what happened to JIM ZUMBO?

ratherbefishin · Post by **ratherbefishin** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:20 pm

As I said-perception is everything-and even a paint job alters the look.I think you could blame the media for influencing peoples perception-and as I said-facts don't count.When a person goes to the polls, all that counts is what they think-not what the facts are-and we can talk until we are blue in the face and it won't make one whit of diference.The only ''fact'' that counts is votes-and like it or not-if the majority of people believes something-their vote carries.What is even more obscene is politicians who pander to their ignorance,and whip up emotions just to get elected.

Unfortionately a firearm that to you and me is a means for recreation and time spent with family and friends,plus putting healthy meat on the table is to a segment of society a means of power and intimidation-and thats what we are up against-like it or not.Even in British Columbia where I live,with huge game resources -hunting licences have declined by well over 50% over the last 30 years-while the general population has easily doubled.

The case of the Ontario spring bear hunt ban is an example of what happens when emotions overrule facts-but no politician is going to risk his seat by standing up and saying so.The fact that nuisance bears have increased doesn't count either,and nor will it restore the spring bear hunt.

awshucks · Post by **awshucks** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:54 pm

Most Excellant Post!!

BUSHDOG · Post by **BUSHDOG** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:23 am

you are so right about perception just look at the "assault rifles going to a thumbhole stock and the removal of the bayonet lug .ps there have been a lot of moose and deer taken in canada with a lee enfield 303 battle rifle perception ,perception.

Woody Williams · Post by **Woody Williams** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:51 am

Sorry buckeye, but "deer hunting" was not even mentioned in Zumbo's ill fated blog. He wanted them banned for any type of hunting and called them "terrorist guns".

Keep in mind this came at a time when the gun banners in congress are saying "if a gun doesn't have a 'sporting use', ban them".

His blog...

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. 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."

ratherbefishin · Post by **ratherbefishin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:13 am

The fact is,in a democratic society-''rights''are established by ''votes''and although we may have the ''right'' to have a semi automatic rifle that has an assault rifle stock,and although we may have the right to dress as we please,if the general population goes to the polls and bans certain types of firearms[funny ennough, when it comes to the laws-they end up reverting to facts-and it's not the military looking stock that gets banned-its the action,and that is a semi automatic,meaning regular semi automatic rifles and shotguns end up being on the restricted list-case inpoint,here in Canada, the marlin 9mm ''camp'' rifle is restricted-you can't carry one in the woods,simply because of the barrel length.

So-we may have the ''right''to do something-but we can lose it if the tide of public opinion goes against us-whether we like it or not .Being right,logical, factual or fair has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Another example of public opinion and perception is the terrible 9/11 disaster-yet each and every month the same number of people die as a result of alcohal or drug related car accidents-so where is the great public outcry against that?People are just as dead whether by dying on the road or by an airplane crashing into a building -and we are doing it to ourselves-and this is something we have the ability to stop far easier than stopping terrorists killing us.

A while ago after one of the terrible mass school killings a phyciatrist was asked on national television ''what could we do to make our children safe at school?...and he said-''make them wear a helmet when riding a bike to school ''because far more children die from head injuries that could have been prevented by simply wearing a bike helmet than being killed by school shootings-but that was not what the media wanted to hear-they were looking for something dramatic,or more laws banning guns outright.

so-perception , not fact, is everything

marmot · Post by **marmot** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:24 am

I know that I am not going to be popular by saving this, but I absolutely hate the faction of the gun owning community that is into assault-style weapons. They basically took over my local range and made it a very unsafe place to shoot. This range was a much safer place to shoot when the bulk of the people who used it where hunters and competitive shooters.

marmot · Post by **marmot** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:29 am

jh45gun wrote: I see your point. I disagree with some of the things they do to but they still are our best bet for fighting the gun grabbers. Just wish more gun owners would join. 35 bucks and a monthly magazine is pretty cheap insurance to have some one fight for your gun rights. Comes out to $2.916 a month cheaper than a beer in most places or a hamburger.

It will be a cold day in Hell before the NRA sees another dime from me. IMHO, we need a less slimy organization to support our right to bear arms.

BigTiny · Post by **BigTiny** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:22 pm

marmot wrote:It will be a cold day in Hell before the NRA sees another dime from me.

The Saints went to the NFC Championship last year, I think that's one of the signs. Keep your checkbook handy.

raydaughety · Post by **raydaughety** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:10 pm

I have problem with the way in which Zumbo handled this fiasco. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the chain of events that I saw. Jim "PUBLICLY" gave his honest opinion on these semi auto weapons. Well the next thing you know, it hits the fan and realizing that he probably should have kept his opinion to himself (given his status in the hunting community) Jim goes on the air (not sure what program) and apologized for being uneducated and narrowminded on the subject. Shortly after that, Jim calls on Ted Nugent to help him out of a bad situation. They go on the air and Ted has Jim shoot a selection of ARs and Jim's response was "OH!, That's not bad at all" and "this thing is a real joy to shoot" and just kept praising the weapons and said again that he was wrong in what he had earlier said. Now, here's where I have a problem. Jim Zumbo, a well know, very knowledgeable outdoor writer, Suddenly "CHANGES" his beliefs and basically sells himself out because he spoke out on something that he believes in. We all have the right to our opinions and beliefs but we must each judge to proper time and place to express them.

