruger AC 5.56).

That Remington 700 Bolt Action with a Leupold Scope is a "sniper rifle", you can even buy a "Police Model"

The Remington Model 97 is a "trench shotgun", the Model 12 could be used as one too.

That Browning Bolt Action Rifle with the ported BOSS system, has a muzzle compensator for faster "follow-up shots".

The Benelli M1-Field can be used to shoot 9 hand thown clay targets before they hit the ground.

That Winchester .30-06 ammuniton you use for deer, is "cop killer", it can penetrate most police body armour.

The anti-gunners want to take all of them away, "obviously" no one needs the above items to hunt.

Don't think it can happen? Ask our friends in the UK and Australia.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 2-28-07

Thanks to all of you so your comments, even those who weren't so kind to me. I thought all of you would be interested in the official response of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, where Jim Zumbo has served two terms on the Board of Directors.....Bill

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Position Statement
Jim Zumbo Comments on Assault Rifles
February 23, 2007

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a long tradition of supporting the shooting sports industry and passing on our hunting heritage to future generations. Jim Zumbo, a long-time supporter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the shooting sports industry, has made significant contributions to our organization during his career. We consider him a great friend and an advocate for hunters.

As a writer for our magazine, Bugle, Mr. Zumbo has supported our hunting heritage and our public outreach efforts. Through his writing for other publications, Mr. Zumbo has been a strong supporter of habitat enhancement and protection – cornerstones of the Elk Foundation’s mission as a wildlife conservation organization.

We believe the extreme reaction to Mr. Zumbo’s recent statements regarding the use of assault weapons in hunting is disrespectful in light of his many contributions to the hunting and conservation communities. We realize there are many opposing viewpoints on this issue, but we believe that Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions.

Mr. Zumbo’s second term as a member of the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation expired this month under the terms of our by-laws. The end of Mr. Zumbo’s term on the board is entirely unrelated to the current controversy.

We appreciate all of Mr. Zumbo’s contributions to the Elk Foundation, to the shooting sports industry, and to hunters over the years.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-28-07

This despicable incident WILL come back to haunt hunters and shooters. God help us.

By having piled on Jim Zumbo and torn him apart like a pack of wild dogs for his remarks, destroying his life and his livelihood, EVERYONE involved in his demise has proven himself unworthy of the rights so many have fought and died for over the last two centuries.

In case you folks haven't figured it out yet, you have handed the anti-hunters and anti-gunners an enormous propaganda victory. They didn't have to do anything to achieve this victory. Hunters and shooters gave it to them on a platter--for free.

We may look back on this past week as the time when we truly lost our rights; nay, when we truly gave them away.

Comment By elfman, 2-28-07

Scott - The constitution gives us the right to bear arms AND the right to free speech. I will not be taking myself "elsewhere" as you have suggested. Do not let your anger eat you alive. Trust me... I know plenty about it... just as I know plenty about the 2nd. You may disagree with me (though I do not believe you really do) but allowing yourself to be so angered by my comments will be very destructive to you. Likewise, I could choose to become angered by your labeling me as "stupid" or "idiot" but making that choice doesn't do anything but hurt me in the end. Do yourself a favor and free yourself from your anger. It is possible with some therapy and study.

Comment By Lee Ross, 2-28-07

Zumbo, a prolific writer and supporter of gun owners, writes a few lines in a blog and is instantly destroyed. And, I see, many of the respondents here took his comments quite personally, and without any real provocation to do so.

Also, his apology seemed quite complete to me. He could have gone on to say that he was sorry he was ever born, because the end result was his making a comment against assault rifles. I don't think that would have appeased those who were most deeply offended (on such little provocation), however.

The internet and freedom of speech, just like guns, are tools. They are useful but can both be very damaging. This story is really about a bunch of pro-gun zealots letting everyone know how very irresponsible they are with the tools they are have. I don't think either should be taken away, because having the government take away my rights scares me. On the other hand--like anyone who is uneasy about a mob of angry gun nuts-- these people scare me too.

Comment By schreinervideo, 2-28-07

Read the attached link about recent bald eagle shootings. What's really sad is the poachers could have bagged so many more with a more powerful rifle.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-27-09.asp#anchor6

Comment By scott, 2-28-07

elfman, or is it Dr Elfman? maybe you should get a TV show then you can offer stupid advice to people who supposedly want it.

Comment By bob Todd, 2-28-07

Does it occur to no one that Zumbo would not be in this position if he was not on Remington's payroll? Was his writing ever with the reader in mind rather than some corporate profit/

Comment By elfman, 2-28-07

Scott... it is not a question of "want" but rather a question of need in your case.

Comment By scott, 2-28-07

elfman,

you funny guy :), but looks aren't everything!

Comment By Suede, 2-28-07

What a bunch of kooks. with guns. great comination.

