Last Sunday I read Dennis Anderson's weekly column in the Star and
Tribune and saw what is perhaps the finest example of the pure psychotic paranoia of these dickheads. Jim Zumbo, an avid outdoors man, columnist, and popular host on the Outdoor Channel, has been ex-communicated from the cabal of gun boys. It all started on February 19th when he wrote: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 "tack drivers."
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.
Within 36 hours of this post on his blog, Zumbo was fired as spokesman for Remington, fired as Outdoor Channel employee, fired by Outdoor Life magazine for which he worked for over 40 years, and his blog removed from the Outdoor Life website.
Dennis Anderson, our very own outdoor columnist and avid hunter had this to say:
What's going on here? Can't a person -- particularly someone who has long supported anything and everything to do with the "outdoors" (including conservation) -- express an opinion without losing a career?
The answer is no, Dennis, a person can't. The reason for this is that the people who run the gun lobby are a group of mentally ill Nazis who are so insecure about anyone expressing an opinion that wavers even slightly from canon that any small step out of line is meet with extreme punishment. This is how they have always been and will always operate. It's how pretty much all conservatives seem to operate these days. None of this comes as a shock to me at all. Hell, I am surprised that didn't just shoot Jim Zumbo in the head with an AR or AK rifle.Zumbo's biggest mistake was not dissing the rifles themselves but warning hunters of becoming just like terrorists. Huh. Imagine that. Wasn't it yours truly who has been called "nuts" and "paranoid" and "a traitor" by several neocons who post on this blog for saying the exact same thing? And now, here we have a member of an atypical conservative group stating what is very plainly the truth and look at what happened to him. Tell me again that I am nuts. Speak to me again about how my opinions about conservatives are inaccurate. Please explain to me how I am the irrational one, in the face of this complete bullshit, and am only presenting part of the truth.
His comments obviously struck a chord in nuttersville and, in the end, truly illustrate a mindset that is extremely dangerous. On almost every conservative issue, there is no wavering. That is a sign of weakness. No matter how awful the results of any action, conservatives must stay the course, not give in, and not allow any dissent. Iraq is an example of this. Our current "fuck you, we're better" approach to international relations is an example of this. Health Care, Education, the Environment, Homeland Security....have only one way to be handled and that's the "Right" way.
And we all better fall in line otherwise we'll end up like Jim Zumbo.
22 comments:
I'm glad you are spreading the word about this. What has happened to Jim Zumbo deserves a Michael Moore-type documentary. There is something inherently wrong with the entire situation.
Your lack of writing skills is evident from your use of the word "Nazi" to attack NRA members. That is an insult to the victims of Hitler and his thugs. Please find a better comparison.
Anonymous,
Really? And how else would you describe what happened to Zumbo and the people that did it to them?
What is insulting is the refusal of people in this country to see that our administration and its supporters like the gun lobby adopting the same tactics that the Nazis used.
Markadelphia is right on the money on this one.
He must have had a night under the sheets with Sara Brady. But whatever, I'm glad he got fired! You attack freedom, pack your shit and hit the trail, your done. No more sponsorships, no more TV shows, TOO BAD! I own an AK-47 and he's basically calling me a "terrorist". I don't exactly appreciate it!
Zumbo commited treason agianst every American. Not just those with black rifles. An attack on ANY of our rights is nothing less than treason!!
...and my point has been exactly proven. Thank you freedom and flint!
Freedom, how does a gun equal freedom?
Flint, what about the Americans who don't own guns? I don't own one at all and occasionally caught one of Zumbo's shows as I was flipping through the channels. They were interesting and now they are gone because of the rigid standard that people like you hold.
Our country is never going to advance in any way with psychotic attitudes like this.
I agree with Dennis Anderson. How could someone so supportive of guns and hunting simply be tossed aside? As a pheasant hunter all my life, I own a few shotguns and a couple of rifles. I was convinced to join the NRA by a relative many years ago, to help protect our right to bear arms. After being a member for a few years, and reading the NRA's information, I deceided to drop my membership. I thought the NRA had some good qualities, but their stance on these so called "assult" weapons soured me. I have put my money toward Pheasants Forever. Their help goes toward conservation of our planet, too. But, this is another topic.
