Post by: Derby FALs on February 18, 2007, 05:06:58 AM
He is taking a serious reaming on the Ourdoor Life blog...
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html
Assault Rifles For Hunters?
As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. 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 praries and woods.
Post by: Ben on February 18, 2007, 05:13:24 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 05:26:12 AM
In less concise terms, it'd be unprintable here, and include profanity in likely several languages.
BTW, someone needs to show this guy Teddy Kennedy's condemnation of the 30-30 round as a "cop killer" and claims that it should be banned. Or the very fact that to anti legislators, bolt-action hunting rifle = sniper rifle.
This sort does MUCH more damage to the cause than the whining anti's.
Quote
I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.
So he's calling currently serving soldiers in Iraq "terrorists", then? Or myself, since I own a custom-built AK for fun and as a way to defend family and friends if a natural disaster occurs? This guy needs to go work for the Brady people instead!
Post by: DJJ on February 18, 2007, 05:34:17 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on February 18, 2007, 05:41:49 AM
I can hear the Brady Bunch now:
"World renowned hunter denounces 'assault weapons'"
Thanks for giving the antis more to use against us. Idiot.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 05:47:28 AM
Looks like his readers are ripping him a new one. Good. He deserves it.
Former readers. Either Outdoor Life drops his column, or they're going to lose half their subscriptions, looks like. Hopefully cancel the show, too, lest he express the same sentiments on the air...or appear with Sarah Brady, who knows?
If I were in their boardroom, the choice between profit margins tanking and axing one apparently senile Fudd writer would be pretty easy.
Remington should drop their association as well, or it's going to bite them in the a$$ financially.
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2007, 07:37:43 AM
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
In my mind, he's worse than the Brady Campaign. They are honest in their dishonesty. They are very forward with their totalitarian ideology. He is stabbing us, and himself, in the back. If one is a subscriber to Outdoor Life, I'd recommend writing the editor. Editors are not stupid, contrary to popular belief. Especially when it comes to money. If they feel that they'll lose a significant source of revenue, they'll drop this guy like a ton of bricks.
Post by: El Tejon on February 18, 2007, 07:39:18 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 18, 2007, 08:06:13 AM
Hey, if an AR-15 is an assault rifle and used by terrorists, then what about the M14/M1A, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, and M1898 Krag?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 08:17:04 AM
Bogie posted a good reply.
Hey, if an AR-15 is an assault rifle and used by terrorists, then what about the M14/M1A, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, and M1898 Krag?
Hey, if an AR-15 is an assault rifle and used by terrorists, then what about the M14/M1A, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, and M1898 Krag?
If you're going for just association rather than action, don't forget the sporterized K-98s. Weren't K-98's used by (gasp) NAZIS to kill thousands of Americans' relatives?
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 18, 2007, 08:28:18 AM
Wonder if Mr. Zumbo would care to partake of the venison I have in my freezer courtesy of a Bulgarian SLR-95 AK variant?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 18, 2007, 09:13:06 AM
Post by: 280plus on February 18, 2007, 09:32:45 AM
Quote
You're such a terrorist, Gewehr.
Yea, I heard the deer are convening a group of their brightest minds to study the problem and present a report.
Post by: Ron on February 18, 2007, 09:35:20 AM
FYI, Jim knows nothing about this controversy. He has been on a hunt, and gets home in about an hour. I don't know when he wrote that piece, but he has not been on the internet for several days. I just talked with his wife a few minutes ago.
Jim **might** be joining me on the radio show, live, in a couple of hours. I wouldn't blame him if he decided to not do that, since he needs to get up to speed on this.
Jim is a long-time friend. He has always said he is not a gun guy, but a hunter. He knows hunting, but not guns or the gun rights issues or sensitivities.
Post by: 280plus on February 18, 2007, 09:54:04 AM
Post by: Derby FALs on February 18, 2007, 10:33:08 AM
Quote
Jim is a long-time friend. He has always said he is not a gun guy, but a hunter. He knows hunting, but not guns or the gun rights issues or sensitivities.
That's an understatement.
