Ted Nugent needs some help...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, Xavier...

And by liability I mean the wonderful cut-and-paste job of Zumbo's infamous blog now seen on the Brady Website, using Zumbo's words as some sort of gospel truth that firearms unsuitable for sporting purposes have no need to exist in American hands.
Click to expand...
Give a link eh Gewehr?
Click to expand...

I was curious as to a link as well, so I went-a-Googling, and found this...

Paul Helmke:
We need to be asking what these weapons are used for and whether they need to be regulated in order to promote public safety. If some don’t like the restrictive definitions being proposed, what alternatives do they suggest? Or, should we have no restrictions, even on actual “terrorist rifles”?
Click to expand...

No word on Mr. Helmke's definition of "terrorist rifle," but I'd wager it mirrors Zumbo's...or, rather, I hope, what Zumbo's definition used to be...
 
What is everyone talking about? I never knew this guy Zumbo from Adam until last week. I never watched his show, I never read his writings. Now, if I continue to live my life exactly the way I was I am "dividing support for RKBA"?

All I know about this Zumbo character is that he made some disparaging remarks about military rifles, and that he was roundly criticized for doing so. I support the fact he was criticized, as if we did not criticize him his statements would have been used by the Brady bunch. I also find it hard to believe that someone the least bit involved in the gun world would have been oblivious to the repercussions for what he said.

Now, can I go back to living my life the way I did last week without being labeled a "divider", or do I have to purchase a Zumbo approved rifle or something?

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Good that he was soundly criticized. Not good that you're still trying to cut him off and nugent as well, when he's trying to bring positive press back to ebrs. The man's trying to make amends. I don't care about speculations whether he's honest about it or not. The effect is the same either way, bringing rkba back into a positive light and unifying rkba efforts. Nugent is trying to help. And now some are threatening to cut him off too. Cutting off your nose to spite your face and further dividing rkba. These people are just as much enemies as any anti.
 
FerFAL.......

Try reading it again. Slower. Did you e-mail DPMS about this:
getting hammered by the antigunners amongst us (lunatic fringe for sure) to abandon any relationship with me or my TV show for my stand to upgrade Jim Zumbo into a pro-DPMS rifle guy.
Click to expand...

Only the guilty need be offended.

BTW...... maybe you might want to take the time to read these?
http://www.tednugent.com/nugeZumboRealityCK.shtml
 
Last edited:
Put the whole quote in.......
If you are an anti-gunner who wrote DPMS to dump Nugent's sponsorship, before he asked for help, then yes, in my opinion you are an idiot....... as I think ALL anti-gunners are.

If you didn't, like I said......... you are being offended for no good reason, and need to take back your comments.

Words mean things....... read it AGAIN.

AND BTW, I was one of the first to write that ZUMBO should be dumped by his sponsors and Outdoor Life.
He is not my buddy, buddy........
But, I refuse to cut off my nose despite my face. If you want to silence Ted Nugent's gun rights message, more power to ya, but who is going to take his place, you?
 
I think the High Road is a quite appropriate way to go here.

I always thought Nugent was an abrasive and self-centered ass-clown. However, I am planning to buy a DPMS as my next and probably last rifle (except maybe a Marlin Guide Gun if I ever go to Alaska for some reason). I really don't want them to get cold feet and back out of making such a nice rifle due to people screaming bloody murder at them over their choice of media contacts. I personally wouldn't associate my business with the guy, but in the spirit of cooperation, we should not throw each other under the bus at every foot-in-mouth. We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.








To the President of DPMS

To Whom It May Concern:

I own a number of firearms as a hobby, including some cowboy style lever rifles, as well as three AR15 rifles
and carbines. My next purchase will probably be a DPMS .308 carbine. I have no objection to any association
you have with defenders of the 2nd ammendment rights, whether that be Ted Nugent, or any guests of his
media publications. We can use all the help we can get to encourage more people to own and learn about
these fine firearms.

Thank you
 
Oh, don’t worry, I DID write, as I did to all other sponsors.
You have some serious language problems of your own there,
not supporting those two idiots does not make me an anti-gunner, in any way. It’s the other way around, antigunners are people that ask for guns being banned and calling autos "terrorist weapons", people like Zumbo.

