Sunday, February 18, 2007

Boomsticks: Who the hell is Jim Zumbo?

Wow, strip off that down-home looking camo, and underneath it this guy is wearing a pink Million Mom March tee shirt.

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 don't know about living in a vacuum, Jimbo, but you do seem to be carrying one around between your ears. To claim to be an active varmint or predator hunter and yet completely unaware of the popularity of the AR-15 in that market stretches credulity to the limit.
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. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
I guess you've never been to an NRA High Power match, either. What the hell kind of shooting enthusiast are you? You've managed to make yourself sound like a wet-behind-the-ears neophyte completely unaware of the state of the shooting sports in this country, not a "traditionalist".
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."
Ah, here we reach the rub. Listen, you gun-banning cretin: An argument could be made (and has been, by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision) that your hunting guns are not Constitutionally protected at all, except those that meet the requirements for militia service. In other words, if you have any scoped bolt guns in a service caliber, such as 5.56mm or 7.62 NATO, those are golden, but the .17 Remington 'chuck-popper you were fawning over in your name-dropping opening paragraph is a toy that is completely irrelevent to the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment.

Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I've seen in a while. Now that I'm aware of your anti-gun nature, I'll be sure to cancel the one subscription to Outdoor Life that I have control over, and urge everyone else I know who subscribes to cancel theirs as well. Maybe after they ash-can you, you can go write policy columns for the Brady Center or the VPC.

I'm sure they'd love your little camouflage outfit and folksy wit. They'd find a place for you; after all, you're an "Authentic Gun Guy". *spit*

(H/T to The Unforgiving Minute.)

191 comments:

Kevin said...

"What the hell kind of shooting enthusiast are you?"

He's not. He's a hunter. One of the Anointed, whose God is Elmer Fudd (hallowed be His name!)

the pistolero said...

I know well that not all hunters agree with what he said, but it's still extremely disheartening to read screeds like that. He's getting a much-deserved reaming in the comment section, though.

CGHill said...

Fuddsy once claimed to have been a vegetarian also. I figure it's just a matter of time for ol' Jimbo.

Ambulance Driver said...

Never much cared for jim Zumbo myself. As far as I'm concerned, there haven't been any knowledgeable writers on rifles and hunting since Jack O'Connor.

And you know, I don't own any "assault weapons" like Zumbo describes. Never thought of actually hunting with one, either. I think I have better tools to accomplish what I want.

But I'm also smart enough to know (as apparently Zumbo ISN'T, that the gun grabbers make no distinctions between the two. In fact, they purposely make the descriptions broad enough to seize Mr. Zumbo's hunting rifles and shotguns as well.

Desertrat said...

You reckon the editors mumbled, "Well, let's run it, and see what happens."?

They found out!

I noticed in the multitudinous responses that somebody pointed out that Jimbo's beloved hunting rifles could easily be labelled "sniper rifles".

His insularity is rather off-putting. I'd think that anybody who's been around the gun-world for that long would realize that we hang together or we hang separately...

Art

Rabbit said...

Geez, and to think I hunted deer with a semi-auto, 16 inch barrelled Uzi once, when that was the only firearm I had available back in the Dark Ages of the early 80's.

Oh, the horror!

Didn't see a damned thing that trip, either. At least it was in thick woods where any opportunity I might have had at a deer was nearly within spear range, anyway.

Zumbo can go butt a stump. I'd suggest he trade that word processor for a bowl of oatmeal and a rocking chair. People's Court is on!

Regards,
Rabbit.

DAL357 said...

"Now that I'm aware of your anti-gun nature, I'll be sure to cancel the one subscription to Outdoor Life that I have control over, and urge everyone else I know who subscribes to cancel theirs as well."

If/when you do so, please make sure you drop a note/e-mail to the magazine stating exactly why you are cancelling your subscription so that they can see a direct correlation between Zumbo's comments and your actions, and urge your friends to do the same.
DAL357

BobG said...

As someone who has done a lot of hunting in my time, I found Zumbo very offensive; he might as well be getting a paycheck from the Joyce Foundation. I will definitely never open an issue of that magazine again. What's next, ban my '03A3 because it was a good sniper rifle?

T.Stahl said...

This Dumbo (typo intended) guy sounds worse than a German hunter. And THOSE are REALLY traditionalist.

But for some strange reason, if you want to buy a semi-auto rifle that resembles a true assault rifle and which is a bullpub or has a barrel shorter than 16.5" or fires a cartridge with a case-length of less than 40mm, you're out of luck.

Unless you're a hunter.

mdmnm said...

I gave up on Zumbo years ago when he weighed in against reintroducing wolves or even allowing their recolonization of the northern Rockies from Canada because it would hurt game populations. The concept of "ecosystem" is apparently beyond the man.
That column is a bit disappointing, years ago he had a fun bit when they got manufacturers to send them half a dozen rifles in "long range" calibers to see if they could find an out of the box 500 yard deer rifle, defined as one that would shoot two minutes at 500. If I recall correctly, a Remington 700 in 25'06 put five shots in four or five inches, inspiring Zumbo to snaffle it away from the other testers, all of whom wanted to buy it.
Bad, bad column, though. Zumbo used to shoot highpower silhouette, as Tam points out he ought to check out a highpower rifle match. Or buy one of DPMS' rifles with an accuracy guarantee and fling some vmax's at some rodents, before we all hang seperately.

jed said...

Well, that didn't take long. Zumbo is backpedaling as fast as he can.

jesperskibbey said...

Mr. Zumbo has printed an apology:

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html

Anonymous said...

If hunting is banned, or seriously curtailed, it won't affect shooters like me who don't hunt. All I need is a 0 - 100 yard range to shoot my handguns and rifles at paper targets.

If guns are banned, or seriously curtailed, hunting will be seriously impacted.

"Sporting" gun owners who think like Jim Zumbo need people who defend "assault rifles" far more than us AW owners need people like him.

Robert said...

A snob is a snob gentlemen

Steve Skubinna said...

Had Zumbo been paying attention ot the Brady Bunch's antics, he'd have known that they are also going after scoped bolt actions, as "sniper rifles." No firearm is safe, and if Zumbo thinks he can sacrifice 5.56 shooters to keep his own rifles he's wrong.

I own two M1 Garands. Anyone want to bet that the Bradys will leave these military rifles in my hands just because they don't have black plastic grips?

James R. Rummel said...

Good post, Tamara.

James

Tower Tales said...

Nice Tamera! I'm chiming in from Kingsport! Howdy neighbor!
I like your blog and have bookmarked it for future perusal!
As for the Neo-liberal Jim Zumbo...I can accept his apology, but I wouldn't trust him with my fingernail parings, much less to stick up for my 2nd amendment rights.

rbshaw said...

Who is Jim Zumbo? Anybody else see the subtle clues in the Zumbo-Jumbo-Dumbo hint? I said it before and I will say it again-Zumbo is Rosie(clean shaven) and wearing glasses and camo. Just wait and see!

Dave Markowitz said...

Well said, Tam!

Paul said...

This Zumbo guy is toast. There are about a zillion comments on his apology, and in my random sample (I couldn't possibly read them all) I didn't find a single positive response.

He's wiped out an entire career with this unbelievable anti-gun rant.

Kristopher said...

Wow.

I take a day off blogging to do chores, and I miss getting to watch a Fuddite publicly castrate himself.

Gee ...

Oh well ... I can post and larf at his silliness ... I'm only a day late or so.

HM said...

Zumbo was a horse's ass long before he wrote this inspired screed.

I'm a hunter, and that is primarily why I own firearms, but it is far from being the only reason. Zumb-nuts has been anti-semiauto for a long time. As I said on his blog, he's cordially invited to f*** himself.

By the way, the Brady campaign ha already used this......

Homer said...

Well, so much for the editorial supervision The Big Kids claim is their advantage over the blogosphere.

Unless Zumbo has the secret code to the Outdoor Life interw3b electron generator (which is possible), the green eye shade gang screwed the pooch at least once here by either not subjecting his column to a sanity test, or keeping an anti-gunner on the staff. Neither situation is a positive for the magazine.

I think this falls into the "Giuliani Back Pedal" category:"so which position is the real one?"

Anonymous said...

Thanks Jim. With "friends" like you the gun grab of 2009 will be a piece of cake.
I predict that, with Democrats in control of the House and Senate that in 2009 when Clinton/Obama take the White House, the biggest gun grab ever will be launched. The Dems won't try it now, Bush may not sign it, and they don't have enough votes to override a veto. Plus, if they tried it now, they'd be showing their play book. This gun grab will take place in 2009 when they only need a simple majority and a President salivating to rid the country of "terrorist" weapons. (your words there Jim.) Keep in mind, it won't just be your black rifles. This will go after your handguns, "cop killer" bullets, (its ok if the bullet kills a non-cop), magazines and ammunition. I predict that the quantity of ammunition you have on hand may be regulated. Under the guise of some feel-good "Homeland Security" measure, those with more than X number of rounds of ammunition must be identifed. You may need an "armory" permit to store that much ammo. If you live in an apartment, or neighborhood, that much ammo could pose a threat to your neighbors and will be prohibited. And for goodness sake our police officers need to know when they go in someone's home if there are things there that can endanger them.
Folks, I figure you've got 2 years to get the guns, magazines, and ammo needed to last you the rest of your life. With "friends" like Jim out there, its just a matter of time.

Paul said...

** UPDATE **

From GlockTalk, it was an email from Remington to Eric:

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=658706

"You may feel free to advise your people of the following.

Remington is shocked and dissappointed by the comments of Jim zumbo which have been widely circulated on the web. These comments do not reflect either my own feelings or those of my company!

Accordingly we are severing all business ties with Mr zumbo and any of his companies effective immediately and will make a formal release tomorrow to this effect.

We appreciate the passionate support of our right to bear arm arms by all in the shooting sports.

Sincerely

Tommy millner
CEO"

Anonymous said...

Clearly Zumbo never thought about the implications of the Smith and Wesson boycott. But, thank God, Remington did. I like remingtons, and it was going to be painful never to buy another one. If Millner does as he says, I can continue to do business with them.

It would really be an act of charity to send some of these old MSM types to Blogs 101 to learn about blogswarms and about how electrons are forever before they click publish for the first time. Too late for Zumbo, who probably feels a bit like a prairie dog hit by a .17 Vmax, but it could save some of the others.

Zip from the 'burgh said...

Remington has sacked Zumbo.

Nugent is supposed to take Zumbo out for a varmit (no "n") hunt with AR's.

Gresham played apologist all through this afternoon's radio show (Guntalk)

At least one other writer (Bill McRae) thinks Zumbo was right - but nobody really cares wth Bill McRae says about anything.

Outdoor Life has crafted a plausible deniability statement.

AR15.com has a hysterical thread of Zumbo photoshops :D

Anonymous said...

Dear Editor Snow: I'm an NRA High Master classified National Match State Team shooter on the Texas State Rifle Association team. We shoot the AR15 in the service rifle match series that dates back more than a century at Camp Perry. I hold the Distinguished Rifleman's Badge number 1869. They have been giving it since the 1890s, I am the 1869th person to win it. I won it with an AR. That's the same AR your Jim Zumbo thinks civilians shouldn't have.

Some of the TSRA team shooters TAUGHT Iraq-bound troops at Ft Hood....taught them to accurately shoot their own issued M14s and M16s. I was part of that faculty when the US Army had no one to do the job. The CMP does it now, along with the AMU.

I have donated thousands of dollars and hours to defending the Second Amendment for ALL shooters in the last few years because I believe in the Bill of Rights and that human beings have the right to be armed.

But Jim Zumbo thinks I'm a terrorist and that my service rifle...along with the thousands of matches shot every weekend with that rifle...should be banned?

I'm always happy when people (Take the Dixie Chicks for example) stand up and say what they think in their heart of hearts. I appreciate Mr Zumbo being straightforward.

However, he and I are on opposite sides. I've been working to preserve HIS rights for years, but he thinks mine should be cancelled.

Forgive me for my sloppy writing. I am just in from a 125 mile drive and shooting MLP doe tags this afternoon at a friends ranch near Clarksville, Texas. I had a Standard Products M1 Carbine and a 1900 M38 Swedish Mauser in the stand with me. These military service weapons were in as-issued condition. The M1 assault rifle actually came from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Last week I shot does with a K31 Swiss and a Type 44 Arisaka Carbine. This year I have shot doe tags with any number of service rifles from this country and others. Last fall I won the Texas Vintage Military Rifle Championship at Temple, Texas with a Swiss as-issued K31. I'm trying to think of ANY firearm that I would think should be banned.

I hunt. A LOT. I'm still deer hunting the season that started in October 2006. I respect hunting and hunters. I also shoot competitively a LOT and really respect folks who compete with firearms. In my experience, the competitive chooters put their money into their sport, (and where their mouth is) and into protecting all peoples Second Amendment Rights. The hunters frequently don't belong to their state association nor the NRA. They freeload.

Every classified Highpower Rifle shooter belongs to their CMP sanctioned state association and the NRA. Many, like myself, are endowment or life members or both.

Zumbo says I am a terrorist but YOU comment that we should not attack him personally. Fine. But I'm sure you will understand if I avoid a magazine that holds me in contempt and thinks my rights are negotiable.

There are MANY knowledgeable, experienced, as well as politically savvy writers available to write for your magazine. In the future, I hope you will pick writers whose experience and beliefs do not conflict with the Bill of Rights much less sporting events, outdoor activities, and competitions that your customers enjoy.

The National Matches have been held, (with service rifles including the fabulous AR15), for more than 100 years at Camp Perry, Ohio. If Zumbo was ignorant of a match series held all over the country every weekend, plus a century at the Nationals, what is he doing writing a column for your magazine?

The M16/AR15 rifle, by the way, is the LONGEST adopted service weapon of the US Armed Forces, with no sign of being discontinued. It's been the adopted arm longer than the Springfield 1903. Longer than the Garand. Longer than any long arm. It's a fabulously simple, elegant and accurate design. Junior shooters can handle it with ease, along with the adults. The M16A2 variant, and it's clone the AR15A2, is match ready virtually out of the box shooting very affordable and reloadable 5.56 ammunition. Anyone who isn't familiar with this history and data can be said to be largely ignorant about American firearms, perhaps WILLFULLY so.