There is a great deal of talk about "accountability", that Zumbo got what he deserved.

I wonder, the next time some lunatic goes ballistic with an assault rifle, will the NRA accept its "accountability" in terms of facilitating putting that weapon in the crazy's hand?

Or will any of you?

And please don't respond with talk about amendments, 1st or 2nd. Amendments are words-- I'm talking Littleton, DC sniper-- real tragic events.

Comment By scott, 2-28-07

Suede,

Just as the car companies, Ford, GM, etc., etc., don't have any responsibility, nor accountability, nor culpability when a drunk driver uses a car to kill someone, neither do the gun manufacturers (or even retail sellers assuming the retail sale was within the law) have any responsibility, accountability, or culpability when a criminal misuses a firearm. Ditto for the NRA.

Or are you suggesting that we hold ALL organizations responsible for the actions of un-related third parties?

Do you suppose we should prosecute the ACLU because one its former chapter presidents was just arrested for having child pornagraphy? After all, the ACLU is defending the "man-boy love association" under the theory that "speech" is protected.

No, didn't think so. Guess you comment doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?

Comment By Andrew Frechtling, 2-28-07

One good thing about all this is that we are getting a robust discussion, that should force many of us, especially hunters, to rethink our views on these issues.

Comment By Peter McMullen, 2-28-07

It's abundantly clear that The Brady Campaign, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, etc., are pursuing a strategy of divide and conquer. They seek to single out, demonize, and isolate specific groups of people and weapons, then pick them off one by one.

Right now they are trying to divide owners of traditional pattern hunting arms from millions of other decent, honorable, responsible firearms owners, who happen to enjoy collecting and shooting the firearms described here, in some of the most dangerous legislation in years, HR 1022:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

NOTE THAT Section 3(a)(30)(A) includes in its list of "assault weapons":

RUGER MINI-14 Ranch Rifles (and presumably Mini-30's)
M1 CARBINES
SAIGA HUNTING RIFLES
KEL-TEC pistol caliber ranch/utility carbines
HI-POINT pistol caliber ranch/utility carbines
THOMPSON semi-auto replicas

NOTE FURTHER WHAT IT SAYS IN Section 3(a)(30)(L) as further definition of an "assault weapon":

"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

end quote

FOLKS, THIS CATCH ALL WOULD INCLUDE:

M1 GARANDS!
BAR's whether in hunting configuration or not!
SKS rifles with a non-detachable magazine
Springfield M1A's and semi-auto M14's
Any traditional pattern hunting rifle built on an AK type action

AND, it empowers the ATTORNEY GENERAL to UNILATERALLY DECLARE these and similar firearms as "non-sporting" and therefore "evil assault weapons". Does any firearm owner really want to give this sort of power to the next JANET RENO?

This legislation goes on to declare as an "assault weapon", any rifle with "A PISTOL GRIP". What sort of "pistol grip" would that be? How many of you own a semi-auto hunting rifle with a wooden pistol grip stock? For that matter, what is it about a "pistol grip", or a "barrel shroud", or a "telescoping stock" or a threaded barrel that makes a rifle inherently more lethal if a CRIMINAL chooses to murder innocent unarmed people?

How does restricting such firearms from millions of law-abiding people prevent a single criminal from preventing mayhem if they are so obsessed. The DC "shooters"murdered people ONE SHOT AT A TIME. Any bolt action rifle, even a single shot breach loader, would have been every bit as deadly. In fact the vast majority of hunting rifles are chambered in calibers that are far more lethal in their wounding effects.

In the case of Littleton Colorado, Harris and Klebold spent as much as a year planning their attack. Apparently in a complete lack of parental supervision or concern, they acquired standard shotguns that in no way could be construed as "assault weapons and proceeded to saw off the barrels. They also acquired a semi-automatic TEC DC-9, and a semi-auto 9mm carbine, which in terms of it lethality to unarmed high school kids is no more or less deadly than any other 9mm semi-automatic pistol, or for that matter, any medium frame revolver. In strict objective terms of wounding effects, standard shotguns used by hunters and others for centuries are the most deadly of these weapons. Harris and Klebold also were armed with nail-filled pipe bombs.

Most recently, in the Utah mall shooting, the bad guy was carrying a simple shotgun.

The solution of the gun grabbers therefor is to seize EVERY firearm from law abiding, responsible citizens, in the false hope that our lives and liberty will somehow be safer if only criminals, police and the military possess firearms.

Into this climate stepped Jim Zumbo. Mr. Zumbo certainly had a right to write what he wrote. THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. In a climate where the gun grabbers are seeking to turn us against one another, his inflammatory statements could not have made them happier. No sooner had Mr. Zumbo labeled AR's and AK's as "terrorist rifles associated with terrorists", then the Brady Bunch was touting it with glee as a "see we told you so" moment.