Post by: Fly320s on February 18, 2007, 10:41:54 AM
Sniper Rifles For Hunters?
As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of bolt-action and single-shot rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them "sniper" 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 sniper 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 sniper 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 sniper rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 11:09:28 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 18, 2007, 11:32:50 AM
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html#comment-60860718
So does that mean we're no longer terrorists, Jim?
Post by: SteveS on February 18, 2007, 11:34:30 AM
Every so often, I have to defend hunters on gun boards by saying that most are not supporters of the abridged Constitution (now with 40% less freedom) where the 2nd amendment only applies to sporting arms. After stuff like this, I can understand why many gun owners look down on hunters, which is very short-sighted on the part of the hunters. There are millions more gun owners than hunters and with the erosion of hunting opportunities, hunters can use all the support they can get.
Depending on how Dumbo and OL handle this, I may be cancelling my subscription. The last Field & Stream had an article on hunting with a .50 and one on the AK about 9 months ago. They have been pro-gun in the time that I have been reading them.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on February 18, 2007, 11:46:51 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on February 18, 2007, 12:02:11 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 18, 2007, 12:15:12 PM
Btw, just wait and see how much howling will happen in the media when the new sniper movie comes out. "scoped-rifle = assassin".
Post by: SteveS on February 18, 2007, 01:27:01 PM
Some hunters are perfectly happy to sacrifice the rest of us, including black-riflemen and pistoleers, so long as they get to keep what matters to them - shotguns or bolt-actions. Divide and conquer.
Btw, just wait and see how much howling will happen in the media when the new sniper movie comes out. "scoped-rifle = assassin".
Btw, just wait and see how much howling will happen in the media when the new sniper movie comes out. "scoped-rifle = assassin".
Excellent point. Most of the anti's are hoping to eventually get rid of private gun ownership and are happy to do it gradually. It is not just hunters. I have heard plenty of other gun owners say that they are fine with a machine gun ban or making them very difficult to get.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on February 18, 2007, 01:30:13 PM
I find his apology almost as insulting as his original comments.
I do too.
He's invoking the Nuge to help pull his carcass out from under his own bus.
He sure seemed earnest in his opinions when we published them originally, and he seems to eager too eat crow to be truly sincere, in my estimation.
Regards,
Rabbit
Post by: Waitone on February 18, 2007, 01:36:50 PM
Quote
Jim is a long-time friend. He has always said he is not a gun guy, but a hunter. He knows hunting, but not guns or the gun rights issues or sensitivities.
All the more reason to keep publicly mum. His words will be used against the second amendment movement. The distinction he used will never be aired. All we will see is "Hunting guru opposes assault weapons". The fact that he considers himself a hunter will be conveniently forgotten.
Post by: SteveS on February 18, 2007, 01:50:06 PM
Post by: wingnutx on February 18, 2007, 01:57:24 PM
Post by: Antibubba on February 18, 2007, 03:58:01 PM
Idiot.The damage is done. Besides, with a frontrunner like Giuliani...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 04:06:21 PM
I find his apology almost as insulting as his original comments.
It is insulting.
Quote
What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I'm taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.
Okay, Dumbo, just WHO is unpatriotic here? Because he flies a f-ing FLAG, he's Mister Patriot, while people who are angry that he took a collosal dump on their second amendment rights are NOT?
He called ME a terrorist because I have an AK. He called ALL OUR OUR SOLDIERS terrorists...they have M-16s and ARs.
Apology from this Fudd not accepted. He needs to go away.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 04:20:48 PM
ARRRRRRRGGG!!
The BRADY CAMPAIGN IS ALREADY QUOTING HIM!!!!!
http://www.myspace.com/bradycampaign
Quote
Even Remington's top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons
With important writers such as this on our side, it is clear that we have a cultural imperative to remove dangerous terrorist rifles from our streets, and our woods.
With important writers such as this on our side, it is clear that we have a cultural imperative to remove dangerous terrorist rifles from our streets, and our woods.
He needs to leave. NOW.
and yeah, that's the real Brady campaign.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/2007/february/mobilizing/index.php#story2
That mentions it as their new outreach blog.
