Despite the current witch-hunt, I have always liked Jim Zumbo. I especially liked the inclusion of the cooking portion of his TV show and how he related it to the game of the day. Seems to me he has been a pretty staunch supporter of the hunting and gun owning community for his whole life. I never tried to read too much into it, just enjoyed the guy and his writings and show in general.
Frankly I think there became an internet feeding frenzy to destroy the guy over comments that I don't believe were as noxious as everyone seems to be making them out to be.
Reading his commentary objectively, I think he wrote it poorly, and chose some poor phrasing, with words like "terrorist" and "ban". I don't agree with his commentary, but I'm still amazed at some of the reactions.
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned. He said they should be banned from hunting use. (I don't agree) but nowhere did he mention anything about ownership. I know my grandfather and father and most of the old timers I grew up around would have also frowned on seein' AR's and AK's in the woods. Just a reaction of the times perhaps, but still they way they "perceived" it. I suspect that that is what Jim Z. was trying to get at but just went over the top in the way he said it.
Funny, I always thought he was a jackass.
Funny, I always thought he was a jackass.
+1
Seems a pretty good reason to crucify him...
It is like that with a lot of animals. If one of their own is sick or injured they will turn on it and mercilessly tear it to pieces.
I say give the guy a break.
Thought him a jackass long before this latest debacle.
The nerve! A person speaking their mind in America! How dare he say anything other than an NRA aproved comment?
Was he right?...NO
Was it his right to say what the thought?... of course.
Why do we tear everyone apart who has the nerve to speak their mind, politically correct or not? He's a fellow hunter, an individual, and, omigosh, opininated.
Like my signature says and he found out, so cut him a break.
He may find himself a new writing niche:
Jim Zumbo; Tactical Shooter??
Most people don't understand or value freedom and freedoms until they are lost, nor to most people understand how those freedoms are lost.
+1 and a drunkard who got too big for his britches who is now crawling into his bottle to find solace!! Good Riddance!!
People who cost me money pizz me off!!!!!!
Why do we tear everyone apart who has the nerve to speak their mind, politically correct or not?
Civilization is not very civil.
When someone, no matter who it is sits in prominence over a group of people and then makes comments that the group does not agree with, the only thing the group can do is separate themselves from the one making the comments. If we the hunters, shooters, collectors etc. said nothing it would mean to the rest that we agreed with what Zumbo said IMHO.
Despite the current witch-hunt, I have always liked Jim Zumbo. I especially liked the inclusion of the cooking portion of his TV show and how he related it to the game of the day. Seems to me he has been a pretty staunch supporter of the hunting and gun owning community for his whole life. I never tried to read too much into it, just enjoyed the guy and his writings and show in general.
Frankly I think there became an internet feeding frenzy to destroy the guy over comments that I don't believe were as noxious as everyone seems to be making them out to be.
Reading his commentary objectively, I think he wrote it poorly, and chose some poor phrasing, with words like "terrorist" and "ban". I don't agree with his commentary, but I'm still amazed at some of the reactions.
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned. He said they should be banned from hunting use. (I don't agree) but nowhere did he mention anything about ownership. I know my grandfather and father and most of the old timers I grew up around would have also frowned on seein' AR's and AK's in the woods. Just a reaction of the times perhaps, but still they way they "perceived" it. I suspect that that is what Jim Z. was trying to get at but just went over the top in the way he said it.
If you're looking for agreement, you ain't gonna get much here.
While you're trolling, why not try Sarah Bardy's site. You'll get far more agreement there....
Don
Funny, I always thought he was a jackass.
++1
Those words did not just tumble half formed from Jim Zumbo's word processor. His expressed views demonstrate his long engrained belief that only his type of gun games are worthwhile. While no one is arguing that he was a friend of hunters, (or at least a friend of his sponsors who wined and dined him with free guns, dream hunts and other goodies), he has never demonstrated that he is a friend of the Second Amendment, or the political philosophy that is behind it.
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned.
His blog was written about hunting, BUT, and this is a huge but, you cannot, as a world known gun writer take a firearm and refer to it as a "terrorist weapon" in print without doing damage to the cause of the 2nd ammendment. Period.