No sooner had a spontaneous grass roots groundswell rejection occurred on the web, than the Brady Bunch et al. and unthinking sympathizers began to label (and libel) those who were overwhelmingly critical as "gun nut zombies controlled by the NRA". This, even though the NRA itself was exceeding slow and cautious in its reaction.

Further, it is a matter of record that Mr. Zumbo has publicly acknowledge that, in his words, he "blew it big time". While it may not be perfect, he has publicly (and I believe sincerely) apologized for the damage he has caused. It is my hope that he will follow this up with sincere, dedicated action to help mend fences and fight for the Second Amendment rights of ALL firearms owners.

In Conclusion:

Hunters need to recognize beyond ANY DOUBT that the gun grabbers are on record as ZEALOUSLY devoted to eliminating ALL privately owned firearms, including their center-fire, bolt-action long guns. And, if hunters now turn their backs on millions of "ugly gun" owners, how can they expect that those betrayed will rally to THEIR SIDE when the Brady's come after traditional hunting rifles and shotguns?

IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE ALL UNIFY AND RESIST THE GUN GRABBERS

That means all of us: the urban woman concerned for her personal safety, the hunter, the cop, the soldier sworn to defend the Constitution, the target shooter, those who consider themselves part of the self-reliance movement.

The words of Martin Niemöller should serve as a warning:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

Comment By Suede, 2-28-07

This is my last posting, because trying to have a thoughtful conversation with uber gun nuts is pointless.

As far as I know, the SOLE purpose of the ACLU is not to advocate on the part of child molesters. That is the worst analogy I've ever heard.

I am a gun owner; I am a hunter; I may get a handgun; I am not part of the "brady bunch" or any other of the social pinatas you all love/need to bash.

But there is one purpose to assault weapons-- to discharge as many bullets as possible. It is not a hunting weapon. It's purpose is to KILL PEOPLE.

The NRA is culpable because its sole purpose is to advocate on behalf of ALL guns, including those whose sole purpose is to KILL PEOPLE.

It is telling that the DC sniper used an assault rifle in his spree, even though it only discharged one bullet at a time. It was because he was a militant whacko, just like all other people who feel the need to purchase an assault weapon for "fun".

If you could make these weapons so they only discharged one bullet at a time, then I, and the rest of America, would have no problem with them.

Feel free to post more of your nonsensical responses from the windowless basement of your mother's home.

Comment By Peter McMullen, 2-28-07

Well Suede, your ad hominem attacks, reactionary stereotyping, and logical fallacies don't strike me exhibiting a desire to engage in thoughtful conversation, and certainly are telling...

Comment By scott, 2-28-07

Suede doesn't have much guts for the conversation apparently. Hit him with a little logic to make fun of his post and he pouts and runs home saying he doesn't want to play anymore.

What an illogical statement "If you could make these weapons so they only discharged one bullet at a time, then I, and the rest of America, would have no problem with them."

The DC sniper (who was Muslim by the way) used an EBR (evil black rifle) capable of sustained semi-auto fire with at least 20 round magazines, yet they fired 1 round in each attackt. Well, they could've used any of Suedes "good" bolt actions rifles to do that. And, if they had used a .30-06 there probably would have been more kills.

By his logic it is the high-power rifles (as opposed to low-power "assault weapons") that should be banned.

Another witless gun-owner, that despite being hit over the head time and time again by the anti-gun crowd, just can't get it into his head that IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT GUN YOU OWN, THEY WANT TO BAN IT!

I have a lot of complaints with the NRA, but if it wasn't for them Suede and all of the other stupid gun-owning "hunters" like D(Z)umbo would have already lost their pretty wood-stocked rifles.

Comment By Ed, 2-28-07

So Bill Schneider, Pat Wray, and Tony Dean have jumped in to defend Jim Zumbo. Big deal. That's like jumping off of a very high cliff and discovering that someone has laid down 3 sponges to absorb the impact.

Zumbo has no one to blame for his dilemma other than himself. His first amendment right to speak his mind comes with an equal responsibility to accept the consequences for them.

As it is, Denny Hansen of SWAT magazine is attempting to educate him by sending him through an AR-15 class in the hopes that he will gain some understanding of what he was talking about, since he had no knowledge of the subject beforehand. Zumbo has learned at the ripe old age of 66 what most of us learned at 6: If you can't say something nice about someone else, don't say anything at all.

Comment By Letalis, 2-28-07

Sorry Bill, the NRA had nothing to do with this. It was real grassroots in action. Frankly, an organization that is the size of the NRA simply could not have responded with the alacrity with which this situation developed. And it developed over the course of one weekend, by the way.

No "astro-turf." No "false flag" operations by the Joyce Foundation. Just "an Army of Davids" using the internet to express their opinions.

Scary, huh? To guys like you, it should be. Remember, we can fact check your ass.