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2007, 04:23:43 PM
I find his apology almost as insulting as his original comments.
More. I think it's very likely he realized how much of a financial loss he'd take from his words. Obviously, his opinion is for sale. Which is fine, his right. Our right is to see him as the backstabbing elitist "me first, and screw everyone else" type of guy he is. I haven't read his work, but I imagine he does reviews amoung other work. Wouldn't his future credibility be on the line here?
The only way I think he could fully remove his foot from his mouth (inserted up to the knee), would be to do a series on hunting with "evil black rifles" and try to convince the bolt rifle hunters that it's worth protecting ALL of the 2A rather than their niche. Sure, we'd still know that he's a backstabbing elitist snob, but at least he'd be USEFUL one.
Kinda like Jim March. We put up with his horrible puns, and he does nice things for the 2nd A.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 18, 2007, 04:53:29 PM
The apology sounds like an apology, and not like a carefully crafted legal statement. That's something, anyway. Saying something without thinking it through is the danger of a blogger. Honestly, I think it's less harmful than the inbred, overweight, small-gunshop owner who the local news crew always manages to find when ever the news turns to gun bans-the one with the AK with the 50-round banana clip who brags about how deadly it is Idiot.
The damage is done. Besides, with a frontrunner like Giuliani...
Idiot.The damage is done. Besides, with a frontrunner like Giuliani...
Hey. I resemble that remark!
Post by: wingnutx on February 18, 2007, 07:22:25 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
Fistful needs to print out his old sig, wrap it around a brick, and beat this guy over the head with it.
I'm working on that, but I really need an assault brick to do the job. My regular bricks only hurt animals.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 07:32:23 PM
I'm told that Remington has severed their relationship with Zumbo, but I don't have a link.
On a Sunday? That sort of thing can't happen till the board meets on a business day. I call hoax.
Post by: wingnutx on February 18, 2007, 07:43:16 PM
Boards appoint officers to set policy.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 07:55:42 PM
CEO could do it, or at least announce his intention.
Boards appoint officers to set policy.
Boards appoint officers to set policy.
I saw the purported "letter", and it had more mis-spellings than a sixth grader's essay, as well as horrendous grammar.
I still call hoax until I see it on their site.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 18, 2007, 07:56:55 PM
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=71bde24717ceaa5ef8d5c7a955d164aa&threadid=658706
Quote
"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"
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"
Post by: Antibubba on February 18, 2007, 08:10:55 PM
Quote
Saying something without thinking it through is the danger of a blogger.
I went off to do laundry, but I thought about ol' Zumbo the whole time. When I got home, I was going to edit or delete my posting, because I'd changed my mind. But it's too late, isn't it? Rabbi has already quoted me, and how many hundreds of RT'ers have read it?
You'd think a gun writer would be more aware of The Four Rules:
1. All blogs are loaded, all the time, unless you positively confirm it is off-line.
2. Never let your blog cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the "Send" key until you are ready to fire,
and
4. Be absolutely certain of your target (which may be one thing) and what the trajectory of your bulletin might hit behind it (which is absolutely everything on the entire Internet, forever).
Because
5. Like a bullet, a posting on the Internet cannot be unfired, recalled, or done over. It is permanent.
Maybe there should be a Federally mandated cooling-off period for bloggers, eh?
Has he announced any plans yet to check himself into Rehab, so as discover wherefrom what dark place inside him such horrible things came?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2007, 08:36:22 PM
No hoax. Remington's CEO typed it, bad spelling and grammar verbatim, via Blackberry from his business trip overseas. Last time I did the quick-n-dirty Blackberry missive thing myself, I didn't have Microsoft Office spellcheck my mashing of the tiny chiclets, either. If he sent it via that immediate method, sans personal secretary checking it on the outbound side, that can only mean he's mighty pissed. BTW, Manedwolf, do you go by "SBM" over on GlockTalk?
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=71bde24717ceaa5ef8d5c7a955d164aa&threadid=658706
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=71bde24717ceaa5ef8d5c7a955d164aa&threadid=658706
Quote
"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"
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"
I still just can't believe it till I see it on the company site, YMMV.