He was okay when he said he "didn't see a use for them in hunting". He was okay when he called them "assault rifles" in quotes, mocking the media and lefties. He may have even weathered the storm after calling for their ban from our hunting fields, maybe. Not the worst thing, there are many different weapons restricted or outright banned from our hunting fields, it doesn't mean you can't own one. But where he completely crossed the line and hit the point of no return was the "terrorist weapon" comment. I don't care if he's writing a story about knitting, call a rifle a tool of terrorists, and there's going to harm done to the cause. You will hear that term again in print and on TV because of him...guaranteed, especially in light of the fact that the effort to renew the AWB is underway.
Having said that, I never particularly liked the guy, but it is troubling to watch someone who was in the business for so long and was at or just beyond the apex of his carreer, go down in flames like this. Like the guy or not, it's not easy to watch someone lose everything they just spent 30 years working for. His retirement will likely be a lot less comfy than it otherwise would have, and after having been respected by many for many years, he suddenly finds himself the cast off on the outside looking in. That cannot be in any way pleasant.
Had he said those comments over a campfire, it would have likely resulted in not much more than a lively debate or some name calling. Say it for the world to see and your enemies to use against you, and it's a whole different ball game now...
When somebody calls a large group of people "terrorists" he's gotta expect some heat. That steps over the "speaking his mind" line.
It's a fact that the antis are already quoting him. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I never really liked his writing, thought he sounded a bit full of himself. Never saw his show, though, so maybe I am wrong...
The nerve! A person speaking their mind in America! How dare he say anything other than an NRA aproved comment?
Was he right?...NO
Was it his right to say what the thought?... of course.
There is nothing in the 1st Amendment about being insulated from the consequences derived from insulting your sponsors' customers. Zumbo got his 15 minutes on the soapbox; now it's time to pay the piper (I love mixing metaphors).
I agree with SteveNo, as I oftimes do and Mannlicher, Zumbo is a hack, always has been and this is NOT an "off-the-cuff" remark, the dipschitt actually believes this crap!
I agree with SteveNo, as I oftimes do and Mannlicher, Zumbo is a hack, always has been and this is NOT an "off-the-cuff" remark, the dipschitt actually believes this crap!
Yeah, well,, so much like yourself, eh? Your own press. You "believe".
Keep building your Posse, Koot. I'm sure they (all mentioned by you here) are honored,,Ole Boy. Please, leave me out!
No worries there.
Old Toot
Quote:
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned. He said they should be banned from hunting use. (I don't agree) but nowhere did he mention anything about ownership. I know my grandfather and father and most of the old timers I grew up around would have also frowned on seein' AR's and AK's in the woods. Just a reaction of the times perhaps, but still they way they "perceived" it. I suspect that that is what Jim Z. was trying to get at but just went over the top in the way he said it.
Unquote!
Mtnman1; Your post is bullsheet! This whole issue certainly is about the 2nd Amendment and our LIBERTY TEETH.
If you're too dumb to get this point, then you're likely a liberal, aren't you?
Whether you or anyone else thinks an AR15 or SKS or AKM shouldn't be used for hunting is what set this whole damn issue off.
I'm glad Zumbo is canned. Too bad he wasn't 47 or 57! I've seen the guy and even had a chance to talk to him (at 2 RMEF conventions in Salt lake City), but his arrogance turned me off.
Get your head out of rectal defalade, Mtnman1. The whole jist of what Dumbo wrote has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned. He said they should be banned from hunting use. (I don't agree) but nowhere did he mention anything about ownership. I know my grandfather and father and most of the old timers I grew up around would have also frowned on seein' AR's and AK's in the woods. Just a reaction of the times perhaps, but still they way they "perceived" it. I suspect that that is what Jim Z. was trying to get at but just went over the top in the way he said it.
Unquote!
Mtnman1; Your post is bullsheet! This whole issue certainly is about the 2nd Amendment and our LIBERTY TEETH.
If you're too dumb to get this point, then you're likely a liberal, aren't you?
Whether you or anyone else thinks an AR15 or SKS or AKM shouldn't be used for hunting is what set this whole damn issue off.
I'm glad Zumbo is canned. Too bad he wasn't 47 or 57! I've seen the guy and even had a chance to talk to him (at 2 RMEF conventions in Salt lake City), but his arrogance turned me off.
