The Following letter was on the NRA-ILA Daily Update, and I thought that it was interesting considering how Mr Zumbo was blasted by many, including me. It appears that he's done got religion!

Jim Zumbo Letter to the U.S. Senate Opposing a Ban on "Assualt Weapons"

JIM ZUMBO

March 28, 2007


An Open Letter to the
United States Senate



Dear Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

It recently came to my attention that one of your colleagues, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, has chosen to attack firearms owners using remarks I wrote in mid-February as his launch pad. As you probably know, Sen. Levin has been making anti-gun speeches every week for the past eight years because of a promise he made to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1999.

Mr. Levin has an agenda, and he should have spoken to me before using my name in one of his speeches, especially since his remarks were entered into the Congressional Record. I would like my remarks here entered into the Congressional Record as well.

Sen. Levin is only one of 16 members of the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the confiscation of a privately-owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster when possession of that gun is not prohibited under state or federal law.

Eighty-four senators voted for that amendment, inspired by the egregious confiscation of firearms from the citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005. Those seizures, you will recall, led the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association to join in a landmark civil rights lawsuit in federal court that brought the confiscations to an abrupt end.

The taking of private property without warrant or probable cause even firearms was considered an outrage by millions of American citizens, and yet Sen. Levin joined 15 of his colleagues in voting against this measure. It is no small wonder that Sen. Levin gets an F rating from gun rights organizations. He would have American citizens disarmed and left defenseless at a time when they need their firearms the m ost, when social order collapses into anarchy and protecting ones self and ones family is not simply a right and responsibility, it becomes a necessity.

That in mind, Sen. Levin must know that almost immediately after I wrote those remarks, I recanted and apologized to the millions of Americans who lawfully and responsibly own, compete with and hunt with semi-automatic rifles. I took a crash course on these firearms and visited with my good friend Ted Nugent on his ranch in Texas, where I personally shot an AR-15 and educated myself with these firearms.

Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called assault weapons, and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.

This legislation that Sen. Levin a ppears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.

It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation dont want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.

I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.

A few weeks ago, in a letter to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I promised to educate my fellow hunters about this insidious legislation even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done.

I will amend that to add that I will bring my effort to Capitol Hill if necessary, even if I have to knock on every door and camp in every office of the United States Senate. In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.


Sincerely,

James Zumbo
Cody, Wyoming

I'll bite. He is doing nothing but the bare minimum that honor requires.

I'm sure the impact to him personally was unbelievable. I'm sure he has reconsidered. Problem lies in the fact that he needs to understand the role he plays when he is on television. He or anyone else on "THOSE" shows are cast into leadership roles and representing hunting, shooting, gun ownership, etc. I'm sure ol Jim is a reasonable man but no matter how sorry he is of his actions his public credibility has been tarnished, his decision making capability and judgement has to be in question. As I view our sport, there are better representatives out there.

my ex-wife changed her tune and started trying to act nice and like she really cared when the judge said I did not have to pay her any longer. I believe Zumbo is just as sincere as she was

after you cut your own throat and all the blood runs out, it is difficult to sew up the incision

Or sometimes you "f" up in life. It's easy to do. I have done it. Doubt if Zumbo will make this mistake again and you know how that glass house thing goes eh?

quote:

after you cut your own throat and all the blood runs out, it is difficult to sew up the incision

You'd be surprised what comes through emergency rooms.

Had a discussion at work today about this exact thing.

I said this before, Mr. Zumbo stepped across the line from hunting to 2nd amendment rights.

He is paying a dear price. He has learned from his mistake and only more good will come of it. His blog is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Let his future actions prove what kind of person is really is.

I was looking at an AR just the other day. I simply cannot justify owning one myself. But I sure as heck am not going to tell someone else they can't.

Having the capacity to forgive is a virtue. I was as angry at Mr. Z as anyone, but we all make mistakes and at least he was man enough to try his best to make amends. I commend him for that.

you can not unring a bell. he as an "expert" has hurt the cause of firearms ownership. i don't know the guy and have no personal axe to grind with him, however, he needs to now make his living doing something else. He needs to be an untouchable as being hired as a guide, writer or spokesman for anything firearms related.