Too many poseur hoaxers out there. Who knows for sure it was from a blackberry, with proof? I'm a skeptic. And nope, don't post on Glocktalk, 'cause I don't own any Glocks.
Post by: wingnutx on February 18, 2007, 08:44:50 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on February 18, 2007, 09:46:18 PM
Post by: cosine on February 18, 2007, 09:47:17 PM
All I can say is wow.
Post by: 280plus on February 19, 2007, 01:27:10 AM
Quote
May you be sodomized by a syphallytic grizzly.
Post by: HankB on February 19, 2007, 03:30:12 AM
Quote
Mr. Zumbo:
Your first column, written from the heart, appeared sincere. Unfortunately, it smacks of the same elitism that makes some skeet shooters look down their noses at people who use semi-auto or pump shotguns, or bullseye target shooters who view the "practical" shooting sports with disdain.
Your subsequent apology reeks of insincerity, and certainly would NOT have been written had your first column not touched off such an unanticipated firestorm of criticism.
Perhaps, by your future actions, I will FORGIVE you . . . but I most assuredly will not FORGET what you wrote.
In fact, I'll keep it in mind should I see your name associated in the future with products or publications I might consider buying - it WILL factor into my purchasing decisions.
Your first column, written from the heart, appeared sincere. Unfortunately, it smacks of the same elitism that makes some skeet shooters look down their noses at people who use semi-auto or pump shotguns, or bullseye target shooters who view the "practical" shooting sports with disdain.
Your subsequent apology reeks of insincerity, and certainly would NOT have been written had your first column not touched off such an unanticipated firestorm of criticism.
Perhaps, by your future actions, I will FORGIVE you . . . but I most assuredly will not FORGET what you wrote.
In fact, I'll keep it in mind should I see your name associated in the future with products or publications I might consider buying - it WILL factor into my purchasing decisions.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 03:32:14 AM
Anyway, in the old days communication really only went one way, from media to audience. In the internet day things are interactive. And how. There was a thread at THR about Lee Reloading and some shabby treatment a customer got from them. It was all over the place, with thousands of people reading this. Lee had no choice but to back down.
Similarly here, we gun owners are so embattled that something like this feels like betrayal (for good reason). And the reaction in cyberspace is enormous and instantaneous. I dont think Remington and whatever other companies involved have any choice but to ditch this guy. And the sad thing is he could have made his point (that "assault type rifles" ruin the classic feel of hunting) without all this.
Post by: Art Eatman on February 19, 2007, 04:25:00 AM
My response was to the print version of OL. I pointed out that at the time of the implosion of the USSR, Spetsnaz forces in one of the Baltic states were seizing civilians' weapons. An ABC News film clip showed some of the seized firearms: A Browning-type O/U shotgun, and an Olympic free rifle of .22 caliber.
If such are seen as seizable by government, how is there any difference for a custom scoped bolt-action "sniper" rifle?
Is a Perazzi less hazardous than a home-defense 870?
"If we do not hang together, we most assuredly will hang separately."
Zumbo may have apologized, but his words are out there--and may well be believed by the Ignoranti...
Art
Post by: Harold Tuttle on February 19, 2007, 04:33:22 AM
Post by: Derby FALs on February 19, 2007, 05:01:18 AM
Antibubba, I didnt take it personally. No blood no foul. And fwiw, I agree...And the sad thing is he could have made his point (that "assault type rifles" ruin the classic feel of hunting) without all this.
He gave a bloody nose to every black rifle user in the USA. The terrorist name calling was the kicker. He didn't apologize for that either. That is why some will never forgive him.
Post by: SteveS on February 19, 2007, 05:08:21 AM
I also participate in some sportsmen forums. The response has been similar, in that most hunters think Zumbo is wrong. Strangely enough, a week prior, an article by Zumbo bashing QDM was being discussed. There wer many that were saying Zumbo was off his rocker and going downhill. I guess I know te answer to that now.
