When they come for your hunting rifle . . .
It means they’ve already got my evil black rifle.
I was gonna write something extensive about this moron but Tam and Kevin already did. Some dumbass who I’ve never hard of but who writes for Outdoor Life says:
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.”
You’re not a traditionalist. You’re a scaremongering turd who is more a threat to gun rights than Carolyn McCarthy because you masquerade as one of us. An assault rifle is a select-fire, medium powered rifle capable of automatic fire. These rifles are being used by our troops, who are not terrorists. Assault weapon was an arbitrary legal construct.
Not only are you a threat to gun rights, you don’t know shit about guns.
If you have or get Outdoor Life in any form, call and complain. Many have canceled their subscriptions.
His commenters are letting him have it too. Good.
Update: He says he was wrong. Good.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
This goes back to the Democrat’s and, unfortunately, some Republican’s belief that gun rights should be defined in the context of hunting.
If that mindset is allowed to fester, we’re doomed…
February 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
He’s now working hard to extricate his foot from his mouth.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
[…] Xavier Thoughts – A New Gun Control Advocate Blogonomicon – Meet Jim Zumbo: Total Tool The Smallest Majority – Elmer Fudds: Our Own Worst Enemies The War On Guns – Hunting With Dumbo Shooting The Messenger – The First And Last Time Armed and Safe – 2nd Amendment Carnival IX, plus unrelated rant Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast – Fuddite Alert View From The Porch – Boomsticks: Who the hell is Jim Zumbo? A Keyboard and a .45 – Outdoor Life Magazine Has Blown It Bigtime The Unforgiving Minute – Fool. Blog O’ Stuff – Fuming Mausers, Medicine, & Motorcycles – Luddites & Fuddites On the Edge – Jim Zumbo, useful idiot Papa Delta Bravo – Traitors In Our Midst The Michael Bane Blog – Serious Stuff — The Jim Zumbo “Defection” The Freeholder – Gun Owners Who Don’t “Get it” Says Uncle – When they come for your hunting rifle… (I’ll be updating the list during the day so keep checking back. Enjoy!) […]
February 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
From now on, when you look up the word “shitstorm” in the dictionary, you’ll be given a link to that post and comments.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Maybe I’m just in a forgiving mood today, but I think we should take him at his word when he says he was wrong. He did take responsibility for what he said, and he didn’t try and blame anyone else for his mistake.
That’s pretty rare, and it takes a lot of integrity to own up to something the way he did. He said he’s going to try and learn more about ARs. Works for me.
I can’t think of a penance that’s more fun, though… “You f’d up. Here’s an AR-15… go play.”
February 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
[…] [UPDATE (5:42): Looks like Unc basically said the same thing, but I didn’t look at his site until 2 minutes ago :)] […]
February 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’m having a hard time being as forgiving because of the extent that this kind of thing damages us, especially with McCarthy pimping a new AWB in Congress now. I’m willing to move on and leave the guy alone at this point, but an apology doesn’t undo the damage already done. As Michael Bane pointed out, this is great material for the Bradys and VPC, and the apology isn’t going to change that.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I’m still angry, but I’m not one to call for someone’s head over one idiot comment, expecially since he’s in full CYA mode.
I can see he’s used his ‘Nuge lifeline and played his NRA card though.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Bruce is right. The comments were a lot of fun to read. Personally, I bemoan the invention of the percussion cap that put an end to the development of the flintlock … JUST KIDDING.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
He spent 42 years as a gun and hunting writer and he is not only that ignorant, but arrogant too. Naw, he doesn’t mean that apology. He’s just trying to avoid the fallout.
Forty-two years and he didn’t know a damn thing about the Constitution or firearms or gun owners or liberty but he has had an overnight epiphany? My mama may have raised a fool, but I’m fighting it harder than that.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I read his “apology”. Never did he apologize for calling AR owners “terrorists” and he still seems to be of the opinion that guns are only legitimate if used for hunting. He is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. He is one of the worst kind of gun owners. One that sees his reasons as the only ones that count. He has the right to his opinions, but he should never be mistaken as a champion of gun owner rights.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I first meet Zumbo when he was living in Vernal, UT. A friend insisted I come to her bookstore for the booksigning of Zumbo’s first mule deer hunting book in 1981. When I tryed to make conversation by talking about some of Utah’s fine hunting areas, he all but ignored me. I was very humiliated by this pompas self-rightous ass. He has just reconfirmed my original impression(an old wound). His true colors shine britely.