This guy had the best job in the world and pissed all over the subscribers/customers/clients who paid the freight by buying the stuff he hawked.

Of course he wants to get back to where he was and is willing to do or say anything to make that happen. Of course his letter sounds great, WRITING ABOUT HOW GREAT THE FREE STUFF HE'S BEEN GIVEN IS IS WHAT HE"S DONE FOR A LIVING FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.

In vino veritas; in his case the truth came out because he was "tired" from a long day on one of his free hunts.

He has done irreparable damage to all of us who paid for his lifestyle, and his comments, even out of context, will be used against us for decades.

He just needs to go away and shut up.

Dumbo's apology sounds like that of an unfaithful wife apologizing for making the "mistake" of sleeping with all your friends.

Time for him to go away! He is 67, an arrogant turd in real life. I have met him while deer hunting in unit 119, he was drinking while driving BLM roads and talked down to us when we stopped and visited. Twice at RMEF banquets and he pretty much was the same way, pompous and arrogant! I put him in the same boat as Mike Eastman! Hawk your wares and go away!

To me he is as the Russians say "a non-person" ,he no longer exists !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Longshot:
Jim Zumbo Letter to the U.S. Senate Opposing a Ban on "Assualt Weapons"

P.O. Ackley said much worse about 'assault weapons' and never considered apologizing to anybody.

Zumbo himself is justifiably annoyed that the gun-control people took his words out of context.

Too late. Zumbo need to just go away quietly. His mistake wasn't in what he thought or wrote but in not knowing his job.

Zumbo is rightfully pissed that a senator is using his words out of context. He's doing the right thing in standing up for what he believes is unfair.

Not much different than those who stood up and terminated his contracts when he made his senseless remarks about military style weapons.

Zumbo made a huge mistake. No question. He should've never, ever said what he said. It's one thing to think it and another to say it.

But I don't think it's fair to judge any man based solely on one remark. I'm sure many of us have said things we later regretted.

If dumdo had been up on the firearms as he should have been he wouldn't have to be defending his words that he wrote. I read an interview by another magazine and was jumped on for saying that he would tolerate what others own but he should respect their right to own whatever firearm they choose. I just wish I could be in St Louis next weekend.

Rad

Zumbo appears to be a classic example of the "useful idiot" attributed to Lenin. The antis are simply exercising a divide and conquer approach. They have been pretty successful at driving a wedge between hard core hunters and gunbugs. Whether its latent Puritanism or simply egotism, there's a strong tendency in our community to denigrate others. This provides a fertile field for the seeds of malcontent to grow, as seen in Zumbo's blog. It sounds like Zumbo had an enormous ego that he needed to maintain by badmouthing others. In doing so he drove one more nail into the coffins not only of our gun rights but our hunting rights.

The next time you feel the urge to badmouth someone for using premium bullets, a belted mag, a high-power variable, or whatever, ask yourself if you are going to help or hurt Dianne Feinstein with your comment.

quote:

The next time you feel the urge to badmouth someone for using premium bullets, a belted mag, a high-power variable, or whatever, ask yourself if you are going to help or hurt Dianne Feinstein with your comment

Exactly, that is pretty much what pissed me off about dumbo's comments. No one twisted anything out of context, he said what he said. It was his pompous attitude that helped insert the foot in his mouth!

Isn't it amazing what a person will or won't do when it comes to thier wallet?

All,
I hate to wade off into this, but I agreed with Zumbo's first statement about assault style rifles. What is the point in owning them? They shoot, they can be used for hunting, they accomplish the purpose of putting holes in paper or animals. However, the implication by using one is that it is for killing people. Why bring that down on our heads?

I further agree that full automatic weapons have no place in the hunting realm. I do not agree with the argument that we, the public, need to own full auto weapons for home defence. I see no proof or validity to an argument that says we need them. At the very least, I see registration as tool that requires to owners to be held accountable for their use.

