Zumboing David Petzal

[taliv]

for those of you who quit reading the zumbo thread after page 30 you may have missed this:

http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_davi.html

the short story is David Petzal, infamous Field & Stream executive editor who convinced F&S to support the handgun control inc/brady campaign during the 94 assault weapon ban, is throwing his support behind Zumbo and comparing us to mental patients.

from post 887

E-mail addresses for Field & Stream

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

The responses to Petzal's blog, unlike Zumbo's, are not 99% pro-2A.

 

[#shooter]

David Petzal of Field and Stream defends Zumbo

ZUMBOMANIA: David E. Petzal’s take on the Jim Zumbo fiasco

In case you just emerged from a coma and have not heard, the shooting world is agog over a blog posted by Jim Zumbo, former contributing editor at Outdoor Life, over the weekend of February 17. In it, Jim stated that any semiauto rifle with an AR or AK prefix was a terrorist rifle, had no place in hunting, and should be outlawed for that purpose. Then, courtesy of the Internet and all its blogs and chatrooms, the roof fell in.

The speed with which Zumbomania spread, the number of comments it drew, and the rabid nature of same were a revelation. Overnight, this thing became as big as Janet Jackson’s clothing failure or—dare I say it?—Britney Spears’ shaved head. Jim Zumbo is now as employable as the Unabomber, and Sarah Brady will no doubt adopt his comments to her own gun-control purposes.

For the last several days I’ve been visiting all manner of blogs and chatrooms, which has reminded me of when I used to deliver used clothing to the local mental hospital. I’ve tried to make some sense of it all, but because the waters are still full of blood and body parts continue to rain from the sky, I haven’t come up with any Great Truths. Lacking that, here are some Lesser Truths.

What Jim said was ill-considered. He’s entitled to his beliefs, but when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.

Even so, Jim made an immediate apology. He did not equivocate, or qualify, or make excuses. He acted like a gentleman and said he was wrong, and he was sorry. Apparently this is not enough anymore. We now live in the era of one strike and you're out.

For 40 years, Jim has been a spokesman and ambassador of good will for hunting. Through his tireless efforts as a teacher and lecturer on hunting and hunting skills, he has done more for the sport than any 250 of the yahoos who called for his blood.

Jim has paid dearly for what he said. He has lost his blog and his association with Remington. Cabela’s has suspended its sponsorship of his TV show; and Outdoor Life has accepted his offer to sever ties. To all the chatroom heroes who made him unemployable, I have a word of warning: You’ve been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place. Today it was Jim’s turn. Tomorrow it may be yours.

If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

Stay tuned.

http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_davi.html#comment-61290360

The irony is that Petzal says

when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.

As if Petzal has helped "our cause." Apparently Petzel himself came out against black guns in 1994 saying

The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma". An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive.

What a hypocrite! The fact he has the audacity to say it does not help our cause and yet he said what he said during the year of the ban is unconscionable. At least he didn't call us terrorists.:banghead:

 

[#shooter]

You beat me to it while I was spellchecking.

 

[shaggycat]

I think all these "sportsman" fear losing their right to hunt and are willing to give up some of their rights in an effort to secure those which they value the most (hunting).

What they don't understand is that they will not stop with "military firearms." Once the "military arms" have been banned, they will come after "sniper rifles," aka hunting rifles. How is the Remington 700 any less of a military arm than an AR-15? This man has a fallacious argument.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

To all the chatroom heroes who made him unemployable, I have a word of warning: You’ve been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place. Today it was Jim’s turn. Tomorrow it may be yours.

If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

That's something worth pondering.

 

[doubleg]

Alright one more FAKE pro gunner to remove from our culture.

 

[ALHunter]

I guess for him a .223 fired from a Remington 700 is okay, but when fired from an AR-15 platform it's evil. I'd love for someone to get his opinion on this and have him attempt to reconcile his views.

 

[lance22]

Field n Stream is the "outdoor" magazine for people who's vehicles never get off the pavement, and think they are "outdoors" when they fly out to their vacation home on Martha's Vinyard.

David Petzal says ban the scary looking rifles? I don't feel stabbed in the back the same way I did when Zumbo said it ... Zumbo actually went outside, actually used guns, actually killed game, actually took his vehicle off the pavement ... Whereas Petzal thinks he's in the great outdoors if he's browsing through Eddie Bauer over in the MegaMall.