Post by: Eleven Mike on February 19, 2007, 05:22:22 AM
And is Jim Zumbo gay, or not?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 05:23:22 AM
Post by: Derby FALs on February 19, 2007, 05:57:57 AM
Post by: SteveS on February 19, 2007, 06:00:51 AM
I still just can't believe it till I see it on the company site, YMMV.
Too many poseur hoaxers out there. Who knows for sure it was from a blackberry, with proof? I'm a skeptic. And nope, don't post on Glocktalk, 'cause I don't own any Glocks.
Here you go (upper right corner):
http://www.remington.com/
I read some of the posts on the Brady My-Space Blog. As bad as Zumbo is, I'd have to say that some of the foul-mouthed, poor spelling, bad grammar, defenders of our side don't do us any favors either. Didn't Zumbo teach us that you should think before you post?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 06:13:15 AM
Way to go, Remington! On the other hand, Outdoor Life's chief editor released a simpering complicit letter saying that while he doesn't agree with the sentiment, he's a Good Guy, etc, etc...they'll apparently still be carrying him.
Remington has my respect. Outdoor Life is apparently more with the Fudd agenda. They're even having employees, apparently, post in the blog with appeasement messages about what a "down to earth" guy he is, "Speaking with Jim is very much like speaking with one of the guys you have known for years at the hunting camp." etc, etc. I do marketing. I can tell a meeting-written bit of preapproved smarmy "fake testimonial" when I see it. That's really weak.
Quote
NOTICE: Remington is in the process of severing our sponsorships with Mr. Zumbo. Remington in no way shares or advocates any of the comments made by Mr. Zumbo on his blog site. A formal announcement will be released by noon today.
BTW, the Brady Campaign's blog, thus emboldened, has also just put up a screed calling for the banning of all "sniper rifles" and military calibers, with extra bits about how scopes and the 30-30 round are meant to kill people, and how we ought to be more like France.
I hope Dumbo is satisfied.
Post by: SteveS on February 19, 2007, 07:14:35 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 08:20:44 AM
Depending on what happens next, I am willing to forgive OL, or Zumbo for that matter. It will take mor than an AR hunt with Ted Nugent, but I believe that we benefit in the long run with having more allies. That being said, he has some major work to do. A written apology and a retraction of his call for a ban would be a good start.
It's too late. He was a "professional" who opened his big fat mouth, and now the Brady Foundation is running with it. The damage is done. If anything could get the AWB II out of committee, this could. This was the writing equivalent of a negligent discharge that's seriously wounded a bystander. There's a price to pay for doing that, no excuses.
And his "apology" wasn't. It was "ohhh, I'm patriotic because I fly the flag..." HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A TERRORIST.
Bullsh*t. He can rot in hell.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 19, 2007, 08:53:05 AM
Quote
HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A TERRORIST.
"And?"
What makes you think he has to?
ARE you a terrorist? No? Was he addressing you, personally? No?
Who cares? (Seriously)
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 08:58:39 AM
Quote
HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A TERRORIST.
"And?"
What makes you think he has to?
ARE you a terrorist? No? Was he addressing you, personally? No?
Who cares? (Seriously)
I care because the Bradyites have taken his statements and are running with them...and didn't even have to take them out of context.
If an AR or AK is a terrorist rifle, as he said, then someone who uses one is, necessarily, a terrorist. That would include all of our fighting men and women protecting our very freedoms.
I find it even more ironic, as my AK's never been pointed at another living thing, and that blowhard's idea of a good time is to go on canned hunts in a vehicle to blow away as many coyotes as possible with a scoped rifle. I have contempt for such Fudds, but I support their right to hunt. If he doesn't support my right to have an AK, or to hunt for food with it should I have to or want to, then he's an enemy....and an elitist at that. Some people hunt with an $89 SKS because they aren't given $2000 custom rifles by a (former) sponsor like he was. He called for a ban, not that he just didn't think they were suitable for hunting. A BAN.
I suggest you read the blog replies over there, Ezekiel. Your opinion is outnumbered by about literally 5000 to 1.
