Zumbo lays into Congress/Senator Levin/HR 1022...Welcome Back Jim!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jpk1md

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
620
Zumbo lays into Congress/Senator Levin/HR 1022...Welcome Back Jim!

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/tow_final.php?date=2007-3-30

In February, hunter and outdoorsman Jim Zumbo enraged shooters across the United States with comments appearing his now-discontinued blog on Outdoor Life. Since that fateful blog, Zumbo's professional life has changed - profoundly. A marquee career in hunting has effectively been reduced to nothingness. Television sponsors bolted, contracts were cancelled and a former front-man for hunting found himself the object of hatred and ridicule by shooters who felt betrayed by his comments.

Zumbo hasn't tried to shift the blame to anyone else. In fact, he pledged to go on the offensive to fight HR 1022, the newly introduced and significantly broadened, assault weapons ban.

Last week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, a staunch opponent of firearms, used Zumbo's remarks to attack firearms owners, reading portions into the Congressional Record. Zumbo has fired back, sending an open letter to the United States Senate that responds to Levin's action and makes it plain that Zumbo isn't letting that action pass.

Last night, Zumbo provided us a copy of his response to Senator Levin. Today, in the sense of fairness, we offer it in its entirety - without comment.

An Open Letter to the United States Senate

Dear Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

It recently came to my attention that one of your colleagues, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, has chosen to attack firearms owners using remarks I wrote in mid-February as his launch pad. As you probably know, Sen. Levin has been making anti-gun speeches every week for the past eight years because of a promise he made to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1999.

Mr. Levin has an agenda, and he should have spoken to me before using my name in one of his speeches, especially since his remarks were entered into the Congressional Record. I would like my remarks here entered into the Congressional Record as well.

Sen. Levin is only one of 16 members of the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the confiscation of a privately-owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster when possession of that gun is not prohibited under state or federal law.

Eighty-four senators voted for that amendment, inspired by the egregious confiscation of firearms from the citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005. Those seizures, you will recall, led the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association to join in a landmark civil rights lawsuit in federal court that brought the confiscations to an abrupt end.

The taking of private property without warrant or probable cause - even firearms - was considered an outrage by millions of American citizens, and yet Sen. Levin joined 15 of his colleagues in voting against this measure. It is no small wonder that Sen. Levin gets an "F" rating from gun rights organizations. He would have American citizens disarmed and left defenseless at a time when they need their firearms the most, when social order collapses into anarchy and protecting one's self and one's family is not simply a right and responsibility, it becomes a necessity.

That in mind, Sen. Levin must know that almost immediately after I wrote those remarks, I recanted and apologized to the millions of Americans who lawfully and responsibly own, compete with and hunt with semi-automatic rifles. I took a "crash course" on these firearms and visited with my good friend Ted Nugent on his ranch in Texas, where I personally shot an AR-15 and educated myself with these firearms.

Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.

This legislation that Sen. Levin appears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns - firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren - as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.

It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don't want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.

I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.

A few weeks ago, in a letter to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I promised to educate my fellow hunters about this insidious legislation "even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done."

I will amend that to add that I will bring my effort to Capitol Hill if necessary, even if I have to knock on every door and camp in every office of the United States Senate. In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.

Sincerely,
James Zumbo
Cody, Wyoming
 
BRAVO!

Here's a real man. He admits when he's wrong, he apologizes sincerely, and he DOES something about it.

Welcome back, Jim.....
 
Despite the cynical commentary on the many gun-boards, I chalk-up the original comments to a general ignorance of the shooting community due to his age and the type of people he associated with.

Face it, Mr. Zumbo has been part of, and possibly "brainwashed" by the bolt-action/big-game hunting community, and apparently had no relationship with those of us who find enjoyment shooting a wide-range of firearms other than bolt-action hunting rifles.

Sure, we can hunt with a bolt-action rifle chambered in .308, BUT... we can also hunt with a semi-auto rifle chambered in .308 - even if that rifle is an AR10, or a Daewoo, an H&K, a Tikka, a CETME, or an FN FAL. Each of these rifles chambered in .308 and are no less evil or good than what is in the heart of the person pulling the trigger regardless of the design of the rifle.

I personally am glad the Mr. Zumbo has made the apology and is willing to explore the shooting sports that don't involve the hunter/bolt-action rifle genre.

Time will tell how much damage was done due to Mr. Zumbo's initial comments, and to what extent he will go to protect the Second Amendment. This letter appears to be a step in the right direction.
 
Despite the cynical commentary on the many gun-boards, I chalk-up the original comments to a general ignorance of the shooting community due to his age and the type of people he associated with.

I think he had a fundamental misconception of the Second Amendment based on what he said originally and the way he subsequently explained himself. But, I also think he's coming around and believe his epiphany about the right to bear arms could very well be as real as both Zumbo and his supporters say it is.
 
Grrr...I'm being swayed...grrr...can't say it...grrr...yeah, okay--good step in the right direction.

I'm not ready to invite him over for dinner and take moonlit walks with him, but I'll give him credit for this...I guess...grrr. (obviously still a little angry, but he's trying to make it right. Still a long way to go, Zumbo!)
 
I'm not ready to invite him over for dinner and take moonlit walks with him, but I'll give him credit for this...I guess...grrr. (obviously still a little angry, but he's trying to make it right. Still a long way to go, Zumbo!)

A lot of people will still be angry until he apologizes for, and explains his usage of, the term "terrorist." He's apologized for using it in the context he did, but I don't know if he's ever explained what brought him to call these weapons (the choice of law enforcement as well as many citizens) "terrorist" weapons.
 