Get your head out of rectal defalade, Mtnman1. The whole jist of what Dumbo wrote has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment.
+1 This Post Is Spot On
I also like him, and I will continue to support him, but I will also continue to keep an eye on him to make sure he truly follows through in his mission to make amends or at least to educate away his ignorance on the subject.
I have to respect his 40+ years of service to Hunting and Firearms enthusiasts and their issues/causes.
I also believe it is/was all about hunting with him. That is the perspective he was issuing his thoughts and ideas from. It is who he is and what he does. It is what he eats, drinks, lives, and breaths.
The fact that he didn't get the bigger picture of it (IE firearms and the 2nd Amendment) is so obvious as to be a moot point to keep reiterating ad-nauseum. That is the point.
His statements were either ignorant (which he openly confesses) or intellectually dishonest, and it can be both. I was at one time, when I was a liberally bent young jackass, of the same opinion until I was educated (by someone I loved, trusted, and valued their opinions dearly) to realize that no matter how they looked, they functioned no differently than my M1911A-1, or my Glenfield 60... (Give or take - recoil or gas) and that I had unwittingly bought into the, purposely dis-informative, liberally biased, media's portrayal of such firearms.
I find it hard to believe he could be as ignorant, yet it is a possibility especially if he made his (closed on this subject) mind up to not care to be enlightened before this debacle.
Moreover, I would rather we had brought-to-bear our wrath and destroyed the careers of the Nancy Pilosis, John Kerrys, Chuck Schumers and Hillary Clintons of the world, rather than the 40+ year career of service to Hunting and Firearms of Jim Zumbo!
1- I also like him, and I will continue to support him, but I will also continue to keep an eye on him to make sure he truly follows through in his mission to make amends or at least to educate away his ignorance on the subject.
2- I have to respect his 40+ years of service to Hunting and Firearms enthusiasts and their issues/causes.
3- I also believe it is/was all about hunting with him. That is the perspective he was issuing his thoughts and ideas from. It is who he is and what he does. It is what he eats, drinks, lives, and breaths.
4- The fact that he didn't get the bigger picture of it (IE firearms and the 2nd Amendment) is so obvious as to be a moot point to keep reiterating ad-nauseum. That is the point.
5- His statements were either ignorant (which he openly confesses) or intellectually dishonest, and it can be both. I was at one time, when I was a liberally bent young jackass, of the same opinion until I was educated (by someone I loved, trusted, and valued their opinions dearly) to realize that no matter how they looked, they functioned no differently than my M1911A-1, or my Glenfield 60... (Give or take - recoil or gas) and that I had unwittingly bought into the, purposely dis-informative, liberally biased, media's portrayal of such firearms.
6- I find it hard to believe he could be as ignorant, yet it is a possibility especially if he made his (closed on this subject) mind up to not care to be enlightened before this debacle.
7- Moreover, I would rather we had brought-to-bear our wrath and destroyed the careers of the Nancy Pilosis, John Kerrys, Chuck Schumers and Hillary Clintons of the world, rather than the 40+ year career of service to Hunting and Firearms of Jim Zumbo!
1- Support him do what? He stated his agenda and then half hearthedly back tracked when the firestorm started
2- That respect went out when he posted his views(belief's)
3- So what if is was all about hunting with him, if he is that ignorant after 40 years of making a living off of the gun industry then he needs to go
4- "The fact that he didn't get the bigger picture of it (IE firearms and the 2nd Amendment) is so obvious as to be a moot point to keep reiterating ad-nauseum. That is the point"
And that is why he must go
5- "His statements were either ignorant (which he openly confesses) or intellectually dishonest, and it can be both".
His statements were narrow minded and self serving. No one that wrote about firearms for 40 years can be that dumb about firearms ( A semi auto is a semi auto no matter the color)
6- "I find it hard to believe he could be as ignorant"
He is not that ignorant!!!!!!!!!!!!
7- We should not stop here the gun grabbing politions need to be defeated as well
The real enemy is the democrat party, not Jim Zumbo. Put your efforts into getting Republicans elected or reelected.
I agree with SteveNo, as I oftimes do and Mannlicher, Zumbo is a hack, always has been and this is NOT an "off-the-cuff" remark, the dipschitt actually believes this crap!
