Zumbo: Gun rag writer trashes "Assault Weapons"

[LBTRS]

I don't know what it means, however, Jim Zumbo Outdoors is scheduled to be on the Outdoor Channel right now but has been replaced by another show. I wonder if The Outdoor Channel has pulled his show or if it's due to the loss of Remington? I think it used to be "Jim Zumbo Outdoors Presented by Remington".

I can't believe how quickly things transpired over this mess.

 

[.38 Special]

Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

I disagree with his opinions, but "Toe the line or we will destroy you!" is such an ugly sentiment.

 

[spartacus2002]

Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

that is not what he said.

He said they are assault rifles, that only terrorists use them, and that his fellow Fudds should throw such terrorists under the bus.

 

[SWModel19]

... we also have the freedom to not patronize them.

Only government can infringe upon your rights.

We're not silencing Zumbo with policy or law, we're silencing him with OUR dollars (or lack thereof).

Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

I disagree with his opinions, but "Toe the line or we will destroy you!" is such an ugly sentiment.

Dude, it's my money. I'll spend it the way I want. Nothing vindictive in that.

 

[CDignition]

38 special...if you don't want to lose any more of your god given rights(you have already lost enough in California), you better stop waffling...we need strong people, not people who "don't want to be mean"..we need to get mean...were not children here, but grown men...wake up America.

 

[Waitone]

Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

In traditional publishing there exists checks and balances, editors, deadlines, and so forth. There is plenty of time to reconsider a position as there exists plenty of opinions prior to being published.

Blogs are a different animal. Mind to keyboard to the reader. Mental flatulence is not challenged. To some extent blogging is only slightly slower than talk radio. It takes a different set of mental skills to survive and prosper in blogging/talk radio vs traditional publishing.

I suspect we are seeing zumbo's deeply held opinions and because of the lack of backchecking his opinion made it to the public without anyone challenging his position.

Not a defense; just a explanation.

 

[JWarren]

I don't see it as "toe the line or we will destroy you" per se.

If you make a CALL FOR LEGISLATION infringing on my rights, and align me with terrorist, I have EVERY right not to support ANYONE who supports someone who has DECIDED that he will be an enemy of my rights.

He has freedom of speech, and I support that. Exercising in any important way often has consequences for both him and his sponsors. Those sponsors have the right to align with him and realize that doing so may lose them customers.

This isn't simply the "marketplace of ideas." This article was a CALL FOR LEGISLATION and ACTION. This article was a call for those like him to DIVORCE themselves from those of us he aligned with terrorists.

He got his wish.


Thomas Jefferson wrote once:

In matters of style, go with the flow; In matters of principle, stand like a rock.


This rock is heavy.


John

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

.38 Special,

So, what would have been your response if he had come out and said that an ethnic group (insert here) should have their property seized, for no other reason that they held contrary beliefs, to that of the speaker?

He made it plain, that the Black gun people, did not have or should not have the rights that a traditional firearm person such as himself, has.

Am I being vindictive, in saying that a person like that is a clear threat to my chosen life style and I am doing my part to make it clear to any other elitist snobs, that I won't stand by and let him trample my rights or allow others to support him in said act and that I will aim for where it really hurts...their pocket book.

 

[dpwiener]

Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

I disagree with his opinions, but "Toe the line or we will destroy you!" is such an ugly sentiment.

If all Zumbo had said was that he didn't think certain guns were appropriate for hunting, it would have been no big deal. Oh sure, some people would have been upset and would have argued with him. But his blog wouldn't have been inundated with comments from several thousand angry gun owners, and his sponsors wouldn't be worrying about boycotts.

Instead he opined that certain guns were terrorist weapons which should be banned from hunting. The language he employed was extremely inflammatory, and his words will be used for many years hence by gun-control organizations seeking to destroy our rights.

Is it any wonder that so many people are so pissed off at him? It's hard to put the bullet back in the magazine after it's been fired and has wounded an innocent victim. I don't know that there's anything Zumbo can do at this point other than keep apologizing and lay low. In the meantime he will have to suffer the consequences of his actions, which includes the loss of his sponsorships and writing gigs.

 

[.38 Special]

He said they are assault rifles, that only terrorists use them, and that his fellow Fudds should throw such terrorists under the bus.

if you don't want to lose any more of your god given rights... you better stop waffling...we need strong people, not people who "don't want to be mean"..we need to get mean...were not children here, but grown men...wake up America.

If you make a CALL FOR LEGISLATION infringing on my rights, and align me with terrorist, I have EVERY right not to support ANYONE who supports someone who has DECIDED that he will be an enemy of my rights.

This article was a CALL FOR LEGISLATION and ACTION. This article was a call for those like him to DIVORCE themselves from those of us he aligned with terrorists.