Comment By JohnBT, 2-28-07

"But there is one purpose to assault weapons-- to discharge as many bullets as possible. It is not a hunting weapon. It's purpose is to KILL PEOPLE."

That's silly and totally inaccurate. One pull of the trigger = one shot. They're useful for shooting varmints, they're useful for target shooting, and in some states they're useful for deer hunting. It's just a gun and it's not even full auto like a machine gun.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Mr. Zumbo put his foot in his mouth; deep, deep in his mouth.

I am a Patron Member of the NRA and I didn't hear a thing from them on Mr. Zumbo - early on I read the quote of what he said and knew his goose was cooked.

Comment By JohnBT, 2-28-07

Forgot to add that in over 50 of shooting I've never even owned a so-called "assault rifle", but I know what they are and what they aren't and what they're good for.

Comment By Dan F., 2-28-07

Mr. Schneider, you are wrong. Mr. Zumbo is an outdoor writer and as such is a holder of the public trust. His comments were a betrayal of the people he makes his living providing information to. The lawful ownership of ANY type of weapon and the lawful use of same whether for hunting, target shooting, personal protection, or collecting is the lawful right of every law abiding citizen of this land. Some of the foregoing correspondents have stated that this issue isn't about the Second Amendment but rather about firearm hunting and firearm hunting "ethics". It is my belief that without the existence of the Second Amendment there would be no firearm hunting at all. Hunting and the Second Amendment are inextricably entwined.
I would expect that if I were to make a comment that was blatanty offensive to my employer I would be fired. It looks to me like Mr. Zumbo did just that.

Comment By Swede is dumb, 2-28-07

You notice the ignorance and feminized irrational reactions about SAMs and rocket launchers from these elitists who look down their noses at the "non-traditionalists" You hunters are the non-traditionalists. The only tradition in common law and the federal and state constitutions are for the people to own (KEEP and bear) military firearms to protect themselves and the state. Nothing about hunting, a PRIVILEDGE you need to purchase a licence to practice. Look at the Militia Act of 1794 you snobs and stop blaming the NRA who does more for you ingrates in one month for hunting than you goons have done in your lifetime. As for JohnBT my so called "assault weapon is for punching holes in paper and it is more suited for hunting than any gun he owns. Bet my sights are better Johnny, you snob. If I lose my guns I will work with PETA to make sure you lose yours.

Comment By John Haller, 3-01-07

same as a lot of people have written, but Jim Zumbo deserved everything he got - he was ignorant about what the second amendment means and downright silly enough to think there are such things as "good guns" and "bad guns" . . and for heaven sake our liberty is not about hunting, although I enjoy hunting as much as the next guy. Even worse his comments have to some extent already been used as anti-gun propaganda.

Remember this when they legislate against your "high powered deadly sniper rifles". After all, since large game animals measure almost 12 to 18 inches through the vital zone, surely there can be no proper sporting purpose for a highpowered, deadly sniper rifle that can place three shots into 3 or 4 inches at 300 yards. You elitist hunters with your deadly weapons need to be controlled. Anyway, enough on that. WAKE UP, we will hang together or we will hang apart . . .

Comment By Jimbo, 3-01-07

Lets face it, the second amendment preserves our right to keep and bear arms so that we can overthrow a tyrannical government. Given the crap the 2nd amendment supporters have thrown around on this website, it is clear that its time to do that. Since the government has been in the pockets of the NRA for about 50 years now, it seems that the NRA is what needs overthrowing!

And a word about what Zumbo said about state fish and Game departments outlawing assualt weapons for hunting: Doing so would in now way infringe on 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment says that you can "keep and bear arms". It says nothing about what you can and can't use them for. Game and Fish Departments broadly determine how and when game may be taken. For example, they usually prohibit fishing with dynamite; or rifle hunting during bow season. This is one way in which they regulate what weapons are used to take game, and I see no difference in outlawing assault rifles for hunting. Doing so would in now way infringe on second amendment rights.

Comment By Adventure_Bob, 3-01-07

What I find so amazing (other than his dimwittedness) is how fast this moved, and most people myself included never did actually see the blog comments. Did he say ban assault rifles from hunting or ban assault rifles period?

I find it dangerous that this turned into a mob mentality when many have never seen the actual writing. What if someone had hacked the story, got the firestorm started and off it burned. I realize this is not the case here but . . .

So . . . the only explanation I can see is since it appears he posted it on Friday night (the party night of the week) is – perhaps he was drunk when he wrote his blog and everyone knows that if you mix guns and drinking your gonna get yourself in trouble.

He should hire a good publicist, say he was drinking (even if he wasn't) and go into rehab. Then everyone could forgive him(most everyone has done a stupid thing thanks to booze). Spin it off into a reality TV show where contestants took turns shooting targets with a variety military weapons hosted by Jim.