Well, if you’re going liberal hunting, you really do need the quick fire action that only an AK47 can provide. Sure, with a 40-round clip, it’s not quite fair, but their population does need a bit of thinning; for the sake of the environment. …don’t mean I don’t relish blowing their brains out, though.
I completely agree with pheasanthunter on this one. I have been a hunter for 20 years and assault rifles are for people who just like to kill things. If you are going to kill an animal, you best be eating it. It's hard to eat something when it has been blown to bits.
Also, people that brag about their assault rifles must be mighty rich because the ammo for an AK is mighty expensive. And it doesn't require any skill at all to fire an AK.
Cooter, I really hope your are joking because people like you give the anti gun people more fuel for the fire.
Oh, good. Some more gun owners who don't believe that the anti-gun groups want their guns.
Have any of you read Carolyn McCarthy's ironically-named HB1022?
No? Pheasanthunter, do you own any semi-automatic shotguns?
"A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds."
Are you familiar with the Aguila mini-shells? How many will fit in the magazine of your 12 gauge autoloader?
Jim Zumbo was tossed aside by the words that he wrote. As one blogger put it, "On Friday evening, a gunwriter, who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger." First, Jim Zumbo - ignorant as to the state of firearms technology - called the (literally) millions of owners of AR15 and other "evil black rifles" terrorists. Then he advocated banning firearms because they're scary looking. Brian characterizes us as "people who just like to kill things."
Odd, I've not killed anything since I was a kid with a BB gun. I'm not a hunter. Seems like Brian's more of a killer than I am.
I bet Brian uses a long-range sniper rifle. They're only used by people who like to kill things.
Pheasanthunter uses the most devastating weapon known to man - a gun that will blow its victim across a room! (I saw it in the movies, it must be true!) He uses a shotgun - a weapon so lethal you don't even have to aim it! He kills pheasants. Again, he's more of a killer than I am.
Zumbo was a gun bigot, someone (like those of you here) who have accepted the propaganda of the media demonizing a huge group of guns and gun owners. Those owners responded. In unison and loudly. Zumbo - unwittingly or not - gave aid and comfort to McCarthy, the Brady Bunch, et al. We realized it. You, apparently did not. And Zumbo has admitted it himself. Read his letter to Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
He understands what you are still denying. He understands that the right to arms isn't about hunting, for one thing, just as the DC District Court of Appeals announced last Friday. You might want to read that decision.
The blogger who wrote the "word processor" quote wrote something else right after Zumbo's initial post hit the blogosphere:
"Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I've seen in a while."
That contempt holds for those trying to defend their Daffy-blasters, too.
Tell me Brian, Pheasanthunter - can you "do what (Markadelphia) do(es) at least three times a week...if they could only get it up without a gun" without yours?
I thought so.
Kevin,
There are millions of AR15 gun owners? We must have a nation of millionaires then.
I don't use a long range sniper rifle. My accuracy is just fine without one. I resent the fact that you think I have been brainwashed by the media. While I find markadelphia's opinons about gun owners to be exaggerated and irratating, it is people like YOU who give people like ME a bad name. No one is ever going to take away the right to bear arms. It is not going to happen. I read a quote a while back...might have been on this blog...
"Ordinary American citizens have no business owning assault weapons. If anyone wants to use one, then they should get themselves a pair of boots and come see me. I have a job for them."
General Wesley Clark.
Why "millionaires" Brian? What do you think they cost?
"No one is ever going to take away the right to bear arms."
I live in Arizona, one of the states in the 9th Circuit. Per their Hickman v. Block decision, followed by Nordyke v. King and Silveira v. Lockyer, the 9th Circuit has declared that there is no individual right to arms. Look them up. Read them. They've all been appealed to the Supreme Court, which has declined to hear them.
