Posted on 02/24/2007 5:18:52 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
You can get a lahti 20mm anti-tank cannon, but you have to jump through the BATF hoops and pay through the nose for it.
But for regular old cannons, people have owned them as private citizens ever since the country was founded.
I've always thought, that people who criticize others on the type of firearm they own or use, are at best, elitist snobs, and at worst, fearful of their fellow citizens. Why else would they care?
I know several people who have firearms that I think are not good choices for their purpose. I would offer my advice if asked, but I would never condescend them.
You are going to have some nut thinking these two rounds interchange, they do not. The 223 cal. was developed for the AR15 , because Remington developed the 222 and to use it would have required paying Remington. Of the two the 222 is the better, mainly because the bolt action rifles it is chambered for have a different rifling twist than the one chambered for the 223. But in custom long guns all things are possible.
...if you don't accept his apology, get the hell away from my campfire..."
*********
A sad day it is...
I suspected that Nugent would regret getting mixed up in this, but I never figured the damage would be self-inflicted. Zumbo is now the equivalent of a leper to many gun enthusiasts, and Ted seems eager to walk alongside him, hollering out "Unclean!! Unclean!!".
Stay away from your campfire, Ted? Nooooo problem.
"Gewehr" is more general than "rifle" - it comes from the verb "wehren" to resist or fight, and is thus closer to the general term "weapon" than the term for a specific weapon. A gun is a "Schießgewehr" - a "shooting weapon". A rifle in German is a "Büchse", as opposed to a "Schrotflinte" which is a shotgun (the name must be rather an old one as it appears to have originated when they still had flints!)
(you never know when 10 years of German (in jr high, high school, and college) is going to turn out useful. Any native speakers/shooters welcome to tell me where & if I've gone wrong . . .)
No one seems to ask the question: Isn't it odd (if the 2nd Amendment is about hunting) that the Bill of Rights would have a clause about a sport? And if so, then why did it single out hunting and not mention other sports? Obviously, the 2nd Amendment is about a political right and it has nothing to do with somehow protecting a sport. The idea that the Bill of Rights was written in part to recognize sports is absurd.
I'm thinking, a piece that is on wheels pulled behind a truck, capable of a 20 mile range, with explosive rounds.
Nukes are expensive overkill for prairie dogs. I reserve mine for spiders.
You’re right, I don’t the difference between a 223 and a 22 caliber – actually, I’ve never hear of a 223.
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.
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.
At least Private Pyle was a Marine!
The modern infantry issue assault rifle, is hardly spray and pray. It's highly accurate selective fire weapon. Selective in this case typicaly being burst or semi-auto. Automatic selective fire weapons as you indicated weren't as effective as hoped.
I figure it's extremely unlikely you've been a sleeper troll for the last nine years.
Does this mean you aren't pleased with some NRA and Republican decisions / tactics?
Well explosive rounds are another problem - iirc there is a $200 destructive device 'tax' for everything that goes 'boom' outside a barrel.
Not sure if there is anything that outright bans modern artillery, but they would be over the .50 caliber limit and not a shotgun - therefore subject to more regulations.
Been a long time since I;ve read about cannon ownership but I believe old style cannons are allowed due to them being black powder devices.
No one really "hunts" prairie dogs. They are not even good eating. We shoot them because they are rodent pests (like rats), damaging to property, prolific like rabbits, and are excellent target practice. So it is not unusual at all, that they are killed with a very large range of calibers and types of firearms. Who knows, maybe even dynamite.
Belated, but well deserved.
Wow. I'll bet everyone who has typed out a Zumbo-ism is now cursing Al Gore for inventing this "Internet" thing. ;-)
Yes, I've ready stories about these "cannon shoots". Sounds like fun.
Using Bablefish to translate "weapon" from English to German results in "Waffe".
It translates "wehren" as "resist".
And it translates "gewehr" as "rifle".
Not definitive, I know. Maybe we need someone fluent in German. ;)
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.