Posted on 03/03/2007 1:13:46 PM PST by CondiRice08
A famous hunter and outdoorsman recently voiced misgivings about people who use assault rifles to kill prairie dogs. “Assault rifle” is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises “assault rifle,” considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others’ rights. That is a debate for another day. “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “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.” Until he wrote that, Mr. Zumbo was one of the most admired hunters in America, a widely read magazine writer with his own cable TV program and lots of lecture appearances and corporate sponsorships. He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots. His 250-word posting caused a huge eruption on gun blogs, and Mr. Zumbo instantly became their second-most-hated man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady. He lost his blog, was dumped by Outdoor Life magazine and was disowned by the National Rifle Association, after 40 years of membership. His corporate sponsors, including the gunmaker Remington, ditched him. His cable show was canceled. The N.R.A. issued a chilling statement warning Congress to take heed of Mr. Zumbo’s fate. By the time Blaine Harden told his story in The Washington Post, Mr. Zumbo was professionally dead. The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves.p>
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
>“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.”<
...well it's too bad it's not your decision then eh?
Second amendment? What's that?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794667/posts
Hahahah, I think they meant a "Gum" discussion board.
I like Chiclets.
I think the above article is what you are looking for!
As predicted, zumbo becomes a martyr for the anti-gunners. Thanks again, you stupid old fudd.
"like ar15.com and freerepublic.com"
Fantastic. My two favorite sites on the web.
I think using an AK to hunt a prairie dog is pretty stupid, but I'm not going to try to ban the practice.
Ah, no. Trust the pompous NY Times to get even that one wrong. "Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning and the firearms Zumbo was talking about were not assault rifles. The term that is contrived, meaningless, and subject to outrageous abuse by ignoramuses in both media and government is "assault weapon."
The confusion is natural enough - it's been a deliberate objective of the lying gun control lobby to confuse the two. An assault rifle is a rifle-caliber firearm with select-fire capabilities; i.e. is capable of full-auto fire. An assault "weapon" is anything that somebody who doesn't like how your firearm looks says it is. I realize everyone on this board knows the difference, but just on the off chance that somebody on the staff of the Times might actually want to learn something about the topic, there it is.
I'll check that out. Thanks.
If you can find 2 people on the NYT who have any knowledge of firearms or have fired them I'd be shocked.
2. A bullet fired from a semi-auto military-style rifle in .223 that kills a ground hog = EVIL. The gun and shooter are EVIL, and furthermore, a menace to society. The gun should be confiscated and the owner thrown in prison for life.
Got it?
And you are being paid how much by the groundhogs being shot at?
Nonsense! He has never had more professional opportunities than he has now. Zumbo can easily work this gig into tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees, consecutive NYT best seller lists, and invites to all the best parties in liberaldom.
Zumbo just strapped rockets to his boots.
You saved me some typing.
To believe that the editors of the New York Times don't know the difference is to suggest that they should all be out of work and on welfare.
But it is more likely that they DO know the difference and are purposely obscuring the truth from their readers. For that they deserve to lose their jobs, to suffer tarring and feathering, and to be run out of town on a rail. For a ring-side seat to this, I would pay good money.
If our Founding Fathers returned today, the Republicans would be dragged behind the capitol and shot. The Democrats would next be dragged behind the capitol, tarred, feathered and then shot.
They must be hurting if they have to go after Free Republic to defend their antigun position. Is Free Republic that influencial?
"I realize everyone on this board knows the difference ..."
Don't be so sure. I replied to a Giuliani supporter last night, who was claiming that Giuliani's position on gun control stems from the language of the 2nd Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ..." and that this clearly delegates responsibility for regulation of guns to the states and municipalities. Something tells me that this person wouldn't know an assault rifle from a bb gun.
I am proud to have helped with the undoing of Zumbo. I wrote Remington immediately and got the response I asked for. He was Zumbo'd. Good.
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.