The only way this is a big deal is if Field n Stream goes on board with Brady in on official manner ... otherwise they are just a bunch of rich fly fishermen bitching about "people with guns".

 

[carterbeauford]

I am an above-average sportsman, so I must be qualified to own military arms

Antis do not want to ban some guns, they want to ban all guns. This includes your hunting rifles, kids. I mean average sportsman do not need high-powered rifles loaded with scopes and bipods, right? These kids don't see the fallacy of their own logic.

 

[ryoushi]

Posted on Petzal's blog

Mr. Petzal,

You're a big reason why so many shooters ignore magazines like F&S and Outdoor Life. You think you and Jim have done so much to uphold the 2nd Amendment? How much would either of you do if you weren't being paid?

There are plenty of young, relevant, web savvy gun writers that could do your job just fine. I suggest you google the name Zak Smith and start looking over your shoulder from time to time. Everybody is just now finding out about your complicity in the 1994 Clinton gun ban.

Get ready for it.

 

[Mannlicher]

David P. does not get it either. Hey DAVE, its NOT all about hunting. Its about the Second Amendment, and presenting a unified front.
The number of hunters declines every year. The number of shooters grows. Wake up Dave, and see what direction things are going in.

 

[grampster]

What Petzal said about Brady tactics is true. Even though Zumbo may have deserved what he got, the language and emotion used by posters on the 'net may come back to haunt us much as Zumbo's comments did. Truth has never been a major element in Brady tactics. Twisting things for propaganda purposes is their forte.

The average guy in the street who is not interested in firearms, have no knowledge of the myriad good and fun things that are done with them, are also very willing to believe just about anything. Remember, if you tell the lie long enough, it becomes reality. To lash out at Petzal now probably is not wise.

What we are experiencing is the vast power of mass instant communication. It can work for good or for bad. It can be used as much against us, as for us. Perhaps it would be better if we lobby the gun organizations that we belong to, to reach out to Petzal, Zumbo, et al and spend some money and time having a conversation with them so that they might have a chance to reconsider their positions regarding what exactly the 2A means.

Food for thought, folks.

 

[grampster]

. See above post.

 

[30 cal slob]

Hey Mr. Petzal-Pretzel

Just a friendly cutnpaste for you.

Yeah, I know what you're gonna say, blah blah blah.

Militantly yours,

Slob

IF YOU DON'T VOTE LIKE A GUN OWNER, YOU SUCK

By Peter CarolineZ

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun
owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last
presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we
are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80
million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something
to that group.

Sure, you drive around in a pickup truck with a gunrack and some hairy-chested
bumper stickers, and you talk big at the gun shop or the Legion Hall. But will
you shell out 35 bucks and join the NRA? Oh, you don't agree with the NRA's
stance on this or that, or the NRA is too soft on something or too unyielding on
something else? Or maybe long ago the NRA didn't send you your free cap or
bullet key ring on time. Well, you know what? That's a dumb cop-out and you're
an *******. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is the only...I repeat ONLY,
effective representation you have in the cesspool of Washington politics. Even
the NRA's worst enemies -- YOUR worst enemies if you have the capacity to think
about it -- agree that it's one of the most powerful lobbying forces on Capitol
Hill. That means no one else fights your battles for you better, and if you
don't understand that simple fact, you're too dumb to exist!

OK, you don't give a damn about the NRA but you still want to keep your guns. So
why, in the name of all that is holy, do you vote for "gun-ban" candidates? Oh,
you don't? So who does? Maybe it's all those other people who were voting while
you were sucking a brewski and watching the game on TV. Or maybe you're a good
union guy, and the union votes Democrat.

Some years ago, Mario Cuomo, a dedicated anti-gunner who happened to be governor
of New York, described gun owners in a most uncomplimentary fashion. But the
most damning thing he said about gun owners is that they don't vote, and
therefore should not be considered as a factor in any election. How about that?
Mario Cuomo is a liberal Democrat and, as such, is wrong about most everything,
but he's absolutely right about you. And I can prove it. If you non-voting gun
owners in New York State did get off your asses and vote like gun owners,
obscenities like Mario Cuomo couldn't even be elected as dog catcher. The same
goes for Charles Schumer; he wasn't bad enough as a congressman from Brooklyn;
you dumb schmucks had to let him become a senator! What's next...Hillary?

