Another fudd who just doesnt get it

[second]

I think this guys email inbox needs a fire mission

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=286132&z=15

Outdoors Hunting with assault rifles? Zumbo was right to scoff
ERIC ATHERTON

I canceled my subscription to Outdoor Life magazine this week.

I've been a subscriber for at least 15 years, and although I can't say I read each issue cover-to-cover, there were two writers I read religiously: Patrick McManus and Jim Zumbo.

McManus made me laugh, and Zumbo made me jealous. What a great life he had. Travel the world, hunting every big-game animal you could think of, and get paid to do it. Although it's unlikely I'll ever find myself facing a charge by a wounded Cape buffalo, reading Zumbo's stuff made me feel a bit more ready to do so.

Today, however, Zumbo is under a different kind of attack.

In an entry on an Outdoor Life blog last week, Zumbo decided to comment about assault weapons. He wrote: "Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Since typing those words, Zumbo has been blasted by the NRA, abandoned by Remington, canceled by the Outdoor Channel and sent packing by Outdoor Life. Former colleagues are saying that his career as an outdoor writer isn't merely hurt -- it's stone-cold dead.

Which makes what I'm about to say risky, I guess: The only mistake Zumbo made -- apparently in a last-ditch effort to salvage his career -- was to apologize for what he wrote. He even said he'd use an assault weapon on his next hunt.

Sorry Jim, but this appears to be one of those times when you don't get a second shot. You dared to speak the truth, and no amount of damage control will save you.

On Wednesday's Opinions page in the Post-Bulletin, I participated in a pro-con debate about gun control. I strongly defended the rights of hunters, but I fully expect that the response from the gun community in southeastern Minnesota will be largely negative -- because I admitted there are too many handguns and assault weapons on America's streets.

I hope I'm wrong to expect hate mail. I hope there are NRA members out there who would like to see their group tone down its rhetoric, to stop letting extremists set their group's agenda. But history doesn't give me much hope of that.

The simple fact is, we live in a world where shouting accomplishes very little -- yet the gun-rights lobby and its backers seem to have their volume knobs perpetually maxed-out. In their world, it's not OK for reasonable people to disagree; you either support the party line, 100 percent of the time, or you're kicked to the curb, as Zumbo has been.

I know the whole "slippery slope" argument, that any infringement on our rights to own a handgun, assault rifle or howitzer could eventually lead to the repeal of the Second Amendment. I know that hunters are a minority in this country -- and a dwindling minority at that.

But do I think my right to own a shotgun or rifle is in danger? Not at all -- because I have confidence that the majority of non-hunting Americans will ignore the yelling from both sides of the gun-control issue, choosing instead to find that middle ground in which people will be allowed to hunt, shoot recreationally and defend themselves, if necessary, with firearms.

Here's hoping that Jim Zumbo can become the voice of that middle ground. I, for one, would like to shake his hand.

Eric Atherton is the Post-Bulletin's outdoors editor. Contact him at [email protected]

 

[fubar]

My emails buggy lately , will someone just tell this ... dummy ... that Sarah brady is after his Scoped deer gun as well as his autoloading turkey gun ?

 

[dwarven1]

Done, Fubar.

Dear Mr Atherton,

Like Jim Zumbo, you don't seem to understand two things.

One: the Second Amendment says NOTHING about hunting. A brief perusal of the writings of the Founding Fathers will show you that they were concerned that the people (that's you, me, and our aged parents, too) had the right to stay armed so that the government could not oppress them.

Two: If you think that Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein & Chuck Schumer don't want to disarm you, too, you are deluding yourself. I believe it was Diane Feinstein who said (after getting the Clinton AWB passed) "If I could have gotten every gun - Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in - I would have." Does that sound like "middle ground" to you?

Hopefully, there are those of us who DO understand the very read danger of the United States becoming the next England or Australia, and WE will continue to fight for our rights. As for you, sir... Why don't you save Sarah Brady the effort and just melt down your double-barrel? After all... why do you NEED a second barrel? It only takes one to kill poor defenseless Bambi!

