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.
The idiot Zumba (and others, too, apparently) embrace the misapprehension that the Second Amendment is either about hunting or involves a privilege granted by the government. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. The Second Amendment idoes NOT involve a privilege granted by government. The Second Amendment is a critical aspect of the American system of checks and balances which seeks to curb the historically established and long-proven tendency of those in government to arrogate powers to themelves which are not theirs. The Second Amendment explicitly preserves a God-given right, for the preservation of which "governments are created on earth, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It would seem that all too many have forgotten what America stands for - Zumba among them.
So do you actually think that the second amendment exists to protect our right to hunt?!?! Seriously, do some research. Your teachers have been lying to you.
Yes. It was delicious.
Seriously, there's an all-too-large segment of the Realtree crowd and the engraved over-under crowd that had better think long and hard about their attitudes about shooters outside their segment of the sport.
Zumbo's snobbery gave a big club with which the likes of Sarah Brady will beat the Second Ammendment until it is no more.
Shooters must either hang together or hang seperately. Period.
You are on the wrong website. I think you wanted www.commie.com
> I support the constitution and the right to bear arms.
If you are serious, and it begins to appear that you are, you do not understand the second amendment.
The idea is to arm the militia, or private citizens suitable for military service, with military weapons so that in a time of need they will be ready to serve and protect the nation.
If you think that idea is out of date, you are also ignorant of the current national and world situation and there is no help for you. Sorry.
As Congress has seen fit to unilaterally declare me part of the militia, yet neglect my equipping and training, it's up to me to prepare for action - especially as if I'm called up, there certainly won't be suitable arms nor time to train.
As such, I want an M4 and an M777. Don't worry, I'll pay for them.
Bang!
Mule deer, white tail... anything you could hunt with a .30-30 Winchester can be hunted with a AKS/AK, chambered in 7.62x39.
In fact, on one of the gun forums I was just browsing, some guy had posted a pic of a beautiful buck he took with his SKS.
Guess what, the right to hunt does not exist. The right to own weapons that may be practical for the overthrow of our government DOES exist. War weapons are militia weapons, and our founding fathers are clear in their desire that the common man have access to them.
Any other opinion is ignorance of history. Read some quotes from our founding fathers if you think I am wrong.
You need to acquait yourself with the differences between a true assault weapon and a military-styled sporter rifle that the civilian populace is allowed to own before you post your ignorant drivel.
Just wondering: Why do you think the framers of the Constitution thought we should have firearms?
Quite the contrary - it is the possession of such weapons in sufficient quantities throughout the populace that will cause a terrorist or whackjob to rethink his attack.........
It does here in Virginia. We added it to our state constitution a few years ago
Rhino Rudy Giuliani agrees with Zumbo.
Go figure.
Solid proof that you have no idea why the first amendment even exists.
i use an AR on 'chucks and coyotes.
coyotes around here are starting to band up and attack people, so yes, i'll feel alot more comfortable knowing i have quicker follow-up shots, and a larger capacity than my 700.
Who's waiting?
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.