Yeah, well,, so much like yourself, eh? Your own press. You "believe".
Keep building your Posse, Koot. I'm sure they (all mentioned by you here) are honored,,Ole Boy. Please, leave me out!
No worries there.
Old Toot
WTF, Toot. Posse? Are you smoking crack? I think Kutenay and I have maybe agreed on two things in years.
ok, enlighten me, how does Zumbo's commentary on hunting with a "black" rifle relate to the second amendment...
To be very clear I completely and wholeheartedly support 2A and advocate it strongly.
It has to be a joke!
Remember folks, there are some that always violate laws, a small minority, some that are pro gun, a small minority, some are anti gun, a small minority.
Just like that, there are some that will just never get it. Wont' or can't understand the issue and its long reaching consequences.
Jeff
Not in the least, I'm curious as to why you guys are so quick to scream "Liberal" at me or anyone else who advocates 2a strongly agrees with your position that Zumbo was wrong, but doesn't think he deserved to be destroyed over a poorly written commentary. I'm also curious about what your thoughts really are regarding what you think 2a means.
The Washington Post carried the Zumbo story this morning; we really do not need stories like this on Page 3 of the front section. It does not serve our interests at all. The Washington Post is one of the most influential newspapers in the country since it is read by (viturally) all Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Judges, DC area Federal and state judges, etc., and is widely quoted.
Agree with the article's facts or not, many gun supporters reactions and statements were extreme and they paint gun supporters to be intolerant and extremist. True, we know the AR's are accurate and interesting, but the general public only sees the military side of the gun's use.
Anti-gun people will refer to the Zumbo story as confirmation of their beliefs about us.
Zumbo is a clod, but our reaction just makes us look bad, as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html
Gents, I stated my opinion before that we as gunners actually have a tough standard we hold our "advocates" to. Our enemies have NO standards at all. Observe how Pelosi gave a great job to Jefferson who had all that "cold cash" in his freezer. I prefer the tough standards. What the enemy thinks, they will always think. The in-between will have to be brought up to speed on holding someone to a standard.
Hopefully, Mr. Zumbo will respond to the Post with a printed writing.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me
To start, I fully agree with anyone's right to own firearms of whatever type including AR's/AK's etc. I am also a staunch supporter of hunting rights and especially where game management is concerned.
Having said all that and certainly not trying to give the antis any particular additional ammo, how do you coorelate the 2a to hunting with a "black" rifle?
Seems to me that the bottom line is it scares every gun owner to death that the most minor consession eventually leads to their loss of the right as relates to 2a.
At the same time, I doubt that you think prisoners should be allowed to "keep and bear" or that it's ok for you to walk into the local daycare packin' an uzi.
Sorry if I prefer to take a moderate perspective and try to convince people that I encounter that hold a more neutral position to my way of thinking rather than professing such an extremist attitude that I drive those very folks the other way...
Did't see anything in the 2nd amendment mention hunting,what I did see was the right to bear arms,didn't say anything about being in the woods, my home or walking down the street. Mr. Zumbo's "opinion" that "these "black rifles" don't belong in the woods" in fact does then infringe on my 2nd amendment rights.
At the same time, I doubt that you think prisoners should be allowed to "keep and bear"
Prisoners have forfited that right,and where protected by other amendments before they became prisoners.
Seems to me that the bottom line is it scares every gun owner to death that the most minor consession eventually leads to their loss of the right as relates to 2a.
Has been the track record,and modus operandi of the anti gun lobby.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me
+1
Like the Bible says...Either you're with us, or you're Against us.
When Zumbo called the black rifles "terrorist rifles", I took that to mean in the eyes of the public the rifles are associated with.
He blew it big, but I really don't think he was insinuating that all that use these rifles are terrorists.
His attempt to separate hunters from ARs, for the sake of image was dumb and wrong, but I get his point.
Zumbo was thinking of how hunters could improve their image with the public by appeasement, and by now he should know it never seems to work.
Zumbo obviously doesn't shoot ARs, doesn't have a like for them in the field, so he chose them to sacrifice to protect his way of hunting never understanding that he was hurting the very cause he sought to protect.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me
I STRONGLY believe in the right of lawabiding people to own and enjoy firearms and I DO NOT want to start an argument here or be blasted, but ...