Just my opinion

raydaughety · Post by **raydaughety** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:10 am

Jim, I think you misunderstood my statement. We all have the right to our own opinion, Right? Now, personally, I'm against banning any firearms. That is "MY" opinion and my "right". Like I said, I have a problem with folks changing their beliefs just because it rubs someone the wrong way. If Zumbo thinks that these weapons should be banned, then He should stand behind what he believes in and not conveniently change his beliefs because it stirred the pot. For me, It's not the issue of the weapons at all, it's the fact that Zumbo compromised his integrity by changing his beliefs to suit the NRA and Outdoor Life. Zumbo's dislike for semi auto weapons doesn't surprise me at all however, the fact that he publicly announced it does. He's not stupid, he had to know that he would ruffle some feathers. I do see and respect your opinion on the gun control issue, I agree with you and certainly not zumbo as far as banning ANY weapons. I guess what I'm trying to say is, he spoke his mind and when his employers got fired up, he changed his mind on what he believed in. I hope that this makes some since and I haven't offended you. I happen to believe that the Green Bay Packers are a bunch of crying, whining, mama's boys but I'm not going to tell you that because I respect you and wouldn't want to hurt your feelings

Sorry, just kidding

God Bless and good night, I mean, good morning.

Woody Williams · Post by **Woody Williams** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:06 am

For someone who has been around hunting and guns all his life and wrote about them I find it rather hard to believe that Jim Zumbno was ignorant of the facts that the so called "assault rilfes" did have a place in the hunting world.

He just didn't like them.

I think Jim is an elitist that thinks his brand of hunting is the only way. I also believe that he thought he could say what he said and the otehr elitists would rally around him and say, " You're right Jim. If that rifle doesn't have a polished wood stock let's ban them". He caught c rap instead of a pat on the back.

The old saying that "money talks and bull $hit walks" applies here. Jim saw his income go from $200,000+ a year to nothing. He then saw the light and changed his tune.....hypocrite..

I have no use for him.. Of course I don't have a lot of use for most of the "hunting celebrities" either. Most are snake oil pushers....

John Wade · Post by **John Wade** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:18 pm

buckeye wrote:They (NRA) also toot their own horn on how they are defending all Americans freedoms and that it is also every Americans duty to defend these freedoms also, hence the need for an armed and free society. I concur on that also. I find it very ironic that they were one of the first organizations to demand that Outdoor Life terminate Jim Zumbo simply because he exercised the most precious freedom Americans have, the Freedom of Speech.

As Voltaire was incorrectly credited with saying, "'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This occurred to me and concerned me as well.

I don't know enough about the weapon to say I'd go one way or another on the topic but I do know that if the NRA took the tact to strip the man of his livelihood to whatever extent, I will have lost my respect for them let alone support.

If Zumbo wants to draw the line at stern looks and the NRA weapons of mass destruction for gathering gopher guts, go at her boys, but keep event in the arena.

Did they actually come out publicly and ask for his "hanging" or is this hear say? I hope they didn't. Unfortunately, sooner or later "advocate" organizations get too big for their britches and lose sight of their mandate or decide Machiavellian are the order of the day because of course, "We care more then you do."

John Wade · Post by **John Wade** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:31 pm

I agree the hypocrisy of changing directions because of fear of not being liked or loss of income is cowardly however, man is weak and I've met very few men of principal when it came down to getting food on the table or not. I'm not saying he had to worry about that, I'm saying everybody has shall we say the line of hypocrates.

For me the greater weakness here is that the hunting world enmasse didn't roar to life and attack the NRA for demanding the man lose his job(s) for expressing an opinion. If their beliefs can't withstand that one man's article without playing what in my view is dirty pool, their beliefs must be on a pretty shaky foundation. As (in my opinion) their beliefs for the most part have merit and as a result are shared my many, including myself, it makes me very leery of whomever is running the show now. Too many groups now are "Do as I say, not what I do." and somehow it is all lost on the little guys. Maybe not lost as this thread proves but they seem to be able to count on insufficient enough resistance to worry about us little guys and before you know it the good guys become the bad guys.

Woody Williams · Post by **Woody Williams** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:48 pm

The rise against Zumbo was grass roots all the way.

No sponsor, including the NRA, called "off with his head".

They caught deserved flack against Zumbo and these people are business people. The person that was once an asset was now a liability.

The hue and cry in DC lately has been - "If a gun doesn't have a sporting use, then ban it". Of course the 2nd Amenment was not about "sporting use". Zumbo played right into their hands and it wasn't a week until his words were being used agauinst us in the halls of congress.

In gun ownership, you are either for us or against us.... no fence sitters allowed.

BigTiny · Post by **BigTiny** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:25 pm

jh45gun wrote: The way I look at it you start to want to ban the semi autos then they will start down the road on the sniper issue which pretty much takes care of any scoped rifle. You cannot trust any of them.

There was a bill earlier this year that was supposed to deal with the "problem" of sniper rifles. Their definition of sniper rifle was any firearm designed for or fitted with optics or sights that would allow a shooter to hit a target at a distance of 100 yards or greater. No specifics on how big the target had to be.

I'm going to go out on a limb and believe Jim Zumbo. He could have just as easily decided to dig in his heels on the issue and never have to admit he was wrong. The anti-gun crowd would have embraced him and he, no doubt, would have found a job being the poster boy for a new semi-auto weapons ban. I don't know if he had a real change of heart or not, only he and Jesus know for sure. I'm just not ready to kick him to the curb.