I have lived and worked in countries where guns are as available as Pepsi (Nigeria, Pakistan, Israel, Guatemala, etc.) and in places where they are impossible to own (Ireland, Kazakhstan). From my perspective, crime against citizens is higher in the countries where guns of all types are too available with no controls or accountability in place.

I am fully in favor of gun registration and believe we should take it one step further - we should have a competency of use standard that requires we prove we can use a gun correctly and safely.

As to the 2nd amendment. I fully support what it says. However, I do not believe that we (America) are in danger of attack by an army from another country - meaning a full army, not a small group of terrorists or some renegade anti- US government group hiding in Montana or Texas.

I see the argument for removing all restrictions on drinking alcohol or marijuana or allowing children under the age of 16 fly airplanes in the same vein.

After seeing what is sold at the "World's Largest Gun Show" in Tulsa, I am a bit stunned at what people own, want to own, and the type of people that seem to buying this stuff.

I will be first in line to get tested and to register any weapon I own.

Let the fun begin.

dogcat,

Step away from the crack pipe. You ARE the problem.

Just who the flip do you think is going to write that test you're so willing to take? What do you think it will cost? Who will they allow to pass? What do you think will happen to those weapons AFTER they are registered? WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT RIGHTS???

This isn't about what someone else thinks I, or you, NEED.

BTW -- The government or Army we are most likely to defend ourselves against ain't outside our borders.

"They shoot, they can be used for hunting, they accomplish the purpose of putting holes in paper or animals. However, the implication by using one is that it is for killing people."

Just who the fuck are you to imply that my shooting coyotes or tin cans with an AR remotely has anything to do with killing people?????

"After seeing what is sold at the "World's Largest Gun Show" in Tulsa, I am a bit stunned at what people own, want to own..."

Yeah, it's a bitch living in a free country. Maybe you could move to North Korea where you'd feel safer and more at home with your own kind.

You sir are a moron. You are not "one of us", you are an enemy within.

Boy Dogcat, sure didn't expect such rhetoric from you. Hope you can get some help!

John

I have never seen anyone use or want to use a full auto for hunting. I know three guys who have class 3 licenses, and several full auto's, and they never hunt with them, just target practice and have them becuse they can. I also think most states will not allow the use of full auto's for hunting.


Zumbo's statement was made out of ignorance much the same as yours dogcat, but his was driven by his pompous attitude.

? ? ? ? ? Back on track . . . ? ? ? ?

He said what he really thought . . .

Bit him in the butt REAL BAD

Trying to cover with a new line . .
LB

Just my opinion of course

This was copied from another board. And I'm sure some of you get to the nuge board.

Rad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NUGE: on the NUGE talkback boards
April 04, 2007
Exclusive Interview: Ten Questions For Jim Zumbo
It was the blog heard round the shooting world. On February 16, Jim Zumbo, long-time hunting editor of Outdoor Life magazine, wrote a blog entry on that magazine’s website disparaging so-called “assault†rifles. “I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity,†wrote Zumbo. “I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.â€

The repercussions were swift and, for Zumbo’s career, deadly. Thousands of furious black-rifle enthusiasts vehemently responded via the Internet, calling for his resignation from Outdoor Life (which is owned by Bonnier Corp., as is Field & Stream) as well as threatening a boycott of the magazine’s sponsors if he remained on the masthead. Zumbo quickly claimed that ignorance about the rifles’ popularity and fatigue brought on from a long day of hunting led to his ill-conceived comments, but the retraction only led to increased criticism. The magazine, reeling from such negative exposure, accepted Zumbo’s resignation. Corporate sponsors such as Remington and Cabela’s terminated ties with him. His television show was put on hiatus. In less than a week, Zumbo went from hunting culture hero to Internet casualty.

In this fieldandstream.com exclusive, we sent Zumbo 10 questions asking about details that led to his comments, what it was like to go through such a public castigation, and what it all means for hunters and shooters. These are his written responses. —The Editors

1. It seems your comments exposed a gaping divide between black-rifle enthusiasts and hunters. Why weren’t you aware of this before?