It's possible that I haven't come across the entire blog entry. From everything I have seen, that entry consisted of 5 paragraphs, none of which contained the things mentioned in the above quotes. Unless, of course, you want to stretch quite a bit further than you should without a thorough warm-up.

As for the note about "Black gun people"... there aren't enough eyeroll icons on the planet.

Unless there is actually more to his blog entry than I have read, I stand by my opinion: gun people have a nasty habit of wildly overreacting to any opinion that runs even slightly counter to their beliefs. News flash: Jim Zumbo isn't the only hunter that believes "assault rifles" shouldn't be used for hunting. Should we destroy all of those hunters, or just the ones who speak their minds? And does this sort of orgy of vindictiveness really present our best face to the rest of the world?

 

[.38 Special]

Instead he opined that certain guns were terrorist weapons which should be banned from hunting. The language he employed was extremely inflammatory, and his words will be used for many years hence by gun-control organizations seeking to destroy our rights.

Unless I missed something, he wrote that the public can associate certain guns with terrorism and that for that reason hunters should not use them.

The reactionaries took that to mean that Jim Zumbo thinks AR-15 hunters are terrorists and should be killed. Or something. Which makes the reactionaries look, well, reactionary.

 

[Cosmoline]

.38 Special, here's the now-defunct blog entry for the record. He sure as heck isn't just saying hunters should avoid scary rifles. He calls them "terrorist" rifles and ADVOCATES A BAN FROM THE FIELD! Like I said, my jaw kept dropping further as I read it. He claims to speak for some "hunting fraternity" and takes a very holier-than-thou tone.

Assault Rifles For Hunters? ...The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. ... I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. ...

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

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.

 

[SWModel19]

Zumbo's original Blog:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

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 praries and woods...

 

[TCB in TN]

We have all heard that War is hell, well duh, of course it is! It is supposed to be, that is the only way that you get the poor dumb smuck on the other side to give up. That is something that the ANTI's have understood and have put into practice for MANY DECADES. It is time that we understand that WE ARE AT WAR, or at least we have a serious battle to defend our rights, and begin to fight back for real. We have continually lost ground because we tried to be nice, because we waited for the press and the rest of the country to "come to their senses". News flash, it hasn't happened yet, and probably wont so if we are to win back our freedoms we better start fighting for them NOW!

Again at this point it is either a you are with us or against us. If you are with us then we will support you, if you are against us then we need to us every avenue at our disposal to either get you back in line with us or to minimize you ability to hurt us! Zumbo had his chance to have our support, he responded by stabbing us in the back. I will vote with my wallet, and in this case my key board to eliminate his platform for doing any more damage. It is the principal that we use in the ballet box. They have been doing it for years, now it is time that we fight back.

 

[swingset]

.38 Special, I think you're missing the point (on purpose).

He wanted to divorce hunters from those of us who use or shoot AR's. He likened those rifles to terrorists (and by proxy those of us who own them). He wants them banned from hunting.

Divisive, ignorant, calling for anti-gun legislation over his wants and opinions.

How could it possibly be any worse for god's sake given his title? How can his opinion be any more repugnant, or his excuses any more feeble?

He is suffering over his actions, not over his opinions. He is free to hold those opinions, or to voice them just as we are all free to boycott his sponsors, or rejoice when someone so destructive to our cause falls on his patootie.

This is a pretty clear issue to us, and you're seeing it with a good bit of fog. We're not being mean, we're being JUST.

 

[Mr White]

Originally Posted by .38 Special
Once again I am taken aback at the vindictiveness of gun owners. The man wrote an ill-conceived piece in which he argues that certain guns are not appropriate for hunting, and the gun community responds by attempting to ruin his life. Hmm.

I disagree with his opinions, but "Toe the line or we will destroy you!" is such an ugly sentiment.

Why is that such an ugly sentiment? We're willing to do it to politicians all the time. "Toe the line that we want you to or we'll vote your a** out!" Think of this as out way of voting Jim off the island. Think of it as Donald Trump saying, "Jim, You're Fired!"

 

[XavierBreath]

Regarding Mr. Shepard's article cited in post #586:

I just blogged on it. The MSM got it wrong again.

Your interpretation is incorrect Mr. Shepard.

There is no "widening gap between "traditional" and "non-traditional" shooting enthusiasts".

There is a closing of ranks.

This is not a schism.

This is solidarity.

FWIW, I, and many other bloggers suspected the disappearance of Zumbo's blog post as soon as we read it. Thus, it was copied and pasted for posterity. This is not a campaign of vindictiveness as many would like to depict it. This is a necessary purging of those who would like to divide the gun community.
Zumbo's own words:

"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 praries and woods."

He wanted a divorce. He got one.

 

[ssr]

News flash: Jim Zumbo isn't the only hunter that believes "assault rifles" shouldn't be used for hunting. Should we destroy all of those hunters, or just the ones who speak their minds? And does this sort of orgy of vindictiveness really present our best face to the rest of the world?