Then there's my old home state of Massachusetts. Over one million Massachusetts
gun owners must be really proud to claim Teddy Kennedy as their senator. And
John Kerry, the Kennedy clone, is no better. The entire Massachusetts
congressional delegation, both gay and straight, is anti-gun. And you Bay State
gun owners are the dildoes that put them in office! Because you sat on your fat
asses, you've got Chapter 180 -- aptly named because it turns your gun rights
around 180 degrees -- and you've got an attorney general who wants to be
governor and thinks every handgun is a faulty consumer product. Once again,
Massachusetts gun owners, where were you on Election Day?

Look at every state with asinine, repressive gun laws and a preponderance of
anti-gun politicians -- California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland...to cite
several horrible examples -- and you will find enough gun owners to form an
unbeatable voting bloc, IF they would get their thumbs out of their butts and
vote, for a change. Jeez, what a concept!

We all know the excuses: I'm too busy, my vote doesn't count, they're all crooks
and it doesn't make any difference, I gave $5 to Quail Unlimited so I don't need
to vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's the bottom line...your vote does not
count if you don't use it. If you don't vote, then effectively you are on the
same side as Rosie (I'm-not-a-hypocrite) O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Bill and
Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer and every other low-life bottom
feeder who knows what's best for you. If you don't vote like a gun owner, you
are a butt-boy for the anti-gunners, and you bend over forward to please them.

Think about it. 75-80 million gun owners in this country; only 3.6 million NRA
members, and who knows how many active pro-gun-voting gun owners. You can argue
all you want about your inalienable rights. Rights are like body parts; they
only work if you exercise them. And yours are looking pretty flaccid right now.
If you don't vote in the next election, your enemies will elect a president who
will be able to name three or four new Supreme Court justices. Which means that
by the 2004 election, you will have no guns. And shortly after that, you will
have no vote and no rights. And you know what? If you let that happen, it will
be exactly what you deserve!

 

[Selfdfenz]

Is there anyone in the sports publishing business that's not a patrician snob? I guess they're circling the wagons.

Even so, Jim made an immediate apology. He did not equivocate, or qualify, or make excuses. He acted like a gentleman and said he was wrong, and he was sorry.

BS...it was not much of an apology and Zumbo did make excuses.

Apparently this is not enough anymore. We now live in the era of one strike and you're out.

Well guess what? Petzal and F&S just had their free swing as far as I'm concerned. I have no use for any of these guys. They make their living promoting products for anyone with a dollar. Experts? In their own minds I guess.

S-

 

[pacodelahoya]

Geez guys, Jim said he was sorry for sticking that knife in your heart, what more do you want?

 

[El Tejon]

Petzal stabbed us all in the back in '94 and now he is twisting the knife.

Vichy gun owners, blah.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

I agree, we should all maintain the high road (I suspect the comments the Brady Bunch use will come from another source than here).
I guess it is no surprise that this has happened. People like Zumbo and this Petzal guy are not gun people, they are hunters.
I suspect I put more rounds through my guns in a week than they do in a year. They "love" hunting, the gun to them is simply a tool to use in hunting. The foolishness that they espouse, the willingness to toss the rest of the us under the bus to "save" their sport is appalling (which is what Zumbo thought he was doing) is so short-sighted, so idiotic that words fail me.
I am reminded of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Someone should remind Petzal.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Done. Probably a little long, but I believe in equal time.

We The People are in one of the biggest fights in the history of this country. It's not a bloody fight. In many ways, it's worse, because so many aren't aware of it. It's a fight in the halls of Congress and the steps of the White House. It's a fight for many of our basic rights, not just the right to keep and bear arms.

However, the right to keep and bear arms is the most important. It guarantees that even when all of the other rights are outlawed those rights cannot be taken away. This is the most precious of rights, as it guarantees the others.

As Americans, we must stand together in this fight against our rights. The gun community, specifically the online gun community, is, by its nature, at the front lines of the battle. Forums and blogs are letting gun owners know, in real time, when any of their rights are threatened.

But far more dangerous than a law that takes the majority of both the House and Senate as well as the signature of the President is speech. The mainstream media and the radical media outlets have been attacking gun owners for years, and they have been very sucessful at swaying the opinion of the general public. Normally, though, we can count on sport-related media to be on our side, or at least not attack us. When it does, the wounds hurt much more.

An example has to be made that we will not stand for our own kind turning their backs on us. It's a shame that such a knowledgable and well-spoken writer had to be that example. It's a shame that a few, probably short-sighted, words had to end his legacy.

