Posted on 02/25/2007 9:19:57 PM PST by Mike THE BEAR Chavez
Remington to Sever Sponsorship Ties with Jim Zumbo
Madison, North Carolina – As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do 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 and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights,” commented Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO and President. “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.”
We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.
(Excerpt) Read more at remington.com ...
I never even heard of Jim Zumbo, so I googled him. He seems to be one of the most reviled names in America. Perhaps Outdoor Life is jumping the shark like the Weather Channel seems to have done.
Outdoor life has always been very liberal.
It's not a matter of whether but when the MSM will make hay out of this. "Look! Big Guns and Big Money! The Scandal!"
This is an interesting story, and though I don't agree with Zumbo, I think his position has been exagerrated.
He didn't call for ownership of the assault weapons in question to be outlawed, he called for them to be illegal for hunting purposes.
Bad call, but...there is a large difference there in terms of an attack on the 2nd amendment.
There are a lot of restrictions on the use of certain weapons for hunting. There are also restrictions on how certain weapons must be set up, like plugging a shotgun so it only holds 3 shells. It's probably still illegal to hunt deer in Texas with a .22 also. I just give these as examples.
I wouldn't consider a full-auto weapon to be sporting, myself.
The firearms he was talking about are semi-auto not full auto. Why do I have to make that correction on FRee Republic?
Thanks for the correction.
It's best to mind one's words on these 2A threads. Folks here are on a hair trigger and they're all probably armed as well!
"I wouldn't consider a full-auto weapon to be sporting, myself."
Err, they're not 'full auto' weapons. They're semi auto weapons with features that make liberals wet their pants. Scary things like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and detachable magazines. Oh my!
See post 9.
I expected to get flamed on the central point, so I'm pleasantly surprised, actually.
Uh, so far.
I've got to admit I'm not up on all these fancy weapons, I only use a .22 and 12 gauge these days.
That was not the impression I got about his stance from reading the original article. Maybe I missed that while scanning it.
I don't have the article in front of me, but the pertinent sentence talked out outlawing the weapons in the "praires and mountains" I believe, which I took to mean ban their use for hunting. I don't think he said anything about outlawing the weapons for ownership. I'm going to search now, I want to make sure I'm right about that.
Dumb idea he had, he was worried that libs would be freaked out by hunters with such weapons. I don't buy that as a reason to worry. Libs typically don't like anything that shoots, so what's the difference?
I think all this attention could be counter productive though. One guy's statement in a magazine read by hunters is not going to affect gun legislation.
But keep it in the light long enough, the libs might stumble on it. Don't need that...
Didn't find the entire article, but found excerpts, including the pertinent sentence where he called for outlawing:
"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 prairies and woods."
The issue isn't Zumbo's opinion on what's sporting and what isn't. Most sportsmen and game departments already agree with him there. His sin was declaring that a weapon that isn't sporting is a "terrorist rifle". We get enough of that crap from the urban bedwetters as it is. If he feels that way then he can pick up Soros to sponsor him instead, his views would fit right in over there.
Although to play semantics games for a moment, if my "deer rifle" is for shooting deer and my "squirrel rifle" is for shooting squirrels that would make a "terrorist rifle" a pretty good thing to keep around.
You are no smarter than he. These are not "assault weapons" to start with. That was his mistake and it looks like you don't know the difference either. It's okay for you not to know but he is a outdoor and firearm writer and this shows his ignorance.
Just out of curiousity, anyone got any idea of what this translates to in terms of dollars - loss of income (let alone loss of free trips, free rifles etc) ?
There have been a few dopes popping up to defend zumbo-dumbo lately. They remind me of RINOS.
Nobody was talking about full auto. He called AR-15 owners "terrorists".
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.