Post by: wingnutx on February 19, 2007, 09:03:20 AM
An ABC News film clip showed some of the seized firearms: A Browning-type O/U shotgun, and an Olympic free rifle of .22 caliber.
If such are seen as seizable by government, how is there any difference for a custom scoped bolt-action "sniper" rifle?
If such are seen as seizable by government, how is there any difference for a custom scoped bolt-action "sniper" rifle?
My grandmother's .22 caliber Remington 241 was outlawed under the assault weapons ban, since it was a take-down rifle.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 19, 2007, 09:23:31 AM
His statement is an opinion, it's a perfectly valid (because it is HIS) opinion, and he has a right to have it.
You know, things like AR-15's are assault rifles. Assault rifles are -- without question -- readily used in terroristic (force change through fear, intimidation, force, et al) fashion, including by our military.
Does that make anyone who carries/uses one a terrorist? "Of course not."
The rabid gun world -- including the variety of knee-jerk nutjobs in this very thread who have gone nuclear with their comments -- is reacting as if it does.
It is this emboldened and radical dogma, spilling out in "Cold, Dead Hands" fashion, that creates the firestorm and burdens responsible gun owners with ridiculously horrific stereotype: not the single-note opinion of a lone blogger. (Bah!)
In general, gun owners give firearm ownership a bad name, not those that seek to limit it.
Own what you desire, use it for it's intended purpose, and don't be a dumbass by appearing the knee-jerk radical. It's not complicated.
Quote
I suggest you read the blog replies over there, Ezekiel. Your opinion is outnumbered by about literally 5000 to 1.
Post by: wingnutx on February 19, 2007, 09:25:25 AM
You know, things like AR-15's are assault rifles.
Sorry, no select fire means it is not an assault rifle.
Thanks for playing, though.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 19, 2007, 09:29:30 AM
Irrelevant.
Point remains the same.
You know, things like AR-15's are assault rifles.
Sorry, no select fire means it is not an assault rifle.
Thanks for playing, though.
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 19, 2007, 09:30:59 AM
Statement from Outdoor Life
Due to the controversy surrounding Jim Zumbos 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.
February 19, 2007 in Hunting | Permalink
Statement from Outdoor Life
Due to the controversy surrounding Jim Zumbos 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.
February 16, 2007 in Hunting | Permalink | Comments (3553)
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 19, 2007, 09:33:31 AM
Brad
Post by: Harold Tuttle on February 19, 2007, 09:36:25 AM
Posting it on a commercial enterprises blog
and insulting the customer base of a major sponsor is where he got sideways.
Most of us have typed once and not edited for future consequences.
Jim Zimbo has learned a newbie web poster lesson in a rather dramatic fashion.
Everyone thinks the one to many soapbox of web 2.0 is such a great thing.
This event is a case in point for the traditional process.
Had Jim submitted his rant to the Outdoor Life print publication stream,
several editors and spin controllers would have evaluated his diatribe and reeled it in.
Now his bell can not be un-rung and I am sure several outdoor publications are
re evaluating the web blog as a positive corporate enterprise.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 19, 2007, 09:36:57 AM
Who hasn't been "promoted" a few times in their life?
Post by: grislyatoms on February 19, 2007, 09:42:36 AM
Personally, I won't ever forget it but I'm ready to forgive him.
Damage control should be the watchword now.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 19, 2007, 09:43:02 AM
Just a couple questions Zeke. How many firearms do you own? How long do you plan on keeping them, even if they're not "evil terrorist black rifles"? What Zumbo did was basically throw ALL gun owners under the bus, even if he thinks the walnut and blued steel crowd is somehow immune to anti-gun legislation. As if, on cue, the Brady Bunch picked up his blog and ran with it...
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 19, 2007, 09:51:11 AM
Post by: charby on February 19, 2007, 09:53:22 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 09:54:00 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel Troll
In general, gun owners give firearm ownership a bad name, not those that seek to limit it.
That's the funniest thing I've seen in some time. Thanks.
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 09:56:20 AM
As if, on cue, the Brady Bunch picked up his blog and ran with it...
