Gun Remark Kills Outdoorsman's Career (WP)

The Washington Post ^ | 24 FEB 07 | Blaine Harden

[xsrdx]

SEATTLE - Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

[driftdiver]

"Is the intent of the 2nd to secure a free state from outsiders or from insiders? I really don't know, but always thought it was the latter."

Without arms a civilian populace lives at the whim of its government. With arms the government (really the individual people in power) know they are there at the whim of the individuals. Nobody wants a civil war or other violent action. When a government starts focusing on what its law abiding citizens are doing its a sure sign of trouble though.

The first action of most distators is to take away individuals firearms.

[Lurker]

Just a thought: a simple bolt-action Enfield MkIII 2a in .308 is more than sufficient for term limits enforcement

I found a neat little scope mount for mine for about $30.00 on the 'net. My gunsmith installed it for another $50.00. It doesn't interfere with the 'crappy' iron sights in the least.

It turned my $125.00 surplus Ishy into a no crap 600 meter rifle. I can hit a ten inch cast iron skillet at that distance every time with it.

Since I put the sporter stock on it (I put that nice wood a good friend sent to me away after lovingly refinishing it by hand) it might even meet with some effete elitist snob like Zumbos approval.

Not that I give a flying f*** what he approves of anyway. Him or Nugent for that matter.

L

[dbehsman]

My comment was meant to make a distinction between “hunting” and general firepower. When I hunt I always select what I consider to be appropriate – I’ve never hunted ground hogs, but I doubt that I select a high-powered assault weapon for that.

Dale, I hate to be rude but you are way off base on your assessment. The .223 cartridge is one of the smallest center fire rifle cartridges out there. In fact I can only think of two other cartridges (this is not including wildcat cartridges of course) that are smaller. The .17 Remington and the .22 Hornet. The .223 is really small, there is no way that it can be classified as "high power". It is not legal to use the .223 for deer hunting in many states (in fact it might even be all states). The reason is that the legislatures think the the cartridge would mostly wound a deer as opposed to killing it outright. Therefore, the legislatures decided that the humane answer was to demand more powerful cartridges should be used. All of this of course is not to say that a .223 cannot work at all for deer hunting. My Grandmother used to use a .222 for deer hunting. For five years, she got five consecutive one shot kills when she hunted deer with her .222. She was bummed when the state banned the use of the .222 for deer hunting. I remember her saying that if idiots just learned how to shoot, they wouldn't wound deer, they would be able to kill them outright. All of that aside (I only posted it for the sake of clarity), never did I ever hear my Grandmother describe the .222 as "high powered". The reason why she like the .222 was because it was very low recoil and comfortable to shoot.

In an earlier post, you said that prairie dogs a large and slow moving. I sure don't think they're "slow", and they are very quick to duck into one of their burrows. As far as size goes, they are not really big. I would say they are about three times the size of a squirrel. They are tiny when you are looking at them from 500 yards out.

The original reason for this discussion was that a renowned sportsman didn’t think using assault weapons to hunt prairie dogs was appropriate. I agree with him.

If you agree with him, then you would also have to say that you don't think any semiautomatics should be used for hunting. There is absolutely no functional difference between a "sporter" semiautomatic and a "assault" semiautomatic. They both work the same, and no amount of horsesh*t from Sarah Brady can change that. The only difference is the color and the pistol grip. Have you ever shot a rifle with a pistol grip? They are much more comfortable to shoot than a typical semi pistol gripped "sporter" rifle.

[dbehsman]

I'm an NRA member and a Republican. I've been both for at least 25 years, cumulative.
The NRA has always been the stupid wing of the stupid party.

Well then as a life member of the NRA, allow me the pleasure to be the first one to invite you to quit. You have no reason to justify that garbage statement. If you're so upset with the NRA, then you can join the GOA, the CCRKBA, the SAF, the JPFO. If you'd like to join up with a milquetoast gun owners group, you can join up with the "Americans for Gun Safety". John McCain is a member as well as George Soros (if I recall correctly). I'm sure you'll be happy there.

[CDHart]

"Huh?????"

This guy wouldn't know an "assauit weapon" if it up and bit him.

Carolyn

[Wonder Warthog]

"The original reason for this discussion was that a renowned sportsman didn’t think using assault weapons to hunt prairie dogs was appropriate. I agree with him."

He (and you) are ignorant. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The correct term is "assault rifle", which has full-auto capability. The SEMI-AUTO rifles differ from other SEMI-AUTO rifles in similar calibers ONLY in cosmetic details.

And yes, .223 "is" a preferred caliber for hunting prairie dogs, coyotes, and other vermin.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So far as the Constitution is concerned, that is the reason for maintaining an armed militia, not for overthrow of the government."

Yes, but it is only ONE of the founding documents of our goverment. The other is the "Declaration of Independence", which IS where the idea comes from. You MUST read the first listed document in the context of the second.

[Russ]

See post #68 before you start belittling people and calling them ignorant. You have been on here long enough to know better. Save that rhetoric for liberals.

[driftdiver]

"So far as the Constitution is concerned, that is the reason for maintaining an armed militia, not for overthrow of the government."

The key point people have trouble with is that our Government gets its powers FROM the people. Powers not given to the Government are retained by the People. And of course the People got the power from the Creator.

[Russ]

"Try it sometime"

I do all the time but how would you know that? Thanks for the advice, though.

[Russ]

Please see post #68. Thanks!

[Terriergal]

Zumbo went so far as to call scary-looking guns

One should ask him why all guns aren't considered 'scary looking.'

[Terriergal]

Which one am I since I own both?

I guess that makes you a 'bi' -- just like Cyrano and me. (smile)

[Terriergal]

Brothers and sisters, I'm with you when it comes to maintaining an armed republic, but we have to work with all our heart and soul to preserve the Union, not bandy about ideas of overthrowing the government.

That's all nice and warm-fuzzy sounding but at what point, just out of curiosity, would you say it *would* be wise to start thinking about armed resistance? (Obviously it was thought about a long time ago already, when the 2nd amendment was penned, and before that). It would be rather unwise to wait until they are laying seige to your property. (e.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.)

[Terriergal]

lol!! It's an appetizer AND a party lite!

[Terriergal]

the .223 is what the AR15 fires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Somewhere between a .22 and .243 (in some states if I'm not mistaken .243 is the lowest caliber allowed for deer, and I think others allow the .223 ... perhaps because the deer are smaller bodied in southern states...? but I'm not 100 percent on that)

[U S Army EOD]

Actually I think anything bigger than a good varmint rifle is overkill.

[from occupied ga]

Destructive devices are not "banned" under Federal law. They only require registration and a $200.00 transfer or "making" tax.

Is the tax on the device or the ammo or both?

[from occupied ga]

from the so-called "apology."

I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes

The dipsh.. STILL doesn't understand. Your desire to own one is all you need, the 2nd amend ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING! (Unless you count hunting armored limos- Henry Waxman's fear :-)

I'd say that either Dumbo Zumbo is terminally stupid or terminally stubborn or both.

[Poser]

"If the founders intended us to be able to overthrow the government by force any time we felt like it, why did they put in a clause to allow Congress to call forth the militia to quell just such an insurrection?"

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our Declaration of Independence says we have the right abolish and reorganize our Constitution whenever Government gets out of control. The Constitution is the best attempt of some pretty smart people to keep the government from getting out of control. The bill of rights includes the tools we need to control government, including arms to "alter or abolish it."

If you don't recall, our current Constitution is the second form of government. The founders threw out the first one in 1789.