Comment By Jimbo the dumb Bubba, 3-01-07

By Jimbo, 3-01-07
Since the government has been in the pockets of the NRA for about 50 years now, it seems that the NRA is what needs overthrowing!

>You have proof of that? If the NRA has controlled the government, I guess we would not need an NRA since we would not need an NRA to keep an eye on the elitist tyrants in Washington.

And a word about what Zumbo said about state fish and Game departments outlawing assualt weapons for hunting: Doing so would in now way infringe on 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment says that you can "keep and bear arms". It says nothing about what you can and can't use them for.

>The Constitution says for the "security of a free state" I see you did not get your moneys worth from school. I suggest you read some state constitutions, and it will clearly tell you, and it has nothing to do with hunting, so if some state decides to ban hunting, and hire state troopers to kull game, you will be up shit's creek without a paddle you boob. Also, tell me why a gun with a bayonet lug, a pistol grip or a flah hider has no hunting purpose, but if I take them off, it is good for hunting. You sir, are clueless.

Game and Fish Departments broadly determine how and when game may be taken. For example, they usually prohibit fishing with dynamite; or rifle hunting during bow season. This is one way in which they regulate what weapons are used to take game, and I see no difference in outlawing assault rifles for hunting.

>Based on COSMETICS? Do you have the ability to think?

Doing so would in now way infringe on second amendment rights.

>You are obviously not too bright since you cannot spell, not knowing the difference between "know" and "now". You are right they can ARBITRARILY ban guns on COSMETICS, next will be your scoped rifles because "you do not need that to hunt". They banned everything but side-by-side shotguns in Austria because you do not need anything but those to hunt. Get you head out of
your ass.

Comment By BRADY BUNCH PEOPLE BASHING NRA & HUNTERS, 3-01-07

CALM DOWN PEOPLE, THERE ARE GUN GRABBERS HERE, MEANING ALL GUNS, BOTH HUNTING AND SELF DEFENSE, POSING AS HUNTERS BASHING THE NRA, SAYING THE NRA HAS GONE TOO FAR, OR THEY ARE FORMER NRA, ETC. IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE FORMER, POST YOUR NAME, HUNTING LICENSE NUMBER, STATE, AND NRA MEMBER NUMBER. THIS IS MORE OF THE DIVIDE AND CONQUER CRAP.

Comment By Hunter/Semi-auto owner and PROUD, 3-01-07

Brady/Schumer/Kennedy strategy:
If a gun fires bullets that can penetrate level II body armor, those are "cop killer" bullets; the gun and the bullets should be banned.

If a gun fires bullets that cannot penetrate a level II vest, it has "no sporting purpose" and should be banned.

(I didn't figure this out myself, I read it on a blog somewhere this
weekend. I wish I could credit the original source)

Of course, Brady, Schumer, Kennedy, etc, will still have access to guns themselves because they are special.

Comment By mike, 3-01-07

Golly, Schneider, 84 comments posted and still counting, you ought to get a bonus for this piece.

Comment By Suede, 3-01-07

I'm back! Couldn't help myself.

The K-O-O-K-S are on parade here. I assume you have been forwarded this conversation, as I doubt most of you read New West on a regular basis. Just more proof how nutty and rabid you folks are.

As for posting my hunting license number, that's none of your gd business, Mr Patriot Act. Rest assured I'd have a real tight grouping at 300 yards and have earned the meat in my freezer.

I understand why you all think you need assault rifles-- you're not man enough to defend yourselves otherwise, and crazy enough to think "the elitists" wants your guns.

NRA = Nutjobs Razing America

Comment By Swede is a FRAUD, 3-01-07

300 yards? I shoot quarters at 300 yards, you fraud, with a gun that was not made for hunting. You are no hunter, I am no fan of the Patriot Act and it has nothing to do with your hunting license. Prove to us you are a hunter, and what the NRA did to you SPECIFICALLY to turn you off to them. Tell us what you have done more for hunting than the NRA you ingrate. So tell us what a tight grouping has to do with a gun with a bayonet lug and a flash hider and one that does not? You don't have a clue. Nice feminzed, subject changing rant, Brady plant. This guys is a fraud, keep coming back, every time you come back you will be more and more exposed as the fraud you are. KOOKS my ass, and believe me, if we met face to face I would need little to prove my manhood to a feminized metro-male clown like yourself, bt to make you happy, I will bring a bayonet lug and flash hider to satisfy your clueless paranoia. Make sure not to bring a bayonet lug and flash hider, and I will definitely have you at a disadvantage. Hell, I may pull a drive-by bayoneting on you. Go away Ma'am.

Comment By Suede, 3-02-07

So bitter. and so wrong. Trust me pal, if we ever met face to face, I'd take your fat old ass down so quick the next thing you'd remember saying is "more morphine".

