Zumboing David Petzal

[hso]

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.

We can be a great force for change, but we can also be our worst enemy if we don't consider how our words will be used by our enemies.

 

[taliv]

mark henkel @ montana outdoors/billingsgazette weighs in

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/02/22/features/outdoors/30-mont-outdoors.txt

it's a fairly reasonable article, but also misses the point.

 

[mpmarty]

Time out!!!

Sorry to interrupt the feeding frenzy, how 'bout we do something constructive?
Offer the offenders an opportunity to donate time and dollars to the NRA.
Offer the sponsors to show their good faith by doing the same with the dollars they would have spent on the TV show or Magazine ads, send it to the NRA.
And while we're at it, I just upped my life membership to endowment. In the words of Richard Nixon "I upped mine, now up yours"!:banghead:

 

[koja48]

Petzal, et al

Unfortunately, there are those within the firearm fraternity who don't quite comprehend that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting; it's about the right to keep and bear arms. Suggesting a compromise to what is specifically allowed under the 2nd in hope of safeguarding other firearms is foolish at best. Compromise will only initiate the further erosion of those rights. He is not the enemy, although his thoughts may offer "comfort and support." Write to your congressional representatives, do it often, encourage others to do so, join your local gun club, join the NRA, get & stay involved! As a group, should responsible gun owners, hunters, shooters, collectors fail to offset the foe, periodicals such as Field & Stream may be faced with abridging their title in the future to "Stream." And I would strongly suggest adopting an immediate aversion to name-calling; even if those you wish to debate opt to lower themselves to avail of that tactic, don't debase yourself by countering in-kind. With gun ownership comes responsibility. Make your point, but don't weaken that point by associating the delivery with unsavory insults or epithets. Give not our opponents stones to hurl against us. Finis.

 

[armoredman]

Money will be sent to NRA and GOA on payday, if I can squeeze the nickle until the buffalo poops.

 

[JWarren]

I did do something. I upped to lifetime NRA member, joined GOA, and JPFO (even though I am not Jewish-- they still are happy to have ya and fight hard!) I also volunteered to operate as NRA-ILA grassroots coordinator for my congressional district.

That said, I WILL not let up on ANYONE that calls for BANS on MY legal rights whether it be 2nd A, or ethical hunting. Our dollars and support are the only real political power we have in this world, and if you do not use it, you are allowing yourself to be defeated.

The Civil Rights Movement was not successful because everyone was calm and did not display any outrage.


This is my only comment on the F&S Blog:

Posted by: no more F@S | February 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I will not rehash all the other comments on here. I do want to call out one particular quote:

"i would never consider someone an ethical hunter if they were carrying an AR or AK."

And what grounds do you have for this? Jesus! You are as much of the problem as anyone. It seems that people like this actually think that using a military style hunting rifle means you MUST fire off 20 or 30 rounds with your eyes closed at a deer while hunting!

You seem to equate "ability" with "action."

Here's a freaking newsflash for you:

My father uses a Remington 7400 30-06 deer hunting. It has a 5 round detachable box magazine. I assure you that he has NEVER sprayed his 5 rounds at a deer. He takes aim and makes a clean kill.

*I* hunt with an AK-47 style rifle that is chambered in 308 Winchester. My rifle holds 1 MOA, and I hunt with a 5 round detachable box magazine. I assure you that I have never emptied ANY rifle at a freaking deer. I pride myself on my marksmanship, and it utterly disgusts me to think of the animal having to suffer-- so I make clean kills with SINGLE shots.

I swear to God... some of the ignorance...

While we are talking about ethics...

Let me tell you something... What is more ethical? Me being ABLE to take a follow-up shot on an animal if I happen to wound it in order to minimize any pain, or you following a blood trail for a mile when you make a crappy shot?

Let's talk about HUNTING practices...

Some of the same people saying that I should not have the ability to make a follow-up shot are the SAME people that practice dog hunting where the go somewhere and dump out a half dozen hounds to chase deer for miles until they are practically running dead from exhaustion. I personally do not consider this ethical hunting, but it is a common practice.

I particularly LOVE when I am on MY property (~1,000 acres wooded) and see a pack of DOGS run through my hunting field chasing deer on MY property. Don't talk to me about ethics.


Here is an idea. Hunt the way you want and leave us the hell alone. Zumbo fired the shot across OUR bow-- we didn't start this.

People claim WE ruined his career?? No... we CHOOSE not to spend our hard-earned money with people who do not support us. That is CHOICE. If there are consequences to that, the burden is not ours to bear.

I'll be watching this closely, as I am reevaluating my support again. I have a subscription to F&S for my front office of my practice. That may well change.