Robert Langham
TRSA Endowment Member.
NRA Life Member.
Texas State Rifle Association NM Team firer
Distinguished.
High Master, Highpower Rifle.
Master, Long Range
Louisiana State Champion, Service Rifle, 2004, 2006.
Regional Championship, Beaumont, 2006
Regional Championship, Panola, 2005
39th overall, CMP EIC Match, NM, Camp Perry, 2006
5 Governor's 20, Texas Service Rifle Championship, 2002-2006

Cowboy Blob said...

"Well, so much for the editorial supervision The Big Kids claim is their advantage over the blogosphere."

Actually, as a blog and not a magazine feature, the words are his and his alone. And he's eating them.

Captain Holly said...

Zumbo's attitudes aren't typical for hunters, but they are typical for outdoor writers.

Here in Utah we have an ass pimple named Tom Wharton who writes for the Salt Lake Tribune. Every year he writes a column similar to Zumbo's but the only reason he hasn't been sacked is because the Trib's editors and most of their subscribers share the same opinions.

Mark@C said...

Tam, I've been waffling about an AR... I recently asked you about 6.5 vs 6.8 (don't hit me!).
Zumbass has made up my mind for me. I'll be dropping by next time I'm in CONUS, and considering Remingtons' response, will be looking for something in .223.
By the way, loved the norchester '97 clone!

Paha Kani said...

Nice to see that you guys have your share of assholes as well. Sometimes I think we've got them all.

Countertop said...

Heh,

My subscription is up for renewal after the next issue. Just got the notice Saturday. went and called customer service to see what the status of Zumbo's employment was, and to inicate how upset I am at being called a terrorist (no AR, yet, but I suspect he would look even less kindly on my evil commie WASR).

They had no idea what I was talking about, so I directed the nice lady to his blog post.

She spent five minutes reading it, and I could hear her breathing changed as she read it.

Got on the phone, and said to me that 1) usually when someone runs an apology like that it is so they can try to keep their job, that she doesn't know what the status is this morning, this is the first she heard of it, and that I might contact the actual office of Outdoor Life in New York (which, I suspect is part of the problem) (not the customer service branch of the company who owns them in Florida) and raise the issue with them.

I would suggest ALL OUTDOOR LIFE subscribers call customer service today.

1 800 365 1580

press 0 and speak with an operator. Lets flood them with telephone calls too. Get this gun banning bigot fired (and while you have them on the line, complain that the magazine over the last few months has also been too willing to run press releaseses from the American Hunters and Shooters Association and that along with chucking Zumbo they need to come out and definitivly state OLs position on the 2nd Amendment - by publicly calling ASHA and Zumbo to task)

Anonymous said...

The notice (of ending their relationship with Zumbo) is up on Remington's web page.
http://www.remington.com/

Libercontrarian said...

Nice work, Tammy. First time I've ever read your column, courtesy of Jed at Freedomsight.

I wish I'd been as eloquent as you were in my condemnation of that asshat, but the anger was preventing me from seeing straight!

 Click
here for my response.

Anonymous said...

Thank God that you all hung this guy out to dry.

Reading his apology did it for me -- insincere and filled with lame excuses.

"True Believers" in RTKBA can fall out of the back of a truck or get thrown off a horse and while you're slapping them back to consciousness they'll still be mumblin "RTKBA!"

It's like that part of your computer's software, the bios, that is "burned on the chip" -- first to come up when you turn it on, before it loads all that other crap on your hard drive!

{bios, n. computer firmware that directs many basic functions of the operating system, as booting and keyboard control}

Don't trust those where it's not "burned on the chip"!

Anonymous said...

Dumbo is just the latest in a long line of "journalists" who have let slip their true feelings. Journalism schools, regardless of the type of journalism (news, politics, sports)are a snakenest of liberal thinking.

Listen carefully to ESPN broadcasts and you will find that they inject liberal-think into programs targeting pro football and even Nascar fans. I have written to ESPN several times to complain about the Dan Patrick/Keith Olbermann show. Listen to them sometime and let's let ESPN know what Outdoor Life just learned.

cma g21 said...

Statement from Outdoor Life

Due to the controversy surrounding Jim Zumbo’s recent postings, Outdoor Life has decided to discontinue the “Hunting With Zumbo” blog for the time being. Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting. Please direct any comments you have to OLletters@time4.com.

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com:80/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

Anonymous said...

Jim Zumbo has betrayed us all ! The Brady Bunch is going to have a field day..

Anonymous said...

Following Jim Zumbo's recent comments, those of us at Gerber would like
to clarify that we respect the opinion of our sponsored hunters and
users however, we do not necessarily agree with all their opinions, nor
do we endorse their public statements. Our presence and development in
the tactical and hunting markets is proof-positive we are committed to
supporting these industries and all those involved.
Since Jim's blog was published he has issued this apology:
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html.

Thanks for supporting our rights and for supporting Gerber Legendary
Blades.

Jason Kintzler
Senior Communications Manager

Anonymous said...

Jim Zumbo's books : Wapiti Valley Publishing Co.
P.O. Box 2390, Cody, Wyoming 82414
Fax: (307) 527-4951 |
Telephone: (307) 587-5486
Toll Free: 1-800-673-4868

Anonymous said...

Here is a message from Ted Nugent:

I just got off the phone with Jim. He stated clearly that he "....blew it." He is writing a heartfelt aplogy at this very moment. I sincerely implore you all to accept his apology, learn from this, continue hammerin but with a thankyou & emphasis on "lessons learned". And insist that we the shootist people never EVER allow such gross irresponsible misrepresentation from our own. Let logic be our guide eternally. Thankyou. Jim is a goodman. He stumbled & is man enuf to stand up & dust himself off, apologize & UPGRADE!! Upgrade with him.

Razoreye said...

"Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I've seen in a while."

Beautiful, couldn't say it any better myself. Come back to GT!

-Razoreye

Anonymous said...

Remington got the word, Gerber seems to have missed the point, Buy Buck.
Ron

Anonymous said...

While Cabela’s believes everyone has the right to express their own opinions, we strongly disagree with Jim Zumbo’s February 16 posting on his Hunting with Jim Zumbo blog on Outdoor Life’s Web site.

Throughout our 46-year history, Cabela’s has firmly supported all aspects of shooting sports. We strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the right of every U.S. citizen to purchase, own and enjoy any legal firearm of their choosing.

While we fully support Mr. Zumbo’s First Amendment right of free speech, we believe his opinions on this matter are counter to those shared by Cabela’s and many of our customers. Cabela’s Legal Department is currently reviewing contractual obligations and commitments regarding our sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show.

Have a great day.

Steve said...

[b]In Support of Jim Zumbo[/b]


In support of Mr. Zumbo, I would first like to say, I don't necessarily agree with the way Jim articulated his thoughts on AR and AK style rifles, but can understand completely what he was trying to convey to his cherished fellow hunters.
The sad part is, that the Hunting community, is willing to watch this Good man's career be totally destroyed, simply because so many hunters misinterpreted what he was saying.
He's being accused of speaking against the Second Amendment, which just isn't true. The Second Amendment reads:
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
Nowhere does it mention your/our right to use whatever weapon we wish, when it comes to hunting. Hunting regulations are a separate issue entirely.
I'm surprised that so many hunters, cannot separate the Second Amendment, from which firearms may or may not be appropriate for hunting use in the field.
I don't even understand how the Second Amendment got into this conversation.
Jim never once said that AR and AK style rifles should be banned from ownership in America, thus infringing on your Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
He was instead trying to articulate how the general non-hunting public perceives you and I as hunters. How those millions of would be hunters, non-hunters, neutral bystanders, or even those would be anti's might be swayed to think one way or the other by the way we, the hunting community, and those who make our hunting laws, conduct ourselves. We have a huge responsibility on our shoulders in how they perceive us. He's not worried about the present anti-gun, anti-hunting lobbyists out there. They already have their minds made up. He's more concerned (as am I) about the way the rest of the general public perceives the hunting community as a whole.
Jim never once called hunters (or the Armed forces for that matter), terrorists nor did he insinuate that any hunter (or American soldier), hunting with an AR or AK rifle was a terrorist. I'm actually embarrassed and appalled that so many in the hunting community misunderstood him and mis-quoted him on this, and are willing to hang him out to dry.

The important message I got from what Jim had to say, is that us hunters, might want to seriously think about regulating ourselves in the woods, before those who perceive us and out number us in the millions, decide to outlaw "US" because of our own stubbornness and near sightedness. We should be more involved in helping make sound hunting regulations also.

I can't believe so many of my fellow hunters are so quick to destroy one of their own, who has devoted his life to hunting. You should all be very ashamed.

I think it's time for those of us who can understand what he was actually trying to articulate in his statements, whether we agree with the way he articulated it or not, stand up and try to save this man's career, before it's too late.

This is my personal opinion
Steve

Matt G said...

"Boomsticks: Who the hell is Jim Zumbo?"

Perhaps that question should be asked in the past tense from this point forward. Not that he isn't someone anymore. But he ain't who he was.

Anonymous said...

Steve what was the last name? "Brady"? Your as miss guided as Jim Zumbo He showed his true colors when it cost him his main sponsor then he figured out that he messed up and p*ssed off a lot of people with his stupidity and misguided thinking. I'll forgive him as being stupid, but i will not support any company that sponsors him and go out of my way to make sure none of my hunting Buddy's do the same. It's funny as hell that this elitists bast*ard can dish it out but sure cant take the heat he brought on himself. He was so sorry when his words hit him in the pocket book, as far as being sincere i drought it let him go write for Sara Brady in his cammo he can be there poster-boy, he sure ain't no friend of the gun owners comunity.....

Anonymous said...

Jim Zumbo is a traitor and anti-american. Probably votes DEMOCRAT..

Anonymous said...

Mossy Oak Responds to Zumbo Blog
Mossy Oak strongly advocates the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which gives us the right to keep and bear arms regardless of type. The Second Amendment is vital to the outdoors lifestyle we all appreciate and enjoy here at Mossy Oak and across the entire outdoor industry.

“It is unfortunate that a long-time hunter and outdoor writer took a personal position that was unsupportive of the Second Amendment which does not differentiate between firearm types.” said Butch English, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing for Mossy Oak. “As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Haas Outdoors, Inc. the home of Mossy Oak Brand Camo has ended all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While we strongly disagree with Mr. Zumbo’s opinion, we respect his constitutional, guaranteed right to speak freely.”

As shooters and hunters, we should all help educate and promote responsible firearm information and safety. It is important for the outdoor industry to focus our attention to educate those opposed to any type of anti-hunting or anti-Second Amendment movement.

-Mossy Oak

Anonymous said...

2/19/07

Dear fellow 2nd Amendment Supporters,

I am writing to thank all of you for your activism in making us aware of the comments made on Mr. Zumbo’s blog. Hi Mountain Jerky and Seasoning has been a sponsor of his hunting show on the Outdoor Channel, but is in the process of terminating our relationship. We do not support his statements regarding his view of the Second Amendment and would not have supported the show or had his endorsement on our packaging in the past had we known this. We fully stand behind the individual right to keep and bear arms as our Founding Fathers intended. It is truly heartwarming to see the grass roots activism in support of our Second Amendment, please know Hi Mountain Jerky and Seasoning stands behind you.

Thank you,

Hans Hummel
President
Hi Mountain Jerky, Inc.

Anonymous said...

"One of our own" turned on us and made some mighty powerful statements.

I can't help it if your reading pleasure did not at one time include "Papa JimZ" in his Outdoor Life works.

Old boy has been around since the days of Skeeter Skelton, Elmer Keith, Col. cooper and a mighty rack of other influential writers. He is one of the now fading *wood and blue steel* writers, brought up post WW2 that helped shape the American Hunting and Shooting sports.

That you didn't know of him either says you are -25 years old, or too damn cheap to bother stealing Outdoor Life from the dentists, barbershop or library racks.

To claim ignorance of Zumbo is simply showing your naked ass to the passing parade.

I don't belive for a single minute that if you are of any age over 30 AND are an active participant in any sport dealing with firearms that you'd not know who Zumbo is.. Well, now *was*.

That PappaJim would have spouted off with such bullshit at such an interesting crux of time, history and political fevor is an interesting study in the works.

He deserves every bit of shovel to the face (insert ethnic joke here) that he deserves.

In blasting off his keyboard on me and my choice(s) of Liberties Teeth and Personal Protection Devices AND my Funguns all in one, short, sweet to the point post on an obscure blog he deserves all the hot emotive dumping on one man can stomach.

As for you? Dunno what to tell you, but AFA this old Fatman is concerned, Zumbo published his swan song, and it came out like a stuck goat on the barn roof..

Anonymous said...

Jim Zumbo got paid well to play with guns and go hunting with them.

He writes well, recounted his stories with relish. Don't remember when he started as a part-timer with OL but it was back when Skelton was writing, Keith wasn't dead yet, and Cooper still made a lotta sense.

Enjoyed his works, his dry sense of humor and wit made for a lot of great reading.

He did piss me off quite a bit with his "gun_fundamentalism", arguing against the rises and currents of technology. Coulda been said "If Peter and Paul Mauser didn't need it, neither do you!"

Anonymous said...

