Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Another Zumbo inquiry - not trolling, promise!

+1!!
Hey, don't Remington 7600's come in...........wait one......BLACK, slingin lead w no regard to life or limb.

Some of you guys amaze me. I have used a bolt gun to harvest every big game animalI've taken, but that has nothing to do with what you choose to sling on your shoulder.

Wait 'till they come for yours, sadly, if that day comes, it'll be too late.

Well it does seem that Jim�s poorly thought out blog has had much more of a positive effect than the intended negative effect on so called black guns. The whole incident forced many fence riders in the industry to pick a side and even made Jim reconsider his position. In the end it seems to me to have been a good thing.

I am amused by the knuckleheads that think the AR has no place �hunting fields�. Just like all my other rifles it has a job and does that job better than anything else I own. It is quite ironic that Zumbo himself would now disagree with those that are supporting his foolish statement from so long ago. Some guys live and learn and others will go to their grave stuck in the same rut.

When I got my first AR (early 90s) it was unusual to see one at the range in Cody WY but these days it seem to be one of the most popular rifles that guys take out for a fun afternoon of shooting.

I can't think of a better predator calling rifle for doubles and triples..
To bad we can use them up here in Canada for hunting..

That's why I like the Lar-8 Predator model I own. 8.5pounds, 2 stage match trigger, air gauged chryo treated stainless barrel, and the ability to use the millions of FAL mags floating around the world.

So , just exactly what are people like me ? Are you refering to pro gun veterans , or people that speak their minds , and don't take crap from anybody ? So who's your buddy , Ted or Jane . I really enjoy seeing Ted excersise the rights he didn't have nads enough to fight for ! You have a nice day Greg , and I support your right to your opinion too !

I'm not too keen on Hanoi Jane, but get a kick out of Uncle Ted. What's he done that has you upset?

DF

Uncle Ted is probably the most outspoken supporter of hunters and gunowners rights there is. We need more people like him in the public spot light and less cowards like the RINOs in Washington.

What ever he did doesn't even compare to Hanio Jane and it happened 40+ yrs ago. There's a saying more people should live by, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". People make mistakes and they learn from them, not even the Founding Fathers of this Country were without faults.

As I recall Ted was in college and that was a reason for not drafting people at the time. It is the Senate I believe who drafts people. If they didn't want to draft him then it is on them not Ted.

Don't get me wrong, I like the AR for it's intended use. I had a pre-ban Colt that I used for USAF High Power matches. They are nice house guns and for law enforcement/security use. I do wish they hadn't taken over the gun shows but I suppose folks will sell whatever people will buy.

Why do you wish they hadn't taken over? Seriously?

One of the "assault weapons" prior to the AR15 was the 03 springfield. I doubt you have anything against bolt guns in the hunting fields or gun shows.

Folks like you are not strong 2nd amendment supporters. Thats how you loose all your rights eventually. Why can I not have military style arms? Are my MZ not military style arms from an era basically? Heck I even hunt with a civil war musket.

Why can't I have handguns.

Where does it boil down to the item being an issue rather than responsible use?

You are using the train of thought that could also ban vehicles RE DWI and ban pharmacies from selling legal meds because someone might choose to use them incorrectly or sell them......

Rost, well said...give them an inch, they'll take a mile. anyone really believe they'll stop with banning "just those evil assault rifles"? sorry, i dont trust their good motives on that issue.

good quote by Emerson comes to mind..

"Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory."

What it boils down to is the folks on this forum and others that don't care about "assault weapons" or "hand guns" or "belly guns", because they don't have a use for them. Since they don't use them and don't see a purpose for them, they could care less if they get banned. That is as ignorant as it comes.

Put that same pistol hating person in a high crime area with their family, NO weapons and no cops and they would be CRYING for a hand gun of some sort.

Put the "black rifle" hating person in a helicopter doing hog control to save the family ranch from bankruptcy, with a bolt action rifle and they would be BEGGING for an AR-15.

Just because you don't like a certain style of firearm, don't be ignorant and throw those that do under the bus. We are all on the same team. ALL firearms have been "assault" weapons from one era or another. Flinch

Incrementalism is how the Nazi's took over Germany. A little bit at a time. That's why we can't give up any rights, they're all precious. The 2nd Amendment covers firearms, not just the ones I have. I can't let black rifles go, or handguns go, just because I don't have one. We stand together or we perish together. The Gremlins will divide and conquer if we allow them to. "Moderates" need to grow a set and stand with real men.

DF

One poster corrects my spelling, complete with umlat....

Yet has NO clue what the real meaning of the quote is. Damn shame.

