Posted on 03/05/2007 9:08:35 AM PST by girlangler
On Saturday, the editorial page of the New York Times announced its having taken note of what is now being called "the Zumbo event." The editorial writer wasted little time in establishing that Mr. Zumbo had only written about the unacceptability of using assault rifles to kill prairie dogs.
Prairie dogs, "everyone knows" are "chubby North American rodents that live in a communal burrow and grows to be about a foot long." From that Bambi-esque description of the prairie dog, the editorial quickly establishes the identity of the Wicked Witch in this firearms fairy tale: the assault rifle. After all, it "is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news."
"The gun lobby" it continued, "hates the term 'assault rifle,' considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons used by people who want to take away others' rights."
That description caused what the Times describes as a "huge eruption on gun blogs" that turned Zumbo into the "second-most-hated-man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady."
From there, you can probably predict the outcome of the story: "irrational" and "paranoid" gun owners set out to destroy Mr. Zumbo, accomplishing their goal in short-order, then "gloating " about their evil deed.
As evidence of all three descriptors (irrational, paranoid and gloating) for gun owners, the times says "postings on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves."
Theirr inevitable conclusion: despite the limited efforts of a few gun owners, there was no effort to see what Mr. Zumbo was talking about and no healthy debate. Instead, the editorial intones "they shot first."
This isn't the first mainstream reporting of the Jim Zumbo debacle.
It's not even the first to question the unforgiving tactics employed by enraged (the Times prefers the term "paranoid") gun owners ("zealots") to whom "'ban' is the mother of all fighting words." We have begun to see that question asked around the shooting community, although it's a bit early to expect any sort of forgive and forget attitudes from aggrieved firearms owners.
It is, however, the first editorial of many others to come. In each, proponents of gun control (I prefer the term "public disarmament") will notice what happened to Jim Zumbo and call firearms owners - all firearms owners - into question.
When that happens, we can expect several other things to happen in rapid succession:
- all firearms owners will be labeled as intolerant, ranting paranoids - not just the many writers of web postings that were ranting. (Note: my speech can be "colorful" - like a drill instructor - but it is not always necessary to use obscenity, vulgarity and personal attacks to make a point).
- The Zumbo Affair will become yet an often cited episode used to illustrate the "evil power and absolute sway the National Rifle Association holds over the many of mindless gun owners held under their unshakable sway". (Note: this is an example of literary hyperbole, I am not calling the NRA evil or all gun owners mindless - I am a gun owner.)
Everyone's personal feelings aside, we have not yet begun to feel the full impact of that 250-word blog. Some of you believe this whole sad episode has been blown completely out of proportion. Others feel it should have been handled privately, almost as a "family matter." I believe there was no other way to deal with this matter, although I agree the personal attacks were decidedly not our finest hour as hunters, shooters or outdoors enthusiasts.
But there is no room for compromise with those whose ideologies are diametrically opposed to gun ownership. Their goal is simple: public disarmament, ala the European countries they so admire for their "progressiveness" on such issues. Those same countries where shotgun owners send plaintiff requests for examples of pump shotguns being used in competitions because their "authorities" are questioning the "need" for pump shotguns. Semiautomatics in any configuration, gauge or color, are already against the rules, along with handguns and most forms of rifles.
For those of you who feel I'm exaggerating, I invite you to put this little bit of writing away for, say, six months. Then read it again.
Why do we have so many political discussions clogging up our "gun discussion board"?
A few here have attacked the treatment of zumbo, saying "he apologized and you still kept after him". His first apology was not much more than an excuse: "I was tired after a long day of hunting" - using the odd reasoning that he wouldn't utter soundbites that the brady bunch could use if he had 8 hours of sleep. Funny, on several occassionas I have gone for a couple days without sleep and not once did I refer to an ar-15 as a "terrorist rifle".
Hopefully zumbo will enjoy his involuntary retirement.
This is neither a political board or a gun discussion board. It's a board for the discussion of anna nicole smith.
Not a chance. I've been following this from the start. What Zumbo wrote was totally uncalled for and needed a public response. Zumbo's first two apologies were so lame they just added fuel to the fire. The third apology was a good start, but didn't go far enough.
His "apology" indicated no awareness whatsoever of the 2nd. Hence the keeping after him.
Thought the terrorists mostly used IEDs.
Not a chance. I've been following this from the start. What Zumbo wrote was totally uncalled for and needed a public response. Zumbo's first two apologies were so lame they just added fuel to the fire. The third apology was a good start, but didn't go far enough.
For those of you who haven't been following the story, Zumbo's blog calling AR/AK type weapons terrorist weapons ignited a firestorm that quickly cost him his job and all his sponsors. I can only hope that the anti-gun politicians take heed after seeing what happened to Zumbo.
Only the military and those who have a Class III Dealers License from the ATF can purchase or possess assault rifles.
Some rifles sold to the US public and citizens are semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles, but are basically the same as any semi-automatic rifle on the market, in hunting or para-military configuration.
I wish these New York Times writers would get things straight. They reveal how novice they are in the world of fire arms usage.This tends to make NRA members shoot first. Ignorance is the worst enemy.
I bet New York Times writers put almost no range time in during the last year, and write with very little experience.
So how does the writer know what questions to ask , or even write about the issue? Its just propaganda. Propaganda makes people "shoot first" as well it should.
Zumbo is a Dumbo.
All the more reason we should all be ready to support any real conservative who looks like they are going to give Rudy a run for it.
Hmmmm Identifying with Bambi-esque animated
characters.....I guess that would mean
that Senator Levin would be Grandpa
Beaver, expounding his sagacious wisdom
to the collected Beaver clan, that the
best option is for all the beavers to
run in different directions, because the
mean old human hunters couldn't possibly
find *everybody*....
Our farmers commonly shoot ground squirrels. Sometimes they pay local kids a bounty. Their burrows are an extreme hazard to large farm equipment and can cause death and injury to the driver who's machine turns over because of unsteady ground. In an area where there is nothing but farmland for miles and miles, a good rifle can allow you to exterminate the vermin from a distance. It is less harmful to the environment than chemical poisons. City people just don't understand.
Zumbo was ridiculed (rightly so) here on FR because he implied a belief that hunting was the main reason for the 2nd amendment, not protection from government.
He didn't mention the 2nd at all. To him, it was all about hunting, and nothing else.
I'd bet the only experience any of them have with a range is free-range chicken.
Huguenots (the Protestant faction) came to understand that their right to free exercise of religion depended on keeping their guns, so they did.
It took Catholics a bit longer to realize that, but eventually even they came around.
An armed populace is polite to the other guys even if nothing else.
I'm sure we can convert Giuliani to the correct paths with suitible inducements. Otherwise, that bad boy has run for his last office as a Republican.
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.