 

[Scrivener]

EXCELLENT! Concise presentation of two key points.

 

[Davidk]

"I strongly defended the rights of hunters"

Hunting is a privilege NOT a right. All manners of FIREARMS are protected by the Constitution as well as their use for self-defense and against a tyrannical government. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects hunting. You would we well served by some history and civics lessons.

The so-called assault weapons of the day is what formed this country. Today's so-called assault weapons defend this country here and overseas, in the hands of both military and citizens.

David Kenik

 

[FalArAk]

Nice response Dwarven.

 

[snowjoker]

I wrote too. He misses a whole other point. People use these "Assault Weapons" for other reasons such as competitive shooting. So a ban would essentially put an end to it. Sure the people that have them would continue to be able to compete (as long as they are grandfathered) but there would not be any new shooters and eventually the sport would peter out.

Also if you go to the newspapers website under "Contact us" you can write to the Editor and News Editor. I included them in my email to him.

 

[dwarven1]

EXCELLENT! Concise presentation of two key points.

Coming from you, Keith, that means a lot. Thanks!

 

[Uncle Fester]

I don't even know if I want to respond to that guy, it' sounds like he's fishing for a scandal.

 

[sksguns]

my reply to this a$$hat

Hi Eric Atherton,

Just glancing at your article below and I want to thank you for attacking the law abiding citizen's second amendment rights in your defense of Mr. Zumbo.

You people just don't get it. Show me in the second amendment where it mentions anything about hunting. Please show me as I've read it hundreds of times and am unable to find a single reference about the rights and freedoms of Americans to keep and bear arms for hunting. So I don't really understand how the second amendment protects the freedom of hunters aside from the fact that hunters usually own firearms and as such those rights would be protected.

The problem as I see it is not the law abiding citizens of this country. It's the criminal element. Drug crime is out of control and the American politicians and law enforcement are afraid, that's right they are SCARED, to do anything about it. So what do they do instead? They attack the rights of law abiding citizens. The make up names and phrase for firearms such as "Gun Crime", "Assault Weapons", "Saturday Night Special" and Terrorist Weapons". They do this an attempt to give firearms personalities in order to scare the American public into believing that firearms are evil not taking into account that an evil criminal used the firearm in an evil way. The last terrorist weapon used against this country was a box cutter. We don’t hear much about these anymore as they never really caught on in the drug crime circles.

Mr. Zumbo got what he deserved. He attacked and betrayed the very people he pretended to defend all these years. By law I am not allowed to use a high powered rifle for hunting in my state. We are also not allowed to hunt animals that are fenced in on hunting farms like Mr Zumbo has done. I live in Massachusetts which has some of if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Yet, The City of Boston is right up there every year in shooting homicides usually posting in the top five to ten. The reason for this is that the liberal powers that be in the big city are obsessed with abolishing the second amendment and could care less about the drug criminals that are wandering the city and state indiscriminately killing and stealing and committing other atrocities against the people of Massachusetts.

The liberals want to stop firearms from being obtained through illegal means for illegal activity. Well, so do I. But, limiting purchases and types of firearms to the law abiding citizen is not the way. The main activity for the illegal use of firearms is drug crime. Until this country starts focusing on the real issues nothing else will matter. The fact is that the politicians know they are fighting a losing battle along that front and seek another platform in which to base their election promises. In doing so they are attempting to undermine the very foundations on which this country was constructed. The second amendment is in The Bill of Rights and is a guaranteed freedom. It is meant to protect the American people against a tyrannistic government. You know like Hitler. Take that freedom away and who will defend against such atrocities as the following taken from various websites:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives — because they were unable to defend their liberty — at approximately 56 million in the 20th century.

Let us not forget the illegal confiscation of firearms from law abiding legal gun owners during the Hurricane Katrina fiaso.