Wish only some folks would open their hearts and minds, instead of getting old, cranky and block headed. Those same folks might even still have us fighting battles with the 03.... and you know how good that gun was for its purpose, and how wrong it would be today....

Flinch... my man, VERY well stated. I applaud your post.

Jeff

So I have read all post and several things crossed my mind.
The term "he threw us under the bus" has been used several times. I think that implies intent to have a negitive impact on the second amendment. I do not think that was Zumbo's intent, he was mearly expressing an opinion.
If he had said "I do not like single shots for hunting, do not know why anyone would use them", do any of you think he would have triggered the conflict and debate that still lingers today. Single shots are not a hot political, gun rights topic, AR/black rifles are.
Let's not give up the right to free speach while trying to protect the right to bear arms. Let's protect all our Constitutional Rights.
Let's not continue to attack each other over a difference of opinion. We are all gun owners who support the 2nd. I do not have an AR (do have a couple single shots), but have been considering one and believe, like most things in life, it is a personal choice, and a choice I do not want taken away.
Lastly, let's hope we all can learn from our mistakes and make positive changes. I think Zumbo did. Doesn't mean you need to support him, but he is not an evil troll for the antis either.

If he'd have said what you say about single shots, basically I don't see the need to use one or why anyone would want one, I'd assume the same thing... he's on the side to get rid of single shots.

OTOH if he said they are fine weapons, and many enjoy them, but they don't appeal to me personally or something along those lines, it would have been a bit different to me.

But as a WRITER, you choose your words, he choose poorly and has to pay the price. No different than scewing up at work etc...

He picked on a firearm whose elimination is widely regarded as the "camel's nose under the edge of the tent". Everyone remembers the "assault weapons" ban. The antis would waste no time trumpeting the fact that a prominent outdoor writer and hunter sees no need for black rifles in our sport. Therefore, they must be the choice of criminals and terrorists and we need to ban them again.

...If you are indeed "old" and a veteran and not just a pretender, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe that you're simply disfunctionally naive and not mind numbingly stupid. Quiting the NRA because you think Nuge avoided the draft is room-temperature-IQ-behavior though, my friend.
....actually, no, because that would include me.
...now you're just sounding like an 8th grader on the playground trying to sound post-pubescent. If you don't become more well spoken, at least take the "old" out of your cyber-moniker. "onesap" might actually be more appropriate. Tom Selleck also didn't serve, are you equally upset by his involvement? Did you have a hard time differentiating between he and Rosie O'Donnell? Thanks for your service in whatever military branch you chose if in fact your not a wannabe (please tell me you weren't a Marine). I admit that the Nuge leaves alot to be desired on many fronts, but he's been an outspoken voice that communicates "in kind" with the stridency of the left. The NRA has many faults to be sure, but they are far and away the best thing that we have going for us.
Semper Fi,
Greg

I sense that the results are good, too. It would be interesting to see exactly what Jim Zumbo wrote that stirred up such a wide ranging discussion. Has anyone actually seen it? Whatever it is, I don't seen any lasting harm given the current state of gun sales in the US.

One of my friends in the US was telling me a couple of weeks ago that black guns now dominate at the shooting ranges these days and I'd bet that purchases are way up there too. I've never had one, assuming that a pre-ban FN Belgian FAL para in 7.62 doesn't count (mine was green). But I very much agree that if the gov't starts "regulating" them one type at a time, we are all in trouble.

We had better watch out for this and keep our acts together, because the current administration does seem to be moving in that direction. If it gets another term, I expect that we will really see what its intentions are -- and we may not be able to do anything about it.

We can see this clearly from a close watch of the "Fast and Furious" scandal. As I wrote on one of my lawyers forums,

. . . the current Administration is already adopting rules -- without legislation -- to require added reporting of multiple gun sales to a single buyer by shops. The purported justification for this is precisely the purchases by Mexican drug gangs.

In other words, they are purposely setting up situations that can be used as excuses to restrict gun sales. They then call this "need based" control. However, it is a need that THEY created.

What "need" is there for controlling the purchase of two or more guns at one time? I have done that often.

For those of us who have been following the news closely about how the Fast and Furious scandal occurred, this seems to be a disingenuous and secretive policy measure. It is not hard to figure out what the goal is.

It defies credibility to think that, as claimed, this did not come at very least from Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Criminal Division, and not solely from their underlings at the BATF. Frankly, it is my own opinion that the program would never have gone forward without at least tacit approval from a President who publicly claims to be avoiding more gun controls, but is covertly adopting them. I do not like this, since it exhibits lack of candor at minimum.

It also does a great disservice to our good friends south of the border. One thing I did yesterday was to sign my son up for an NRS Life Membership. The more support the NRA has, the better it can defend our interests.