The Second Amendmendment is (perhaps) the poorest written part of the Constitution. As it is written, it ties the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, to the need for a "well regulated militia".
When written, defense was the responsiblity of the local militias that would respond to an emergency. There were requirements for all able-bodied men to belong to the militia and to regularly drill, train, and shoot. The militia members were required to own their personal weapons and use them in training and to defend the nation.
The defense of the nation is today vested in the military (Army, Marines, Guard and Reserves, etc.) who are well- regulated, drill and train and, supplied with their weapons by the US Government. Consequently, the requirement for a "militia" as envisioned by the founders does not exist today.
I just wish the constitutional framers has written the 2nd Amendment as "The right of the people to keep an bear arms, shall not be infringed." Then our rights would be established and we'd not have this controversy.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Did't see anything in the 2nd amendment mention hunting,what I did see was the right to bear arms,didn't say anything about being in the woods, my home or walking down the street. Mr. Zumbo's "opinion" that "these "black rifles" don't belong in the woods" in fact does then infringe on my 2nd amendment rights.
At bit of a stretch but ok, still my point remains the gist of what he was saying albeit stupid and generally wrong was coming from a purely "hunting" perspective. Additionally, I still don't think the punishment (as relates to Zumbo's banishment) fits the crime.
Has been the track record,and modus operandi of the anti gun lobby.
Seems like we are in agreement on everything, I just figure we won't change the anti's and they shouldn't be the focus. The real target audience in my opinion are the people who sit in the majority and have a fairly neutral opinion. Some of the extremist attitudes directly related to this situation are probably more detrimental than beneficial.
How in the world can speaking out against Zumbos and those who attack our 2a rights be extreme?
The silent gun owner is going to do us in.
It's not about Fudds and black rifles, it's not about hunters vs shooters, it's about gun control, people control, and the second amendment.
We can't let the anti gunners divide and concur us as has been done in Canada, England, and Australia. We in the US are next on the chopping block.
I think Zumbo's an arrogant elitist ass that got what he had coming.
He knew about the AR. It's advertised and written about in every form of gun media as a hunting and shooting rifle in this business. He's a liar.
"I smoked it but I didn't inhale, and it depends on what is, is."
He's full of crap.
...
Negative! Our reaction serves as a warning that we will no longer set by and silently let this crap continue.
If this is to much for you to stomach, maybe you should find another hobby like knitting or something, that's more comfortable then fighting for your second amendment rights.
marlinlover,
Your two posts above are ABSOLUTELY right on!!
Too many guys don't have what it takes to fight for what we believe in. Watering down the TOTAL damage that Zumbo did does not get it. Calling Zumbo anything other than the a traitor that he is, is liberal BS.
Don
Unfortunately many hunters have the attitude, I got mine, F you. As in, I got my shotgun for upland game hunting, so I could care less if the gun grabbers go after black rifles, glocks, 50bmgs, etc. Really no difference than the attitude of, I got my wellfare check, F you. It is pure and unbridled selfishness, and no discussion will disuade these folks, as they honestly can't and won't care.
As to the issue of gungrabbers, and the I got mine F you crowd, perhaps an analogy would be in order. If you were hunting in the Northland with one of these folks and a bear came upon you, they wouldn't shoot bear, they'd shoot you to feed the bear, and run.
That, is exactly the mentality of Zumbo and his backers. Selfish cowards, no more, no less.
Elitist, arrogant, gunwriter. Sad we paid his way for so long. No more. Ben Franklin said We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately. Hard to imagine that he doesn't see how much damage he can do to maintaining our 2nd amendment rights. Self serving I think, and this time he shot himself AND us in the foot. Now let someone else pay his and Petzal's car payments.
We need to quit feeding on each other and figure out how we are going to pull the Dem/Libs under and get rid of them in 2008. Zumbo's gone...now direct our energy to what matters most, the correct votes in Congress.
I wager that we are pretty much alike in the fact that we are one-issue/2A voters. We need to use all this energy to convince those who are not to convert. We don't need to bludgeon them over; it won't work.
Don,
You hit the nail on the head, appeasement has never worked with anti-gun groups.