There is nothing "harmless" about firing a deadly weapon in even the safest of environments. It is just too risky. A stray bullet could richochet and hit someone. As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong! Trust me on this, I was a fundamentalist gun owner for several years. That's why when incidents like Columbine happen, gun clubs across the country get together and celebrate (very discreetly, of course) because there are that many less children in the world to meddle with their gun practices. I've seen it more times than I'd like to admit. I got out of the gun cult 3 years ago and would encourage others to do the same.

http://www.outdoorlife.com//outdoor/columnists/article/0,19912,1591915,00.html

Anonymous said...

tsavo303 : The government should ban all private ownership of guns, I say that you can't be too careful, and we must do this to protect the children. Citizens should not have the right to own firearms for self-protection, hunting, target shooting, and recreational purposes.The vast proportions of Americans recognize the reality that individuals do not have a legitimate need for guns.We must recognize that gun violence is a multi-faceted problem and requires a multi-faceted approach. We must recognize that as we sit idly by, that police officers and scores of innocent children are being injured or killed.They are weapons of war and are being adopted in large numbers by the most violent members of our society. Since we first enacted the ban in 1994, there was a 84% reduction in the crimes committed by these weapons. Congress must act to re-enact the Assault Weapons ban. The military and governement have far more "intellegent" and sophisticated weapons than the average gun nut? Don't these gun nuts realize that if war broke out between the government and a handeful (even a large handful) of the population, the population would be murdered in a huge huge way. The age of violent revolution against our government is LONG LONG gone.Why is it necessary to have guns to defend yourself? Aren't kitchen knives enough?
It is clear to me that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated for the 21st century.Due to the Constitution's age and the present interpreting "arms" as guns and munitions.I want to stress that the Second Amendment is outdated.The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny.

I say SUPPORT James Zumbo for telling the truth!

Tam said...

"The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny."

Tell that to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or the ones in South Vietnam.

Ironically, it's not the "assault weapons" that Zumbo got all lathered up about that are the ones that endanger tyrants; it's the deer rifles that he's so fond of that should give the foes of liberty the willies.

As someone else said: "Ten million scope-sighted high-powered rifles is the most potent force for armed resistance in the history of mankind. You can't put a 500-yard security perimeter around every domestic enemy."

KMT said...

Hey anonymous I think you're a liar. Don't think you've ever been a gun owner as you claim, else you wouldn't be talking such nonsense as this.

Prove me wrong. List the gun clubs you've seen "discretely" celebrating Columbine. The ones that you have seen "way to many times". That claim is the bigggest crock I've ever read. Columbine did more damage to the shooting sports than any incedent in recent history. No gun owner or hunter would ever celebrate something so hideous. Demonstate some TRUE knowledge here and gain some credibility. Otherwise stop wasting disk space.

While I'm at it:

Tamara will you marry me? : )

Anonymous said...

Actually Field & Stream doesn't want to hear from us. But, they have been nice enough to publish their customer service telephone number of 1-800-289-0639.

I called this number and asked for Amanda McNally in the Media Relations Department to discuss David Petzal's references to us as "mental patients". The customer service agent refused to provide the information, and instead told me to go look at the F&S web site so I could send an e-mail to the web master. I let her know that people have already been e-mailing Amanda and that she is not responding. I then let her know that I would publish F&S' telephone number and that Amanda can't hide forever behind customer service agents.

Folks, Field & Stream is owned by Time Inc, yes "Time Magazine" in New York City as you can see here: http://whois.domaintools.com/fieldandstream.com

Please give them a call and then press "0" three or four times to get through to their customer service. Let the customer service agent know that you want to talk to Amanda McNally terminating David Petzal. If you want to send her another e-mail, here's the address: amanda.mcnally@time4.com

Anonymous said...

CHECK OUT WHAT THIS GUY PETZAL HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN (THIS IS GOING TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PETZAL AND F&S):

David E. Petzal, for one, thinks the present radicalization of the NRA is hurting the interests of gun owners...

This June, the magazine made a landmark decision to break with the NRA. "it took tremendous courage," says executive editor Petzal.

"The bugle call known as reveille is a cheerful, energetic tune that, when I was in the Army, few soldiers actually got to hear," he writes in an editorial. "Real-world reveille came for gun owners this February," in the form of the assault weapons ban.

"Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons," writes Petzal. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma"

Petzal concludes by advocating compromise, something that Knox and other members of his regime say they will never accept.

Anonymous said...

Further proof that Petzal is a blatant liar and deserves no quarter.


[QUOTE][b]Petzal said today "but nowhere in it did I endorse the ban, as some are claiming."

On page 26 of the June 1994 issue Petzal said: If you are a gun owner who is looking for the middle ground, it is very hard to argue against legislation such as this. Senator Feinstein, it seems, has made every effort to prescribe "assault weapons" and protect "legitimate firearms."[/b] [/QUOTE]

Frank Carbone Jr. said...

Folks,
Please visit the following link.
If you believe what I believe then all is not lost with the Outdoor Life and Hunting Editor Jim Zumbo fiasco.
If you believe that Jim Zumbo's name can be cleared and he can work as an asset for all outdoorsmen and women please visit the following link and sign the Petition Online.

This can be still a win/win situation for all concerned parties.

Please spread the word to other concerned hunters and gunowners.

, , , Frank

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/JZ12550/petition.html

Farmer John said...

The treatment of Jim by many for expressing an honest opinion goes against everything America stands for. I for one am ashamed today of how our community acted in the issue. America is in a sorry state.

susanb said...

Jim Zumbo was right on. His only mistake was his subsequent recanting and appologizing. The uproar that has shamefully led to his crucifixion shows just how many fanatics and zealots are out there, and highlights the fact that the NRA has been an extremist group for years. My father was a proud hunter and member of the NRA since high school (he's now in his 70´s). He resigned his membership a few years back in disgust over the group's stance on bullet-proof-vest-piercing bullets and hunting with assault weapons. Where are all the sane, mainstream people out there who should be supporting Mr. Zumbo?
PS: Rabbit, you hunted deer with an uzi? If you're so intent on eliminating all challenge from hunting, why don't you just use a nuclear bomb? I bet you fish with a cannon.

Ziggy said...

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution,and 26 of them are worthless words on paper without the one. Guess which one.
You can argue all day long about the meaning of the Founding Fathers words and interpitations in the Constitution but, at the end of that day you can't fault their motive. Faced with a King and the absolute control of the largely defenseless masses it's easy comand through fear of the armed military. Lexington and Concord made 'ol King George think again.
Fast forward to today. The new King George stedfastly refuses to hear the cries of the people on Iraq and the fact the Congress posts a non-binding anything in defiance of His wishes is testimate to the power of the people, who draw that might from the Second amendment.
No comparison can be drawn to the Arabs toteing AK'S and me poping a woodchuck with a Mini-14 nor should it. It is a sick mind that would profess such in person or word, and yet old amandment II protects them as well.
This is America, sorry state or not where the rule of law prevails. Law rooted in the Constitution, protected by the Amendments and safeguarded by the Second and intrusted to you and me to use with due dilligance and ferociousness when nessiary.
Let Zumbo and all others who would stand with him swing.

Anonymous said...

The decision of Outdoor life to terminate their relationship with Jim Zumbo is certainly within their rights. But the reason they give is absurd. To hold the position that any hunter should be able to use any weapon they want is beyond the pale.

What if one of their loyal readers wants to hunt prairie dogs with a howitzer? How about a flame thrower? Or a small tactical nuke?

I sincerely hope that the people on this forum have limits, but I don’t know what they are.

Anonymous said...

I am ashamed of the hunting community as a whole, and I have been in the industry for many years, spending a good amount of time with Jim at various functions, Shot Shows and AMO shows in the past, as well as publishing Outdoors hunting and shooting magazines, it is a shame, the hunting and gun owning community don't understand, the anti-gun crowd won't beat us, but we ourselves will be our own demise..Jim, didn't advocate taking your guns away, he posted comments to the fact, we in fact need to police ourselves, look at it from the anti hunting groups perspective, Billy Bob shows up in the field, dressed in Camo, Face paint, Jacked up Ford f 350 with Mudders and jumps out with his AK for a fun filled day of Hunting! Not the most positive image in the world, but this is where the main stream media focuses..before you chastise a fellow hunter, take a look at your own image and say what are you doing to further the positive image this sport needs so much!

Anonymous said...

Look at all the rednecks. They think they are cool huntin' varmints with machine guns. And you wonder why the people who make the economy run -- the city folks -- would rather drink they own piss than associate with the likes of y'all. Why not take an AR and stick it up your yahoo, gentlemen. That seems to be the only place that it really belongs.

Anonymous said...

You guys are tools of the NRA. They profit off of you by keeping you in fear of the Evil Liberals who will Steal Your Rights through Big Government (oohh, scary scary). So you run out and by a bunch of guns. But the Revolution never comes, does it? So all you guys end up doing is running around the woods in camo killing prarie dogs. I bet Stonewall Jackson would be really impressed!

Anonymous said...

The man made a comment without
completely thinking it through!
How many people are guilty of
that?Then he apologized for it.
Does he deserve to loose his
livelyhood for it.NO!!
Grow up people.

And yes I am a hunter and have a AR!

Anonymous said...

Only an unthinking idiot would hunt a prairie dog with an assault weapon. What is wrong with you killers?

remember the constitution said...

have you all forgotten about your precious right to freedom of speach? The guy puts forth his opinion and every gun loving american turns on him, and his chosen career is taken from him with no more mercy than the way in which you all dispatch "varmints". Maybe his OPINION was unpopular, not well thought out, and expressed poorly; but you guys are the hipocrites, not him.

Steve` said...

Jim Zumbo is entirely correct in his views. I too am a lifetime hunter and find the mis-use of these weapons to be offensive and dangerous. My father, a decorated Vietnam veteran, agrees. I am astonished Remington and Outdoor Life's action removing Zumbo. The shallowness and lack of integrity in this action is appalling and shameful. An honest dialogue on these issues is appropriate and much needed.

Stephen Curry

Anonymous said...

I guess Dumbo can join HCI, VPC, and ASHA with all of faux 'former gun owners' posting idiotic posts here. 'I was a former hunter, blah, blah, blah, and no I am ashamed, blah, blah, blah'. I get the impression all those posts came from the same idiot with too much free time.

Anonymous said...

It tells me everything I need to know about the issue to be seeing Zumbo being deified by the likes of the Washington Post. Sorry you anti-gunners, but just because some moron like Dumbo says something idiotic, doesn't mean you have an exploitable openning to divide and conquer the gun owning community. Zumbo is not representative of the gun community, he is an oddity, and he can get a job with ASHA and the other fake 'hunters and gun-owners', and spout the leftist anti-gun line....we don't want him or need him. I'll send some MORE money to the NRA, so they can stick it in and break it off in the next politician to back these idiotic notions. I just recruited four new NRA members. We're growing, and this is a REAL fight against the anti-gunners.

Anonymous said...

Train them varmints w/weapons and see if you gun enthusiasts call it sportin...hahahaha. It is unbelievable that in this day and age of civilization that you 'enthusuaists' believe that this is a sport. It is laughable...

Brad said...

Its kind of funny see people get in an uproar about of these. I've tried hunting with an AR7 and it was absolute trash. The assault style rifles suck for hunting. I have a Remington 700 279wsm and that gun can reach out put a deer down with the greatest of ease.

The right to keep and bear arms is kind of meaningless in todays society anyways. What modern army can you defeat with small arms? It would be kind of funny to see a militia armed with hunting rifles going up against mustard gas, nukes, biological weapons, daisy cutters, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, gps guided missiles, tanks, chain-guns, grendades, rocket launchers, etc.... The idea of a militia in this day and age is laughable and silly. To be "armed" with small arms is about the same as being unarmed in terms of defending yourself against an organized modern army. When the constitution was written, being armed with guns put you on an even standing with the modern armies of the day.

Arms are used for different things today, self-defense against intruders and fun. Please don't act like you will be defenseless if the government decides to ban a few crappy guns which aren't all that useful for for the above activities.... you are already defenseless and are just not erudite enough to realize it.

I myself am a lot more upset by the fact that a DNR agent can waltz onto my property without a warrant at his own pleasure and discretion.

Anonymous said...

Larry said: give Jim a break! I've been hunting for 40 years, what kind of "panty" wearing hunter has to hunt with such a gun??? I have taken 8-10 Whitetail a year for many years and seldom needed more than one shot of my 30-06 to "bag" it. Yes, I believe in everyones rights to own this kind of stuff, but to need it to hunt anything with is sad indeed!!!

Anonymous said...

I stumbled on this issue by chance while on the net. After a couple of clicks I landed at this site. I'm a seasonal hunter and mostly a fly fisherman, hiker/camper. I have spent a large number of my 43 years exploring and enjoying the outdoors. I believe in conservation and environment. I own weapons and believe in the right to own them. I don't belong to the NRA or any political party or vote straight ticket. I have always done my own thinking and drawn my own conclusions instead of having someone or any organization do it for me. After reading the posts on this site I have come to a few conclusions. First, here's another group of people led by their noses by an organization (NRA). Second, here's another group of people are so shallow they turn on one of their own whom might have a different individul thought than the herd. Lastly, this type of behavior is why I do not belong to organizations. Hive/herd mentality requires very little individual cognitive ability. By the way, I do not know that much about Jim Zumbo or really care what he said. After all this is America, you remember, land of Freedom of thoughts and speech.

Anonymous said...

the comment about defending oneself against a modern army are not well thought out. In the hypothetical event that a society would have to go up against a "modern army", you would have large portions of the army defect. Every time a citizen defended himself a modern military weapon would become available. Many of the private citizens are former military. It would be an ugly situation because we would now open to attack from foreign forces. Large portion of military would go at each other. The stated would employ national guard in their defense etc. No way to predict the outcome on that.

Anonymous said...

I hope to hell Dumbo Zumbo moves to hell out of Wyoming!!! He gives the state a bad name and Cody now has a horrible odor of effeteism. Why don't you move to the Socialist Republik of California with the rest of the Space Kadets Dumbo???????

Anonymous said...

As for Brad, and the other idiots spouting the notion that private citizens cannot defeat a modern army....these are the same leftists who probably proclaim that victory is impossible in Iraq....there is plenty of irony in that contradictory 'thought'process. There are 80 million American gun owners. By shear volume that's a sizeable threat to anyone attempting to bring about absolute control over the populace. More specifically, much as in guerilla conflicts all over the world and all throughout history, it isn't Military versus militia in open conflict...it's well placed sniper bullet taking out the political apparatus.

Brad said...

Since you brought up Iraq, lets take a look at it. Just about everybody in Iraq has small arms.... everybody. There is absolute anarchy there. What is your definition of "victory"? Right now the government that America has propped up is SUPPORTED by Iran!! The government we are now propping up is a bunch of muslim fanatics who are in bed with Iran. They are now taking retribution on the Sunnis. Victory for me would be to have a non-religious thug controlling the muslim fanatics.... someone just like Saddam.