For the short version, let me quote Judge Kleinfeld from his dissent in Lockyer:
"The panel opinion holds that the Second Amendment 'imposes no limitation on California’s [or any other state’s] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms' and 'does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.' The panel opinion erases the Second Amendment from our Constitution as effectively as it can, by holding that no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use. This means that an individual cannot even get a case into court to raise the question. The panel's theory is that 'the Second Amendment affords only a collective right,' an odd deviation from the individualist philosophy of our Founders. The panel strikes a novel blow in favor of states’ rights, opining that 'the amendment was not adopted to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession,' but was instead 'adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people’s right to bear arms.' It is not clear from the opinion whom the states would sue or what such a suit would claim were they to try to enforce this right. The panel's protection of what it calls the 'people's right to bear arms' protects that 'right' in the same fictional sense as the 'people's' rights are protected in a 'people's democratic republic.'
"Our circuit law regarding the Second Amendment squarely conflicts with that of the Fifth Circuit. It is inconsistent with decisions of the Supreme Court that have construed the Second Amendment and phrases within it. Our circuit has effectively repealed the Second Amendment without the democratic protection of the amendment process, which Article V requires."
Read the whole thing. Read Judge Kozinski's dissent while you're at it. Neither one of them is very long.
Nobody's ever going to take away the right to arms? It's already been done.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." - Dianne Feinstein
We're trying to get it restored.
And, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, let me quote someone in response to Wesley Clark:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler
You should pick your role models better.
Well, I don't know about you but I pay 39.99 for a box of 20 shells for my rifle. An AK, has what?, 50 shells in a mag? Taking the average price of what I see that's 50 bucks a pop for a mag. I really don't have that kind of dough to be throwing around for doing something that I can be doing with my regular old hunting rifle.
Dude, seriously. No one is coming to take away your guns. Heck, I thought the DC case would be something you would be happy about. In my state, we have a conceal and carry law and the opponents of that have been unsuccesful in trying to overturn that mostly because private businesses can choose to ban guns on their premises. People are also sensible about gun ownership here.
I would like to know why you need an AK? What on earth do you want to shoot with one?
Hey Kevin,
Glad to have posting here. I read through your links and found some of them to be interesting. I am curious, though, why is General Clark a bad role model?
Also, how many guns do you own?
$2 a round? That's some premium hunting ammo, for sure. How many rounds a year do you fire?
Are you certain you're not using a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle with a high-powered telescopic sight (AKA: long-range precision sniper rifle)? Say, chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum, that can punch through an armored limousine?
Politicians for some reason seem really concerned about rifles that can reach out from a distance and penetrate armor.
I don't own an AK anymore. I used to. The magazines hold 30 rounds. Milsurp ammo used to cost about 10¢ a round, but now it's closer to 20¢. I shot bowling pins with it, mostly.
Now I own an AR15. I handload for it. I use the Hornady 75 grain BTHP Match bullet in once-fired Lake City brass over about 24 grains of Varget (use this load at your own risk.) It will shoot sub minute-of-angle (less than 1" 5-shot groups at 100 yards) with this load off the bench. They cost me about 25¢ each for the components. I can buy milsurp ammo that costs less, but it isn't anywhere near as accurate. I like accurate. It's why I switched to an AR.
Were I a hunter, this would be a good load for coyote, javelina, or feral hog, but I shoot steel with it, mostly. But I'm a shooter, not a hunter. Hunting is taking your gun for a walk. If a hunter does it right, he pulls the trigger once - and then it gets messy. When I go to the range, I take at least 100 rounds for each of the guns I'm bringing. More, if they are a light kicker like the AR. Ruger 10/22's are fun, but you can't ring the 500 meter gong with one.
What hunters don't seem to realize is that the majority of people who own guns today aren't hunters. We're shooters. We're the ones who buy all that "White Box" and UMC ammo you see at the gun store. We're not millionaires either, but we spend a lot more on our hobby than you do, and we shoot far more than you do. We're the ones supporting the firearms industry, and they know it.
What hunters like you also don't realize is that the AR15 is a supremely accurate platform for a long-range varmint gun. And you can get it in multiple calibers, not just .223 Remington. If you want to hunt prairie dogs, try one in .204 Ruger. If you want to hunt 'yotes, the .223 is excellent. Deer? 6x45 (wildcat) or 6.8SPC (factory) is available. Bear? .458 SOCOM will do the job admirably. And you know what? The lower portion of the AR15 is the "gun," according to the BATFE. All you have to do to change calibers is buy a new upper (a part out of a catalog that you can have delivered to your home by UPS), and that upper is probably less expensive than, say, a Remington 700, while being every bit as accurate.