What he said is very serious and there are serious issues at stake. He did not simply say, "I don't like black rifles, I don't use them and never will". I would have no problem with that. He bought into the anti's line that these rifles are evil and inherently bad and have no "legitimate" use. He wanted to "divorce" hunters from them, in other words, throw the black rifles to the wolves in hopes of saving his "sporting" arms.

That was what the "assault weapon ban" truely accomplished. It got people to believe that banning whole classes of "bad" guns is OK, since those guns are evil and somehow more "deadly" than other guns. Now that's what all of the average, firearm-ignorant people in this country believe. And he fed it.

Zumbo showed that he has no real concept of true firearms rights. He only uses it as a means to do his hunting. And he doesn't care what happens to other gun owners as long as it doesn't affect him.

 

[Rembrandt]

Some food for thought when swinging the broad brush linking hunters with Fudd's.

Not all gun owners are Hunters.....but nearly all Hunters are gun owners.

(From NSSF) Surveys show nearly 80 percent of Americans support hunting, although less than 10 percent actually participate. These 18.5 million hunters contribute more than $30 billion annually to the U.S. economy and support more than 986,000 jobs. They are the primary financiers (more than $1.5 billion per year) of conservation programs that benefit all Americans who appreciate wildlife and wild places.....

The Zumbo blunder may have the unforseen benefit of enlightening American hunters that their gun rights can not be taken for granted. There are 18.5 million reasons to educate and reach out to the hunting community....to speak as one voice.

 

[CDignition]

I don't see Solidarity here, especially with a bunch of guys that think like 38 special...it will be the downfall of us all to have these guys holding our heads under water.

 

[dpwiener]

Unless I missed something, he wrote that the public can associate certain guns with terrorism and that for that reason hunters should not use them.

The reactionaries took that to mean that Jim Zumbo thinks AR-15 hunters are terrorists and should be killed. Or something. Which makes the reactionaries look, well, reactionary.

According to his blog entry, which is cached on Google, he said:

"I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles."

and

"We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles."

and

"I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."

So, to put it in simple terms, Zumbo calls AR and AK guns terrorist rifles and assault rifles; he doesn't think real hunters use such guns; he doesn't want hunters to be lumped in with terrorists who do use such guns; and hence he wants the guns banned from hunting.

And you think the response was "reactionary" (in a derogatory sense)? No, most responders did not take it to mean that Zumbo "thinks AR-15 hunters are terrorists and should be killed". They did take it to mean that Zumbo was validating the public image of AR-15 owners as being lumped in with terrorists, and that he was promoting government restrictions on the use of their firearms.

Furthermore, they knew that Zumbo's words would be used by anti-gun organizations to try to reinstate the Assault Weapon Ban and pass other gun-control measures.

So if you want to call the response "reactionary", I'd say that the "reaction" was "justified".

 

[Intune]

Assault Rifles For Hunters?
I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. ... but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. ... assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
... these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, ... hunters don't use assault rifles...
... we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. ... an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. .. ban them from the praries and woods...

This is no "slip of the tongue." He is expressing his strongly-held beliefs. This is a denunciation of "assault" rifles. So be it. He made his own bed. He wanted a "divorce?" I'll venture to say he got exactly what he wanted. In spades. You roll in the mud with pigs...

XB-

There is a closing of ranks.

This is not a schism.

This is solidarity.

I see it exactly the same way. Heck of a divorce, eh?

 

[koja48]

SOG

Thanks! I'm looking to replace a Gerber multitool . . .

 

[Brian Dale]

It's appropriate that he's going to see Ted Nugent. IIRC, it was Nugent who said or wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that "Stupid people should be encouraged to speak their minds. That way, we'll know who the stupid people are."

The piece might have been ill conceived, but it isn't ill crafted. It's very clear:

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people.

Here he has jutted out his metaphorical chin and cast an insult.

He then makes a grab for either the moral, the ethical or the aesthetic high ground:

Excuse me
{--meaning quite the reverse; this sets up his scolding},

maybe I'm a traditionalist,
{Ah, so that's the authority he claims}

but I see no place for these weapons
{I don't see it, so it doesn't exist}

among our hunting fraternity
{We're as one family and I am one of the Elders; you must respect and obey me}.

He then amplifies his characterization so that there'll be no doubt:

I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. ...

Well, that's much too far. Anyone who uses that word as an adjective in the year 2007 has had five years to know exactly how it will be received.


Message received, loud and clear.


For imploring the various game departments to ban military pattern rifles from the prairies and woods--the ones that surround my house, the ones in which I do almost all of my shooting--Mr. Zumbo is invited to go to Blazes.


Divorce granted.


Three cheers for Remington!

 

[SWModel19]

Happy Bob,

I think it would be hard to make it any more succint than what you just posted. You hit the nail on the head.