If you are a recreational shooter or a hunter I suggest you stick to your profession. If you choose to use your position to pursue your personal agenda then face the wrath of the public and expect that we will respond and you suffer the same fate as Mr. Zumbo.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Nice job Ross. Since you did so well with the 2A argument, I decided to take a slightly different approach. Here's mine:

Dear Neville Chamberlain,

I have a few problems with your article entitled "Hunting with assault rifles? Zumbo was right to scoff".

First off, do you even know what an assault rifle is? Let me help you out (from Wikipedia):

"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. "

Selective fire means that the rifle can be fired fully automatic - like a machine gun. It may seem like minutia to most, but by accepting and using the language of the left, you're granting them a huge concession in the debate.

Nobody is hunting with assault rifles. Very few private citizens legally own them. There are also no legal fully automatic weapons "on the street". You seem to be advocating a ban on something that is already illegal. By calling a rifle such as the AR-15 an "assault rifle", you are providing the anti gun establishment with an easy way to lump ALL semi-automatic long arms into one big easy-to-ban category.

To a gun-grabber, there is no difference between my AR and your Remington 742. They both spray bullets as fast as one can pull the trigger, and they both slice through body armor. By agreeing to "keep assault rifles off the streets", you are really saying, "Come and confiscate my deluxe-grade Woodmaster."

With your help, here's how they'll take your duck gun:

"These automatic shotguns have no place in a civilized society. They deal death in the form of huge .70 caliber bullets, spraying them out as fast as you can pull the trigger! These massive cannonballs are ten times heavier than the bullets fired from the guns carried by our military! Even more deadly are the cop-killer "shot rounds" which can fire dozens of bullets with one pull of the trigger, cutting a gigantic swath of destruction. We owe it to our children to keep these devastating weapons off our streets."

By accepting the language of the left and calling my AR an assault rifle, you've condemned all of the semi-automatic arms that you own too. The anti-gun people, the media, and the largely misinformed public will see an AK-47 as being the same as a Remington 1100.

You seem to think that we can have "peace in our time" with the gun grabbers if we reach what you call the "middle ground" by giving up "assault rifles". This thinking is dangerously naive, and I sincerely hope that you'll reconsider.

Respectfully,

 

[second]

Heres what i sent him, and thanks to those of you who took the time to write
this guy.

I just finished reading your piece entitled
Outdoors Hunting with assault rifles? Zumbo was right to scoff
ERIC ATHERTON


Apparently you didn't quite comprehend what really happened, Jim Zumbo wasn't brought down by
the NRA as you mistakenly told the readers in your article. Zumbo was brought down by a grass roots effort launched by average american gun owners who were insulted and angered at being likened
to a terrorist because they exercise their second amendment rights with a certain type of rifle.

Your piece is nothing but a diatribe aimed at the NRA and its members who according to you are nothing but a rabid group of knuckle draggers and extremists. Its sad to see a so called gun owner like yourself (if you even do own a gun) continue to go through life with blinders on thinking that the anti gun crowd gives a damn about your precious .22 or hand me down shotgun.


Just in case you need a refresher course in the second amendment let me give you a few quotes
to remind you what the founding fathers meant.

"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."

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

and lastly two more quotes for you to think about.................

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman


Heres hoping you open your eyes
David
__________________

 

[Ripach]

Here is my Email to him:

Dear Mr. Atherton:

I guess the best way for me to start is with a rude wake up call, Get your head out of your ass! If you think that the banning of certain evil looking guns doesn't affect you enjoying your particular segment of the shooting sports you are dreadfully wrong and woefully misguided. The same tactic has been used in different societies over time to disarm their populations entirely. It is simple divide and conquer, if they are not banning the particular gun I enjoy shooting then I don't have to worry. So sir when the come for your single shot bolt action rifle I wont speak up because all of my guns will be already gone and I will be helpless to help you.

Sincerely,


PS I am not an NRA gun nut or a Huge fan of assault type weapons just a shooting enthusiast who believes in the second amendment and will defend it vigorously at all costs.