John Warren

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

only1asterisk said: No, it really isn't.

Really? You know pondering means thinking right? So you won't even think about it? That's real smart.

 

[Man-O-War]

I agree. We should word our responses carefully and thoughtfully. However, Sarah Brady and company already liken us to child killers and mass murders, so I don't think the contents of a few silly posts is gonna make us look worse than that.

I also don't think we should let up. I am a hunter, but I realize the hunters are throwing us to the wolves again. Those that are influencing them must be taken to task. Sending some emails is an easy thing to do. Don't give in to the "let's not go too far" attitude. The Democrats are in power. An assault weapons bill is being considered. More WILL follow. Do SOMETHING to keep your rights from being sacrificed by a bunch of uninformed hunters. My brethren must be forced to see the light.

 

[arthurcw]

We can be a great force for change, but we can also be our worst enemy if we don't consider how our words will be used by our enemies

I agree. Now time to trot out my big old "but".

But, while I do worry about that, I do see how you can dwell too much on that. That is one of the things happening in Iraq. You've got too many chefs worrying about how we'll look if we just let the Military fight the stupid war. You know there is a ton of political pressure to keep it neat. So instead of any major military victories to report, we only get the "another widow" reports. I know that is not all that is wrong over there but that part of the stupidity relates to the paralyzing force that kind of thinking can have on the pro 2A community.

I think we've played prevent defense too long. Some of our crowd are going to get too rowdy, that's life. We have to smack them down at the same time we go after the enemy. That’s just a fact of war. And yes, this is war, make no mistake about that. We are going to get the “widow reports” when one (or many) of supposed 2A supporters crosses the line, but we are going to get that anyway. So we need to keep pushing and put some victories against the Brady types and the Fudds up on the board too.

As show by the willingness of other “sportsman” writers to support Zumbo, we still have some fighting to do. It’s terrible that in a time like this we have to fight our own insurgents as well as a well armed enemy at the gates. But that is the job set out before us.

 

[hso]

Let's be sure to keep this idea in mind when we post on controversial topics and individuals -

Post in haste and repent forever!

We don't want to stop the conversation, but we don't want to give the enemy any ammo to use against us.

 

[romma]

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.

I wonder if Dave Petzal offered up Sarah Brady this lead?

 

[JWarren]

Well said Hso.



John

 

[arthurcw]

I guess my point is that in a fight, we are going to give ammo to the enemy. We can't stop that. We don't rule an army of robots that do exactly what we say. Add to that that this is the internet and you have no idea who's posting.

If you fight a war like this, you will have ammo handed on a silver platter to the enemy. I can't think of a way to stop it. The only thing we can do is when we see it on a Blog/site, we call it out as well.

 

[ojibweindian]

Anybody have a list of Petzal's sponsors?

 

[ryoushi]

Swarovski Optik have a banner add at the top of his blog they have also been mute on the whole Zumbo mess and are one of his few remaining sponsers.

http://www.swarovski.com/index/?content=Swarovski+Group/Press/Swarovski+Optik

 

[.45Guy]

We don't want to stop the conversation, but we don't want to give the enemy any ammo to use against us.

What is the lesser of two evils? For the overwhelming majority of eloquent, and well thought out posts, there are a few that are very low road indeed. But is there more danger from this, or an individual considered a bastion in the hunting and firearms community espousing the ban of EBR's?

 

[Man-O-War]

I can't believe how many people are afraid "we might give the enemy ammo" if we say anything. This is a fight and it will be an ugly mess. The only way it won't be ugly is if you we LOSE because everyone was too scared to get in the fray. If people won't fight and accept that there will be some bloody noses, we WILL most definitely lose our rights, and maybe deservedly so. If we won't fight for it, we don't deserve it.

 

[hso]

You don't surrender the field to the anti's you just make sure of your weapons and tactics before you take the field if you want to win. Be passionate and forceful in the fight (you have to be to win), but not hot headed and out of control.

 

[ojibweindian]

For the past several years, I've bought Outdoor Life and Field and Stream from a news stand. I've not minded paying the full news stand price, because I like the flexibility to be able to pick and choose what issues I want laying around the house.

On average, I've probably bought 4-6 issues of each publication per year. Now, with Zumbo and Petzal "outing" themselves for what they are, I'll not buy another issue of either publication.

Oh, and I've also committed myself to buying at least one new Remington firearm this year, soley because of their reaction to Zumbo.

