Zumbo: Gun rag writer trashes "Assault Weapons"

[History Prof]

I wish people wouldn't hunt with AK-47s because it looks bad to the general public

Really? Maybe in Orange County. But "general public?" Who says? Zumbo?

I'm not a hunter, but if I decided to go, my only two options would be to 1. Buy a "hunting" rifle, since I don't own one; or 2. buy a five round magazine for my EBR in .308. Which would be more withing my budget? Whose business is it if I hunt with my EBR? Zumbos? Wow.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

.38 Special

One other shot... The Constitution is, indeed, most emphatically not about hunting. Why, then, is Zumbo's call for the banning of certain firearms IN THE HUNTING FIELD seen as an attack on the Constitution?

To ban is to restrict. To restrict in any context at all, is to allow restriction as a concept.

What is worse, nothing in the proposed ban is functional. It is entirely cosmetic.

The restriction of firearms, either in ownership or in venue, is a limitation, an encroachment, an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

If I propose a "harmless" bit of legislation that bans "assault pistols" from public places, in favor of 5-shot J-frame revolvers with wood grips only, then I have proposed a limitation of what may be borne within a venue. This is an infringement.

Now all we have to do is make a case for certain Austrian pistols to be banned from polite company because they're fugly. And then, gradually, we can limit carry pistols to comprise only those models designated "cute" by some arbitrary authority.

After all, those 1911s have no warmth and are really only appropriate for military contexts. Those Berettas aren't any better, since their brethren have been deployed with military for years. And CZ and Walther and the BHP and the XD all share features with the .mil versions, so they're out.

Prejudice does not engender obligation among those against whom discrimination is leveled.

But I digress.

Why is it "seen as an attack on the Constitution?"

Because it infringes the right to bear arms.

And the Constitution says you may not do that.

Here's a heads up:

No one has the right to go through life unoffended.
There exists no such right.
To admit of such a right would impose impossible constraints on the population at large.​

I am offended at the sight of Honda pickup trucks being driven in the city. It is a brutish vehicle, suitable only for driving offroad (I've seen the ads). I therefore propose that they be banned from driving within city limits.

You can still own them, just not use them where they will offend me.

 

[goalie]

Gimme a break, mate. I wish people wouldn't hunt with AK-47s because it looks bad to the general public and -- like it or not -- this is a PR game. That doesn't mean I want to ban them, regulate them, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of Americans to own and use them for legal purposes. It also doesn't mean I'm an enemy of the Constitution, a communist, a Nazi, or a Generally Unsavory Guy.

You just persuaded me to hunt with either my SKS or my SAR-1 for deer next year instead of my 270.

 

[Mortech]

In that case welcome the the 'AK Hunters Club ' Goalie Thats what I use my WSAR-10 for here .

 

[ssr]

38 special, I get it that you are in to the PR game. But playing the PR game only hurts us, it doesn't help us. If you can show me how hiding the scary weapons and not using them in front of the ignorant public afraid of such things helps us in regard to gaining acceptance from the public for semi-autos, please tell me. They are scared of their looks because of their ignorance. And when we hide them and don't talk about them, we are indirectly reinforcing their opinions and seeming secretive or ashamed or worse.

Gun owners have gone in to the closet when it comes to the general public, and in the long run, it will only hurt our future. We will only decrease in numbers and eventually dwindle if we continue to go that route. We need to be proud, and talk the truth about firearms openly, to stop this cycle. No-one wants to talk about guns with co-workers or neighbors or anybody else because of public opinion. It will lead be our downfall. We need to let people know that "normal" people own firearms, and yes, even "assault weapons".

 

[TCB in TN]

+1 ssr

What is wrong with gunners putting three major American gun companies out of business? Please tell me you're not being serious.

You obviosly are not familiar with capitalism, or free markets. Any company who wants to remain in business and stay profitable needs to be CONCERNED about both it's products and it's image. If American gun companies want to stay in business then they need to follow their markets, and marketing and make sure they do it right. I applaud Remington's decision to let Zumbo go immediately. They may or may not have done it for the right reason but they did it quickly and decisively, which certainly puts them in a much better light than the other companies who didn't. I don't agree with some of their other actions, but perhaps this event may make them aware of the opinion in the shooting public and get them to change there.

As for the American gun company angle. I try to buy and support American, but only if those companies deserve it. Put a good product out, at a reasonable price, behave in an ethical way, consistant with AMERICAN beliefs and values, and I am with you. DON"T and well........... I can shoot guns from other countries just fine.

Most of these companies need to take a page out of Barret's book. The folks critical of his practices are not buying his guns anyway! He is smart enough to know that, Remington, Ruger, Smith etc, need to be as well.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Gun owners have gone in to the closet when it comes to the general public, and in the long run, it will only hurt our future. We will only decrease in numbers and eventually dwindle if we continue to go that route. We need to be proud, and talk the truth about firearms openly, to stop this cycle. No-one want s to talk about guns with co-workers or neighbors or anybody else because of public opinion. It will lead be our downfall. We need to let people know that "normal" people own firearms, adn yes are even for "assault weapons".