It also didn't take them long either to post on their blog, calling for restrictions on "sniper rifles" (those bolt actions Zumbo's so fond of...): here
He threw one subset of gun owners under the bus, and the Brady folks ran with it, and then emboldened, they decided to see if enough momentum was provided for them to hit other types of rifles too...
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 10:14:05 AM
But how much does it really help the anti's? If they don't have statements from gun-writers to use, won't they make up some other crud? And don't they have enough support from "credible" people who fear EBRs?
Post by: HankB on February 19, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
He has the right to his opinion.
That's right, First Amendment and all. There's no danger that he'll be hauled off in chains and jailed for what he wrote, so his rights are intact.But you know something? We are perfectly free to cancel subscriptions to Outdoor Life, stop buying Remington products* or those of any other manufacturer Zumbo is associated with, and otherwise express our displeasure via non-violent means. You see, the REST of us have rights, too, and the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone an audience or a forum.
* - but since Remington promptly did the right thing, I'm more inclined to buy something of theirs now than I was before this brouhaha. Kudos to Remington for doing the right thing - I may just pick up a box of .45 Golden Sabers on the way home.
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 10:22:13 AM
If they don't have statements from gun-writers to use, won't they make up some other crud? And don't they have enough support from "credible" people who fear EBRs?
I think it's an issue of legitimization. If the anti's make up inaccurate or biased statements, it is easy to show that they did so and thus (hopefully) discredit them. If such statements come from a fellow gun owner, (not even necessarily an advocate of the RKBA, just a "hunter" gun owner), the anti's can always point back and say, "See, it came from them first! Here it is, directly from gun owners themselves!" Thus a certain aura of legitimization and credibility is lent to the anti's position.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 10:27:13 AM
We'll see, I guess.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 10:33:12 AM
It's too late. He was a "professional" who opened his big fat mouth, and now the Brady Foundation is running with it. The damage is done. If anything could get the AWB II out of committee, this could. This was the writing equivalent of a negligent discharge that's seriously wounded a bystander. There's a price to pay for doing that, no excuses.
And his "apology" wasn't. It was "ohhh, I'm patriotic because I fly the flag..." HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A TERRORIST.
Bullsh*t. He can rot in hell.
And his "apology" wasn't. It was "ohhh, I'm patriotic because I fly the flag..." HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A TERRORIST.
Bullsh*t. He can rot in hell.
Q: Has anyone outside the hunting world ever heard of Jim Zumbo?
A:No.
Q: What kind of authority does he have in the larger world?
A: None.
So why does anyone think his stupid comments will propel another AWB? Yeah, Brady et al picked up on it but so what?
The incident is over. He's paid the price for thoughtlessness. Time to move on.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on February 19, 2007, 10:35:25 AM
is to prove to the legislature that ARs & AKs are legitimate for hunting.
Now I know that the 2nd amendment is about non feathered turkey hunting
but,
The thesis of the Anti's rants have been there is no Sporting purpose for Black Rifles
As a gun industry spokesperson, Zumbo just legitimized the Brady's case.
Post by: Cosmoline on February 19, 2007, 10:36:19 AM
(sigh) So you desire the nomenclature "assault weapon?" Do you want to talk about bayonet mounts?
Irrelevant.
Point remains the same.
Irrelevant.
Point remains the same.
NO! Not irrelevant. "Assault weapon" is not the "desired nomenclature" of anyone here! It's a political definition foisted on us by the AWB. Prior to that bill the term had no meaning. The "Assault Weapon" is simply a semiautomatic firearm that looks scary to the weak minded. And your point is nonsense. These "assault weapons"--semiautomatic firearms that look scary--are, in point of FACT, not used by terrorists or military forces.
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 19, 2007, 10:36:42 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 10:40:05 AM
Rabbi, no one said that his comments would propel another AWB but they do give them a little more ammo to work with.
You can always find something to bolster your cause. But calling for his head on a plate is counterproductive imo.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 10:50:25 AM
Rabbi, no one said that his comments would propel another AWB but they do give them a little more ammo to work with.
You can always find something to bolster your cause. But calling for his head on a plate is counterproductive imo.