Speaking of Saddam, he had absolutely no problem controlling his fully armed populace. All he had to do was torch a few towns, killing every man, woman and child in them and magically the insurgencies died.

Apply this lesson to America. If you and your gun-toting friends decided to have yourself a little rebellion, I wonder how long it would last if the government started dropping daisy-cutter bombs in your town.

Subjugation of any population is easy in todays society if the government is willing to use ALL of the weapons at it is disposal. What is protecting people today is not right to keep and bears arms but the press. If a government butchers its own population, the whole world is going to know. World opinion and intervention is what protects citizens from rogue governments.

If we were to interpret the Constitution correctly, there would be tanks, bombers and fighter jets in everybody's back yards. The population would be as armed as the government.

But hey if you and your buddies think you can take on the United States government with your AKs, have at it. Best of luck with that. Let me know how it turns out.

Spector said...

Wow...name calling and probable misinterpretaton of a 200+ year old document. Very impressive.

Anonymous said...

I'm a hunter, although I prefer a bow, and a gun owner. My opinion of what Mr. Zumbo said is irrelevant. What bothers me is that his first ammendment right has been ignored and a mans career is over because of a comment. Looking at the picture of the woman who owns this blogg says it all to me. Your a gun lunatic. Extreme bullshit.

Paha Kani said...

First Amendment says that Remington must publish Zumbo's writings? Wow, I didn't know that.

Anonymous said...

My father was in the Airforce. He is a hunter. He uses black powder and a bow. He hunts for the sport and uses the meat.
My step-dad, who raised me, also from the Air Force, hunts for food. Many years the only thing in our freezer was deer, elk and antelope.
Neither one of these fine men felt the need to ever use an assault rifle to hunt food. They didn't use their guns to randomly exterminate vermin, even tough we lived in CO where the prairie dog carry the plague. Both my dad's and my grandfather taught me to respect guns and taught me and my brother to shoot, a handgun for protection and a rifle for food.
While some "hunters" feel the need to assault their prey others do not. Everyperson who claims to respect our country should also respect the need for free speech-as many of us are doing here.
Apparently, before Jim Zumbo, gave his opinion about assault weapons, many of you on this blog read everthing he printed. Now, when he says something that ruffles your feathers his job is gone, his reputation smeared and his ethics are put in question. All because he said something that offended you.
As a child, my first response to being "in trouble" was to get indignant, my grandmother would ask me if it wasn't just guilt...
how many out there of you are just feeling "guilty" because you know what he said had a ring of truth to it?
If you choose to use assault weapons, than you must live with the notion that some of us view them as what they are named, if you're a true hunter and just can't use anything else than why would care what Zumbo says.
And IF by chance you are not a hunter for food and just like to obliterate animals, then I really can't see the point of calling yourself a hunter, you are a target shooter.
Some of you need to get off your high horses and realize that while the U.S. still allows you to own assault weapons, there are those in other countries using them against each other and some of us don't like it.

lrwa said...

thank-you farmer John and anonymous who's father was in the air force I coundn't have said it better

B&N said...

From 'poster' susanb;

"He resigned his membership a few years back in disgust over the group's stance on bullet-proof-vest-piercing bullets"

I just can't stop laughing about the amount of Kool-Aid these dumbfucks drink regarding this trash. Keep feeding the children what you want them to 'know' and it's all taken care of from there.

Anonymous said...

Let's pick a catagory:

All those who own assault weapons, NRA members,vermin erasers,and now hate Jim Zumbo say "AYE"

All those in favor of free speech, assault weapons for military use, and hunting for food, keep voting.

In the meantime our country can do more than promote "redneck radicals". We have nephews, nieces, father, mothers and brothers, etc., who are trying to survive daily from terrorists who own such firearms. Should they really be as easily available as they are? Most of the assault weapons being used against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan were supplied by the U.S. when the Soviets invaded them in the late 80's.
What is the real "plague" of assault rifles? The American gov't supplied these readily available weapons, only to be used against us within one generation of radicals.

Your "right to bear arms" is an outdated ammendment just like the laws in many western states that say all public buildings have hitching posts. Times have changed. The ammendmant needs to be ratified.

Do any of you out there really see any "Redcoats" coming onto your land?-when is the last time a terrorist came knocking on your door? What are you protecting? Yes, you can own your uzi, the Bill of Rights says so, but really, when is the last time you NEEDED it for the stated purpose? If you weren't in the military then my guess would be "never".

Anonymous said...

b&n-
You should know that your indulgance of vulgarity only typifies you in the catagory of "dumb redneck".
There are dictionaries and thesaureses to help you speak clearly and enable you to promote your opinion.

Anonymous said...

The problem with gun fanatics is that they are fanatical.

Fanaticism blinds even the clearest of eyes and reduces our ability as a society to deal with heavy issues on a rational playing field. We see examples of fanaticism each day in the world news and my hope is that we can recognize our own behaviors and feelings as they spin in this snow ball of emotions.

I own guns, shoot, and hunt. I was raised in a family where firearms were treated as tools never toys. My background with firearms prevents me from strongly identifying with the person who wants the most rounds per minute or the highest magazine capacity or bullet proof piercing bullets. My impression is that most of these gun nuts forgot that they could actually join the military and shoot scared people rather than scared animals. It's possible to live your dream!

My point is that for us all to live amongst each other we need to increase our tolerance for other's opinions, both in our community of outdoor sportsmen and abroad. The most critical aspect is abandoning the fanatical, emotionally-charged, and paranoia clouded rhetoric of the gun nuts.

Let's talk about guns, their role in our society and where we are headed in the future! Let's discuss it all but certainly do not let our fanaticism lambast and destroy professionals for their occasional opinions which may be contrary to our own.

No one called "BS" when Zumbo pushed Remington products over other manufacturers and no one should lose sleep over Zumbo encouraging varmint hunters to use more conventional firearms for their sport. It's just an opinion and the hunting/shooting industry is full of them! Get used to it and then get over it and we can all move on with our lives.

Anonymous said...

WHo was it that left the NRA in disgust? The famous actor who belonged and became the spokesman. Wasn't it because the NRA was becoming more of a radical group intent on sponsering radical movements?
Wake up out there, see what your doing by giving monetary aid to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Oh yeah, Charlton Heston!

B&N said...

From one more of the Kool-Aid ANON posters;

"Most of the assault weapons being used against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan were supplied by the U.S. when the Soviets invaded them in the late 80's."

Don't know too much about guns, specifically the Kalashnikov, do ya, punk?

WHY do you people talk about stuff that you know NOTHING about, and insist it's the truth?

Anonymous said...

AMEN to anonymous, i.e "fanatics"

You hit it square on!

Mopar said...

Susanb has got to be the funniest commentor by far!
"My father was a proud hunter and member of the NRA since high school (he's now in his 70´s). He resigned his membership a few years back in disgust over the group's stance on bullet-proof-vest-piercing bullets and hunting with assault weapons."
Hey Susie! Your proud hunter daddy hunts with bullet-proof-vest-piercing bullets. Chances are good that his hunting rifle is also way more powerful then the standard AR15. His hunting rifle is also mechanically and functionally exactly the same as so-called assault weapons.
ZOMG! Susie, your daddy is a terrorist!

B&N said...

From same idjit Kool-Aid drinker as before;

"Your "right to bear arms" is an outdated ammendment just like the laws in many western states that say all public buildings have hitching posts. Times have changed. The ammendmant needs to be ratified."

OH MY GOD! Stop. This is hysterical!

Ratified? It needs to be ratified? You're in luck, idiot. It already has been ratified, since oh, try 12/15/1791.

The ignorance is overwhelming here, but funny nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

b&n

Do you read anything but comic books?

Do us all a favor and go by a Time magazine. Or better yet, vist a library there are many published books about the Middle East.

If you spent as time time actually reading about the things you say I do not know, then maybe you would be the Kool-Aid punk spouting ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like mopar and b&n should get together and make more uzi toting, comic book babies.
Neither one can actually understand the properties of READING!

B&N said...

Tam was right, grist for the mill, to wit:

"My point is that for us all to live amongst each other we need to increase our tolerance for other's opinions, both in our community of outdoor sportsmen and abroad. The most critical aspect is abandoning the fanatical, emotionally-charged, and paranoia clouded rhetoric of the gun nuts."

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that what you are saying here is that we tolerance, but that the "gun-nut paranoia" needs to be abandoned, presumably by us "gun-nuts" and then everything would be peachy? Is that it? Excuse me while I call BULLSHIT and tell you that your bait-and-switch is calling for anything but "tolerance" on this issue.

B&N said...

"b&n-
You should know that your indulgance of vulgarity only typifies you in the catagory of "dumb redneck".
There are dictionaries and thesaureses to help you speak clearly and enable you to promote your opinion."

Glad to know you are so image conscious. Piss off.

Oh, and by the way, if you need to know, it's called invective, look it up and see if it fits, 'kay.

B&N said...

"Do us all a favor and go by a Time magazine."

Oh, that settles it then, TIME is the resource on ALL things to do with the middle east. Their information is considerably more authoritative than anything that I could know.

Anonymous said...

1791 is not current times, b&n.
A lot of things have changed in 216 years!

Mopar-her dad doesn't wear a bullet proof vest, he didn't like the stance the NRA had on them.

Big differences. And I'm sure calling her 70 yr old father a terrorist is just a bad mistake on your part-what an awful thing to say

Anonymous said...

Invective- violent accusation
characterized by or using abuse;bitterly censorious.

Yup-sounds you got it right.

Accusatory, and abusive. Sounds like everything you've spouted.

B&N said...

Truly, this is comic relief.

"1791 is not current times, b&n.
A lot of things have changed in 216 years!"

And if that is your rationale, I'd LOVE to limit your free speach, along with the rest of BOR.

Excuse the soapbox here, but you high-school retards simply are not
capable of understanding that NOW, as in 2007, we citizens need guns, more than ever, to keep the powers that be NERVOUS. I'd ask you all to contemplate the circumstances surrounding the Constitution and the BOR, given the context of the times and then THINK about what it means and why, but I don't think you are capable of understanding any of that.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

In looking up Kalashnikov, so he's the Russian who came up with the original AK-47's. There is a whole history,of how and when and why and what modifications-so what? It goes on further to say the U.S. modified and uses one that is a "self-loading carbine".
The POINT was that is was the U.S. who supplied arms to the Iraqi's and to Pakistan. The ones being used agaisnt our own troops.
Furthering the point is the fact that you really believe you carry your guns to make "the powers to be" nervous! You are really the epitome of zealot who shouldn't be allowed to carry even a penknife!
The fact that you are trying to limit the free speech of Jim Zumbo by spewing your radical views is unbelievable. You say you support free speech yet, anyone who says what you don't like should be fired and all the products he sponsor should be censored, wow! That sounds like taking away free speech-not defending it. Punish those who don't carry your view.
My father used his assault weapons fighting the Korean War. He used his hunting rifle for food. Never once did he ever carry or even own a weapon to make anyone in our own country 'nervous'.
you need to wake up, because the Waco's and Jonestown's have been proven to be nothing but soapboxes for radicals such as yourself and nothing good came from either one.
If you were using your gun for food then so be it-but in your own words it's for nothing but intimidation and that's one step away from...terrorism. Shame on you and I hope you get the help you so desperatly need.
Again, when is the last time you, yourself NEEDED for gun for defense on American soil?

Anonymous said...

B&N,

I respect your opinion but feel I must correct your interpretation of my comment regarding "gun nuts" and fanaticism.

1. Tolerance is a two way practice. So while I tolerate your desire to own and use assault rifles in a society where firearm violence is rampant I ask you to respect my opinion that perhaps assault rifles are not the most "sporting" firearm to use while varmint hunting.

2. There are no absolutes! Time changes everything and technology changes politics, practicality and safety at a rate today that is unequalled in our collective history; especially with regards to personal firepower.

3. "Gun Nuts" need not abandon anything but the fanaticism which prevents progressive discussion. Truly civilized people talk about all subjects without stygma and often times without solution. However, the floor needs to be open to debate in order to ensure our collective understanding of the issues and ourselves. In a way this forum provides that.

4. Radicals are Radical. Anyone can make an argument and have an opinion but remember radicals are often times dismissed as having ideas contrary and counterproductive to the societal health of a state, nation or world. There are exceptions of course, remember, there are no absolutes.

5. Einstein said, "Paranoia is complete awareness". However, even he would have to agree a dogmatic paranoia pervades and erodes the foundations for trust, communication, and growth.

6. I suggest that you don't lose your identity to the firearms you own...do you own them or do they own you?

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these points further.

B&N said...

"In looking up Kalashnikov, so he's the Russian who came up with the original AK-47's. There is a whole history,of how and when and why and what modifications-so what? It goes on further to say the U.S. modified and uses one that is a "self-loading carbine".
The POINT was that is was the U.S. who supplied arms to the Iraqi's and to Pakistan."

In looking at the wiki entry, as I'm sure you are, you are still missing a HUGE piece, as in MOST OF IT, of the equation here. I'm not going to give you kids the education that has been due you, as it's far better to let you find out for yourselves what lies are being spread as truth through this world. I'm sure you aren't interested in actually learning anything about that, as it interferes with your ideology.

Oh, and just so you know, you've really pissed me off with this shit, "Again, when is the last time you, yourself NEEDED for gun for defense on American soil?"

12/24/1985 is the date, you shit stain, and if I could have, I would have shot a murderers dead when he did a 'hot' burglery on my house, when I was the only one there, AND IT TOOK 45 MINUTES FOR THE COPS TO SHOW UP AFTER CALLING 911, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP, NOW!

Anonymous said...

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is copied from the Bill Of Rights, you can google it for yourselves.