Am I happy about the DC Circuit Court decision? Absolutely. But I'm also aware that the DC Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court are the only two that have found the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. EVERY OTHER court of Appeals (with the exception of the 2nd which has never decided a case on the topic) has declared the right to be "collective" - as the 9th Circuit has done.
No one is coming to take my guns? Diane Feinstein and Teddy Kennedy and Carolyn McCarthy and many others have said they want to, and tried.
No one is coming to take my guns? Tell that to the people who stayed behind in New Orleans after Katrina, when police and National Guardsmen went from door to door disarming people like Patricia Konie. (That's a California Highway Patrolman body-slamming an old lady to the ground. She wasn't the only one similarly treated.
No one is coming to take my guns? Hopefully not, so long as I agitate to prevent it.
But by putting your head in the sand, you're not helping.
Mark:
General Clark's comment pretty much matches Himmler's. You'd think Clark would be a student of history, and be less likely to put his foot in his mouth.
How many guns do I own? Well, let me put it this way: I just bought a gun safe that will hold up to 36 rifles. I was going to buy a smaller model, but my wife said "Get the bigger one. You'll fill it up eventually."
I use a 300 Win Mag so Federal Premium 300 Win Mag bullet, Safari Grade.
I don't think I am burying my head in the sand. I just think if you kill something you should eat it otherwise it seems like a waste of time. I am not a big fan of target practice. I get bored easily.
Rest assured, no one is going to take your guns, there is not nearly enough support for it. Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein haven't passed anything ever so don't lose any sleep over it.
"Rest assured, no one is going to take your guns, there is not nearly enough support for it. Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein haven't passed anything ever so don't lose any sleep over it."
Really? So the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban wasn't really passed? News to me. The 1968 Gun Control Act? The 1934 National Firearms Act?
Were you aware that Ted Kennedy wants to ban your hunting ammo because it's "armor piercing"?
The reason Feinstein et al. haven't passed much is because of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, and the few million gun owners like me who agitate to protect the rights of the 70+ million of the rest of you who sit on your asses and don't think there's anything to be worried about. And worse, blame us because we own and shoot guns you don't like.
Nobody will ever take their guns.
Tell that to the British. They know better.
I defend your right to your bambi-zapper. Why don't you defend my right to my "homeland defense rifle"?
Kevin,
Generally speaking, I don't have any problem with people wanting to have guns to protect themselves from their government. It sounds to me, based on your comments, that is the primary use you see for having your small arsenal. If you read my blog, then you know that I have little or no trust in our government to do much of anything except cause me hassle and pain.
However, most acts of citizen against citizen violence are familial. Or involve a close friend. I spent 4 years working with police and firemen producing training videos. Every case I saw that involved a gun was a father against a mother or a brother against a father or two people who knew each other for a long time. Every cop I talked to would laugh at the evening news when they would make the bad guy out to be some sort of "boogeyman" out there to hunt and kill innocents. There are people that do that but according to the stats they are less than 5 percent. In fact, I can remember several occasions when I was laughed at by my friend Perry, a county sheriff and good friend, when I would call him and ask him about something I saw on the news. "The media blows everything out of proportion. The offender almost always knows the victim," he would tell me.
My point is that if you feel threatened by someone other than your government (which again is completely understandable), then it is more than likely a family memeber or a friend. Also, didn't violent crime go down from 1994-present? I am not saying it was the result of the assault weapons ban but if crime has gone down, then why do we need them?
Ah, the "need" question again.
It's not about "need" Mark. It's about a right.
First, how big is the city in which you worked with the police? Was it, by chance Philadelphia? Crime in large cities is strikingly different from crime in small ones, or in rural areas.
Spend some time reading the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog. It gives the good, the bad, and the ugly of news-outlet stories collected from across the country about people who have used firearms to defend themselves. While I'm not discounting your experience, I am suggesting that it is skewed by your environment.
How many of those homicides were committed with handguns and how many with "assault weapons"? Yet those are the guns - admittedly used in less than 2% of gun crime - that the gun-ban organizations are after, not handguns. Why?