Okay, I'm finally ready to give this guy a second chance. The letter to the senate was quite brilliant I thought. I wish, of course, that he had never written that column in the first place. But it is beginning to look like it resulted in a mass education for other outdoor writers that may ultimately bridge the divide between hunters and the second amentment.

As for me, I'm taking Zumbo at his word, unless he gives me a reason to think otherwise.
 
ut I don't know if he's ever explained what brought him to call these weapons (the choice of law enforcement as well as many citizens) "terrorist" weapons.

Because that's what he truly believes.
 
I don't know if he's ever explained what brought him to call these weapons (the choice of law enforcement as well as many citizens) "terrorist" weapons.​

Well, you do have to wonder if--on a Friday night after walking in the field all day, and then having a couple of drinks before dinner and wine with a luxurious dinner, and then returning to his room feeling all warm and sated, and suddenly realizing he had to do that damn blog the magazine just sicced on him--he didn't really let his persona slip.

He obviously is an articulate and thoughtful wordsmith, but he sure composed and posted without thinking that night.

IOW, he really did speak the way he feels--and now maybe he's learned something and / or really had an attitudinal change as well.

Jim H.
 
Face it, Mr. Zumbo has been part of, and possibly "brainwashed" by the bolt-action/big-game hunting community, and apparently had no relationship with those of us who find enjoyment shooting a wide-range of firearms other than bolt-action hunting rifles.

I go deer and bear hunting with a 6mm PUMP action rifle

:uhoh:
 
Well, you do have to wonder if--on a Friday night after walking in the field all day, and then having a couple of drinks before dinner and wine with a luxurious dinner, and then returning to his room feeling all warm and sated, and suddenly realizing he had to do that damn blog the magazine just sicced on him--he didn't really let his persona slip.

That was his story: he was tired and it was his opinion. The current story is that his opinion has changed. The statement attributed to Remington's CEO that Zumbo announced what he was going to say, was warned not to do it, and went ahead with it indicates that it was certainly what he believed at the time, and only time will tell if he's truly changed.
 
"Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms."

Some have quibbled with this language, but I think the phrase "far more" is talking about banning additional guns (other than what are commonly perceived as assault rifles) and recognizes that black rifles are perfectly legal. I don't think Zumbo is implying that other guns are more worthy of avoiding a ban.

I think he's done a very good thing here in not only taking exception to having his quote used to support a bill he opposes, but to highlight the need for firearms in our society and Levin's dishonesty. He notes that even his quote was not calling for a ban on owning these guns, only for not using them for hunting.

I say let's welcome him back into the community of gun rights advocates. He is a recognized and effective spokesman and seems committed to the cause.
 
In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.
"Honorable" my a$$! :barf: Let Levin have it. Bombard the Senate with letters against his garbage politics. I can't stand him, and I'm disgraced that my fellow Michiganders re-elected him (and Debbie Stabenow, too)!
 
"HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. "

This is a bad sentence. Perhaps I'm feeling a little too simple today, but isn't a legal firearm a legal firearm. How are different types/colors/models "far more perfectly legal firearms."

To me this still indicates he is assigning levels of legality or acceptableness to certain firearms.

Stop calling them assault weapons, Jim! Any firearm or knife or baseball bat can be called an assault weapon.

Other than the one sentence, I like it. The intent was very good. He NEEDS to make himself VERY PUBLIC on every anti-gun issue so his name is a household word synonymous with anti-gun control of any type.
 
Zumbo lays into Congress/Senator Levin/HR 1022...Welcome Back Jim!

Too little, too late. The damage is done. Dont let the door hit you in the backside on the way out, Zumbo.
 
Zumbo

While I did not agree with Mr. Zumbo's remarks, I do applaud him for his resolve in aquiring the necessary enlightenment to recant his previous statement.
He is more than gracious in refering to Sen. Levin as honorable.
Sen. Levin has used his position to undermine the 2nd Ammendment, and provide false and misleading information to our Congressional and Senatorial constituants, in and effor to end all private ownership of firearms.
I hope that he can maintain his resolve, and help educate those who were mislead by Sen. Levin and others.
 
If one more Hunter "gets it" about guns and liberty I welcome him back......so many more need to be educated.........guns are not just a tool for sport....they are also, and more importantly, tools for liberty.
 
It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don't want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Hooray! He gets it!
 
I am happy with the way Zumbo has handled this. Hatred for the EBR crowd is somewhat common in the "hunting only" community. I have had more than a few unkind words thrown twards me and my AR, M1a or 10fp at a few ranges. They come from the same place as the unkind laws that politicians seek to pass Ignorance. I firmly belive in the don't knock it untill you try it philosophy especially with arms, and am glad to see Zumbo lead by example now encouraging others to do the same, and standing up for all of us to congress. I am sure there are a lot of hunters who respect Zumbo and may follow his lead.
 
"HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. "

This is a bad sentence. Perhaps I'm feeling a little too simple today, but isn't a legal firearm a legal firearm. How are different types/colors/models "far more perfectly legal firearms."

To me this still indicates he is assigning levels of legality or acceptableness to certain firearms.

Stop calling them assault weapons, Jim! Any firearm or knife or baseball bat can be called an assault weapon.

Other than the one sentence, I like it. The intent was very good. He NEEDS to make himself VERY PUBLIC on every anti-gun issue so his name is a household word synonymous with anti-gun control of any type.
I thought the same thing when I read that sentance the first time, but considering the theme of the rest of the work, I reread it and realized what it means.

It says it will renew the assault weapons ban of 94, and it would affect far more guns. Perfectly legal, meaning they are currently legal to own by federal and state law, and I presume it's also implied that means that he's saying that they are used for lawful purposes. Saying "so-called 'assault weapons'" makes the statement that the guns affected are in no way assault weapons, and clairfies that he does not support even a renewal of the old ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.