But the example has been made, and you and other writers now know fully the consequences that can be expected for following in his footsteps. We cannot stand divided, and we will not allow it to happen.

 

[taliv]

yeah, grampster, i agree the conversation should remain civil, but we should still have the conversation. and we still need to lash out now. it's time for lashing. the point is that petzal is having the conversation, and he shouldn't have it by himself. we need to participate. and it would be nice if we didn't resort to the low-road like he did, when he compared us to mental patients.

 

[Striker]

Here is my reponse posted to Mr Petzal's sight this morning.

Mr Petzal,

I find your current blog interesting in light of three facts.

1. Your previous comments, stance, and recommendations to readers on "assault weapons", articulated in your "Endangered Tradition" column in Field and Stream, June 1994.
2. Your current support Of Mr Zumbo and his stance on "assault (terrorist) weapons" for hunting.
3. Your latest article on hunting in the Feb F&S issue "Way Out There" on the use of a .50 BMG Grizzly LAR for hunting. I note with interest the last two sentences of the article: "If you are willling to spend the money, and the time, and the effort, it's like no other sport involving gunpowder. You might even say--forgive me-- that you'll get a blast out of it".

Seems you have a personal dichotomy to me at best, but more likely, simply patronizing.

As a result of you and your stance, I have cancelled my F&S subscription. What is one less reader in the grand scheme of F&S? Only you, Sir, can make that determination, but I will sleep better for my actions.

I have provided my e-mail address and welcome any response.

Interesting that the e-mail address listed with my comments is someone elses. My e-mail link is attached to the post after mine. I've contacted the webmaster folks at F&S via telephone and was told that they will correct the attribution problem as soon as possible, but that "they were having some server problems this morning, and that took priority....." Hmmm...I wonder why?

 

[Trip20]

To all the chatroom heroes who made him unemployable, I have a word of warning: You’ve been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place. Today it was Jim’s turn. Tomorrow it may be yours.

If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

That's something worth pondering.

While the second paragraph might be worth pondering in that a number of people could use a dose of civility in their posts regarding Zumbo, I don't see the same virtue in the first paragraph.

Petzal is being dramatic with his "dangerous place" comment, just as Gresham seemed to me with his "eat our own" comment (which Gresham has since retracted).

An America where one is jailed or the government is otherwise responsible for ruining someone with an unpopular opinion -- now that is a dangerous America.

An America where people choose to stop supporting a person with whom they do not agree, via redirecting their consumer dollars -- now that is not dangerous at all. In fact that's healthy in my humble opinion.

I do have an F&S subscription which runs out in March. It will not be renewed.

 

[arthurcw]

You’ve been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place.

No it’s not! D@#*IT! I am getting tired of veiled and not so veiled accusations that what was done was either un-American or against the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment ONLY applies to the GOV-ERN-MENT not to private citizens. We can yell as loud and we want and elect to destroy anyone we want with our money.

All real patriots did was tell him and all associated that they would get NO MORE MONEY from us. He was free to keep speaking his drivel. He IS free to keep speaking his drivel. I’m sure he can get a fine job at the Brady Campaign.

If Zumbo worked for Ford and wrote a blog that stated:

“No true car driver needs a Truck or a Van. Why, they’re big and ugly and use too much fuel. My God they take up too much space in packing lots. Even terrorists use trucks and vans to blow up buildings! All of us right thinking car owners should separate ourselves from those NASCAR loving potential terrorists in Vans and Pick-‘em-up Trucks.”

He’s be out on his arse!

No difference here. These “Sportsman” need to stop defending him and realize that their time as the driving force in the firearms debate is OVER. They fracked it up and we are done with them. We are sick and tired of having the talking points for the 2A argument forced down out throats by elitist snobs with $10000 Shotguns who couldn’t give a rat’s rump about anything but being left alone. I say we grant them their wish. Leave them behind and take up the cause with out them.

I’m not saying throw them under the bus. But they have NOTHING to offer the 2nd so consign them to the fringes of herd. Give them the peace and quite they want to hunt and bury their heads in the sand. The rest of us (hunters and non-hunters alike) will do the job.

OOOH I’m sooooo mad. I’ll edit spelling later. Have to go do something else right now!

 

[Rich K]

AMEN!

 

[Spot77]

I think i read it twice.


I think I read it twice.







(Sorry, couldn't help myself)