I’ve never had a fascination for firearms. If I wasn’t in the business of writing hunting articles, I’d own a half dozen guns or less. To me, a firearm is a tool, like a carpenter’s hammer. I go to the range only to sight in before hunting season.
When I go to the SHOT [Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade] Show each year, you won’t find me in the big firearms exhibits. I don’t investigate new guns. Instead, I’ll be talking to people about decoys, camo apparel, game calls, hunting boots, knives, and other hunting accessories. That being the case, when I wrote the blog, I was completely ignorant of the rising interest in black rifles among varmint hunters, and I had no idea of their popularity.

2. If you could address every one of your critics, what would you say?
I
would tell them to please accept the apologies that I’ve offered, and let’s move forward. I’m working to correct what I said. I’ve made a statement to the Second Amendment Foundation, reiterating my unwavering support of the Second Amendment, and I publicly rebutted statements by U.S. Senator Carl Levin [that used Zumbo’s remarks in support of his anti-gun position], exposing his real agenda as an aggressive anti-gun politician. My rebuttal letter was sent to Vice President Dick Cheney, and I requested that it be placed in the Congressional Record.
And to those who believe I now must support the Second Amendment as an “absolutist,†let me say I’ve been a supporter for more than 40 years. I joined the NRA in 1963, and have been a member ever since. I still am.

3. What have you learned about black rifles and black rifle owners?

I’ve learned that there’s an extremely large following of people who own black rifles for home defense, shooting competitions, just plinking, and hunting. I’ve also learned that many of my pals own black rifles.
A few weeks after my blog statement, when I was giving hunting seminars in Oregon, a man approached me and said he’d been deer hunting and came upon a camo-clad man carrying a black rifle. The hunter was immediately fearful, thinking he’d stumbled into a meth lab or a marijuana patch. The man with the black rifle waved him over, and the hunter approached, very much on guard. As it turned out, the camo-clad man was also hunting, and shared information where he’d located fresh deer sign. The two men hit it off, and are now close friends.

4. What really happened during that coyote hunt that spurred you into making detrimental remarks about black rifles on your blog?

I had just finished dinner. I was tired from a long day of hiking in strong winds, and was about to go to bed when I decided to write a blog. My agreement with Outdoor Life was to do three or four blog entries a week. At that point, I was receiving one or two dozen comments from my blogs, or less. I was trying to come up with a blog subject that evening, and one of the young guides mentioned that there was a “huge†following among black rifle enthusiasts for prairie dog hunting. I was genuinely amazed, and decided that might make a suitable blog subject, generating a bit more traffic than I’d been getting. As we all know, my word selection was inflammatory. The rest is history.

5. You’ve been defending the 2nd Amendment during your entire writing career. Have your feelings about 2A changed in any way?

My feelings are as strong as they’ve ever been to support the Second Amendment. They’ve never wavered. However, I’d like to say that the First Amendment was central to this controversy as well. Many people said it was unfair that my opinion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment, offering the right of free speech, was trammeled upon. A common phrase I heard was: “How can we uphold the Second Amendment but trash the First?†One person said he laid in rice paddies in Vietnam to protect our constitutional rights. Other military personnel offered similar comments, including a general and several high-ranking marine officers. Hundreds of other people were disappointed at the hostility toward me, and quoted the First Amendment. Many newspaper editors said the same in editorials across the country.
I’d like to offer this point. The amendment that guarantees me the right of free speech also guarantees my adversaries a right of free speech. That’s what makes America so great. We can criticize anyone we want for whatever reason. But when some individuals and organizations sought to end my career because of my Constitutionally-protected opinion, many people said they had gone too far.

6. How did it feel to see your blog discussed and dissected in mainstream media such as the Washington Post and the Colbert Report? What do you think it meant for hunters?

It made me feel absolutely terrible. The worst was when some people used my words to try to support anti-gun legislation. That made me sick. That’s why I immediately countered with a letter to the Second Amendment Foundation, an appearance on Ted Nugent’s TV show, dialogue on radio programs, interviews, a letter to the U.S. Senate, and other actions.
For hunters, I think it means that there is a very definite divide that we must repair. Gun owners must learn to respect each other, regardless of their interest. To give an inch to anti-gun legislation opens the door to taking away all our guns.