No. He needs to know that he ticked off half his readership.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 11:19:43 AM
Rabbi, no one said that his comments would propel another AWB but they do give them a little more ammo to work with.
You can always find something to bolster your cause. But calling for his head on a plate is counterproductive imo.
No. He needs to know that he ticked off half his readership.
I strongly suspect he knows that by now.
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 19, 2007, 11:27:08 AM
Plus, the thread on this over at THR is about to top 500 replies.
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 11:44:19 AM
Calling for his head on a plate is counterproductive imo.
No. He needs to know that he ticked off half his readership.
I strongly suspect he knows that by now.
Yes, because we called for his head on a platter.
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 19, 2007, 01:28:17 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 01:34:36 PM
Maybe they can instead put on a special hosted by someone else, featuring people hunting with ARs, AKs and SKS's.
Post by: charby on February 19, 2007, 01:36:14 PM
If Remington broke off all sponsorship, that means the TV show on Outdoor Channel is gone, too, since it was "Remington Presents Jim Zumbo".
Maybe they can instead put on a special hosted by someone else, featuring people hunting with ARs, AKs and SKS's.
Maybe they can instead put on a special hosted by someone else, featuring people hunting with ARs, AKs and SKS's.
I'd host a show called budget hunters. Guys that hunt local game with military surplus or firearms bought at big box stores.
Post by: Ron on February 19, 2007, 02:26:43 PM
The piling on is in poor form and taste.
He has already paid the price for his words. The Remington sponsorship alone was enough. I find the bloodlust distasteful, it plays into the negative stereotypes about gun owners and the right in general.
If he wants to work at redeeming himself with the whole shooting world then I say give the man a chance.
He was an elitist who got knocked down a couple pegs, good. Maybe he can be used as a bridge between us and them to strengthen our cause.
Destroying the man for spite might feel good but does us no service but a disservice.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 02:28:19 PM
Rem 700's, etc...vs AKs, AK sporters like Saigas, AR's, M-14's and FALS.
The final rounds would be a K-31 against a custom-tuned $2000 sort. 200, 300 yards or more, first scope, then IRON SIGHTS.
Also, perhaps an "EXTREME ENDURANCE DEERHUNTING" sort of show...take all the guns out in the most horrible conditions in the field, hiking, falling in the mud, etc...and see which still shoot. Bet you the AK variants will.
As for Dumbo:
Quote
He has already paid the price for his words. The Remington sponsorship alone was enough. I find the bloodlust distasteful, it plays into the negative stereotypes about gun owners and the right in general.
I found the bloodlust of his wanton not-for-food killing of coyotes and other predators like jaguars distateful, but respected his right to hunt. He didn't respect my right to have an AK. So hell yes, there's serious schadenfreude going on.
Post by: Antibubba on February 19, 2007, 08:10:56 PM
Yes, the piling on is distasteful. But it is necessary. As Ron said, the man is radioactive. His career as a hunting and gun rag writer is over. But can anyone think of another incident, another reaction this immediate and strong? I can't. Maybe I'm overanalyzing it, but maybe, just maybe, we're seeing the wall of separation between "gunnies" and hunters melting. Wingshooters, trap and skeeters, muzzleloaders, and sportsmen, are starting to wake up to the idea that it isn't about "assault weapons" and EBRs, but every single firearm in private hands. We are all threatened.
And if the O/U crowd still looks down at us? Fine--but I'll bet they'll bite their tongues, lest they "Pull a Zumbo". Because if we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately--but the Zumbo will hang first--we will see to it.
Post by: HankB on February 20, 2007, 03:44:39 AM
If he wants to work at redeeming himself with the whole shooting world then I say give the man a chance.
The only way he will be able to do that is to become an ardent supporter of EBRs and other politically-correct firearms, in much the same way that some former Democrats (such as Ronald Reagan) abandoned their original party and became a force within the GOP.Can he, will he, make the effort? We'll see, but as you said, he's going to have to work at redeeming himself, and undoing the damage that he did. The "Oops, I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar" apology on his blog just doesn't make the cut . . . makes one wonder about his sincerity.