Now I'm sure there are many different ways of interpreting this. Only because no two thought processes can be the same in different people, but some of you need to really understand and grasp what our Nation's Father's meant.
If you Need your uzi to hunt, then I think you should have had a better teacher-my opinion and I'm allowed to have it-but do you really need it? Or is it an extension of what you think is a big powerful toy? The current generations think bigger and more is better. Fortunatly for them our government allows them to think so, therefore they can all go buy an uzi-provided they pass the paperwork.
In the true need of a militia, or army as we now call it, (terms and times have changed in 231 years) our own gov't provides arms, ammunition, and uniforms.
During our nations fight for freedom from British rule this was not always the case. Many men and boys went to war with the clothes on their backs and the guns from their homes.
For 231 years more or less we have been a nation, spouting our rights to certain freedoms, yet in the case of Jim Zumbo, his freedom of speech has been easily stripped in a matter of a few days. He said something that some people did not like, he tried to apologize and was chastized more. He made a statement about the difference of an assault rifle. Unfortunately, some people didn't agree with him. His sponsors pulled out in fear of losing money and being censored.
Will these same people sell their guns and ammo and other pieces of their arsonals because they bought them 5 yrs ago with Jim's recomendation? Probably not.
So some people didn't like what he said, people say things everday that someone won't like. It doesn't give free reign to financially ruin one individual on the basis of one opinion.
In our local paper there are many individual commentators, I've learned which ones I like to read and which ones do not suit my taste. For the most part the debate about Jim Zumbo is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water-are you really going to give up your gun magazines or are you just going to skip Jim's articles. The Constitution gave us the right to say things out loud but it's you who has power of thought in the first place.

B&N said...

"1. Tolerance is a two way practice. So while I tolerate your desire to own and use assault rifles in a society where firearm violence is rampant I ask you to respect my opinion that perhaps assault rifles are not the most "sporting" firearm to use while varmint hunting"

Let's get a few things straight here, shall we? I don't have to respect your rights, most especially if YOU are not going to respect mine. Second, it is the Government that is limited on this, not citizens. Do you understand, dimwit?

Yet another point to make is this, assault rifles may not be 'sporting' but that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND NEITHER DOES HUNTING!

You are willfully ignoring the intent of the second amendment, end of story. It's YOUR opinion that matters most, right, and everyone must be forced to accept it. That about sums up your attitude with this subject.

B&N said...

"In the true need of a militia, or army as we now call it,"

Looks like someone needs another history lesson.

Mopar said...

"Mopar-her dad doesn't wear a bullet proof vest, he didn't like the stance the NRA had on them.

Big differences. And I'm sure calling her 70 yr old father a terrorist is just a bad mistake on your part-what an awful thing to say"

Someone needs a course in reading for comprehension. I didn't say he wore a bullet proof vest; I said his hunting bullets will penetrate the typical "bullet-proof" vest.
The terrorist part is what this whole blog post was about. Someone saying the millions of people who own one style of gun are terrorists, when the only difference between those guns and the ones he hunts with is the looks.

B&N said...

"2. There are no absolutes! Time changes everything and technology changes politics, practicality and safety at a rate today that is unequalled in our collective history; especially with regards to personal firepower."

So, if the pen is trully mightier than the sword, I would say that thoughts are at least as dangerous as 'assualt rifles', wouldn't you?

And since spreading words, and therefore thoughts, around is so much easier today than it was circa 1791, and the forefathers could NEVER have envisioned the advent of the computer and the internet, having only the Gutenberg press, clearly ALL computers should be forced to comply with strict regulations as to what is, and is not, allowed to be said on this here intarweb thingy. Don't you think? (snark off)

Just in case you believe any of that tripe, it is just as important to have access to a voice, in any form, now as it was during, or since, the American Revolution.

Can it.

Anonymous said...

dkyzbb&n-it's too bad you are so angry that my opinion differs from yours.
It is also a true regret that you had your home invaded, in certain states you can shoot the intruder and I'm all for personal defense- I never said I wasn't. I believe it's a personal moral choice to own a gun and It's my opinion that assault weapons are for war.
My question concerning defending yourself on American soil relates to foreign invaders, we have been a "lucky" nation in respect to not having to fight foreign enemys, door to door, street to alley as in Iraq, France, Germany, etc.,
Not in any way would I negate the fact that owning a handgun for protection or a rifle for food is wrong, it is, again, my opinion, that assault weapons are for war and we do not face that in our nation.
I will not stop talking because to do so, I would be censored. I'm just trying to understand your need to spout off about intimidation and making others nervous. What is the "truth" you are so desperatly trying to convey about owning an assault rifle- I've made mine clear, now it's your turn. This is an open forum. I'm not trying to change your mind, but I do support my opinion while not understanding yours.

B&N said...

"In our local paper there are many individual commentators, I've learned which ones I like to read and which ones do not suit my taste."

I want you to THINK about that comment for the next WEEK, non-stop, and then read the wording of the first amendment.

B&N said...

"What is the "truth" you are so desperatly trying to convey about owning an assault rifle- I've made mine clear, now it's your turn."

No. Your "truth" is not clear. Your ill-informed 'opinion' is yours, and I don't deny you your position. I really couldn't care any less, but you have clearly been spouting non-sense and professing it to be the truth about historical aspects of guns, the BOR and what it does, and doesn't mean, in rather absolute terms.

The truth about 'assualt weapons' is that the US never equipped the Pakistanis, or anyone else, with any kind of american made AK rifle, because untill only recently, there hadn't ever been any built here. Again, I could write a BOOK on how and why this is the case, but what you are calling an assualt rifle was likely built in a third world country, and sold to some terrorist organization through illicit channels.

Now, if you want to talk about funding, that is something else. GET YOUR FACT STRAIGHT AND MAKE SURE THE SUBJECT IS CLEARLY DEFINED.

Anonymous said...

Just so you can get off on calling me more names, because it obviously helps your desire to be correct, I am in fact a History Major. With particular studies in the Middle East. I am in my forties. I have 3 adult children. I didn't just fall off the pumkin wagon and I certainly do not need these arguments, I am providing an opinion, you are responding. The 2 things I did not know, I looked up.
You can look up American Orientalism, (the authors name escapes me right now or The American Revolution by T.J. Styles.
And NO these aren't the one and only books I base my opinions on, that's why there are public libraries. There is also a nice little thing we call "life". We all form our opinions by the life we lead, sounds like your was rough.

B&N said...

"I am in my forties. I have 3 adult children. I didn't just fall off the pumkin wagon"

I am not trying to get personal with some kind of ad hominem, simply to point out that there is a lack of critical thinking, honesty, and to some degree, willfull ignorance going on here. As I am fond of telling my boss when he gets high and mighty about 'having thirty years experience with this,' it doesn't necessarily mean that you've been doing it correctly, now does it?

Look, your opinion is that 'assualt rifles' shouldn't be allowed to be owned by the general public. FINE, you have your opinion, for whatever real reason (I am thinking it's actually an irrational fear (See the DSM and look under PHOBIA))that be. What I am telling you that your REASONS are, at best, faulty. Understand the difference here?

If you simply don't like 'assault rifles', fine, don't buy one. No one is telling you that you have to own one.

B&N said...

"3. "Gun Nuts" need not abandon anything but the fanaticism which prevents progressive discussion. Truly civilized people talk about all subjects without stygma and often times without solution. However, the floor needs to be open to debate in order to ensure our collective understanding of the issues and ourselves. In a way this forum provides that."

This progressive discussion that you are interested in is just fine, so long as it isn't followed by progressive legislation, verstehst du?

Anonymous said...

You are unbelievable to comprehend, You said;

"Don't know too much about guns, specifically the Kalashnikov, do ya, punk?"

Nope, but I looked it up, briefly and summarized it as I will again, just for you-

Kalashnikov in 1947 invented the "rifle" we now know as the AK-47. It has gone through several modifications, one including the collapsible butt. Yes. it has been modified by the U.S. and I stated the type as a self loading carbine.
What in the world does this have to do with Zumbo calling an assault weapon the wrong thing to use on gophers? Nothing. It simply implies that you know the original maker of the assault weapon, the AK-47. Does it mean your free speech is more protected than Zumbo's.
Everyone has the right to say what they feel in an open forum. I can cite sources of where my opinions come from and I can recall the things in my own life that make me believe that assault weapons shouldn't be used for everyday hunting practices.
Now, you can paraphrase my statements as much as you'd like but I have clearly made my points. I have shown the ability to use your information in confirming my beliefs.
Zumbo was a paid writer for sports magazines, he has the freedom of speech but apparently not the freedom of the press because now he is being censored by radicals and fanatics.
I will not be censored by someone who uses the idea of owning any gun for intimidation.
My own nephew was killed at the age of 23 months when he and his big brother stole their grandpas keys and played "cowboys and Indians", therefore I chose not to own guns, but the rest of my family does. As is their right.
America DID provide guns to the Middle East, it's documented and if you care to not believe it, then that is your choice, when confronted with a fact you can either verify or not, it's up to you but you can't just simply call me a liar without proof.
Our nation was founded on the right to carry arms in defense of foreign invaders and in the case of the Revolution, each other. In either case it's stated as war. Yes, it's a right to carry a gun for food but the majority of people agree, even in this forum, that an AK-47 is an unessesary firearm for the cases stated.
Yes, you may still own one. But it shouldn't condemn the career of Jim Zumbo because he thinks Ak's shouldn't be used to kill rodents. He, and others think it's unsportsmanlike. So what does that have to do with your right to own a gun, nothing! It simply means you don't have to read his articles, watch his shows or buy the products he endorses.

MauserMedic said...

Regarding all those who think there is an attempt to "limit" Zumbo's free speech: your understanding of the subject is abysmal. Free speech is a two way street- say something aggravating, don't expect every one smile and nod, since we're not on a college campus collective. He's still as free to say anything he likes on a blog as before, though he won't be able to prostitute his name to nearly as much profit as on a small, free blog without corporate sponsorship.

Also, it's apparent to me most of you people have no concept of what an assault rifle is, since you've been told everything you need to know be Brady et al. I'v carried them and worked on them for well over a decade in the State's service; for the most part, you, the hoi polloi, are not ALLOWED to own or possess them. The ones you, by the indulgence of your elected leadership, may own must have the receiver illegally machined to become an actual assault rifle, since civilian rifles that look like the real military assault rifles can only fire one round every time a round is fired. Your visions of bloodthirsty rednecks hosing little furry animals with streams of hot lead is based on your preconceptions, not fact.

It takes a small mind to think something is dangerous based on it's appearance (if it looks military, it MUST be bad) rather than it's function. That said, a large number of the hoplophobes I've known over the years base their beliefs on their feelings (if it scares ME, obviously YOU shouldn't have it) or what someone else (Brady, VPC, etc.) tells them, rather than investigating or experiencing it for themselves.

Anonymous said...

It's been an interesting conversation to say the least. But my family is home and they as always are more important than the computer. I hope everyone has had a chance to view the other side. We don't have to agree, just learn to debate better!
When I vote it will be for certain gun control. I think the Brady bill was a good start. My opinion is that it's only a start. We as civilized Americans shouldn't need the gov't to tell us what to buy. Just makes sense that when criminals are armed better than some armies we should take a long look at who is getting the guns and why.
Good-bye

B&N said...

"America DID provide guns to the Middle East"

and you are STILL not reading what I wrote, and you STILL don't get it.

The US.gov HAS NEVER BUILT THE AK-47 OR ANY GUN LIKE IT!

Due to far more recent demand, and certain laws that made ANY SEMI-AUTO RIFLE IMPORTATION ILLEGAL, THE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF THESE SEMI-AUTO RIFLES HAS BEGUN IN THIS COUNTRY, THANKS IN LARGE PART TO THE BRADY BILL AND MISNAMED "ASSUALT WEAPONS BAN".

I know that you are too stupid to know what the difference is here and you are caught up with the politics and "position" of guns, and the US, as the All-Evil of the Universe to differentiate on specifics, but that is the case and you'll never learn. You are wrong and I can prove it but there is no way that I can explain to so that you'd understand. That is that.

B&N said...

"When I vote it will be for certain gun control. I think the Brady bill was a good start. My opinion is that it's only a start. We as civilized Americans shouldn't need the gov't to tell us what to buy. Just makes sense that when criminals are armed better than some armies we should take a long look at who is getting the guns and why."

And when you learn to make coherent arguments without making bogus claims about guns, maybe we can actually start a discourse.

Anonymous said...

I'm a vet, a long time gun owner, target shooter, and an EX hunter. I carried a real M-16 and an M-3 grease gun for quite a few years. I staunchly avoided buying a black gun, prefering Mini-14, M-1A and singleshot rifles in 45-70 Gov't.
I quit hunting 18 years ago because of assholes like Zumbo and his Elmer Fudd groupies. I spend too much money and time perfecting my ability to hit targets at 500yd + to endanger myself by going into Penn's Woods when the Nimrods are out shooting at movement and sound.

Every year, we have hunters with telescopic sights killing other hunters - how many shootouts do we have at Camp Perry with all of those terrorist weapons??

Oh lefties get a clue:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about me or some company telling a jerk to shut up and sit down!

Ryoushi said...

Love your blog Tamera. I'll always treasure your scolding me when I first joined The High Road ;^)

Whew! it's one week later and the online gun community is euphoric over the trashing of Jim Zumbo's long career. I haven't seen this much chest thumping since Powerline, Free Republic, et al took down Dan Rather.

Jim Zumbo was an easy target. He was vulnerable to the pressure brought to bear by the shooting community because he was/is a member of that community. We have a huge fight coming up in this next AWB and we are facing some pretty hard targets. Our targets in this next fight are immune to Remington or Outdoor Life boycotts because their "customers" are our sworn enemies, the gun control lobby and their constituants.

Zumbo was easy and I'll admit it, for awhile it was fun, but we'll have to fight much smarter from here on out. Sophomoric taunts like will not cut it against the DNC, George Soros and The Brady Campaign. If this Zumbo flap is the best we can do, we'll get thoroughly "pwned" by Schumer & Co.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what type of gun one chooses to own or not to own, the fact remains that the best way to disarm the American people is from within. Divide and conquer. The fact also remains that if all gun owners in the US joined the NRA, NOTHING and NO ONE would take our guns away. Solidarity is strength, and right now, gun owners are NOT unified. The time has come to close ranks as one force to be reckoned with, or die a slow, regulated death.

Anonymous said...

