All Intensive Purposes

Your article is factually incorrect on a couple of crucial points.

Mr. Zumbo didn't "suggest that shooting prairie dogs with weapons designed to kill animals many times larger -- i.e., people -- is overkill", he in fact called for a BAN on so called "Assault Weapons" in hunting.

"To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."-Jim Zumbo

The NRA didn't lead any kind of movement to pull sponsorships from Mr. Zumbo. He published his blog on the Friday 16th. By Sunday the 18th Remington's CEO had already expressed his extreme displeasure and on Monday the 19th Remington and other sponsors had dropped him. The NRA didn't make a full statement regarding Mr. Zumbo until the 22nd. Many gun owners were in fact a little upset with the NRA because of their DELAY in responding to Mr. Zumbo's blog.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions sir, but you should make an effort to get the facts straight.

Leon Rogers
 

Mr. Rogers --

Thanks for your comments. Can you link to the comments you attribute to Zumbo? Unless I really missed the boat, which is possible, they didn't appear in the Washington Post article which was my source for the facts about the controversy. Saying that hunters should "divorce" themselves from assault rifles and saying that state governments should ban them from some uses are two very different things.

If the NRA wasn't the mechanism by which outrage about Zumbo's comments spread, who or what was? Was the NRA just trying to catch up with its constituents?
 

The "mechanism"? Public outrage.

The word of his article spread like wildfire Saturday night through all the firearms and hunting related web sites, Predator Masters, Greybeard, arf.com, etc. When I posted a comment on his article, less than five hours after he wrote it, there were more than 1300 almost exclusively negative comments about his article, some including the contact info for his sponsors.

By Sunday midday, Remington's CEO was sending reply e-mails to people like me saying in no uncertain terms that neither he or Remington supported Mr. Zumbo's statements.

On Monday Remington and Cabela's (and others) officially dropped their sponsorship. Zumbo published a half hearted apology saying he just didn't know how many people HUNTED with these rifles, and Outdoor Life and a couple of others stood behind him for another day or two.

His "apology" further enraged the by then tens of thousands people who had caught up to the story after the holiday weekend.

For most of us it had absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with the 2nd amendment. Though that point was repeatedly made to Mr. Zumbo, he STILL didn't get it. The e-mail and phone campaign intensified, and the consumer pressure was finally too much for those sponsors who had not already dropped Zumbo.

The "mechanism" fueling the outrage was grassroots support for the 2nd Amendment and the internet.

Mr. Zumbo's original article was on Outdoor Life's web site. They pulled it and his so called apology when he was fired/resigned, but just google "zumbo blog" and you'll get lots of hits.

Here's David Petzal's take on the matter 5 1/2 days after Zumbo's original article, published under the banner of Field and Stream, Outdoor Life's sister publication. The second link is Petzal's reply to comments made to his first article. Note that by that time Zumbo was toast, and the NRA hadn't yet taken a position.

You might find it instructive to read through the comments posted to both, bearing in mind that these are BEFORE the NRA had said a word.

fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_davi

fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_part

Here's one with the full text of Zumbo's original article.

michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/02/serious-stuff-jim-zumbo-defection
 

Your links are getting truncated, so they're hard to use, but the last one (with the full Zumbo article) is here, I think.
 

In the article, Zumbo says:

As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

Certainly the sentiment in the last sentence is different from what I thought he'd said. He did call for assault weapons to be "banned," although the fact that he refered to "game departments" specifically makes it pretty clear that he's saying that they shouldn't be used for hunting, not that they should be banned everywhere.

Mr. Rogers, I appreciate the correction.

I personally like guns. I like shooting and hunting. But I don't think the Second Amendment means what the NRA has tried to argue for, and I've spent enough time with (and am related to enough) gun nuts to have both sympathy and concern about them.

I would feel safer if more people owned bolt-action hunting rifles and fewer people owned other kinds of guns.

