Posted on 02/18/2007 11:32:57 AM PST by xsrdx
As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
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. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
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."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
The latest blog by Zumbo at the link for the story has him backpedaling big time.
I assume accurized means to enhance the accuracy of the rifle. Who does this work? What do they do?
I made that same point about deer rifles on a hunting forum where I'd been a member for a year, once and got called an animal rights wacko... people started telling me I was anti-2nd amendment when hunting has nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights.
Also got called an animal rights wacko for suggested it wasn't a good idea for someone to kill his neighbor's annoying cat... not because I felt sorry for the cat, but because it could start a whole lot of trouble! Serve the owner with papers for the damage the cat does. But killing it would be a bad idea.
In any case, hunting and 2nd amendment are not related in anything except that we can use the same tool for each activity.
As is all types of propaganda from the leftists!
Thats why I let my subscription expire years ago
I had a guy here once from NZ. He said only gun they were allowed to keep at home was 22's. Everyone had 10-22's. I had him out herdin up or better yet chasing caribou on snowmachines and shooting alot of different guns. He enjoyed himself.
I ain't got a problem with that really. Just helps me distinguish between a regular hunting rifle and a really cool looking hunting rifle.
Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.
Some of those "assault" rifles have the same caliber as your esteemed "hunting" rifle. Only difference to most people is the looks.
I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.
And with that sentance you crossed the line a-hole. So now what anyone that owns an "assault" rifle is a terrorist.
Molon Labe buddy, Molon Labe
While I understand what you mean, I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that there's anything contradictory here. Take a look at these:
Congressional Oath of Office:
I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Presidential Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Military Officers' Oath of Office
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Please note that NOWHERE in any of these oaths are the statement to protect, support, or uphold the government of the United States. Especially in the case of the Presidential Oath of Office which is set in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), which I believe means that the Founders did not hold a lot of faith in those who would be eventually elected to office. By mentioning ONLY the Constitution, and the wording in Second Amendment, I believe that the founders were saying that once "the people" realized that the government was openly violating the Constitution, it was their duty to remove them from office, and restore the government to one that actually followed it.
I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Mark
he sure is. bet he recieved a little call from remington and was told how it was going to be from now on.
I've used AR-15's on prairie dogs to white-tail deer for over ten years and never had a problem.
"We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."
Seems to me that you are the one doing the lumping. Thanks for the help and support, Zumbo. Your cookbook is going in the lit fireplace just as soon as I can find it. Better yet, I need a little target practice.
As far as bag limits, if there were none, it would be easy to thin animal population. And that has nothing to do with dumbing down hunters. Limiting someone to lets say 2 deer, if every hunter got 3, that would be a 50% increase and could destroy animal populations.
It doesn't take much to figure, we have x amount of deer, so we'll allow y amount of hunters, to get z amount.
The alternative would be, that 4 guys go hunting for a week. They each bag 5 deer. Not because they're trigger happy, but they each have families at home they feed. If everyone who hunted did that the deer population would get ruined. It has nothing to do with wisdom or lack of wisdom. I might need/could use 5 deer. I have no idea the needs or desires of my neighbor, or the entire hunting community.
To compare bag limits with gun limits is irrational. They are to different issues.
As far as seasons go, that is tough. There can be arguments for both sides of that one.
Personally I think someone should have the right to hunt on their own land anytime they want. If they need/want a fresh deer in July, they should have at it.
Back to gun limits, why should Uncle Sally care how many rounds I have.
A comparable argument would be, we have a 55 or 65, maybe 70 mph speed limit. That means cars with v-8, v-10, or v-12 engines cause people to drive to fast, so we should outlaw all cars with large engines, and mandate manufacturers to put limiters in cars that would limit cars to speed limits dictated by sensors placed in the roads. Any one with a beautiful shiny Ferrari, capable of 160 mph, should turn it in. (as well as anybody with a motorcycle that can do the same)
Just because there are 2 million deer doesn't mean I'm going to shoot them all. But 50,000 deer hunters shooting 5 deer each would decimate the population. So a bag limit is set.
And just because I have 50 rounds in my gun doesn't mean I'm going to pull the trigger at every moving leaf.
Like wise, driving 70 mph, on a two lane road, in a residential area, in a school zone with 6 year old kids around isn't wise. Some kid is going to get killed. So a regulation (speed limit) is established, to protect the neighborhood.
Now my car has the capability of doing 70 mph on the highway and also doing 70 mph in the school zone. Should everybodies car be taken away from them in a school zone?
In a school zone, a cop doesn't care what your car CAN do, he cares what its doing in the speed zone.
Why does a ranger or DNR agent care how many bullets your gun CAN shoot. Its how many you shoot at a moment in time.
An AR can be PERFECT for prairie dogs.
I think I'll write this idiot, and say that hunting with a rifle isn't sporting, and if he's using anything more modern than a simple bow, and arrows with heads made of flaked flint, then he's NOT a "REAL" hunter! Buy using his "sniper rifle," he's giving "REAL" hunters a bad name!
Mark
A country club CINO.
Zumbo now writes:
I was wrong, BIG TIME
Someone once said that to err is human. I just erred, and made without question, the biggest blunder in my 42 years of writing hunting articles.
My blog inflamed legions of people I love most..... hunters and shooters. Obviously, when I wrote that blog, I activated my mouth before engaging my brain.
Let me explain the circumstances surrounding that blog. I was hunting coyotes, and after the hunt was over and being beat up by 60 mph winds all day, I was discussing hunting with one of the young guides. I was tired and exhausted, and I should have gone to bed early. When the guide told me that there was a "huge" following of hunters who use AR 15's and similar weapons to hunt prairies dogs, I was amazed. At that point I wrote the blog, and never thought it through.
Now then, you might not believe what I have to say, but I hope you do. How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don't know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.
I never intended to be devisive, and I certainly believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. I've been an NRA member for 40 years, have attended 8 national NRA conventions in the last 10 years, and I'm an advisory board member for the United States Sportsmen's Alliance which actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter's rights.
What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I'm taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.
When I started blogging, I was told to write my thoughts, expressing my own opinion. The offensive blog I wrote was MY opinion, and no one else's. None of the companies that I deal with share that opinion, nor were they aware of what I had written until this firestorm started.
Believe it or not, I'm your best friend if you're a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way. I simply screwed up. And, to show that I'm sincere about this, I just talked to Ted Nugent, who everyone knows, and is a Board member of the NRA. Ted is extremely active with charities concerning our wounded military, and though he's known as a bowhunter, Ted has no problem with AR 15's and similar firearms. My sincerity stems from the fact that Ted and I are planning a hunt using AR 15's. I intend to learn all I can about them, and again, I'm sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth.
February 18, 2007
woukd that be the US Army?
For years, I've been waiting for them (the "gun grabbers") to go after them... I have no doubt the direction it will take.
"These are the same sorts of guns used to assassinate John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
I have NO DOUBT that it will eventually happen.
Mark
My blog inflamed legions of people I love most..... hunters and shooters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.