FerFAL
 
So......... let me get a grasp of your thinking here.
Ted Nugent (and others) takes a guy who is COMPLETELY ignorant when it comes to gun laws.... who even called them TERRORIST rifles, and decides the guy needs to be taught the truth.
After teaching the guy the error of his ways, and convincing him he needs to stand up and support THE VERY SAME THINGS YOU ALLEGEDLY BELIEVE, you think that Ted Nugent is an anti-gunner?
I bow to the superior intellect that came up with that convoluted logic
:barf:
 
As I've read the posts on this topic, all that keeps popping into my head is "Divide and Conquer."

If word of this thread has gotten out to the Brady Bunch and their ilk, they must be salivating as they see us battering each other over the Zumbo (and now Nugent) issue.

I am stating the obvious when I say that we are under strong threats by organized people who are anti-gun. I am certain that our opposition is full of misinformed people with various degrees of gun hatred, yet they, as was once said "will hang together or hang separately."

We must stick together if we are to be effective in resisting the assault on our 2nd amendment rights. To that end, I will suck up some of the offensive and tasteless statements made by Zumbo and Nugent and others and accept their ample public influence in the political battle to protect our rights.

A converted Zumbo and pro-gun Nugent are ammo in this battle. We need all the ammo we can get.

Ron
 
I support hunter's right to own fine hunting rifles. Will hunters support my right to own military rifles?

If so, then the infighting will cease immediately. If Zumbo states as much (I think he already has) and perhaps a few more "hunter" writers comment on the validity of military rifle ownership, this whole drama will solidify our voting block for '08.

So I, for one, am not trying to divide us, but rather asking for some support from some of the gun owners like Zumbo who have not given it much thought until now. Cover me and I'll cover you. Call it the "Buddy System" if you want, but it works much better than standing back and allowing the gun-banners pick us off one by one.
 
I resent being called an anti-gunner just because I don't trust Zumbo v2.0

Or the fact that Uncle Ted "The Motor City Madman" Nugent has a new pet project.

Is Zumbo truly reformed? Or did his wife tell him to re-invent himself after the fiasco to re-acquire sponsorship and keep the mortgage payments on time?

I don't feel it's divide-and-conquer, not in the least bit. I believe we nip our losses in the bud, and put our energies into more productive endeavours when it's the Second Amendment we're trying to save. Zumbo and Nuge aren't it. Zumbo has been de-fanged, and I'm content if he sits in a holding pattern somewhere and gums his oatmeal from now on. He doesn't get to be a poster child for anybody on the 2A side of the river, and he doesn't get to be discussion fodder for David E. Petzal or ammo for the Brady Campaign. He's just gone, out of sight, out of mind.

It's akin to capturing an enemy spy and trying to "turn" him. Do you trust him, or does he simply become a double agent? :scrutiny:
 
Shall I send an email for the Nuge ??? For Jim Zumbo ???

I think they'll have to sort out the problems they caused. I won't be pissing in their pool anymore, but neither will I be sending flowers.

One thing I am thankful for: Because of this mess, I found out that Field n Stream absolutely stands with Brady Doctrine and gun bans. Outdoor Life claims that they don't, but their weak statement seemed as canned and unconvincing as a politician's promise.
 
It's akin to capturing an enemy spy and trying to "turn" him. Do you trust him, or does he simply become a double agent?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? Double agents have their uses. I don’t think you can’t always ask for Purity in a warrior, just victory. I’d like to see how many would go into a court room with a “pure” novice attorney who believes as you do? I wouldn’t. I want the meanest nastiest SOB that I can afford. I don’t care if he hates me. I want to win. Period. Full Stop. If double agents can do the job while secretly in their collective heart of hearts cursing that they got caught, then fine.

I’ll take double agents, mercenaries, zealots, and useful idiots. I’ll take anything that can give us victory. I don’t care if Senator Snotnose is only voting my way because he’s afraid. His vote is all I need. This is not a religious debate. Purity of thought is not required by all to win. Fear is good enough in many cases. And if out of fear Mr. Zumbo can get some fence sitters on board? Good. I don’t care if he has a dartboard picture of an AR in a secret alcove and he weeps as he throws darts and drinks to happier days.