Besides a lifetime of non-sensical NRA policies, the NRA's insistence that assault weapons are legitimate hunting weapons is enough to piss me off. Because here's the long picture:

- The number of hunters in this country is declining. Most of this is tied to the advancing age of hunters, who are not being replaced by younger hunters. Why not?

Because society at large takes a look at people shooting wildlife for fun with assault weapons, and it isn't pretty. It's hard to recruit new hunters in that embarassing atmosphere.

With fewer hunters, that means eventually hunter's rights decline in terms of where and when we can hunt. Not good.

Besides-- don't pretend the NRA is about hunters' interests. It was only THIS year that they finally spoke up against the Bush administration's drill at any cost, sell off public lands, game be damned policies. Where have they been for 6 years?

It's a front. They don't give a d about game or hunters. So real hunters need to look out for ourselves now, and leave kooks like you behind to explain your weird weapon fetishes to the rest of America.

Comment By SWEDE IS FROM THE BRADY BUNCH, 3-02-07

>So bitter. and so wrong. Trust me pal, if we ever met face to face, I'd >take your fat old ass down so quick the next thing you'd remember saying is >"more morphine".

What do you hunt Swede? What caliber? What game? How many calibers in an inch? How many grains in a pound? Boy, I am so glad we have people like you in the shooting sports. Well, you guys aren't really shooters, maybe a few shots a year, and not really gun owners because you only own guns during your precious hunting seasons. I am not bitter, and I am not wrong. You are up against a firearms, political, history, and debating expert. The only thing that may save you is that I do not have much time becaue I work with kids with Learning Disabilities, but I may have some time here to help you, an adult with a Learning Disability. You are so funny, I would not need morphine, believe me, but this is infantile, I would not come looking for a windbag, clueless man like you. You remind me of the old farts at the club, who huff and puff when we shoot our service match rifles on the range and make comments and scoff like a bunch of old women. THey would come out there and make up "safety" violations and other BS harassment. They could not win an argument on merit, so they would start screaming and name calling, or like in your case, bringing someone's namhood into question, or calling them a kook, you know, when you cannot win a debate, name-call, then crawl back under your rock. They wonder why young people do not hunt? Who wants to associate with a bunch of old, drunk, farts? Guess what, mind your own business. So bitter? It is you dumb ass? You are full of hate. Shut up, you do not know me, and you do not know my age, who are you to say "bitter"? Look at yourself and the drivel, pathetic and shallow bullshit about people blasting wildlife with "assault-weapons" for fun. You mean they are tearing up these animals because they have bayonet lugs and flash hiders? You are a clueless piece of poop. Fat old ass, my ass. You assume too much Ma'am. I am a young healthy man with a 140 IQ, a decorated disabled war-time Vet, ride an antique Harley, degrees in Criminal Justice, History, Education, teach Rifle, Pistol, Personal Protection, how about you? Stop acting like a woman, and state some facts. You mean to tell me that people are more careless or less careless because of cosmetic features of a gun? You do not know what you are talking about.

> Besides a lifetime of non-sensical NRA policies, the NRA's insistence that > assault weapons are legitimate hunting weapons is enough to piss me off. > Because here's the long picture:

Piss you off? Oh, poor you? You lose sleep over this? Have you sought professional help? WHo is the kook here? You are not from one of those blue nanny states where everyone minds everyone elses business are you? The NRA insists that people use guns with bayonet lugs for hunting? So if the NRA told people to cut their bayonet lugs of, that would be OK with you? You are full of it. What makes a so-called assault weapon unsuitable to hunt with. BE SPECIFIC. Why is a Remington 7600 OK, and a semi-auto with a bayonet lug not. Answer the question.

> The number of hunters in this country is declining. Most of this is tied > to the advancing age of hunters, who are not being replaced by younger > hunters. Why not?

Gee, I wonder why numbers are declining, who wants to hang around with a mean jerk like you? Who calls other other gun owners kooks, or makes comments about their man-hood because they want to have military rifles as the Founding Fathers of this nation envisioned. Read the Militia Act of 1794 Swede. You should be ashamed of yourself. Quit while you are ahead. If this was a debate in front of an audience, you would be exposed as a poltroon. Look it up. Don't you think you are part of the problem? You think it is the NRA fault? NO. Is it the fault of people with bayonet lugs on their guns? DON'T BLAME US. DON'T BLAME US, OR TRY TO "DIVORCE" US, LIKE ZUMBO. GET IT. I don't hunt, I do not care to hunt, I am not a selfish asshole like you. I use my gun ownership as per my oath to the Constiution, how about you, oh, your narrow self interest and fuck everyone else. Right? I know why many youngsters do not hunt, being a Junior Conservation Club Direction, so you are not talking to a kook here, nor some old fat guy, you fucking punk. It is because of assholes like you harassing them at gun clubs, shooting ranges, and hunting camps with the stupid, shallow, HOSTILE remarks they cannot back up with facts.