A man cannot be stupid enough to make the remarks he did and have any idea of the struggle to uphold our Second Amendment. He truley lives in a vacuum. He is too insolated from the real world, real hunters, shooters and self defense. He is not one of us, and has truely insulted our vets, AR owners, as well as all of us. He can kep his opnions, his apology is worthless.
Thanks to SayUncle for this link to stupidity.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:17 am
[…] You’ve probably read about Zumbo the elitist anti-gun scumbag elsewhere (Tam Uncle Kevin), if not here’s the story. […]
February 19th, 2007 at 2:08 am
David Codrea at The War on Guns http://www.waronguns.blogspot.com has verified Remingtons termination of relationship with Zumbo.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:15 am
I’ve just finished writing Remington and Outdoor Life. Tomorrow morning I intend to write all the sponsors that Zumbo so thoughtfully lists on his website.
I bet Jim’s career dissipation light is strobing right now.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Zumbo is typical of the “Outdoor Writer” community: Upper class, spoiled, and arrogant. They’ve been focused for so long on hunting they don’t consider any other use of guns to be legitimate. Add to the fact their employers tend to be left-of-center entities to begin with and you get the attitudes he displayed in his blog post.
Most of them can get away with such idiocy because they write for newspapers. Zumbo’s paycheck comes from a magazine that tries to sell itself to gun owners, so naturally he had to eat crow to keep his job. But I doubt that most of the editorial staff at Outdoor Life noticed anything wrong with his comments until the shitstorm started.
Incidentally, Zumbo’s attitudes are not typical of rank-and-file hunters, as the comments on his blog clearly show. From what I’ve seen, there’s no big divide between the Fudds and the Black Rifle community; many, like myself, are part of both. It’s the persons like Zumbo who write hunting column for your local paper that create the impression there’s a divide.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:47 am
For 42 years this man has been contributing to this divide. How can anyone be part of the gun environment for 42 years and not understand the meaning of “shall not infringe”??? After getting involved in gun ownership, it took me no longer than 6 months to realize the path the NRA willingly follows, (compromising), has lead us to where we are.
And how many worthless-gun-owners* has this asshole produced? *those willing to compromise other gun owners over of the look of their firearm.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:01 am
A better question, Jeff, is how can so many “more pro gun than thou” types like you make snotty remarks implying that others don’t know what “shall not infringe” means, when in fact you’re the one who has no clue about it? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean “inconvenience in any way, shape or form,” as many gunnies like to assume. If I hum a few bars of Stairway to Heaven, have I “infringed” a copyright?
February 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am
[…] So, this weekend we had a bit of a controversy over hunter and outdoorsman Jim Zumbo equivocating us folks who own black rifles with terrorists. He later said he was wrong. There was quite a bit of pressure and his two posts received thousands of comments. Some thoughts: […]
February 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Xrlq Says:
It took the federal government about a hundred years before the first law regulating firearms came on the books. It stated that if someone was caught hunting in Yellowstone, and they had a fair trial and were convicted, then their firearms were then forfeited to the state.
That seems to me like a reasonable gun control law that does not infringe.
The fact that it took so long before the first law went on the books supports a strict interpretation.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Standard Mischief, that wasn’t an infringement on guns, gun ownership, or the right to bear arms. It was law to control and/or eliminate a certain behavior or the misuse of the tool, and describing part of the punishment for the illegal behavior. Reasonable people don’t have a problem with that. I would bet though that the law was abused and everybody with a gun in the confines of the park were considered to be hunting.
I don’t hunt anymore, I still shoot. I don’t buy a hunting license or deer tag or duck stamp because I don’t hunt anymore. Game wardens are loath to believe you when they see you out and about on your way to a shooting area and almost always insist you are hunting. Luckily, every time it has happened to me, I have been armed, which means they weren’t as implacable as most leos. Over time they have learned that I really don’t hunt. However, since deer and other wild game have become so comfortable on my place that we sometimes stand in the yard together, I find it fair to do a lot of target practice when deer season approaches just to get them at least as spooky as normal in order to give them a chance of survival.
For instance, murder is against the law, so is armed robbery. Those aren’t gun control laws despite the confusion some like xlrq demonstrate.
