Posted on 02/22/2007 10:29:46 AM PST by bad company
There's a huge audience out there for Zumbo in publications like Vanity Fair, Harper's, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, etc. What's he worried about ?
The real shame of the whole thing is that we were put in a position where we had to lynch a man that many considered to be "one of our own", but we lynched him all the same, and we will do it again, because there are issues at stake here that are bigger than any one man. As a group we are a political force to be reckoned with. There are serious economic and public opinion consequences to speaking out against the second amendment, and we will make those consequences felt wherever we must, whether it's someone we consider a friend or not.
I hope all those RINO's in congress remember what happened to Jim Zumbo when it comes time to vote for that new assault weapons ban. And I hope they realize that we know what makes the world tick... it's money, and they aren't going to see any of it from us unless we see support from them.
I have to disagree. You can say whatever you want but are not guaranteed the reception your words get. I know that if I were to say something stupid/offensive/racist/etc... at work I could be terminated.
I take it then that those with a scoped 308 are carrying a terrorist gun. (sniper rifle)
Oh yes, it's coming. Make no mistake.
his comments have already been used by the brady bunch as anti-gun rhetoric.
He doesn't deserve a career involving the gun industry. He arrogantly blasted one section of the gun community, showed disdain for their 2nd amendment and hunting rights, and only after it was clear that his lunch money was in danger did he offer a lame apology.
That's it. He still is thinking about legitimate hunting purposes. He doesn't get it.
The second is not about hunting wild game, but it could be about hunting our enemies.
According to the UN a .308 or 7.62 NATO rifle with or without a scope is a "medium range" sniper rifle whose only legitimate use is by uniformed military.
They'll want yours, so keep it in good shape.
Zumbo the Dumbo?
Tell that to Rudy Giuliani who believes that the protections of the 2nd Amendment apply only to hunting, collections, and not to individual firearms ownership for personal defense, etc.
I tried to register, they won't accept either of my email addys. That place must be a war zone!
So the problem is black guns now? My 30-06 hunting rifle is a black gun. The only difference between it and the same model in a wood stock is the stock itself, and that the fiberglass (I think it's fiberglass at least) is lighter. Even the shape and textured areas of the stock is the same as it's molded from the wood version.
As far as the full auto submachine gun, well that black rifle I have is a good old fashioned bold action...same as the wood stock.
Careful when you start calling guns bad just because they are black.
Now if your point was that you just don't like the color and prefer old school wood then that's completely fine and understandable. I got a few of those as well.
No, he was pushing his opinion that 2nd amendment - gun ownership is about hunting. That may be even more destructive; trying to convince the crowd that is the grassroots supporters of RKBA.
Not directly, but what he wrote has been parroted, twisted, and sent to legislators, by all the anti-gun groups since the weekend.
Brady struck Sunday (no time wasted); read Brady BS here . I'd suggest, for the safety of your computer, that you don't have a firearm at hand...
Sorry Zummy, you've given aid and comfort to the gun grabbers.
As far as I'm concerned, you're damaged goods and no matter how fast you spin you'll never be anything else.
If you are truly penitent, retire quietly before you do even more damage to those of us who understand the real reason for the Second Amendment. He have enough trouble fighting the hoplophobes without you carrying water for them.
"Black guns" (or "evil black rifles") is a generic term for the "ugly" guns like the AR-15, the AK variants, the SKS, etc. that the elitist hunting snobs like Jim Zumbo and the engraved over-under crowd want banned, because they think they'll get to keep their precious "sporting arms" if they throw the rest of us under the Brady bus.
Here's the TRUTH about the first terrorist attack in New York City during Giuliani's term as mayor. On 23 February 1997 an Islamic terrorist opened fire on the observation platform of the Empire State Building in New York City. This was a terrorist attack and is even listed as a "significant terrorist attack" on the U.S. State Department's website. How did Giuliani react to the first Islamic terrorist attack while he was mayor? He took the opportunity to immediately and openly politicize the event to advance his and the Democrats' agenda for national gun control and to praise Bill Clinton's gun control efforts.
Here's the relevant info and quotes:
U.S. State Department - Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Mayor's Message, 2 March 1997:
"Good morning. It has been a week since the terrible tragedy that happened last Sunday at the Empire State Building. And even as we grieve for the families and our hearts and prayers go out to them, perhaps we can use this senseless tragedy to re-energize the fight for gun control."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Major Addresses, Citizen's Crime Commission, 6 March 1997:
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.Two days after the terrorist attack, Giuliani wasn't assessing further Islamic terrorist threats or preparing the city against terrorist attack or publically denouncing Islamic terrorism. No, instead he was in a press conference at City Hall with a Democrat gun control nut (Rep. Carolyn McCarthy) by his side calling for national gun control.[snip]
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control. And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
[snip]
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements. ... I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.
[snip]
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
This is the TRUTH that must be told about the February 1997 terrorist attack in New York City. This is how Giuliani deals with terrorist attacks. He blamed the guns, called for violating constitutional rights for EVERYONE, and wanted to take away our own individual defense against further terrorist attacks. More disturbing is that he would openly politicize a terrorist attack to advance a liberal agenda.
Even if Giuliani didn't have all of the other 100-ton social liberal and personal baggage he would carry as the GOP nominee for President, his reaction to this terrorist attack is more than enough reason for Republicans to seriously consider looking for a better candidate.
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.