JB
....Yes its a American right to speak your mind. It is also very American to be held accountable for your words and actions! What has happened to zumbo by way of his own remarks,after being supported by a community of people who fericely cherish thier second ammendment freedom, was entirely predictable, at least by anyone not blinded by a self important arrogance. Kerry similarly harmed himself with his derogatory remarks about the character of our military heros. SO BE IT...I agree that zumbo's 'apology' rings as hollow as did kerrys. I believe he meant every word of his tirade against auto loading firearms....... I don't much use them when hunting (save on an ocasional squirrel trek & with shotguns),but I clearly recognize that constitutionaly thier legality is important to the maintenance of our 2nd ammendment freedom.....zumbo's HUNTING won't be curtailed,just the second ammendment communities support of his hunting EXPENSES!..Now thats justice...
I feel the need to buy an AR10 for deer hunting. Its the least I can do.
Negative! Our reaction serves as a warning that we will no longer set by and silently let this crap continue.
Exactly. They're going to paint gun owners in a bad light no matter what happens. But, you've gotta imagine there are some representatives now reading about this, and hearing about this, who are wondering just which way they should vote on the upcomming ban. I don't think they're so ignorant as to have forgotten what happened to their party the last time they voted for this ban....or are they?
Of course the WP had to put it's spin on the aritcle saying that Zumbo angered "assault rifle owners" and it was "assault rifle" owners who were his undoing. It wasn't just "assault rifle" owners, it was the entire gun owning community. Many, many people who neither hunt with or own so called "assault weapons" are equally as upset with his remarks. To say it's just AR owners is B.S. But then again, I'm not telling the WP anything they don't already know. They know it's B.S.
First the Washingtong Post, and now on MSNBC and MSN's main page:
Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast... If you think you won't be hearing Zumbos remarks many times over in the coming AWB debate, you're in for a rude awakening I think.
I won't buy anything with his byline again.
From Ted Nugent's forum:
http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/287127.html"JimZumbo
Junior Member posted 02-23-2007 03:30 PM
Thank you all for letting me speak. Yes, I know the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and hunting guns, and yes, I promise you I am now dedicated to educate all shooters that we must all stick together regardless of our gun choices, and also tolerate the firearms others may choose to use if they are dissimilar to ours. I will do everything I can, within my power as a journalist and public speaker, to protect the 2nd Amendment and America's gun owners. "
It's good to know you can always count on Ted Nugent to emerge as the calm voice of reason.
I've been following the events over there too. Mr. Zumbo is taking his licks pretty darn well and if he does what he says, his losses will be all of our gains. Let's see if he follows through.
Negative! Our reaction serves as a warning that we will no longer set by and silently let this crap continue.
If this is to much for you to stomach, maybe you should find another hobby like knitting or something, that's more comfortable then fighting for your second amendment rights.
I don't advocate going belly-up and not fighting, but let's fight for our rights intelligently. Shouting and calling the opposition names does not advance our cause, it makes us look like nuts. The use of sound, logical arguments made in a civil tone will do more than all the boorish yelling some espouse.
Further, I was not saying that we don't have rights, we do! But they are no greater than any other American's; we all live under the same Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whenever a gun proponent starts talking about the 2nd Amendment and how our rights can not be limited, I have to point out that the 2nd Amendment is tied directly to a "well regulated militia" that (as conceived by the founding fathers) is recognized by a governmental agency (usually by a commission from the governor), trains regularly (generally on the village commons after the Sunday church meeting) and, has formal recognized structure (officers and non-coms).
This service is now vested in the military services.
Despite the current witch-hunt, I have always liked Jim Zumbo. I especially liked the inclusion of the cooking portion of his TV show and how he related it to the game of the day. Seems to me he has been a pretty staunch supporter of the hunting and gun owning community for his whole life. I never tried to read too much into it, just enjoyed the guy and his writings and show in general.
Frankly I think there became an internet feeding frenzy to destroy the guy over comments that I don't believe were as noxious as everyone seems to be making them out to be.
Reading his commentary objectively, I think he wrote it poorly, and chose some poor phrasing, with words like "terrorist" and "ban". I don't agree with his commentary, but I'm still amazed at some of the reactions.