7. Ted Nugent gave you a chance to redeem yourself by having you shoot black rifles and then writing about the experience on his website. How did you get hooked up with him?

Ted Nugent was the first person to call me after the firestorm began. At that point I had no idea what was going on. Ted basically said I “screwed up†(not exactly his words) and that he wanted to “educate†me. He invited me to his ranch. Within a few days I was on a plane. Ted hoped to use me as an example of a hunter who was ignorant of black rifles, turning my ignorance into a positive spin to educate all hunters and shooters. I agreed to do just that. It was a lesson in humility but I believed it was necessary to unify gun owners.
I’ve known Ted for years, visiting with him at the SHOT Show, NRA conventions, at sportsman’s shows. One of Ted’s more salient points was that we do not need to defend the Second Amendment. It is our Constitutional right. He also believes in the word “absolutist†to describe support from all gun owners when anti-gun issues are debated. Some people see Ted as a bit rough around the edges, but no one puts the positive spin on hunting and shooting in the media as he does, and no one reaches more of our youth than Ted.

8. You’ve been a hunting writer for 40 years. Has this experience soured you on the profession?

Not only am I not soured on my profession, I’m overwhelmed by the support I’ve received from my peers. Practically everyone sympathized with what had happened to me.
I’ve also received support from leaders in the industry, as well as from shooters and hunters not in the industry. I have boxes of letters from people from all walks of life, and a large amount of email, together amounting to thousands of communications. The comments were varied, from people who said I was right in my blog and shouldn’t have apologized, to people who said I was wrong but would accept my apologies. Then, of course, there were those who stated in their blogs that they would never accept my apologies. I can’t change that.
Companies that severed relationships with me did so under threat of a massive boycott by my adversaries. That was business; I harbor no grudges.

9. Going forward, what advice would you offer to hunters and black-rifle enthusiasts?

On a chat room during this controversy, I said that hunters and black rifle enthusiasts should tolerate each other. One person took exception to the word “tolerate†and said I should have used the word “respect.†I believe his point was that tolerate means to “put up with.†I’m not going to get involved in semantics here, but I’d like to suggest that we galvanize ourselves on a united front, whatever we shoot with. It’s time to forget our differences and understand who the enemy really is--the politicians who will work day and night to get their foot in the door and take away our firearms one at a time.
I’ve also heard a number of times during this controversy that black rifle owners are sensitive to anti-gun legislation because so-called assault firearms are continually under attack. It’s believed by some that that sort of sensitivity helped inspire the firestorm surrounding my blog statement. I can understand that sensitivity.

10. What’s the worst thing that was said to you during this controversy?

Some people said I was unpatriotic. That’s outrageous and I resent it. I’ve been flying the American flag in front of my house every day for the 15 years I’ve lived here. I’ve taken our wounded heroes on all-expenses-paid hunts. This year I’ll be doing the same. One young man lost both legs in Iraq when a mortar round exploded close by. He’s going antelope hunting with me this fall, and I’ll push his wheelchair. I don’t know him personally; I met him at a waterfowl hunt in Maryland last fall. I visited Walter Reed hospital this winter and talked to wounded warriors who lost upper limbs, observing how they are taught to shoot with prosthetic devices. I’ll be taking some of them hunting as well. I love our country and the brave military who fight for it. Anyone who believes otherwise is patently wrong.

"I said that hunters and black rifle enthusiasts should tolerate each other."

This dumbass still doesn't get it.

It isn't an either/or choice. Tens of thousands of folks are both hunters AND black rifle enthusiasts.

I am.

Zumbo is in the same category as Imus! Arrogant and pompous! Mentally unstable, and maybe even senial, time for both to hang it up!

dogcat,

This one's still bugging me, but I think I owe you more than a smart aleck "step away from the crack pipe response." Let's drink a little Amarula or Coke around the campfire and hash this one out. Here goes in point-counterpoint fashion:

quote:

What is the point in owning them?