Do we eat our own?

He's apologized. Said he was wrong. Dead wrong. How about doing the Christian thing and forgiving the guy? And then refocus all this anger on the real threats to firearms and hunting: Congress.

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
-- Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
-- Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
-- All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
-- All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
-- Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
-- Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
-- 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1022!
You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Or send them as much e-mail as was wasted on Jim Zumbo.

Anonymous said...

I've read a lot of Jim Zumbo's stuff during the last 25 years and he knows what he's talking about as far as the art and science of hunting is concerned. I value his opinion on that more than his "political correctness."

Here he ventures an opinion -- on a blog, for crying out loud -- and gets zapped. And he shouldn't have apologized to anyone who got their panties in a wad over it. Outdoor Life is mouthing the words about the right to free speech, but I wouldn't want Outdoor Life backing me up if that right was compromised. Outdoor Life is yellow through and through.

It's really not about hunting or the second amendment. It's all about the first amendment. The one that says you have a right to free speech.

I quit supporting the ACLU years ago because they went fanatical, and the NRA for the same reason. Zumbo needs to get his own grassroots support group going.

Assault rifle hunters and NRA fanatics don't call all the shots in the hunting world. There's a heck of a lot more of us that don't have a dog in either of those races and don't mind a salty comment from a guy who's paid his dues.

I won't be buying any Remington products or continue to read or subscribe to Time, Outdoor Life, or any other magazines those wimps publish. I'm disgusted with their pansy lack of defense of the most fundamental of American rights -- free speech.

I think the main blogger here has her camos turning pink, as in anti-free speech commie pinko. (How's that for inflammatory? :D )

Tam said...

"I think the main blogger here has her camos turning pink, as in anti-free speech commie pinko. (How's that for inflammatory? :D )"

1) I don't actually own any "camos", although I think pink ones would be kinda cool.

2) You can tell how much I hate free speech by the way I deleted your post, as well as all those other ones by various thimble-headed gherkins with no more grasp of the Constitution than that held by a colony of cherrystone clams.

Tam said...

By the way, Mr. & Ms. Anonymous, I thank you for your several dozen posts chock full of scintillating wit, hilarious malapropisms, egregious spelling & grammar errors, and delightfully uninformed views on history, Constitutional law, and contemporary affairs.

There is very little that will cure a case of writer's block quite so well as having someone hop up on the sandstone altar, hand you the obsidian knife, bare their chest and say "start cutting, please."

With pleasure.

Don't worry, though; this won't hurt a bit. :)

Ben Swenson said...

I greatly look forward to Tamara's upcoming posts.

There is so much amusing ignorance here - where will she start? Will it be with the people who believe that Amendment I to the Constitution says that you can't complain to a company when one of their hired writers calls you a terrorist? Will set her sights on the intellectual giants who profess that they (or their family members) love their .30-06 rifles but hate weapons capable of defeating bullet resistant vests or will she instead make light of the fellow who is confusing an AR7 – a take-down, semi-automatic .22LR – with other rifles that start with “AR”? Will Tamara address the people who think that this has anything at all to do with using an Uzi to hunt Bambi, or will she take the easy shots at the mindless drivel featuring gun owners celebrating after the events at Columbine High School?

Whatever she chooses, it should be an entertaining time on her blog this week.

jday said...

You guys frying Zumbo are nuts. Why not respect his first amendment rights!

Many of you remind me of Eugene McCarthy and his shrill followers...out to lynch anyone that experesses a differing opinion.

I agree with Jim, by the way.

Anonymous said...

Wow, overwrought prose, obtuse readings of the Constitution, phony "induhvidualist" posturing and a mile-deep persecution complex, the ability to conjure fifty-foot strawmen from a six-inch cowpie, a sensitivity to criticism that borders on the perverse, and a gang of sycophants skeered to bejezuz that Hitlery is gonna take their armor-piercing Nukkies...

Gosh, sweetheart, you're making me hard. Are there more like you at home?

tnek said...

Zumbo should hunt with stick for a while, before he returns to his 1892 military technology rifle.

I will continue to hunt with my 1966 military technology rifle.

But seriously folks, Zumbo is not going to appear anywhere in public again as Jim Zumbo. He is persona non grata like Lon Horiuchi. He needs a new identity to protect him from the public.

Aaron said...

Speaking as a newspaper reporter (strong 1st Amendment supporter) and as a license firearms dealer/gunsmith (strong 2nd Amendment supporter) I have to say that Zumbo spoke what he truely believed and he still retains his freedom to say exactly what he believes. However, he also has to take responsibility for his words.

When he calls those who use AR-15 and AK-47 pattern firearms terrorists and asks that state game agencies ban their use in the hunting fields, he should expect to receive a response to those words. The freedom of speech also requires the acceptance of responsibility for uttering those words.

As a reporter I am held to a higher standard than someone who is not a reporter, especially when I am covering a public meeting. I have to be careful to not express my personal opinions in a story published by my employer. If anything, I have to fight hard to make sure my story contains all the factual information possible from both sides of an issue. I am also bound by professional ethics to step away from an issue where there is the potential for bias or inability to be impartial due to a conflict of interest.

Zumbo has shown that he still does not understand the reality of hunting, firearms technology and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. In my gun shop I only sell those "evil black rifle" style firearms because that is what sells to my customers. These are people who love firearms and savor having a high quality, reliable, accurate firearm for hunting, target shooting and self-defense purposes.

The operational differences between semiautomatics chambered in .223 Remington, such as a Browning BAR and a AR-15 pattern rifle are nonexistent. They only differ in design esthetics and small design differences. Both are effective varmint guns. Also, AR-15 pattern firearms are accurate enough to give a bolt-action a run on downrange accuracy. I know that varmint hunters shoot significantly more ammuntion per day than other hunters, often more rounds fired in an hour than many deer hunters shoot in a year. They also like having quick followup shots for the sake of being humane.

Speaking on deer hunting, I have personally seen more slob hunters in my part of Missouri with bolt and lever action rifles than I have with semiautomatics. I have taken deer with an SKS, AK-47 pattern semiautomatic, M-1 Garand, FN-FAL semiautomatic and an AR-15 semiautomatic with handloads containing bullets appropriate for deer sized game. I used one shot per deer, but at least I knew I had a quick follow up shot, without having to think about cycling the action, if I had needed it for a humane kill.

Those same "evil black rifles" make good home/family defense rifles because of their standard issue magazine capacity, reliability and ease of maintenance. With hunting regulation compliant magazine capacity (five or ten rounds depending on different states' regulations) they make fine hunting arms.

I have these "evil rifles" as my exemplars so I know what a properly operating example feels and functions like and so I have real life experience as a gunsmith using and fixing them for my own use and that makes me a better gunsmith for my customers.

I will be even more blunt. It is the divide and conquere attitude of so many hunters and specialized target sports like trap and skeet that make it easier for the anti-firearms, anti-self-defense and anti-hunting fanatics to destroy the future of firearms rights and hunting. I hunt and I shoot paper, however I am not a gun snob or an elitist hunter who tells someone what firearm they need to hunt or target shoot with. I do tire of being insulted for using such derided firearms as those I have mentioned, especially from someone who slob hunts with a bolt or lever action and really does sling lead downrange because they refuse to practice enough to make the first shot count.

I am not saying ALL hunters that use bolt and lever actions are slob hunters, just a certain number in my local area. There are quite a few elitist gun snobs here too, gushing over their $2,000 and more over-under shotguns for trap and skeet who look down on us who use pump and semiauto shotguns to hunt with, and especially so with those of us who even use some of the old bolt action shotguns from decades ago.

The funny thing is, I fight to support the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of all, even those whom I don't agree with. However, I do take them to task when they say or do things that become abuse upon others or myself. I expect those who do the abuse to take responsibility for their thoughts, words and deeds, right or wrong.

So far Zumbo and Outdoor Life magazine both deserve the monikers of Dumbo and Oppressing Liberties. Petzal and Field & Stream magzine also deserve the names of Putzal and Feinstein & Schumer magazine. I hold those in the professional realm to the same high standards I have to maintain. While I can forgive an individual in the general populace for ignorance and even stupidity (though I take them to task and try to enlighten them with factual information) I refuse to tolerate the same ignorance and stupidity in someone or an organization that has the power to defend or destroy rights because of the social, political and economic sway they hold in the public eye and in a particular industry.

One may disagree with me on an intellectual level through respectful discourse and I will politely debate the points of contention. However, attack me with ad hominens and shoot screeds my way and I will beat you over the head until you are a bloody pulp and disembowel you too.

Knowledge is the candle and wisdom is that which enlightens the mind through knowledge's light. I work on facts, not opinions.

B&N said...

jday,

"Many of you remind me of Eugene McCarthy and his shrill followers"

Only problem with your sentiment here is that McCarthy was right about there being a bunch of communist-sympathizers in this country, and even in high levels within the government, much as it is TODAY.

Oh, and just so you know, the bunch of us here, that being free citizens, who have been jumping up and down about Zumbo the Dumbo and his assinine writing, aren't suppressing ANY of his free speech, we're exercizing ours, ya dolt!

B&N said...

"obtuse readings of the Constitution"

Right back at ya, Anon.

I can't wait for this thing to ignite.

Highpower shooter said...

"Eugene McCarthy"? I assume you meant "Joe McCarthy" - big difference.....

Anyway, I'm sure Jim Zumbo will be fine - he will now be able to obtain a job with the "New York Times" or any of the major network news outfits.

Chester Hall said...

I have read with much interest at all this back biting, insolent remarks, brainless thinking from people, feeling a need for retaliation.

I am a Viet Nam era Army Veteran proud of my service to my country at that time. The United States Army trained me as an 11 Bravo infantryman and I am experienced and was trained and qualified on all types of military firearms and munitions of that period.

First, I am not an active hunter at the present, nor am I an NRA member. I have hunted, enjoyed it, and finally just didn’t have time to devote to it anymore. I am just a Joe Blow off the side of a NE Tennessee mountain that has nothing wrong with his logic and thinking abilities.

It could be that because I am not an active member of the "hunting, gun owners, activist community" that I can evaluate this situation from conception to the present in an unbiased and unprejudiced.
I have no axe to grind, no need or desire to try to destroy a great man (human being), with evidently recognized authority, position, and expertise.
While I now recognize and see the prominence and effect that Jim Zumbo's words have when in print, my logic is I, nor most likely Mr. Zumbo realized that this simple opinionated expression (constitutionally guaranteed, i.e like the 2nd Ammendment if I can parallel here sensibly) could or would cause or set off or give the impetus for latent, closet, do gooders to come out of the woodwork and get their fifteen seconds of fame and publication, by making this into a Jim Zumbo Vs. the 2nd ammendment rights of America.
Oh of course, the businesses (OL, Cabella's,Gerber,etc) are concerned more with with the bottom line $$$ more than anything or anyone else in their organization and operational philosophy- many decisions made is made without regard to the "human factor" in this, just the money. I personally think and from personal experiences over my career, know this mentality and have been in exactly the same position as Mr. Zumbo is in as a "Man without a Country".
It is one thing to be on top of it all one day---AND the next day be relegated to dirt under someone's feet being trodden over. The blow and affect to the individual that has made a mistake is often overlooked and all his credentials and accomplishments being a NON decision making factor is incomprehensible to me. Granted guns, gun owners, hunters, whomever the "Brady bunch zealots" all come into the corporate decision making-- that has left Mr. Zumbo spinning in the wind, with very few covering "his back".

I realize the sentiment is treating this as some type of platform, or issue to make Mr. Zumbo the "whipping boy" for whatever purpose or reason, totally ignoring and leaving out, his contributions and sacrifices he has made over this career to work for, promote, and bring pleasure into the lives of those whom a month ago worshipped him and others of relative same status and position, who have basically given their lives, sacrificed their families, missed alot of domestic family things that life is all about, and lived the glamorous life, we see in his celebrity status. Let me say, yes glamorous and intriguing, but only at the expense of what us regular folks take for granted, our everyday normalcy hum drum lives. You know watching the kids play ball, going into work everyday, a trip to the walmart whenever we need something. Mr. Zumbo has missed our normal peaceful lives and trials, by trying to promote, and do good for hunters and people that recreationally enjoy it. The end result is Mr. Zumbo has enriched and made better the way for the "hunting community" and gun owners by giving his life for our good.
Now the bottom line is this---Is this really a Jim Zumbo Vs the World, is this a failure to recognize and give credit to someone who has done so much for the "community", OR is it merely yet another great, famous, credentialed person, with feelings and family and emotions, being done wrong by the very segment of the population that recognized and worshipped him and his works only a couple of weeks ago. Is it a situation for opportunistic people/companies/CEO's to take advantage of and use for their selfish best interests.

I personally feel, conscientiousness and 'scruples' needs to and must come into this. The moral judgments and inflammatory remarks are more divisive than anything contained in Mr. Zumbo's words he published. The damaging actions of his supposed backers and supporters are understood but in my judgment are only demonstrative of how cheap and expendible the human factor, hard work, sacrifice, and accomplishment factors really are.

This is the time to rally, to come together and use Mr. Zumbo's right to express his ideas (again contitutionally guaranteed like the right to bear arms). If he was mistaken, misunderstood, whatever on what he said due to not fully understanding the "black rifle" implications, then let us go forward with him, let us support this great educator of hunting, and give him a chance to continue to discover the applications of these rifles for legitimate hunting applications. Mr. Zumbo I am sure has in other things and areas over his career, has changed 360 on less controversial things, and used it as a means to educate the rest of us. I honestly, truthfully, believe he will do the same thing concerning application of "black rifles".
I beg the detractors, the zealots, the very people who created this to re-evaluate their position, their thinking, the benefits of having Mr. Zumbo go forward, pick it ALL back up and use his abilites and notoriety to promote and expand on the use the the “black rifles” he mentioned in his first opinion. I think this will be the beginning for a stronger platform, a stronger united we stand expression, than what has brought about all the ‘changes’ that leaves us where and Mr. Zumbo is now. He now knows and I believe he will make it a obsession to discover, explore, and use his writing abilities and persona to bring us together, reunited even stronger than before. We need to utilize Mr. Zumbo not exile him to obscurity.