And yes xlrq, “shall not be infringed” means shall not be infringed. It doesn’t mean only as much as someone wants, it means not at all. Really simple.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
OK, then, it took about a hundred years before the first law, that was even close to being “gun control”, to show up in the federal lawbooks. That says something.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
XLRQ, a lawyer, is gonna remind gun owners of the meaning of “shall not infringe” — which in lawyer speak means: to “inconvenience”, “permit”, “tax”, “register”, “license”, “ban”, and everything else you lawyer types have gotten the nine illiterate judges to agree with you on.
That will only make it the definition of “shall not infringe” if your court dockets, witness statements, and majority opinions are, quite literally, written on BULLET PROOF paper!
Until that time, play your game… stuff your paycheck into that cesspool you call a life, and continue apologizing for all the Zumbo’s out there. One day you might even defend his ban on scary looking “terrorist” guns in court and WIN. Congratulations… but you still WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF “SHALL NOT INFRINGE”. And the day will come when you will be remembered as one of those misleading right alongside Mr. Zumbo.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
[…] You may think your hobby is the sport of kings, but it’s no more deserving of protection that the military firearms collector. Those who would disarm us may save your kind for last, the snobby hunter with the expensive double or finely crafted bolt action rifle, but rest assured they want to disarm you too. They’ll see your firearms as dangerous, deadly-accurate sniper rifles. To paraphrase Uncle, if they come for your bolt action, I can’t help you because they’ve already got my cosmetically-challenged self-loading firearm. […]
February 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Outdoor Life Boycott – Dump Zumbo Blog
http://dumpzumbo.blogspot.com/
Google’s’ Cached Copy of Jim Zumbo’s Blog
http://tinyurl.com/2wdns6
Dump Zumbo Petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/zumbo07/petition.html
REMINGTON’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
http://tinyurl.com/25kzwr
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
So now that this dustup is settling, we ask for dark underlying motivations. What if this wasn’t just a brainfart on Zumbo’s part ? Two alternatives come to my mind:
1. he was trying to provoke exactly the response he got. Good man. Why would he want to do that ? What purpose is served by producing evidence of how the shooting public feels about our right to bear whatever arms we choose ? This leads to:
2. the rich comfortable mainstream of the US shooting community (I’m thinking of fellas with $2000 trap guns, you can think of the Lexus-and-canned-hunts crowd) including their representatives within the NRA leadership are having incontinence problems at the prospect of a double-barreled Democratic Congress running amuck and the three witches Feinstein Pelosi and Clinton coming in the night to squeeze their balls while plundering their gun safes.
Well, don’t worry, men, we’ll protect you. You may be the same kind of spineless riffraff that’s facilitated oppression throughout human history, but you should have the same freedom to exercise your unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at more than 2500 fps that we do. I hear drycleaning is best for soiled worsted wool, and urine comes out of Italian leather if you dry it quickly, in case you need advice in that area.
I note that said double-barreled Dem Congress has just emitted its first, easy-to-anticipate yelp in this year’s round of the Great Attempt to Ban Satanic Assault Weapons, HR1022 sponsored by that poor creature Carolyn McCarthy. While the text is not available yet, we do ask ourselves whether the “leadership” of the US shooting community is mustering their usual fortitude and weighing the costs and benefits of reaching some accomodation with the gun banners which let them keep their Sunday toys and get rid of those crazies with milspec weapons who make them kind of nervous anyway. They talk about guns being for overthrowing the established order, but since the leadership is firmly entrenched in the established order, does that mean them, too ? Woo hoo, hold on there we might have to rethink this.
Was the Zumbo post a float of a position of retrenchment to the redoubt in the face of fearsome Democratic aggression ? We can’t do any better…
It seems like the mainstream gun culture is greatly concerned with its ability to get it up, as evinced by the number of ads for erectile dysfunction curatives in its publications. Maybe if they were less worried about getting it up and more concerned with identifying a course of appropriate, and principled, action, designed first not to maintain membership headcount and revenue but to protect the firearms-related interests of all US citizens, they might be more effective in dealing with the antigun forces. We’ll be waiting for you to join us if you get to that point, fellas.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Its kinda funny. Oh I need an assault rifle to hunt. What do you think youll hit when you use the semi feature. You will hit less.
One shot one kill.
Your fathers should have taken you hunting more.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Ian, it’s obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about.