There doesn't have to be a "point" to exercise a right. What's the "point" in printing distasteful commentary in editorials or showing a disgustng movie? No point, but a protected 1st Amendment right

quote:

I further agree that full automatic weapons have no place in the hunting realm. I do not agree with the argument that we, the public, need to own full auto weapons for home defence. I see no proof or validity to an argument that says we need them.

I agree there is no place for full automatic weapons in hunting, but I know of nowhere in the US folks are using "full automatic" weapons to hunt -- semiautomatic at best. I also agree that we do not "need" full automatic weapons for defense...and, by in large, folks are not using "full automatic" weapons -- semiautomatic at best, unless they care to go through the ClassIII(?) process to get the required stamp. That said "need" should not be a condition of ownership or use. I can't stand golfing and those golf courses are certainly not "needed," nor are cars that can go faster than 75 mph, or houses bigger tha 2500 sq ft, or swimming pools (oh so dangerous), or steak with excess fat, or cigarettes, etc, etc...but need is not the test in a free society.

quote:

I am fully in favor of gun registration and believe we should take it one step further - we should have a competency of use standard that requires we prove we can use a gun correctly and safely.

Great, move to NYC or DC and register your guns, but the you'll likely have to give up a few becuse the powers that be have already decided you don't "need" some of them. Be prepared as well for governments to make the test difficult enough, and likely subjective enough, that they can deny firearms ownership to those they do not want to own guns. A slippery slope at best...

quote:

I have lived and worked in countries where guns are as available as Pepsi (Nigeria, Pakistan, Israel, Guatemala, etc.) and in places where they are impossible to own (Ireland, Kazakhstan). From my perspective, crime against citizens is higher in the countries where guns of all types are too available with no controls or accountability in place.

Irrelevant unless culture is taken into account, and I'm much more interested in "facts/statistics" than a person's perspective...and I don't believe the facts will bear fruit...but, even if they did, we're talking about rights and not a "what's best for most" approach.

quote:

As to the 2nd amendment. I fully support what it says. However, I do not believe that we (America) are in danger of attack by an army from another country - meaning a full army, not a small group of terrorists or some renegade anti- US government group hiding in Montana or Texas.

Actually, I don't believe you are in favor...though you think you are. Our 2nd Amendment, along with the others in the Bill of Rights, deal with recognition (not approval) of individual rights and have nothing to do with invasions, terrorists, or whackos. Every citizen can keep and bear firearms...and they are a hedge against criminals as well as our own governments (ala New Orleans confiscations).

quote:

I will be first in line to get tested and to register any weapon I own.

They are going to love to have you in NYC and DC. Imagine moving there and, at the whim of some bureaucrat, giving up the .416 Rem Mag as you can rent rifles in Zimbabwe and you don't "need" a .416 in NYC or DC.

BTW -- I really enjoyed the account of your family hunt in Zimbabwe.

Matt

A friend of mine had an interesting experience on Easter.

After church, his dog was going bonkers, hyper, barking all excited. So he decided to let the dog outside. The dog fixated on an area, and low and behold there was a coyote. (400yards)

Friend goes back into the house to grabs a rifle. Shoots the coyote which does a flip in the air and takes off running down the draw towards a main highway. (about 3/4 mile from the house.

Friend jumps in his bright yellow jeep, goes down to the highway and starts working his way back up the draw. Finds the dead coyote.

Wife asks him to run into town to get some misc items to finish for Easter dinner.

On the way into town in his bright yellow jeep. Law enforcement execute a felony stop on him.

Some person saw a big guy get out of a jeep and walk into the woods with his big dog and a "machine" gun.

This guy is a reserve law enforcement office, so there weren't any problems. He jokingly went into the office later that week and asked to apply for a machine gun permit. Every was rolling from laughter, because everyone in the dept had heard the story.

I think this goes to show the type of image that AR rifles are associated with.

Does anyone think that he would've been called in if he had been carrying a wood/blued scoped rifle, stainless/synthetic bolt action, shotgun?

This is the image that offended Jim Zumbo, I'll tell you, it offends me also.

