Posted on 03/03/2007 1:13:46 PM PST by CondiRice08
A famous hunter and outdoorsman recently voiced misgivings about people who use assault rifles to kill prairie dogs. “Assault rifle” is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises “assault rifle,” considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others’ rights. That is a debate for another day. “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “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.” Until he wrote that, Mr. Zumbo was one of the most admired hunters in America, a widely read magazine writer with his own cable TV program and lots of lecture appearances and corporate sponsorships. He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots. His 250-word posting caused a huge eruption on gun blogs, and Mr. Zumbo instantly became their second-most-hated man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady. He lost his blog, was dumped by Outdoor Life magazine and was disowned by the National Rifle Association, after 40 years of membership. His corporate sponsors, including the gunmaker Remington, ditched him. His cable show was canceled. The N.R.A. issued a chilling statement warning Congress to take heed of Mr. Zumbo’s fate. By the time Blaine Harden told his story in The Washington Post, Mr. Zumbo was professionally dead. The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves.p>
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"...they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate."
Uh-hugh. Let's find out why someone that owns a particluar object is a terrorist? No, a better debate is at hand--why does the de-facto paper of record for the US have such low standards. Zumbo got thumped and needed it. He was thumped by his marketplace. He is a fool that wants to promote the idea that hunting is a fraternity of which he has the power of cersure.
"...they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate."
Uh-hugh. Let's find out why someone that owns a particluar object is a terrorist? No, a better debate is at hand--why does the de-facto paper of record for the US have such low standards. Zumbo got thumped and needed it. He was thumped by his marketplace. He is a fool that wants to promote the idea that hunting is a fraternity of which he has the power of cersure.
Don't quite copy. Please clarify.
I mean I never heard of him, never saw a single post about him in countless hours of reading FreeRepublic, but still, apparently, according to the New York Times, I'm outraged. ("Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble.")
I love how all the liberals are racing to this man's defense all of a sudden when they didn't even know or care who the hell he was up until a nanosecond before the crap hit the fan regarding his remarks.
This is just another consequence of his stupid remarks. He gave the antis a club to hit gun owners over the head with for as long as they can use it.
Guns are Good. Nice discussion.
PRay for W and Our Troops
The distance from fool to tool is quite small in lib land. Witness Cindy Sheehan.
Dear NY SLIMES: While you keep failing to understand the US Constitution, we will keep sending you the scalps of the like-minded. No apology is made for denying you the ability to use the words of a "respected gun-rights advocate" to push for gun control - you are just going to have to put more effort into playing the role of the Useful Idiot for the Democrats. No soup for you.
It's a shame about Zumbo but he should have known not to say something like that in his column. Now he'll have to go into rehab ;)
I was just addressing the "assault weapon" angle, but you're right about "sniper" rifles being next.
It's all about incrementalism.
Apparently I wasn't 100% correct. He did sort of take back the "terrorist" part in his apology on Ted Nugent's board. That didn't get reported anywhere though.
So lets say 90% correct.
Ever been to Zabar's?
To outlaw completely weapons and hazards without changing the Constitution, is in itself by itself, outlawry. We have an outlaw federal government in that regard.
"I think he knows the difference."
I sincerely doubt that. This poster prattled on, in a complimentary manner, about the reasoning for Giuliani's position on the 2A and didn't even know the language of the amendment, let alone the meaning of it. I don't think he's ever even touched a firearm of any kind, let alone actually fired one.
Zeeba Naybor
??
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.