The screams that it isn't about hunting but is about the 2nd amendment is BS. I've read his article a few times and it seems to me that purely from his perspective it was completely about hunting. He didn't say that "black" rifles should be banned. He said they should be banned from hunting use. (I don't agree) but nowhere did he mention anything about ownership. I know my grandfather and father and most of the old timers I grew up around would have also frowned on seein' AR's and AK's in the woods. Just a reaction of the times perhaps, but still they way they "perceived" it. I suspect that that is what Jim Z. was trying to get at but just went over the top in the way he said it.
If you're looking for agreement, you ain't gonna get much here.
While you're trolling, why not try Sarah Bardy's site. You'll get far more agreement there....
Don
Wrong, he's got it just right! He gets it!
The real enemy is the democrat party, not Jim Zumbo. Put your efforts into getting Republicans elected or reelected.
Damn right!!!
Let's not forget to remove any anti-gun (appeaser) Republicans and support any pro-gun democrats if there are any they are certainly straying for the party platform current shapers...
I have to point out that the 2nd Amendment is tied directly to a "well regulated militia" that (as conceived by the founding fathers) is recognized by a governmental agency (usually by a commission from the governor), trains regularly (generally on the village commons after the Sunday church meeting) and, has formal recognized structure (officers and non-coms).
This service is now vested in the military services.
Sorry, but it sounds like you're buying into the anti's argument there. Fact is, that's not what the founding fathers meant by that. Notes taken during discussions and debate over the 2nd ammendment during it's drafting clearly indicate the 2nd was all about the individual's right to possess firearms without regard to the formalizing of any militia as we know the term to be defined by today's standards. It is there so we may overthrow the government if need be. How will we accomplish that if only the government (military services) have the guns?
The formation of the reserves, national guard, or active military and the 2nd ammendment have not one thing to do with the other.
ok, enlighten me, how does Zumbo's commentary on hunting with a "black" rifle relate to the second amendment...
To be very clear I completely and wholeheartedly support 2A and advocate it strongly.
In the bigger picture anyone who uses, owns, or has dealings with guns, should and must (to be intellectually honest and informed) be a supporter of the 2nd amendment including gun uses by groups or other individuals that use or utilize guns for any reason.
Having said that, I understand how thinking in the context of your own own interest and activity with firearms may let you by process of the discriminating taste of your own personal preference of your free choice of activity, can lead you to by process of not thinking in terms of the bigger picture, allow you to make a comment that is contrary to the wisdom of the bigger picture and reflect a thought about your specific interest or activity...
I have to point out that the 2nd Amendment is tied directly to a "well regulated militia" that (as conceived by the founding fathers) is recognized by a governmental agency (usually by a commission from the governor), trains regularly (generally on the village commons after the Sunday church meeting) and, has formal recognized structure (officers and non-coms).
This service is now vested in the military services.
Sorry, but it sounds like you're buying into the anti's argument there. Fact is, that's not what the founding fathers meant by that. Notes taken during discussions and debate over the 2nd amendment during it's drafting clearly indicate the 2nd was all about the individual's right to possess firearms without regard to the formalizing of any militia as we know the term to be defined by today's standards. It is there so we may overthrow the government if need be. How will we accomplish that if only the government (military services) have the guns?
The formation of the reserves, national guard, or active military and the 2nd amendment have not one thing to do with the other.
Good job!!! I was going to call him out on this too even though some of his other points were valid and good.
Let us not forget, a few more bad elections and the liberals convincing voters we are all nuts, and there is nothing stopping the repeal or modification of the 2dn amendment. Public image does matter when concerning the 80% with no dog in the fight.
I just watched 60 Minutes on CBS. Mike Wallace interviewed Bill O'Reiley of The Fox News Channel's "The O'Riley Factor". O'Riley agreed that he is pro-gun control, pro-gay rights and pro several other things that I disagree with. How do we square this?
Well what type of gun control? I know most here prefer none, registering a handgun isn't the same as banning one.
Gay rights? I know he doesn't mind civil unions, but believes marriage is between a man & woman.
He is against the death penalty, and where i was total pro on that, the mistakes found with the use of DNA over the last few years gives me pause to rethink.
The mistakes found with the use of DNA in the past few years have made ME think that, with DNA testing as a criteria for guilt, I am less likely to make a mistake than I would have been before DNA testing.