On the storm of outrage that felled Zumbo, how did the outrage spread?
 

It may not be abundantly clear to you what the Second Amendment to the Constitution does protect. If you understand it to protect your right to hunt, that's incorrect. It protects your right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of some person's opinion of the suitability of that firearm for any given purpose. The men who fought to free this nation used whatever firearms they had at hand to fight oppressors. Hunting is not protected by the 2nd, but your right to own a firearm with which to hunt, sport shoot, or just fondle is an inalienable one.

What Zumbo did was to give anti-gunners a perch from which to preach, and further their anti-"assault weapon" agenda.

Heck, Zumbo's guns make excellent human-killing "sniper" rifles, don't they? Why not ban them?

See the paradox?
 

It may not be abundantly clear to you what the Second Amendment to the Constitution does protect.

I have strong, informed views about the Second Amendment, but they have very little to do with what I wrote in this post, because -- as you'll see from the comments above -- I didn't originally understand that Zumbo had said anything about "banning" guns.

If you understand it to protect your right to hunt, that's incorrect.

I don't, so we agree there.

It protects your right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of some person's opinion of the suitability of that firearm for any given purpose..

Well, I disagree with that. The clause that the Second Amendment starts with explains its purpose.

The men who fought to free this nation used whatever firearms they had at hand to fight oppressors.

Yes. I agree with you there.

Hunting is not protected by the 2nd, but your right to own a firearm with which to hunt, sport shoot, or just fondle is an inalienable one.

I do not agree with you that the Second Amendment protects the right to own any sort of arms for any sort of purpose. To make sense of the text of the Second Amendment, there has to be some nexus to a militia.

What Zumbo did was to give anti-gunners a perch from which to preach, and further their anti-"assault weapon" agenda.

He didn't give them much of a perch that they didn't already have. And unless I'm missing something, the reaction to him has come from the most militant gun owners, not from the anti-gunners. Though I don't read Anti-Gunner Monthly, so maybe I just missed it.

Heck, Zumbo's guns make excellent human-killing "sniper" rifles, don't they? Why not ban them?

Did I say I'd ban assault weapons? I said I don't shoot prairie dogs with them.
 

"I would feel safer if more people owned bolt-action hunting rifles and fewer people owned other kinds of guns."

Would you feel safer if more people owned bolt actions instead of Remington 7400s, 742s, or Browning BARs? They are essentially the same except for superficial cosmetics.

Safety is just one of the oft used "logical reasons" to put limitations on firearms ownership. It makes no more sense in reality than putting limitations on chainsaws, or backhoes, but appeals to the ignorant who (wrongly) think they would feel safer if there were NO firearms. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the SA.

"I don't think the Second Amendment means what the NRA has tried to argue for"

Read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers. At the time of it's writing it meant exactly what the NRA says. You might also read what the DOJ has to say on the subject here: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

"Did I say I'd ban assault weapons? I said I don't shoot prairie dogs with them."

And Zumbo agreed with you, calling for a ban on their use in hunting. This shows a remarkable level of ignorance completely apart from SA concerns. The .223 is an excellent varmint round regardless of the rifle that fires it, and the AR platform is in fact available in many other calibers. My .243 WSSM AR15 was designed as a hunting rifle. Try here: www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/ar15zum_030207/

He didn't give them much of a perch that they didn't already have. And unless I'm missing something, the reaction to him has come from the most militant gun owners, not from the anti-gunners.

You are definitely "missing something". Here's what Sarah Brady had to say on Feb 19th, the first business day after Zumbo's blog, and several days before the NRA weighed in.

Even Remington's top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons

With important writers such as this on our side, it is clear that we have a cultural imperative to remove dangerous terrorist rifles from our streets, and our woods.

Jim Zumbo is a writer for the prestigious Outdoor Life magazine and represents the views of America's true sportsmen. He is also sponsored by Remington.