But this is what I believe in.

quote:

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.

especially the "shall not be infringed"

Gun laws in this country have already gone too far IMO. An armed society is a polite society.

Everyone has an individual right to defend themselves. How they choose to do that is up to them.

I knew that when I posted my opinion that it would draw fire. I guess I should learn from Ray Atkinson that there are some issues just better left un-discussed.

Badger Matt - your arguments are good ones and well articulated. I take no offence at your comments as you have at least thought about what you are saying.

30ott6 - John- I am just expressing my thoughts. I love to hunt. I love the right and privilege of owning guns.

In all sincerity, I do not like our current system of gun ownership. In my mind, part of the crime problem and gang problems come from the ease by which anyone can buy and own a gun. I do not have a good solution because ourright banning of guns will not work, nor will taxing them to the point there is a black market, nor does eliminating all laws concerning ownership of guns. So where is the middle ground? That is what I would like to see.

To me, gun ownership is like owning a car. Until driver's licenses were required, cars were registered, driver's training was mandated - anyone could drive in any manner they chose. I have been in countries where there are no rules and you should see the mess on the highways. Is there not some system like our driver's license and car tag/inspection system that makes sense and is workable?

As far as military look-alike weapons go or full auto weapons - I chose not to own them, I do not understand why someone wants to own one, but I have to agree that the 2nd amendment does not discuss these types of weapons. However, the 2nd amendment likely did not see the types of weapons available today. The breech loader or the gatling gun were not yet invented. So I would like to suggest that we not interpret the 2nd Amendment to give carte blanche to any type of item that fires a projectile at a target.

Where is the middle ground? Where is common sense? Where is wisdom in this entire issue? I truly do not know. What I do know is that sooner or later, we will all be faced with a majority of elected officials and citizens that will make a law that we do not like if we do not offer a sensible, workable, verifiable solution to misuse of guns.

Sorry to get everyone's blood pressure so high. I really am a nice guy and do not smoke crack (as someone suggested).

Dogcat, I agree with your opinions. I don't own a "black" weapon and don't see the need although I can see why some people like to play around with them, they truly do look like fun. Unfortunately some of the people who own them are a little deranged. So are some people who own civilian guns deranged-the difference is they don't stand out as much as someone carrying an assault style gun.

When I went to college there was a gun range right on campus it was a great facility. Unfortunately we were under a lot of pressure to close down. Many of our members would wear cammo/military clothing to the range along with carring a weapon across campus. This made the rest of the general population of students look at us like a bunch of kooks. I pushed for a "civilian" dress code and was voted down. No problem I thought that's how democracy works. You know what though? That gun club is now gone, shut dowm by the college administration. Their thinking was we looked like a paramilitary organization training for less than ideal reasons. I can't disagree with them, people shooting UZI's etc. don't carry the same credibiiity as someone shooting a target 22.

The secondary issue here for both you and Zumbo is the public thrashing you get for voicing a different opinion. So much for the "freedom" everyone is yacking about. Seems freedom only counts when you agree with what people want you to.

Sad

The chef

Oh yea I forgot.....flame away I'm sure it's coming my way too now.

dogcat,

Here's my take on "middle ground"...and I don't own any so-called assault rifles either. It will danged sure work with the gang-bangers. Lock the f***ers up. Virginia's Project Exile was a resounding success. Catch a gangster, with a felony record, carrying a gun and he goes straight to jail...does not pass GO...and does not collect $200. Tax money spent on jails is typically money well-spent as the cost of criminals on the streets is astronomical.

Matt

Matt,
I agree 100%. My grandfather was a state supreme court justice, my uncle was a governor, my best friend is the DA in my town. All say the same thing - punishment deters crime. The harsher the punishment, the more deterent it is. They tell me that 90% of the violent criminals will repeat when they get out, that they were raised in bad homes, that parents were in trouble as well. I do not know how to fix this cycle other than get them off of the street for good.

However, that is treating the symptom and not the disease. We need to treat the root cause. I am not sure how to do that.