This is the opportune time to show, that an opinion and thinking can be reflected on and changed to support the Constitution guarantees. Taking sides, with unknown people trying to grab 15 lines of fame and pseudo power, with yet another anti Zumbo opinion which may be contrarily used by others to build their case based on the craziness of their non-thinking criticisms used. I feel if people wise up instead of jumping on the condemn Jim Zumbo band wagon, we will see this for what it is and wonder who is orchestrating it—OL, NRA, Brady or are we our own worst enemy by our reactions. Sometimes the most popular thing to do, is not the wisest.

Anonymous said...

Jeebus...you ignorant gun nuts are a riot.

Anonymous said...

Ah...the sweet smell of fear and loathing emanating from the gun nut crowd is overwhelming. The sheer stupidity you fuknuts exhibit is truly impressive.

Anonymous said...

Among the large fraternity of hunters I am acquainted with the general consensus is that anyone that that would hunt with an assault weapon falls into the realm of "slob" hunter. I've had the unfortunate experience of being in the woods with these types of morons when a deer ran out in front of them..... rat-a-tat-tat-tat till the 20 round mag was empty... yeah, that's sporting.... and then didn't even bother to check to see if he hit it cause it didn't fall down.... I did check and, being an even more horrific shot then a hunter, all 20 round missed

No self-respecting ethical hunter would be caught dead in the woods with these weapons. For such slob hunters, here's a link I'm sure you will enjoy.... http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm.... hunting with assault weapons is as justifiable as this idiot.... all of you over-zealous "hunt with assault weapons" idiots are doing no more then giving the antis all the ammo they need. I'm sure you will also be the ones crying loudest when we all lose our hunting priviledges

Anonymous said...

BOYCOTT REMINGTON AND MOSSY OAK

dOES ANYONE REMEMBER THIS IS AN INTERNET BLOG AND IT IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION!

Anonymous said...

it wouldn't matter whether or not any hunter had ever hunted anything with an AR-15, because the Second Amendment has damn-all to do with hunting. It does not say "A nicely mounted buck trophy being necessary to the security of a free state..."

B&N said...

Can the 10th graders with nothing better to say, other than the assinine comment about how all of us "gun-nuts" are somehow suppressing poor Jimbo's right to free speech, stay off of this blog?

If you can't think, and can't grasp the language well enough to differentiate between words and thought, you need to stay away from the deep end of the pool, 'kay kiddies.

Oh, and Anon 11:57, can you please look up the usage of "then" as opposed to "than", and maybe correct it for future use?

Anonymous said...

"it wouldn't matter whether or not any hunter had ever hunted anything with an AR-15, because the Second Amendment has damn-all to do with hunting."

True, but Zumbo's comments were about hunting, not about the right to bear arms, and this discussion is about Zumbo's comments, not the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

"True, but Zumbo's comments were about hunting,"

Bullshit.

He called them "terrorist rifles", not "unsportsmanlike rifles".

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that the second amendment was intended to allow a standing "regulated" militia, it was not intended to allow billy-bob to keep a howitzer in his backyard.

Anonymous said...

A "standing militia"?

Somewhere a U.S. History 101 teacher is crying.

I want my damn education tax dollars back, since your school district obviously pissed them away on the JV football program.

Anonymous said...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



Seems to rule out Billy-Bob. A militia, standing or otherwise, is defined as a regulated body, not a bunch of armed individuals

Anonymous said...

God, I'm glad I live in a country where you can leave your house and car door unlocked without fear and don't have to cuddle your AK at night to make you feel secure.... Canada rules!!!!!

I live in a mid-sized city that averages less then 2 dozen murders A YEAR, and most of those are domestic disputes. You Americans can keep your 2nd amendment and all the assault weapons you want, us Canadians will be happy without either, and even tolerate a bit of gun control, for a nice cozy, safe lifestyle and health care for all

Anonymous said...

"Seems to rule out Billy-Bob.

Dumbass.

Did you even read Sec. 311a?

I thought you did, because I saw your lips moving...

It worries me that you are allowed out without adult supervision, much less actually handed a ballot every two years.

Anonymous said...

"for a nice cozy, safe lifestyle"

Yeah, Toronto is about as safe as, say, Boston or Detroit...

"and health care for all"

...if that's what you want to call it. Could you please keep your queue-jumping neighbors from grabbing their passports and clogging every surgery from Juneau to Bangor?

Anonymous said...

I said mid-sized, not Toronto, which is the largest city in Canada. A mid-sized city in Canada has a population of less the 500,000.

As for health care, go ask one of the millions of under-privileged Americans without insurance or the means to pay for service which they would prefer, no opportunity for treatment while the well-to-do get fast service, or a waiting period for everyone.

Before you condemn some Canadians for skipping to shorter wait lines perhaps you should reflect on your own system that forces many blue collared workers to seek treatment in India and other less-then-first-world countries because they cannot afford treatment at home. The poor don't even have this option, so they sit at home and wait to die without any hope outside of winning a lottery. Perhaps if you look deeper you would find that many of the social problems the US faces are the direct result of systems that discount the very lives of so many. When you treat a population like it is worthless you breed despair and contempt, the cornerstones of the things that force you to lock your doors and live in fear. Oh, and that applies on both an internal level and a world level.

Anonymous said...

"Did you even read Sec. 311a?"

Yes, but I guess it's easy to see how the concept of "unorganized militia" could confuse someone whose lack of debating skills force them to invoke name calling, something worthy of a grade 5 student debate.

There are two sides to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Those who interpret the Second Amendment as providing only for a state's right to have a militia see only half the picture, omitting the Amendment's implication that private possession of guns is basic to the existence of such militias since at the time the amendment was adopted there were insufficient arms in state armories to supply a militia. Those who interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting the individual's personal right to have firearms see only the other half of the picture, omitting the component that the individual's right to have a firearm must be shown to be essential to the formation of an effective militia. This point seems to have little merit anymore, unless you think any current state controlled militia, organized or otherwise, needs your AK knockoff, or unless you think the amendment is designed to allow a group of anarchist to call themselves a militia and be protected under the amendment.

Enjoy the 2nd, twist it’s original meaning as you wish. It’s foundation was based on a different time with different issues that no longer exist. Just be aware that fighting to protect the right to possess assault type weapons can easily backfire. The stage is set and the time will come when the majority will not see things as us gun owners. When that day comes we will have to rely on good public image to prevent the loss of more then just assault weapons, unless your naïve enough to believe that the 2nd amendment is beyond repeal.

Anonymous said...

Wow. It is amazing how many people can negatively respond to an exercise in freedom of speech. Frankly, people who result to virulent personal attacks usually cannot conjure up any intelligent words to get their point of view across. Lambasting Zumbo’s viewpoints, a clear example of the 1st Amendment, while they vehemently declare the supremacy of the 2nd Amendment reeks of irony. Zumbo did not advocate a policy change and it is irrelevant to this argument whether there should be one or not. However, it is wrong that all of his sponsors abandoned him because of pressure from unreasonable and hateful readers. I feel that this is a clear example of a fringe group, assault weapon proponents, further alienating the public. Instead of entering into a thoughtful dialogue, this group has made themselves look like a bunch of zealots and the sponsors now look like they endorse the viewpoints of this group. It’s such a shame when mob rule denounces and penalizes free speech. I do not believe that a well-regulated militia needs AK-47's. That's what the armed forces are for, in case you forgot. READ THE CONSTITUTION SOMETIME!

Justin

B&N said...

"Zumbo did not advocate a policy change"

You are either a liar or not paying attention, possibly both.

Here's Jimbo's words, verbatim:

"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. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

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."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods." [My emphasis]

The general tone of the rest of it definitely smacks of gun control, whether you care to believe it or not, but he has called for banning of the use of certain rifles (rather undescript at that) from the field.

You are too ignorant of what is going on to have an opinion, that's for sure.

B&N said...

"There are two sides to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment."

NO, THERE ISN'T.

You can claim that there is, but I'm positive that you've not thought how your exact same logic, if applied elsewhere, would eviscerate the other amendments that I am sure you hold so dear.

The BOR is not about protecting the state, in any way, it about protecting individuals, you dolt. you lack perspective and context here, you are just spouting off and regurgitating what the leftist have told you to say, without doing any real discover for yourself. Learn to read and formulate some orginal thoughts, and maybe you can come to the same conclusions that a bunch of men did about 250 years ago.

B&N said...

"I do not believe that a well-regulated militia needs AK-47's. That's what the armed forces are for, in case you forgot. READ THE CONSTITUTION SOMETIME!"

Yeah, why don't you read the Constitution, SON.

NOTHING in there about a standing army, only a Navy and the Militia, from Art. 1, Sec.8;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

B&N said...

"Enjoy the 2nd, twist it’s original meaning as you wish. It’s foundation was based on a different time with different issues that no longer exist. Just be aware that fighting to protect the right to possess assault type weapons can easily backfire. The stage is set and the time will come when the majority will not see things as us gun owners. When that day comes we will have to rely on good public image to prevent the loss of more then just assault weapons, unless your naïve enough to believe that the 2nd amendment is beyond repeal"

OMG, ROFL!

So, let's just hire Ogilvy to take care of our PR problems, shall we?

Image is more important than right and wrong. Yeah, that's it. Kinda reminds me of Slick Willie.

I could add more about that snippet, but I'll stop here.

Turd.

B&N said...

Oh, and "well regulated", circa 1789 would have meant well practiced.

Ragman said...

Honestly, all those people who are angered at Jim Zumbo's comment, you need to grow up. Jim Zumbo has spent so many years promoting the good name of hunting, and at a single mistake, everyone turns on him. It's sickening.

Anonymous said...

B&N said...
“"There are two sides to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment."
NO, THERE ISN'T.”

Can you count? You, and many others, interpret the 2nd as giving the individual the right to own guns. Other people interpret the 2nd as the right of a state to maintain a militia, not as the right for an individual to own guns. That difference of opinion is the bases of many disputes over the 2nd. So, unless you can’t count, that’s two different interpretations of the 2nd, or is it that you don’t understand the definition of interpretation?


B&N said...
“The BOR is not about protecting the state, in any way, it about protecting individuals, you dolt”

Once again someone has proven their inability to debate on a level above grade 5 by throwing insults.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

How can you possibly interpret “security of a State” to mean “protecting individuals”. It certainly doesn’t say, or even imply, “a gun in every home, being necessary to protect individuals…”

Also, it says “the people” not “people”…. I won’t even bother trying to explain that one because I’m sure it would be well beyond your displayed intellect


B&N said...
“Turd.”

Point one proven again. Guys, you just can’t talk reasonably to someone displaying such a low intellect

Finally, if we are to take the 2nd as the right of an individual “bear arms” consider this: the 2nd specifically states “the right to keep and bear arms” without arms being defined specifically as a gun. It wouldn’t have had to been at the time since there was little else available. But, the word “arms” has a very broad definition, not just guns. Just about every weapon used by a modern army can fall under the definition of “arms”. So, if you want to take the whole thing literally instead of picking the pieces you like then your neighbor has the right to possess much more then a mere AK knockoff. He has the right to have a box full of grenades, a couple RPG’s, a Sherman tank, and, if he has the money to buy one, even a thermonuclear device.

B&N said...

Still choosing to ignore the obvious, aren't we Anon?

Again, the Bill of Rights DOES NOT PROTECT THE STATE, I.E., THE GOVERMENT FROM ANYTHING, IT PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY FROM GOVERNMENTAL OVERREACH! END OF STORY!

Individuals ARE protected in the BOR, in the same way, with the same "footing" in every case. By YOUR standard, if that were the case, YOU wouldn't have the right to free speech, and neither would any individual.

The "state" as provided for in the second, is paramount to saying "the land" and does NOT cover "the government". Furthermore, your interpretation, if one can call it that, is that "the people" is somehow different than just "people" is ABSURD, as it has NO legal bearing in ANY CASE THAT HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT.

YOU are the one who is slicing the argument to fit your needs, not me, and it is YOU who is, as some anonymous poster (presumably YOU) wrote, "twist(ing) it’s original meaning" which is written in rather plain english. Yes, even a rational fifth grader could understand what it means, given that they hadn't been churned out by your governmentally approved "school" and curriculum.

There IS no rational debate here, because YOU aren't rational. YOU are manipulative, on the order of Bill (the Liar) Clinton.

If you don't see eye to eye with the possession or use of guns, fine, be that as it may, but your justification for it is what is disingenuous.

And yes, I do insult people such as yourself who don't have regard for anything remotely important to say, and instead, take pot-shots at those who oppose you under the guise of "interpretation".

I can't believe that America has ever allowed such pestilence to fester within her borders. Just sickening.

Anonymous said...

B&N said...

“…DOES NOT PROTECT THE STATE, I.E., THE GOVERMENT FROM ANYTHING…”

“…The "state" as provided for in the second, is paramount to saying "the land" and does NOT cover "the government"…”

Ok, make up your mind… what does “state” mean, the “government” or “the land”. It certainly can’t be both, especially seeing how your argument discounts that possibility.
You can’t change definitions halfway through your argument to suit your needs.


B&N said...

“…Furthermore, your interpretation, if one can call it that, is that "the people" is somehow different than just "people" is ABSURD…”

I wouldn’t have expected anything less of you. If you can’t decide what the word “state” refers to you certainly lack the ability to understand the subtle difference between “people” and “the people”. I’d explain it, but you’ve already proven that would be an exercise in futility. Do I need to define futility for you to? It is an awful big word, much bigger then “State”

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a conversation.

I'm just glad that the 2nd guarantees that when terrorists cross the border they don't have to worry about bringing weapons with them cause they can just go buy all the assault weapons they want. It's much easier to get through our so-called "border security" without an AK under your jacket.

B&N said...

"I'm just glad that the 2nd guarantees that when terrorists cross the border they don't have to worry about bringing weapons with them cause they can just go buy all the assault weapons they want. It's much easier to get through our so-called "border security" without an AK under your jacket."

I am so glad the you little schmucks keep this kind of crap up, as it really shows exactly how much you really know about the subject, which is nothing.

Kevin W said...

