Gun Remark Kills Outdoorsman's Career (WP)

The Washington Post ^ | 24 FEB 07 | Blaine Harden

[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.

[supercat]

What Zumbo said was stupid and wrong but it amazes me how vicious we on the right become when someone steps off the reservation for even one split second. We attack like a pack of jackels and that person is, from that point on, dead to us. Zumbo isn't the only one this has happened to, just the latest.

I do believe there is value in forgiveness, but forgiveness to have real value it must be earned. Zumbo's apology was much better than the normal "apology" given after such faux pas, but a mere apology is not sufficient for such a grave misstep as Zumbo's. I would suggest that a good start on the road to reconciliation would be for Mr. Zumbo to publicly repudiate HCI et al. for putting out such propaganda and then using the fact that he fell for it as evidence of its truthfulness. The simple fact of the matter is that the AWB (and nearly all "gun control" is predicated on a pack of lies, and someone needs to call HCI to task on that. Zumbo right now would actually be in a good position to do precisely that.

[therut]

One more time. The .223 is not HIGH POWERED. It is mid range at most. Is is appropriate for small animals. Very few people use it for deer for that reason. Alot of states will not let you take a deer with .223 cause it is too low powered. Me I would use my 22-250 to shot the little varmits. Hot and fast and accurate with a custom barrell. But it has a too pretty wood stock so it is a look at gun and use with care not to scratch. Now the AR-15 is O:K to try and scratch. The AK-47 even better with the dirt and grime. See everyone has their choice in the FREE country.

[Bob Mc]

Try this link:

anvil shoot

[Thumper1960]

"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being called terrorists."

The whole construction of his comments is offensive. Take it, sentence by sentence, word by word.

Smith sees it as an "unfortunate situation". Talk about an understatement. "Delicate times"? For whom? You, Mr. Smith? For Mr. Zumbo? For those who wish to propagandize and are called on it? "Enthusiasts"? How about Americans who exercise their Rights and own 'nasty looking firearms'. Firearms not unlike every single semiautomatic ever built. Just different cosmetically.

Mr. Smith seems like he wished he had the audacity to be as blatant as Mr. Zumbo.

[Liberty Rattler]

Oh, and I meant to add,

When we, in our time, in a debate about gun rights, start to talk about overthrowing the government, we come off like a bunch of nut-cases, and thereby play into the hands of the gun-grabbing enemy.

That's what I meant by that.

[ME-262]

"They are big and fat, they’re slow and easy targets"

Dale are you speaking of your braincells?

Obviously you don't know what a prairie dog is since you referred to them as ground hogs in your post 170. Take it from a Kansan, you won't get many with a slingshot.
Also I don't believe hunting is the right word to use with prairie dogs. It is more of an extermination, just shooting them and leaving them where they fall. I've never seen anybody collect them for food or fur. I believe the term hunting implies that you want the end item. Just like how poisoning a pond is not considered fishing. Poisoning, trapping, or shooting prairie dogs is outside of hunting. I believe Kansas considers them to be a varmint not a game animal. Yes varmint is a legal class of animal not just a slur against opossums and skunks. But the rules may be different in places where they eat those sort of critters.

[supercat]

For all intents and purposes the 2nd Amendment today is about hunting weapons. Not sure when it happened, but firearms of the type we could actually use to overthrow our government are no longer legal in a practical sense unless you're very rich.

It doesn't necessarily take a very good weapon to capture something better.

[flashbunny]

The clause is there to give powers to congress. The 2nd amendment is there to enumerate a God given right of the people. The granting of a power to congress doesn't remove the rights of the citizens. It merely clarifies what congress can do with the militia. Fairly simple when you think about the balance of other powers and rights laid out in the constitution.

And the language of the 2nd is very clear - the militia is there for "the security of a free State". Note the word FREE is there - not just State or Republic or Country. But one that is Free.

