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]
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]
Last edited: