Posted on 02/20/2007 11:04:03 AM PST by holymoly
Jim Zumbo angers firearm enthusiasts.
Legendary hunting writer Jim Zumbo has incurred the wrath of thousands of shooting enthusiasts with a weekend posting on his now-suspended blog for Outdoor Life magazine.
In the posting, Zumbo said "assault rifles" (or "terrorist" rifles as he went on to refer to them) had "no place" among "our hunting community." Adding that in his "humble opinion…these things have no place in hunting" because "We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."
Zumbo went on to say "game departments should ban them from the praries (sic) and woods."
That kicked off a firestorm among owners of so-called "black rifles". Within hours, internet sites had reproduced the offending blog, kicking off thousands of angry emails and internet postings.
Subsequently, in what may one day be classified as the worst apology ever written (aptly titled "I was wrong, BIG TIME") Zumbo attempted to soothe readers, attributing his remarks to being tired following a long day of hunting coyotes in extreme weather conditions.
He went on recount his 40 years of NRA membership and the United States Sportsmen's Alliance, an organization, which, he wrote, "actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter's rights." He also told readers he had plans to go hunting with an AR-style rifle to give them a try.
At that point, however, there was little, if anything, that would assuage an angry horde of electronically mobilized AR fans. They considered Zumbo's remarks as being tantamount to a sellout, with Zumbo offering up "black rifles" as a sacrificial lamb for anti-gun forces.
In an appearance on Tom Gresham's national radio show "Gun Talk" Sunday afternoon, Zumbo attempted to apologize, but listeners didn't seem to be buying his verbal apology. If anything, any attempt to assuage them only fanned the flames of outrage.
Over the course of the afternoon and evening, various executives associated with Zumbo posted their own comments on his blog site, attempting to deflect the anger at directed at Zumbo away from their companies.
It didn't work.
Instead, they found themselves under attack with angry feedback calling for everything from a boycott of all Remington products (a pair of Remington execs were mentioned as having been with Zumbo on his now ill-fated hunting trip) to cancellation of Outdoor Life magazine subscriptions and campaigns against all companies with connections to Zumbo.
Yesterday morning, responding to an onslaught of negative publicity, Remington CEO and President Tommy Millner released a statement severing "all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo, effective immediately."
Zumbo was entitled to his opinion, Millner wrote, but the inflammatory comments were solely his and did not reflect the views of Remington.
"Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms, " wrote Millner, "and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights. As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights."
In conclusion, Millner expressed regret at the termination of a long-standing relationship with a "well-respected writer and life-long hunter."
Outdoor Life announced they were discontinuing the "Hunting With Zumbo" blog "for the time being" due to the "controversy surrounding Jim Zumbo's latest postings."
Their notice went on to remind readers "Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting."
Yesterday, anyone who didn't comment risked being lumped in with anti-gun forces. Any voices calling for reason and tolerance found themselves shouted down. And those writers professing support for Mr. Zumbo privately certainly weren't willing to go on the record with that support.
Additionally, Cabela's has not yet dropped their sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show, Cabela's Frank Ross is being quoted as having said their legal department is "currently reviewing contractual obligations and commitments regarding our sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show. "
"Jim's comments are as unfortunate as they are inappropriate," said National Shooting Sports Foundation president Doug Painter. "No one should divide firearms into good-gun, bad-gun categories."
Zumbo's ill-considered blog may not have been intended to create good-gun, bad-gun categories, but it has certainly raised firebrand rhetoric to an art form. Rather than hunters being supported by recreational and competitive shooting enthusiasts, they have now become "Fudds" to shooters who feel they have been labeled "terrorists" by a "hard-core hunter."
It's truly not a pretty picture, but may observers say it accurately reflects a widening gap between "traditional" and "non-traditional" shooting enthusiasts.
With Congress reconsidering the Assault Weapon Ban and Connecticut and New Jersey considering legislation that would limit handgun purchases to one per month, this latest schism is already being used as further evidence of the "need" to regulate firearms -all firearms - more stringently.
Hunting what?
Hey , I should be able to hunt whatever I want, and if it takes a semi auto with a large capacity mag, its none of HIS bidness.
Another lie from the Horndog. He was never a Life Member of NRA.
it's the "Goldilocks Gun Theory" proposed by the libs: "it's too small" (concealable),
"it's too big"(it could shoot down airliners,etc)
"jussst right" you ask? (no such gun)
about the same answer you'd get if you ask a lib how much spending per pupil would be enough for public schools.
There are a number of privately owned tanks.
"There is no reason for any hunter to have a war weapon. With the terrorism that we have to deal with today the risk of allowing such weapons is too great."
EVERY hunting firearm of today was once "a war weapon". But the specific firearms in question are NOT "war weapons"--they just look like them. The difference is that today's "war weapons" have "full automatic fire" capability. The firearms in question do not have such capability.
Study up and relieve your blatant ignorance.
<> I support the constitution and the right to bear arms.But there must be reasonable restrictions.Only our military should have assault weapons and of course other law enforcement agencies as well.
The point is that if all the bad guys had "war weapons", you, as a law-abiding citizen, will be left with nothing comparable for which to defend yourself. The bad guys (domestic or international) will get the weapons even if they are deemed "illegal". That's what bad guys do.
Assuming that comment was not in jest...
You need to educate your self about firearms. I suggest you start with my Freeper homepage, and go from there.
By making statements such as this, you are simply displaying your ignorance.
Just as there is no reason to own a vehicle than can exceed the legal speed limit.
I think that line was drawn in the 30's with the NFA. The bazooka argument is specious.
Draw your own line and while you're at it, post a "No Guns Here" sign in your front yard.
Can you even define 'assault weapon'?
Yes, actually there is - because he or she desires to. That is all the reason necessary.
Not necessary, there is a guy along side my local off ramp who parks his curbside almost daily.
Cute little thing. (The tank)
PS: I still think this was a Remington attempt to shill it's .17 Cal varmint round that went terribly wrong.
There is no serious difference between the two. Each category may be optimized for certain activities, but lack of optimization does not make them useless for those activities. Plenty of people do a fine job of a given task when using the "wrong" tools, as they all do the job suitably.
And yes, while a tank may be a bit much, I am looking for a howitzer.
It's not about hunting.
The line is what a U.S. infantryman carries for weaponry.
So we should roll over and play dead when the terrorists that the pacifists let into this country start picking us off in shopping malls? Oh wait, I just read something about that too. It seems that the owners of that mall didn't think anyone had need of a gun either.
The funny thing about rights, that I wouldn't expect one of the sheeple to understand, is that they are not predicated upon what someone else recognizes as another person's "need". The rights are ours based on our humanity, and though the government infringes on them they cannot truly take them away.
Can we get a rousing AMEN? A-M-E-N, Brudder!!! I'm sick and tired of having the folks I volunteer to help get elected turn around and STAB me in the back and tell me it's for the good of the nation. IOW, Don't PI$$ down my back and tell me it's rainin'! That goes double for "journalists" who claim to support the Second Amendment. Zumbo shot himself in the foot on full auto. He deserves to feel our pain for quite awhile.
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.