[flashbunny]

" Anvil shooting involves placing one large blacksmith anvil upside down on the ground and filling its cavity with a fine grade of black powder. A second anvil weighing up to 150 pounds is then placed upright on top of the bottom one. The powder is ignited and the top anvil is thrust as high as 125 feet into the air. The earth literally shakes; and the deafening boom, it is said, can be heard from as far away as 15 miles. It often is catapulted higher than the tallest trees."

[supercat]

There is the text and I am having a hard time seeing "overthrow the government" in those words.

Actually, it's more like "overthrow those who would subvert legitimate government". And that is definitely part of maintaining the security of a free state.

[Thumper1960]

Actually, the Founders believed that an armed population was essential in keeping those elected in their place, on their toes and interested in doing the peoples business.

In the words of the 3rd president, Thomas Jefferson:"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Make what you will of Mr. Jefferson's words.

[supercat]

If you have been following Ted Nugent's forum, Zumbo finally came out with an acceptable apology on the 3rd try.

Has he yet attacked those who deceived him and then sought to use the fact that he fell for their deception as justification for their falsehoods?

[flashbunny]

"When we, in our time, in a debate about gun rights, start to talk about overthrowing the government, we come off like a bunch of nut-cases, and thereby play into the hands of the gun-grabbing enemy."

So we cede a basic truth about the founding of the country to appease to people who are going to think we are nuts for caring about 'icky guns' in the first place?

It never should be dropped as a point of argument. There are better arguments to start out with to win people over, but once you're educating them, throwing out that fact will open their minds.

Thanks to a public school edumacation, no teachers ever explained the 2nd amendment or BOR as a listing of basic human rights. It wasn't until I heard Walter E Williams reciting the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment (the radical one) that my eyes were opened to everything.

[therut]

You know I used to think the same thing you do. But I have been on law blogs where highly educated constitutional lawyers say that it is to overthrow or protect the nation from a tyranny overtaking WE the PEOPLE. There are even Federal Judges who has said the same. So I will be a nut like them.

[DesScorp]

"When we, in our time, in a debate about gun rights, start to talk about overthrowing the government, we come off like a bunch of nut-cases, and thereby play into the hands of the gun-grabbing enemy."

The right of armed force against tyrannical governments goes back to Locke. It should always be the last option, but if SCOTUS suddenly said one day "That keep and bear arms thing really means you can't have them", what would you have Americans do? In my view, ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution is ample justification for picking up arms and starting over. Part of the problem is that too many Americans don't realize that this is our right should things go badly.

[JasonC]

Just add enough hot sauce, and consider it "extra crispy"...

[supercat]

You’re right, I don’t the difference between a 223 and a 22 caliber – actually, I’ve never hear of a 223.

A .223 rifle fires a bullet that's essentially the same diameter as a .22 rimfire, but is a fair bit heavier. The powder stack behind the bullet in a .223 cartridge, however, is much larger than that in any .22 rimfire (even a .22 magnum rimfire doesn't come close). Not large compared with hunting rifles (e.g. the 30-30 or 30-06) but large relative to the size of the bullet.

[dennisw]

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Exactly. It's to defend against government tyranny. For home and self defense from criminals and terrorists. Assault weapons may be very very useful in the future if we get hit by mass terrorism and chaos

[Liberty Rattler]

If the founders intended us to be able to overthrow the government by force any time we felt like it, why did they put in a clause to allow Congress to call forth the militia to quell just such an insurrection?

[supercat]

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.

Anything over .5" and not a "sporting" shotgun. Twelve-gauge shotguns that are deemed "unsporting" by the BATF are taxed as destructive devices.

I'm somewhat surprised that nobody's come up with a good bull-pup 28ga shotgun for home defense. A fixed choke could have a diameter of 0.495" so as to avoid the "destructive device" classification, and a 28ga shell should provide a somewhat useful payload (especially if there were standard 3.5" and 4" lengths).