> Because society at large takes a look at people shooting wildlife for fun > with assault weapons, and it isn't pretty. It's hard to recruit new > hunters in that embarassing atmosphere.

For fun? Where? They have licenses? Who is giving them the licenses? Why not blame them? Where is this going on? You know of this? People with guns with bayonet lugs are doing this, but people take the bayonet lugs off, they suddenly stop?

> With fewer hunters, that means eventually hunter's rights decline in terms > of where and when we can hunt. Not good.

You have no "hunter' rights" The states are only "friendly" to hunters as long as they pay the bills, when these states do not make money off you, they will become hostile.

> Besides-- don't pretend the NRA is about hunters' interests. It was only > THIS year that they finally spoke up against the Bush administration's > drill at any cost, sell off public lands, game be damned policies. Where > have they been for 6 years?

You now have a problem with the NRA for the last 6 years, what did they do before that to alienate you? This is the only thing you could come up with? Something smells. What did people who shoot service match rifles at Camp Perry do to you for you to call them KOOKS? The NRA was originall set up in 1871 by former Union Generals to promote marksmanship as per the well-regulated militia. Again, if you know of a group that does more for hunters than the NRA, let's hear it.

> It's a front. They don't give a d about game or hunters. So real hunters > need to look out for ourselves now, and leave kooks like you behind to > explain your weird weapon fetishes to the rest of America.

Yeah sure, right from the Brady bunch, who are you fooling? Who really represents hunters then, WHO HAS DONE MORE FOR HUNTERS THAN THE NRA, and I will ask the question AGAIN. You seem to have problems answering questions, have a selective memory, I have been doing this a long time, and it is starting to smell. Nice assuming that I have semi-autos with bayonet lugs, I do not have to explain my fetish, (fetish-another put down, with a sexual connotation). I guess PETA would say hunting is some sexual blood fetish, you want to play hard ball here? Hypocrite, well that is if you are really a hunter. I do not have them, I collect .22 military training rifles, and shoot service rifle, but understand that jerks like you are the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to kill hunting in the end, not the NRA or people with guns with bayonet lugs. Put your ego aside, think about it, but it is difficult to get unintelligent egomaniacs to admit they are wrong. They become more vicious and will destroy themselves as well as their preceived enemies to prove themselves correct. Sorry, but the truth hurts Swede.

Comment By mike, 3-03-07

Well, I guess this string proves it. The NRA is well on its way to being the new replacement for the KKK, perhaps already there. It is a dangerous lunatic fringe group that attracts dangerous kooks and incites dangerous thinking in people who do not have the maturity to control themselves. It needs a full federal investigation of all of its activities to support all appropriate prosecutions and needs to be banned.

Comment By GR8 GUY!, 3-03-07

BILL SHNICKER: U make ZUMBO look like a SAINT. ur clearly a SCHMUCK in disguise. Im sure I speak for all when I say "WONT BUY ANYTHING U WRITE FOR ANYMORE. HUH!"

Comment By To Mike the Police State Advocate, 3-03-07

> Well, I guess this string proves it.

The only thing proved by this string is that anti-gunners argue their points from emotion, instead of facts.

>The NRA is well on its way to being the new replacement for the KKK, perhaps already there.

Well you History teacher should be fired, for you certainly did not learn US History, but you are another clueless American. Michael Moore is right about one thing, Americans are dumb, you Mike are proof of that. Your baseless, factless, unsubstantiated comments are proof that you people have nothing to base your arguments on. The NRA is trying to keep black people in the south from voting? Maybe Roy Innis, a black man, the President of CORE, and NRA Director would like to know that. You people have no ethics and will throw any smear out their to win your right, like communists, you do not care hom much you have to lie, or how many innocent people you have to kill to prove your corrupt system is the best. Anti-gunners are well on their way to being the new replacement for the PROPAGANDA MINISTRY OF THE THIRD REICH. Perhaps you can give us some historical parallels or cite some specifics, oh, I forgot, we are asking people who run on emotion and lies to state facts here. People who run on bumper sticker slogans and parrot what they hear from their favorite Marxist-Leninists

>t is a dangerous lunatic fringe group that attracts dangerous kooks and incites dangerous > thinking in people who do not have the maturity to control themselves. It > needs a full federal investigation of all of its activities to support all > appropriate prosecutions and needs to be banned.

I am sure it has already been done idiot. Again no specifics to back up your charges or baseless assertions. You have a better chance of being struck and killed by lighting than being hurt much less killed by some "kook". Tell us, how many "kooks" have been incited by the NRA? Tell us comrade what is the next civil rights group that needs to be banned if it does not meet your fascist standards for inciting immature people? You are a piece of shit, big brother advocate, the same people the founders of this nation warned us about, and the same reason gave us the Second Amendment, that is why you hate it, it keeps SCUM like you at bay. Go to Cuba or North Korea where there is no NRA, you will be happy there.