The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles

I would like to take a moment to comment on the proliferation of Sniper Rifles.
Sniper Rifles are typically equipped with a high-powered scope, and every single one of them can blow through the body armor cops wear. They can even penetrate multiple police cars. Does the Second Amendment protect cop-killer Sniper Rifles? The NRA certainly thinks so, along with the powerful gun lobby that wants your children and your law enforcement officers to be at risk from these weapons of mass destruction. Some of these Sniper Rifles can even penetrate ballistic or armored glass, lightly armored vehicles, and armored limousines. Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to solve this with an important bill that would have banned armor piercing ammunition and protected lawful firearm commerce:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....

..It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.."

Should our elected officials live under the threat of reprisal on their lives from disgruntled constituents? The Gun Lobby seems to think so. We disagree.

Sniper Rifles can be equipped with precision optics above even what the Military uses, allowing a sniper to deliver rounds within millimeters of accuracy - enabling them to engage targets at distances of well over one hundred meters. Is there a pressing need to be able to kill with accuracy at that distance? It is too far to justify as self defense. It is too far for hunting. It is only useful for those who wish to murder from afar.

Large caliber Sniper Rifles such as the .50 Browning Machine Gun can derail freight cars, shoot down aircraft and helicopters, damage vital ground equipment such as power substations, fuel tanks, and air traffic control, and cause complete chaos. For more information on why large caliber machine-gun rounds must be banned, visit www.50caliberterror.com. A shipment of large caliber machine-gun round sniper rifles made by Steyr turned up in Iran, and are being used on our own soldiers, as the .50 bullets easily defeat their body armor, their up-armored humvees, and even APCs.

Many forward thinking, progressive politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have voted against Center-Fire Rifle Ammunition of types for Sniper Rifles, but due to the pressure and massive financial resources of the gun industry, the necessary steps to protect our homes and lives have not been attained.

Sniper Rifles have been used by murderers and spree killers for years, with notable incidents such as the Beltway Snipers, the Clocktower Sniper, and more.

ANY rifle configured and equipped as a sniper rifle has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. They are too big and heavy to take to the field. Designed for distance shooting, they are useless for the ranges at which game animals are normally shot, and when used on sporting sized game at range they often just wound the animal, inhumanely forcing it to die slowly while the would-be hunter tracks it to finish it off. Most Sniper Rifles fire atypically large cartridges and ultra high velocity ammunition that can travel much greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.

Most of these rifles carry multiple rounds, with either an automatic mechanism, or a quick toggle action to rapidly move another bullet into the breech, ready to fire into another victim. In most states, they are nearly unrestricted. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy one. If they can't pass a background check, they skirt the NCIS system by going to a gunshow, or finding a private sale in the newspaper. A murderer camped at a distance from a public gathering could quickly turn it into a massacre dwarfing anything we have seen before in the United States, if they had a Sniper Rifle. If they adopted hit and run tactics, entire portions of our country could be shut down.

Sniper Rifles shoot a high powered bullet that is almost always fatal. They are designed for one thing- delivering powerful overkill with deadly precision. You don't need the kind of power and accuracy that can kill a man at five hundred yards for hunting rabbits or defending your house.

We should also give commendations to France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.

Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.

Let us hope that in a safer, saner America, we will succeed in our efforts to restrict the deadly spread of long distance murder rifles.

That my friend is exactly why so many of us rallied to the cause of getting Zumbo fired. When you take my opponent's' side, you become my opponent too.
 

My remark about safety has as much to do with trusting the people who choose to own bolt-action rifles rather than the people who choose to own assault weapons.

On the Second Amendment, someday perhaps I'll post at length about my views. If the Clinton Administration Office of Legal Counsel (at DOJ) had said that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you say, would you have found that significant at all? I'm guessing no, but I don't know you.

Zumbo agreed with you, calling for a ban on their use in hunting....

I have not called for a ban on those weapons, in hunting or otherwise. You assumed that's what I meant with my original post, but that's because I was unaware of Zumbo's line about game departments.