Well, let the Violence Policy Center (the only gun "control" organization willing to actually come out and say they want to ban all handguns) explain that. In a 1988 strategy paper they quite blatantly said this:
"Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
Divide and conquer. And it's worked, hasn't it?
Did violent crime decline? Indeed it did. Did the "Assault Weapon Ban" have anything to do with it? Well, considering that "assault weapons" made up less than 2% of the firearms used in violent crime, that would be a tough one to prove. In addition to passage of the '94 AWB, since 1993 (the beginning of the decline) the number of states that have "shall-issue" concealed-weapons laws has increased from 16 to 37 (and Alaska has gone from "not allowed" to "unrestricted," so make it 38.)
But you know what? The decrease in violent crime can't be attributed to that, either. Statistically speaking, there's no evidence that either the AWB or the increasing popularity of CCW laws has had any effect on crime rates, at least according to a meta-study of all the published gun-control research available up until about 2004 performed by the National Academies of Science.
In fact, that report concluded that there is no evidence that gun control laws have had any effect on gun crime at all - with one exception: It seems that you can statistically prove that waiting periods for gun purchases makes older men choose other ways to commit suicide. It doesn't change the suicide rate, it just changes the method.
They say we need more research. Imagine that.
And you know what else? In that same period, from 1994 to 2004, we added at least 30 million firearms to the pool (guestimated at 250 million) already owned by private citizens. By most estimates at least 10 million of those were handguns, and most of those were the powerful, concealable "pocket-rockets" the VPC protests so vociferously about. You want to know something even more interesting? According to the New York Times about 1.2 million new "assault weapons" were added to the existing 1.7 million "grandfathered" in by the '94 AWB. Mine is one of them - no bayonet lug, no flash hider, no collapsable stock - and pre-ban 30-round magazines work in it just fine. In celebration of the sunset of the ban I bought a "pre-ban" style upper for it that has a flash-hider and bayonet lug. The collapsible stock will get ordered soon.
I don't own guns because I "feel threatened." I own guns because it's my right, and according to the Founders of this nation, my duty. I own guns because I enjoy them. The likelihood of my actually needing a firearm for self-defense is, I acknowledge, very low. But the likelihood that I'll need a fire extinguisher is pretty low, too.
I need to replace the one I keep in my truck because I helped a guy extinguish his burning Ford Explorer a while back.
I support the right to arms because I understand that if we strip it from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, none of our rights will be safe. Alan Dershowitz understands that. He said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
Judge Kleinfeld (quoted above) said much the same in the conclusion of his dissent:
"About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. The most extraordinary step taken by the panel opinion is to read the frequently used Constitutional phrase, 'the people,' as conferring rights only upon collectives, not individuals. There is no logical boundary to this misreading, so it threatens all the rights the Constitution guarantees to 'the people,' including those having nothing to do with guns. I cannot imagine the judges on the panel similarly repealing the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right of 'the people' to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of 'the people' to freedom of assembly, but times and personnel change, so that this right and all the other rights of 'the people' are jeopardized by planting this weed in our Constitutional garden."
I want to pull that weed out by its roots.
Hey, some interesting stuff here. I don't agree with all of it but you have given me a perspective that I may not have seen before.
I hope you stick around and check out my other posts and engage in the banter. I usually put more during the week...videos and the like...but I have been tremendously busy of late. After this week , I will be able to respond more fully to some of your insigtful comments but I at least wanted to say thanks and I hope you keep posting.
You're welcome, and thank you for the invitation.
I'd be more than happy to discuss the parts you don't agree with. Having perused your site I can see that we're not at all on the same plane philosophically or politically, so I'm going to disagree with you on a lot of things. This is good, because you learn much more arguing your case with someone who disagrees with you than you do preaching to the choir. Just bear in mind one thing: I've been studying this one topic for about the last twelve years. What I've learned during that study colors my political and philosophical worldview.
If you want a discussion, I'll be more than happy to provide it. I don't throw ad hominems, and I provide research and citations to support my positions. It's a lot of work. I expect the same in return. "I feel" or "I believe" isn't enough. "This is what I believe, and here is why I believe it" constitutes a valid argument.
Post a Comment