Comment By dave, 3-03-07

I do not hunt but have been following this issue. Admit it, Zumbo was stupid for calling these guns "terrorist weapons". Did you ever stop to realize that most gun owners DO NOT hunt? We like handguns and rifles that shoot less than expensive ammuntion because we like shooting more than hunting. I don't trust people like you because you are the first to bolt or sell out to save your precious duck shotgun or elk rifle. I cannot stand snobbery and I have yet to meet a handgun owner or automatic rifle owner who is that way. But I have met a few hunters who think that they are above everyone else in legitimacy. Zumbo shoudl not have lost his Remington job or resigned from the magazine, but he deserved the public acrimony, even if I was not there to give it.
You ought to thank Nugent for giving him some respect to post on his website.

Comment By dave, 3-03-07

And by the way, the NRA is the largest gun group that defends ALL gun owners, as opposed to the ones who drive LandRovers and wear designer hunting gear.

Comment By Sportman, Hunter, American, 3-03-07

Mr. Zumbo might think that using semi-auto rifles with a pistol grip has no place in hunting, but should have kept those comments to himself. The comments served no purpose what-so-ever, except to inflame people. Semi-auto rifles have a place in hunting and I have never heard of them being used to shoot up the woods or game for fun as some morons here without citing any specific instances have charged. I also am perplexed why the addition of a bayonet lug, pistol grip, threaded muzzle, or flash hider has anything to do with making a semi-auto less able to be used for hunting and a semi-auto that does not. Does Mr. Zumbo know that little about guns or that unable to think logically? I use a pump shotgun to hunt, and I would not think any less of a person who used a semi auto to hunt. Mr. Swede, I would like to know when and where the NRA has insisted that hunters be allowed to used semi-autos with flash hiders in hunting. CITE YOUR SOURCES. I think we have a lot of Brady people here passing themselves off as hunters. Ask these clowns questions, ask them to cite their sources, ask them back up the charges, and like the faulty basis of the flawed thinking processes, their arguments will collapse like a house of cards. This Swede says he is mad at the NRA for some Bush policy, notice this is on the Federal level, nothing about how much the NRA does for the hunters on the state level. This is some Brady staffer in DC. Look at Mike, the oxymoron "tolerant liberal" with his lame "KKK" reference, because he cannot come up with any legitimate beefs against the NRA. Clowns like this throw around these charges because they have nothing of substance to offer.

Comment By Aaron, 3-03-07

"Semi-auto rifles have a place in hunting and I have never heard of them being used to shoot up the woods or game for fun as some morons here without citing any specific instances have charged."

It seems that several of this string's posters have mentioned shooting "varmints" with assault rifles. As they do not eat the game, this seems to qualify as "shoot up the... game" for pleasure.

(Some people may quibble with the idea of prairie dogs as game, but the bottom line is that they're native wildlife, unlike oryx, ibex, lions and other critters people import for game farms etc).

While equating the NRA to the KKK is a little hysterical, it seems that some of the pro-assault folks here seem to have gone equally as far with their paranoia. This kind of hateful rhetoric does justice to no one.

Comment By mike, 3-04-07

I apologize for not being more specifc. I believe that the kind of attack launched against Zumbo, which is essentially identical to the kind of attacks launched by the NRA on others, is the public media equivalent of burning a cross on someone's lawn as a means to intimidate them into silence and submission. It is a means of showing that you can hurt them where they live, in this case where they make their living, and is thus a mechanism for using a form of terror as a political weapon. In this sense, its intended effect is the same as the intended effect of a crosss burning or a lynching or any of many other filthy, despicable, low-life KKK tactics. Your responses continue to prove my point and extend a string of dishonorable rhetoric that is demonstrating the problem that Zumbo, Schneider, and the rest of us wanted to highlight in the first place; so, exactly who is the idiot?

Comment By mie, 3-04-07

On second thought, I don't want to ruin the good thing that we have going here. So, I'll just say that I think that you fellows are so emotionally attached to your semi-autos because you have such a bad case of penis envy.

Comment By dave, 3-04-07

"Penis envy". You must be another one of those anti-gun morons that are posting on here posing as a shooter.

Comment By dave, 3-04-07

"The NRA is culpable because its sole purpose is to advocate on behalf of ALL guns, including those whose sole purpose is to KILL PEOPLE."-Suede

So, are you going to buy a snub-nose .38SPL revolver. It's not an "assault weapon/rifle"? And it's not a target or huntng gun, either. I guess that "idiot label" across your forehead is in indelible ink now.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/zumbo_affair_nra_takes_no_prisoners/