I've been following this discussion with some interest, but not enough to post. The subject matter at hand is not something I have too much concern with either way. I do, however, feel the need to comment on the postings by B&N.

Throughout this discussion he has responded to everyone's opinion with personal insults and name calling. This behavior is not only unwarranted and rude, but clearly displays the inability to engage in a well thought out debate. One of the primary rules of official debating is that you do not personally insult your opponent or make offensive or tasteless comments. In fact partaking in either of these actions is grounds for serious penalties in an organized debate. These techniques are also the last refuge of debaters that cannot counter the merits of their opponents point so they try to divert attention away from the topic at hand.

B&N, didn't your parents teach you any manners, or is it just that you enjoy being a discussion troll? Perhaps others would take your points more seriously if you presented them with dignity instead of throwing them around with trash insults.

Kevin W

B&N said...

"B&N, didn't your parents teach you any manners, or is it just that you enjoy being a discussion troll? Perhaps others would take your points more seriously if you presented them with dignity instead of throwing them around with trash insults."


Why yes, they did teach me manners, and sometimes resorted to the belt to get the point across. They did a good job. They also taught me to not put up with crap from the likes of people such as yourself, either. End of story.

While we're on the subject, didn't your elementary school teachers cover any ground on a subject called logic, as in something called "if/then" statements? Thought not, and it shows, BTW.

The only trolls here are the cretins (if you think this is an insult, look this up too) who insist that Zumbo has had his constitutional right impeded by the host and her commentors, or that the second amendment isn't what it we think it means (a source for much derision at this sight), or that us "gun-nuts" are somehow out in left field by standing our ground with the asshat elected officials who insist on outlawing more guns, or attempt to anyway, so they can be self-satisfied that they've gotten their way, all at the expense of a concept called liberty.

It's all just quite disgusting, you see, and I haven't seen any argument from "the other side" that makes any sense. Polite discussion was thrown to the waste can long ago on this subject, and if it was Iwho initiated it here, I am not about to appologize for it, except at Tam's insistance, for it is HER site, not minel, nor yours.

If you think my insults detract from my argument, fine, I don't care.

Kevin W said...

Thank you, you've proved my point better then I could have. Your response is exactly what I expected.

I have no desire to continue this discussion any further. I'm simply not in the mood to get drawn into a verbally abusive exchange with someone who is incapable of being civilized and is obviously just looking for someone else to berate to make themselves feel better. Sire, I pity you. Go ahead and blast me again if it will make you feel better. I have no intention on reading any of your postings or responding any further, but if it will make you feel better to throw more insults my way feel free.

Kevin W said...

One final note B&N, there are many experts, including the supreme court of California, that conclude the Second Amendment does not guarantee the individuals right to own firearms. The argument is that the Second Amendment gives the STATES the right to maintain militias outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government to protect the STATES from any possibility of an unrepresentative power over them. This was in fear of replacing a single tyrant thousands of miles away with a couple hundred tyrants in the counties capital.

These are not opinions of laypersons, they are opinions of experts and those at the top of the judiciary, even if some may be politically motivated. Maybe it's just me, but I believe their opinions have much more weight then a politically motivated architect.

Zombie Hime said...

Kevin W:

I would like to note that there are also many experts (I'd hazard to guess the majority of them) who believe that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee the individual's right to bear arms.

I can give you more sources if you're interested, but I'll start with these:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate

Two quotes:

"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long lost — proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and findings form the first portion of this report."

"The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the second amendment — but the Court did not indicate that National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicated only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms" — a ban on possession by felons — were permissable [sic]. But since felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the principle that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from the majority ruling of the Court."

Second Reading: Treating the Second Amendment as normal constitutional law, by Daniel D. Polsby (Dean and Foundation Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law)

Two quotes:

"Akhil Amar of Yale Law School has famously argued that the Bill of Rights can and should be read as a coherent document, rather than as a grab bag of snippets and special pleadings.... To begin with, as Amar and others have pointed out, keeping and bearing arms is not the only "right of the people" mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment forbids Congress to abridge the "right of the people" peaceably to assemble; the Fourth Amendment forbids violation of the "right of the people" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to keep and bear arms, then, should probably be understood as cognate in some way to those rights--surely in the sense that it is possessed by individuals as those other rights are, and also in the sense that, like those other rights, the right to keep and bear arms is in some way fundamental to the preservation of republican citizenship."

"Firearms regulations should be subject to the heightened scrutiny that courts reserve for impositions on other fundamental rights, which means that serious and skeptical consideration will be given to the claim that regulation is necessary, that the means chosen correspond to that claim of need, that the state interest is a very important one, and that the regulations are no more extensive than they have to be to address that interest. As with any civil right, the burden of persuasion should remain with the proponent of legislation that restricts or burdens the right to keep and bear arms, rather than, as with ordinary legislation, on the opponent."

Kevin W said...

Zombie Hime

Actually, I wasn't taking any side on the debate about whether the second amendment guarantees personal gun ownership. I was simply providing examples of scholars and authorities that have the opposite opinion of B&N in an effort to get him to realize that his opinion is just that, an opinion, and not a very qualified one either. Surprisingly it seems to have worked since he's yet to call me names over it.

We could sit here all day and quote decisions and argue the merits of the second amendment. The fact is that the amendment is simply too imprecise to allow a definitive conclusion to be drawn. Interpretations are simply that, interpretations. No one really knows what the exact original intent was, or even if the original intent still has any merit, or even if matters.

For the record, I have not taken either side of the debate and don't really plan on doing so. I do agree, however, that zealously using the second amendment to justify every aspect of private gun ownership could very well backfire if the majority of public opinion sways far enough to have the amendment repealed.

Kristopher said...

Go ahead and repeal the second amendment, if you think you can.

We will still not turn in our rifles.

The resulting shitstorm will make Iraq look like a sunday picnic.

When the shit hits the fan, the troops will not risk their lives preventing us from killing every last socialist gun-grabber wannabe.

We have all the rifles, moron ... and it's our "dumb" kids who are all in the military.

Zombie Hime said...

Kevin W,

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but I believe we do know what the original intent was. I recommend reading the report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution; it's interesting reading, and they did their homework.

In response to your statement that we do not know the original intent of the amendment, the Subcommittee's report states: "We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington while these still lived."

The bottom line on the history section is: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

As to whether all that matters or not... that's a separate debate. Specific gun control legislation is also a separate debate; some gun control measures may not necessarily be at odds with the Second Amendment. I agree that that would be something we could discuss all day, so I'll leave that for another time and place. :)

Kevin W said...

Zombie Hime

It's a pleasure to discuss this with someone that has well thought out arguments that doesn't have to resort to name calling. I respect your views and input.

Kristopher

It's fanatics like you that scare half of the population into wanting strict gun control. Thank god that all gun owners are not like you and you're type, anxious to have your guns pried from your "cold dead hands" so you can have a legacy of "standing up to the man". Unfortunately the rest of us who own guns are often painted with the same brush and will suffer as a result of your fanaticism.

B&N said...

kevin w,


"Thank god that all gun owners are not like you and you're type"

Should be "your", as in possessive tense of You, and not a contraction of "you are", as in "you're".

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic about this, but it's confusing to read something like that.

On the subject of repealing the second, if you look at what that entails, you'll realized that it's more than unlikely to happen. It isn't about a popular vote, but something more like the electoral college, but taken a degree or two farther, and again, this is for good reason. Changing the Constitution should be a hard thing to do, as it isn't something that needs to be changed often.

Just sayin'.

B&N said...

kevin w,

"These are not opinions of laypersons, they are opinions of experts and those at the top of the judiciary, even if some may be politically motivated. Maybe it's just me, but I believe their opinions have much more weight then a politically motivated architect."

First, I don't really care what any court thinks about my rights, mostly because I can decide for myself what those are, based upon the information that is readily available.

I am taking a direct swipe at you by saying this next bit; I am ashamed to live in and share a country with you. If you are willing to let a few people in black robes make a decision for you with regard to your rights just because you think their "opinions have much more weight," then you have already resigned ALL of the others to them, sir.

At the very least, you need some political re-education. I'd recommend that you refind the meaning of your rights through a process of self-discovery and learn to assert your rights and tell the "powers that be" that you will not be coerced, regardless of what "they" have to say about it.

Hope that bootleather tastes good, BTW.

PS: I liked your fire on that response,BTW. Keep it up, you may have a chance at this reclamation thing after all.

B&N said...

kevin w,

"I was simply providing examples of scholars and authorities that have the opposite opinion of B&N in an effort to get him to realize that his opinion is just that, an opinion, and not a very qualified one either."

Not a very well "qualified" opinion.

I'm guessing you are calling ALL of those who happen to share my opinion (even though I don't think you really know what that is) unqualified, even if I've read ALL of the court cases (most decisions on the cases, but not all) and made a decision based upon those. Is that right? In effect, that's what you've said, and I must say, I don't agree. The reason, if we didn't have a right to bear arms, then how is it that we could have been misinterpreting this for so long? It is there in black and white, and it has been since day one, and only through time and reinterpretation, has it changed.

I'd also like for you to think about what an opinion really is, sir. If someone is spouting off dreck, it usually shows, and much of what we have seen here on this post is just that sir, dreck. Why shouldn't I be throwing it back at the kiddies? It's quite easy to get these kinds weeded out by throwing some invective at them, why do you care?

YOU are one of maybe TWO persons who have come here with anything other than Blue-State Kool-Aid and LIES to repeat, sir, and that is the difference here. I can't take the kiddies seriously who come here and spout out that BS, and profess it to any kind of "opinion" as it has no thought put into any of it. There is no critical thinking and no self examination at all, and you know it. You, on the other hand, DO have some qualifications to discuss this, and you know what? It shows.

Back to topic. If you are willing to take the opinion of those judges in Kalifornia, and base YOUR entire opinion on that, I'd say that it is you who is a little short sighted on the issue, though you are adroit at pointing out this very decision or opinion of the court, as it does have bearing and deserves great criticism, don't you?

There. How's that? You want to talk, now that the kiddies have quit flinging the poo?

Kevin W said...

Even when no one responds to his posts B&N can't help but sling more.

B&N, I have no intention of reading your postings. You have already proven that the only reason you're here is to feed your inferiority complex. Maybe if you had made it past Lego School you would have developed a healthy sense of self worth and wouldn’t have to rely on insulting others to feel like a man.

Now go play in your sandbox little boy, the adults are busy.

Anonymous said...

Deane says: After reading some comments degrading Zumbo, it reinforces my long ago decision to drop membership in the NRA who have such uncompromising members who are "my way or no way". I agree with Zumbo that AR and AK rifles should not be allowed for hunting. I have no problem with people having them, but go shoot them at cans or targets not at prairie dogs or any other animals. What - you can't take time to reload a 5 or 10 shot clip?

B&N said...

Yeah, I was right. You have no argument kevin w. All you have is an allegiance to the ideal that citizens somehow should be forcably disarmed by way of weak arguments about the California Supreme Court making decisions for us all.

It's still all there for all to see, but most just don't want to buy it the way it is. They just can't believe that it's legal, somehow, or moral, for the citizery to be armed. That's the crux of your argument, whether you believe it or not.

Kevin W said...

Would you please point out where I’ve stated that I believe the second amendment does not guarantee private gun ownership? I haven’t taken either side of the debate over what the amendment means. Perhaps if you were to read what others write before jumping into rage filled personal attacks you would have seen that I have done no more then point out that the second amendment is debated at the highest levels, and not just by those who are politically motivated. There are constitutional experts and legal experts on both sides of the argument.

Regardless of which side you want to align with the fact that this debate can even occur at such levels, and that it even reaches the level of higher courts, is proof in itself that the amendment is too imprecise for a definitive ruling, with or without politics. The original intent is simply not clear enough to ever end this debate. Overall it was a poorly written amendment, either intentionally or otherwise, since a well-written amendment would leave absolutely no room to question the intent.

Kevin W said...

For the record, regardless of the interpretation of the second amendment, I do believe private citizens should have a protected right to gun ownership.

The only question is what level does "arms" ownership get cut off? If hunting rifles are protected should handguns and assault weapons? If they are protected, what about heavy machine guns, grenades and RPGs? At what point is the line drawn? Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere since permitting private ownership of all existing "arms" is just downright stupid, considering that even a tactical nuclear warhead falls under the definition of "arms".

B&N said...

kevin w,

You are starting to figure this thing out, for yourself, by way of asking yourself the right questions.

Congratulations.

Ice Hunter said...

Not sure if any other Canadians have posted on here...

I live in Canada, and the reaction to Zumbo's comments has really highlighted the differences between us and Americans. Now, I'm not criticizing people's gun ownership patterns, but it's just that this would have been a non-issue up here. If Jim Shocky or Thomas Piegeon, or another Canadian hunting celeb, had said these comments, no one would have cared!

Canadians actually own more firearms per capita than Americans, but they are basically all long guns. Do the majority of American hunters support the ownership of assault-type weapons? Just curious!

I always liked Zumbo, he's a way better writer than Craig Bodington!!!

Anonymous said...

as an englishman who has happened to stumble upon the zumbo story, all i can say is that zumbo is a man who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of shooting and should be recognised as such. all he said, or was trying to say, is that assault rifles such as the AR and the AK are not gentleman's weapons when it comes to deer stalking. but since the majority of Americans who hunt are quite obviously not gentlemen, then that should not come as a surprise to poor Mr Zumbo. For goodness sakes old chap, leave the AKs with the insurgents and buy yourself a proper gun like a Rigby.

Anonymous said...

I should have added that ARs and Aks are for men with small penises and low self-esteem. When I tell friends over in the UK that Americans use assault rifles to hunt bambi they double up with laughter.

Tam said...

"When I tell friends over in the UK that Americans use assault rifles to hunt bambi they double up with laughter."

If only I could convey to you just how much the opinion of Englishmen means to me...

Anonymous said...

WHY DON'T YOU ALL GET OFFA JIM'S ASS!!!

al rotundo said...

PARDON ME, but the biggest gun-grab in American history was carried out by Republican President George W. Bush. Quit blaming the Democrats and clean your own house.