+1 Spot on!
I must admit that I take a wee bit 'o pleasure in being the fly in the ointment. I have no problem letting people know that I am a gun enthusiast, and I invite them to come on out the range with me!
Most decline, but few are really aghast at the notion (I suspect that is partly due to some sort of internal selection process that I do without thinking).
Like Jim Scoutten says, "Share your sport!"

 

[blackhawk2000]

Tell me where I called Colt and Remington enemies, and suggested they be shut down? Don't put words into my mouth. Colt is not friendly as far as civilian sales go. That is plain wrong. I won't buy anything Colt for that. Most of there sales are .mil anyways. What do you think company policy would be if they lost that contract today? I'm sure it wouldn't take them long to change it. To me that is crap. You don't bite the hand that might feed you next week. I don't know why Remington puts dimples in their mag tubes, nor do I care. I think that's crap too. Why spend extra money putting the dimples there in the first place? They knowingly limit mag capacity by doing it, and I don't agree with it. These are just the first 3 companies that came to mind. I know there are more that do similar things, that I think is crap.

However I would never suggest to anyone that these companies be banned, due to there politics. Not even Ruger. I hope they change, or go out of business for not changing.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Argh! If we don't hunt with them, they come after them as non-sporting. That's exactly why my Remington 30/06 hasn't taken a deer, but my AKs, ARs, and G3 have.
....
It isn't about hunting....

+1, Mudpuppy. When we let the 2A get defined in terms of "hunting" and
"sporting" we're already 1/2 way to a surrender.

 

[SteveS]

The topic of what looks good or suitable for hunting has come up before in sportsmen's forums. While definately a minority, there seems to be a vocal group that is worried about how the public views hunters with AR's and AK's. During this discussion, no one has been able to generate any factual data to show if actually is harmful.

The reality is that the anti-hunters don't care what hunters use. They don't think that people should hunt at all. Many people in the public are so disconnected from where food comes from, that I doubt they care what kind of gun is being used. That being said, I think that hunters should use whatever they want and behave ethically and responsibly in the field. The more that the public sees this, the more likely (IMO) they are to accept it. I may try my AK for deer hunting this year. Most of the shots I get are under a 100 yards, so it should be just right.

 

[James Lee]

Looks like I owe them a subscription

OUTDOOR LIFE AND JIM ZUMBO PART WAYS
Outdoor Life magazine Editor-in-Chief Todd Smith released the following statement today regarding writer Jim Zumbo:

In light of comments made by Jim Zumbo in his February 16, 2007 blog posting on the magazine’s website, Mr. Zumbo has offered to terminate his association with Outdoor Life, and the magazine has accepted his offer. Accordingly, he will no longer be contributing to the magazine in print or online. His final column with Outdoor Life will appear in the April 2007 issue, which has already gone to press.

We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error. However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.

We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights.

We appreciate the comments we've received from our loyal readers about this matter and encourage them to continue to correspond with us. Please direct any additional comments to [email protected].


Signed up for two years...it was a great deal, and i promised I would upon Zumbo's release. JBL

 

[JWarren]

I went looking for the link and finally found it. I'll save you all a bunch of looking:


http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/columnists/article/0,19912,1592623,00.html



John

 

[Guntoter]

I'll tell you, I'm damn sorry the man did this to himself and really feel for him but hopefully this will send a strong and clear message of just how bad your life can get if you are a gun writer with a big mouth. I doubt this will actually change the views of the elitist among them but I bet they think long and hard when dealing with the topic.
I certainly applaud Outdoor Life for making the correct decision and doing the right thing. I'll be ordering a subscription here shortly. I wish they’d acted a little sooner though.

 

[jfh]

I've followed this topic avidly, if not closely. I've been really heartened by the response of all of us--subtopic debating aside.

FWIW, I logged on to the NRA site last night--I'm a life member--and sent an e-mail that simply said:

"What steps are being taken to remove Zumbo from the Board of Directors? When will this be effective?"​

The (new) site was a bit difficult to use--but I got in using my membership number. I think the e-mail went to the ILA.

At any rate, I trust many of us members have done the same thing--and if you haven't done it already, do send the NRA an e-mail to this effect. If you aren't a member, you might even join just to do this.

Jim H.

 

[blackhawk2000]

Looks like Zumbo stepped up, and resigned. Doesn't say anything about OL firing him.

 

[Bob R]

Looks like Zumbo stepped up, and resigned. Doesn't say anything about OL firing him.

That's the way I read it also.

bob

 

[madmike]

Looks like Zumbo stepped up, and resigned. Doesn't say anything about OL firing him.

Right, but how much leverage was put on him to do so, whether socially or professionally?

I'm not going to burn him forever. He's starting with a clean slate. IF he walks the walk, THEN he can earn back his credibility.