Punishment is a deterent, but I am not sure how much.
However, is there a way to avoid having to punish the criminal? Can the bahavour be stopped before violent behavour becomes the norm for that person?

Dogcat- I believe you have a right to your opinion. I own a Ruger Mini-14 that I have shot prairie dogs and coyotes with but most of the time it sits in my gunsafe. It's a lot of fun to shoot. It is considered an assault weapon by some. I also own a Browning Auto 5 semi auto 12 gauge. A bill has been introduced to ban this gun which has a long and proud heritage in the hunting fields. When does this bullshit stop or does it? You give the antis one inch and sooner or later they get all of our guns. This is ultimately their goal.

The 2nd ammendment is not about the "type" of firearm one can possess. We have been given the right to own any firearm we choose regardless of caliber or action. It's imperative that gun owners stand together regardless of individual beliefs on who should own what.

Really, it's no ones business what firearms I own or why I own them. You may not care for what I own or my reasons why but you better support me or your firearms might just be next!

John

All of this attention that Zumbo is getting is or isn't deserved depending which side of the fence you stand on the issue......as long as you don't make gun owners in general look bad through your actions, I don't care what you own......I understand where calgarychef1 is coming from also.....

What I don't understand is the complete lack of attention given to President Bush, who has been saying, for at least six years, that he WILL sign, NOT VETO, any "assault weapon" ban that lands on his desk......it's no wonder that the antis are pushing this issue.....get a bill through and it's law.

I'm not bashing the president, just an observation....

Joe

Dogcat you have brought into the anti gun following.

Why didn't we have more crime when all it took was to order a gun was the money to buy it.

If being able to buy guns any time any where by anybody why didn't we have those problems before 1968. Maybe you don't remember being able to buy guns through the mail no questions asked other then is the check good I can.

No we do not need more gun laws we need less. One of the prime reasons we have more crime is that the liberls ect. Have been blaming every thing and verybody else besides the crook.
We also have passed so many laws that the general populace don't agree with. So that at some point every body ends up breaking one at some time. So respect for the law over all is lost. Zoning, drug laws, traffic laws making felons out of almost anything. IE. the 1994 ugly weapons ban how many people committed felonys just buy picking up a post 94 hi cap mag. I had no trouble Iam and was LE. But if I had a freind over to shoot one as soon as he handled one of my HI cap LE. only marked mags he committed a felony. How about my 10 year old son who went shooting with me when he picked up a lE. only mag he was committing a felony.

When people have respect for the law the obey it and those that don't get what they need. But when you have whole groups of the population that don't agree with some of the laws the rest don't matter as much as they once did.

Once your a felon your always a felon. The first one is expensive the rest are a lot cheaper.

Gun control is never about crime control never has been never will be. It is about people control. No matter how many times the talking heads or the anti gunners tell they care about the vitims. They don't there only concren in taking power and keeping it.

Its been proven time and time again that controling guns has no good effect on crime causes a increase in crime. Do they care no they just push for more using the same lame excuses.

Just like you I don't like are current crop of gun laws and they are a major part of are crime problem. But my solution is toldly differant and toldly oppsite from yours. We should do away with them all and let the free people of this country live under are god given rights and the consituation.

Then when you break the law and do a real felony murder, rape, robbery, car jacking, burglary, kid napping ect you go to jail. No stopping at treatment no stopping at probation.

No but now one has to worry about becoming a felon for carrying a gun to protect oneself. Or becoming a felon for taking your pain meds out of the bottle and putting them in your pocket or even taking them if your deemed to be taking to many by some LE and DA.

No blame the real problem the person committing the crime not the hammer, knife,bat, or other object use to committ it. Blaming the object is just liberal cop out for not taking personal respondsiblty.

Ross,

I'm usually one to look at what's a reasonable solution to any problem and have no problem with compromise. Your comments sound very reasonable and what would it hurt to register our guns or make some of these military type weapons illegal? What it would hurt as others have said is to give something to the the anti gun loonies. I sincerely believe that in this case doing the reasonable thing or compromising in any way would eventually lead to us loosing the right to own firearms.

Mark