For me, Zumbo is saying the right things and, more importantly, doing them as well. Nugent is giving him a good reeducation and a platform to try and undo the damage. Email off to DPMS.

Focus on the war people. Conversion is great, but if we have to get some people by fear, then good for us.
 
Remember folks that a converted sinner can reach other sinners easier than those from outside. If we want to win hunters that haven't awakened to the threat to their hunting rifles/sniper weapons to our side then we need people who used to view things the way they do to persuade them of the threat and bring them into the fold.
 
So nobody cares that 'Uncle Ted' says that if you don't agree with him you are:
an "Antigunner" and the "Lunatic fringe"

(If you don't forget the knife in the back.)

That's not something that I respond well to.
 
Ask, and ye shall receive...

Give a link eh Gewehr?
Click to expand...

For XavierBreath:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/

Brady Blog [image]
Posted by: Paul Helmke at 11:51 am on March 6, 2007

Terrorist Rifles?

Concerns about the need for and use (or misuse) of military-style assault weapons have started to get a lot of attention in the last few weeks. On February 16, 2007, Jim Zumbo, a well-known hunting writer, posted a blog on the website for Outdoor Life Magazine, where he has worked since 1962, most recently as hunting editor, talking about “terrorist rifles”:

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

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

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

After posting this blog, Zumbo was fired from the magazine, had his television show on the Outdoor Channel cancelled, and lost his sponsors. The NRA suspended their long-term relationship with Zumbo and pointed to the destruction of Zumbo’s career as an example of what happens when somebody crosses them. Some outdoor writers have started to speak up, however.

According to Bill Schneider in New West on February 26, 2007:

Some outdoor writers came to Zumbo’s defense such as Tony Dean of South Dakota and Pat Wray of Oregon, but most were apprehensive…. The message was clear. Say the one word the gun rights snipers don’t like, and the only job you can get is greeting people at Wal-Mart.
***

Yet, this group of NRA-trained thugs can not only eat a good friend alive like meat thrown into a school of piranhas, but they can and have made other outdoor writers ultra-wary about saying anything that might cause their own fate, which is the goal, of course.

To me, it seems like outdoor writers are giving the black rifle Gestapo their victory with their silence. And not just writers. Where is the outrage from millions of hunters who agree with every word Zumbo posted on his blog? Where are the thousands of e-mails to Remington, Outdoor Life or the Outdoor Channel from hunters who wouldn’t be caught dead hunting with an assault rifle? Why aren’t they coming to Zumbo’s defense?

Pat Wray, in the Corvallis (OR) Gazette Times, on February 24, 2007, called those attacking Zumbo “a crowd of vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals” and blames the NRA making them so:

For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense.

Added into the mix recently were stories like that on the front-page of USA Today on February 19, 2007 which quoted police officials who have seen “more higher-caliber weapons…on the street since the expiration” in September 2004 of the 1994 national ban on certain assault weapons, and “are now ‘frequently’ encountering assault weapons in local robberies and during simple traffic stops.”

Some elected officials are asking whether or not these types of weapons should be so readily available. In response to S.B.43 in Maryland, I had an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun on February 27, 2007 and also participated in a news conference and Maryland Senate Hearing on a proposed “Assault Weapons Ban” for Maryland. On average, a semiautomatic assault rifle was traced to a Maryland crime every 48 hours, according to a study released last fall by Ceasefire Maryland. This group relied on ATF data showing at least 789 assault rifles tied to crime in Maryland in a four-year period.

We need to be asking what these weapons are used for and whether they need to be regulated in order to promote public safety. If some don’t like the restrictive definitions being proposed, what alternatives do they suggest? Or, should we have no restrictions, even on actual “terrorist rifles”?

(Note to readers: this blog entry, as well as past blog entrees, are co-posted on www.huffingtonpost.com)
Category: Assault Weapons
Click to expand...
 
How could these writers be so short-sighted?? They KNOW how rabid the antis are. It's a sad day in Mudville. :(
 
“are now ‘frequently’ encountering assault weapons in local robberies and during simple traffic stops.”
Click to expand...

Notice the quotes around frequently? Even the anti writers have to hedge their writing for the sake of "accuracy" and "fairness" in "journalism".

See how well those quote marks work?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top