 

[Bob R]

Right, but how much leverage was put on him to do so, whether socially or professionally?

Or, how much of his contract money did he walk with after two days of negotiations between the lawyers?

We will probaly never know which way it went.

I don't think there is enough time left before the sun burns out for him to earn back his credibility. Some of it yes, all of it, never!

bob

 

[HonorsDaddy]

.38 Special

In a different thread, someone asked what we believed was the biggest problem we faced in the gun rights issue. My response, quite bluntly, was that it is ourselves.

It is people like Jim Zumbo, who make it clear they do not believe anyone should be allowed to own guns for any purpose except hunting.

It is people like a friend of mine who to this day thinks its perfectly fine for him to have whatever he wants, but doesn't want "the wrong kind of people" to be armed. "Wrong kind" defined as "lower income or of a particularly crime-oriented group".

It is companies such as Ruger, Colt and S&W who bow down to illegal pressure from government in favor of the quick buck and the fleeting perception of the non-gun community.

It is people like yourself - who choose to be more concerned with appearances and image rather than rights and freedom.

In all sincerity, I really cannot comprehend the mindset of people who believe it is ok to demand that THEIR views/desires/beliefs/etc be protected, but things which don't "fit in" should be either outlawed or kept out of the public eye.

Maybe you don't like EBR's or you think they have no business in the hands of anyone not wearing a uniform. Maybe you think they send the wrong message, or appear intimidating to some. Great - thats your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Do not pretend to be someone who actually gives a damn about the 2nd Amendment though, because you certainly do not.

Gun ownership is a natural right, a protected enumerated right, and a civil right. WHAT i choose to own and how i choose to use it is really none of your concern as long as i do not choose to use it in a manner designed to infringe upon your rights.

We need to stop worrying about appearances or how people may perceive gun owners. That kind of thing is what has gotten us where we are today. Those who make statements such as Zumbo's are doing so in the hopes that by appeasing the attacker, their desires will be spared. Well, we've all seen how well that works now haven't we?

We're all afraid of having our rights further infringed upon if we stand up for them - so we hide in the shadows and let each tiny infringement chip further and further away. Worse, we congratulate ourselves for not losing AS much. Ultimately, we are going to lose it all with this attitude - it will merely take a little longer.

So what if the government reacts to a show of force from the people? Isnt that OUR job? Is it not our responsibility to constantly, and if necessary forcefully, remind government exactly who answers to whom? Does anyone REALLY think there would be no effect were even 10% of gun owners in this nation to march upon Washington DC and demand a change in the laws? For those of you who aren't real quick in the math department, you're talking about 10 million people. Believe me, that could not possibly be ignored. Honestly, i don't think even 1% could be dismissed. After all, we saw the effect of the "Million" Mom March, and the government knew they weren't the type who kept our kind of toys.

Yes, the reaction against Zumbo was harsh. So what? He still HAS a sponsor or two so it wasn't harsh enough. When he is left a broken shattered unknown wreck (professionally of course), then he might have received the appropriate response. If that was done every single time a company or celebrity spoke out against firearms, we'd see a rather radical change in their actions.

Yes, the American gun companies who do not support the 2nd SHOULD be put out of business by our lack of purchases. Yes, people who demonize any shooter just because of his choice of caliber or design should be shouted down and dismissed as the fools and bigots they are.

I apologize for going a little off topic here, but I am really frustrated with those who in anyway even imply that I should feel guilty or be concerned about public perception over how i choose to exercise my rights. Bluntly put, its none of their business what i do, and for you to say things as you have identifies you to me as just one more nosy busybody who wants to manage my life. I'm an adult now, thank you very much, and i neither need nor want anyone else telling me i can only do what they believe is acceptable.

 

[Sawdust]

Well said, HonorsDaddy.

Sawdust

 

[Cheeseybacon]

Well said, HonorsDaddy.

+1

 

[pax]

Found over at Marko's blog today:

pax

 

[James Lee]

Still more:

For Immediate Release Contact: Jason Kintzler
Phone: 307.857.4700
[email protected]
Gerber Cuts Ties with Jim Zumbo


Portland, OR, February 21, 2007: Gerber Legendary Blades reacted to Jim
Zumbo's recent public statements moving to sever all sponsorship ties with
the long-time outdoor writer and hunter, effective immediately.
"After careful evaluation and consideration, we have made the decision to
discontinue our relationship with Jim Zumbo," said Brendon Weaver, Director
of Brand Management at Gerber. "At Gerber, we value the hunting heritage
and cherish our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."


While we respect the opinions of sponsored professionals, customers and
end users of our products, Mr. Zumbo's recent statements are not consistent
with Gerber's culture and ideals as advocates of the hunting industry.


For more information please email Jason Kintzler at
[email protected]
# # # #

 

[Striker]

Jim Zumbo is on Ted Nugent's forum...real time, right now.

http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/286904.html

 

[taliv]

wow, that's disappointing. he still thinks it's about hunting.