I really would like to know what products are endorsed by Petzal, so that I can avoid them should the manufacturers decide to not distance themselves from him.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

What we have here is failure to communicate:

From Petzal's blog comments:

J. Zumbo may have been very caustic in his rant, but essentially he was correct. AR and AK prefixed rifles are basically inaccurate because the chambers cut so large to operate. Guess the days where we have John Browning’s are over. These guns’ chamberings really have no place in the field, neither. Plus, seldom do hunters have confrontations with large, attacking enmasse whitetail deer, pronghorn, or elk requiring large capacity magazines. Declaring these guns as sporting arms is fanciful.

I am a member of the NRA and many other hunting and conservation organizations but I would never use an AK or AR for deer hunting. Why? Because it's just stupid. I might as well hunt in a petting zoo and tie my animals to a pole. We have thousands of very excellent options for hunting and AK's and AR's are not one of them.

It is bizarre how all the pro-Zumbo folks avoid the entire RKBA/terrorist-rifle issue, and instead focus on:

1) Zumbo has a right to say whatever he wants
2) Military rifles are no good for hunting because they're ineffective, and yet somehow miraculously so effective that they're unfair, at the same time
3) Okay, okay, they're good for hunting, and Zumbo will try one out

-MV

 

[uriel]

Sent A Message

ojibweindian, I also get my mags from the newstand, and eading your post made me want to send an email to F&S, so I did. Now I'm going to their home page and send one to each of their advertisers as well. Let's see what kind of response we get...

David Petzal, Field & Stream executive editor who convinced F&S to support the Handgun Control Inc/Brady campaign during the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban now is throwing his support behind Jim Zumbo and comparing people who support the Second Amendment to mental patients.

First of all, the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about hunting. It doesn’t say anything about guns either. Or tomahawks, knives, baseball bats, fishing rods or steel and wood longarms.

But still, they don’t get it. The one right which ensures all the others is frowned upon from their ivory blind, filled with handmade weapons for the aristocrats on their $15,000 “safaris”.

Publications such as this employ them, and thrive through advertising revenue. Advertisers which support your magazine support your positions, and the positions of your writers. While I buy your magazine, as well as others, from the newsstand, and have purchased Swarovski crystal and other vendors wares in the past, I will not do so now unless those advertisers who willingly share my money are also willing to share my values. And disavow the call to legitimize hunting and criminalize anything less.

No action is necessary on you part, most of these vendors have websites and I will be happy to notify them. Thank you.

I suspect if even half of us sent an email to even half the advertisers, the response would be profound. Any responses could then be posted for all members to see who supports us and who doesn't.

 

[ojibweindian]

Uriel

Just sent a message myself:

F&S

It has recently come to my attention that one of your editors, Dave Petzal, stated in 1994 that

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.

This, of course, is unacceptable to supporters of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, Petzal's recent F&S blog, written in support of Jim Zumbo, indicates that Petzal, after all these years, still fails to understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not soley to protect the ownership of sporting arms, but all firearms that can be used to protect the citizen from others, and from government gone frighteningly awry.

I must say because of the comment made in 1994, and because of the apparent lack of understanding he displayed (in his most recent F&S blog defending Zumbo) as to the real intent of the Second Amendment, I will cease purchasing more issues of Field and Stream until he is either released, or has made the appropriate appologies to gunowners (with the appropriate amount of pennance).

 

[Geno]

Zumbo"mania"...note the psychiatric implication right from the title...

The author has selected a psychiatric positing from the conception of the title right through the body of text. "Mania"? O'kay. A quick reread of my posts, for example, shows about as-calm and reflective a reaction-as can be envisioned. I too agree that calls for violence, if they happened, are appalling! That should never happen, and if truly they did, that is just wrong. That aside, I still assert that, I will not give my moral/financial support to such attacks, nor to companies that support it. Perhaps Field and Stream should be added to my list of do-not-buy. Was that "manic"? No, but it was perhaps "compulsive".

Doc2005

 

[arthurcw]

Oh, and I've also committed myself to buying at least one new Remington firearm this year, soley because of their reaction to Zumbo

.

Me too. The key here is when you do, tell the company. They need to know the positive side as well as the negative side of what we do with our money.

 

[only1asterisk]

taurusowner,

Sir/Madam, your tone is insulting. I disagree with you. Pondering has specific meaning. In your context it took it to mean careful, serious contemplation over time. The test you highlighted is certainly not worthy of that effort.

As to the idea that what people say in regard to Mr. Zumbo could be critical evidence used to support in a serious discussion of policy, that is unlikely.
First, unattributed rants on the erronet carry no weight. Second, our adversaries lie on a regular basis and their lies are taken as fact. Third, for this to matter you have to assume that there are people in DC that can be swayed by the facts.

No pondering required.