# Jim Zumbo controversy



## saskcoyote

While you boys are discussing cornfields and the merits of having a pet coyote, it appears you're missing the Jim Zumbo controversy that's turning into arguably one of the largest scandals in the hunting world in many years.

For those who aren't acquainted with Zumbo, he's one of the best known and (until very recently) one of the most highly respected outdoor writers in the United States.

What stirred up the conflagration was a blog he wrote in which he called for the banning of 'assault' rifles for hunting and specifically mentioned the AR-15, a rifle many of you in this forum own and hunt with, or which is similar to other types of firearms guys in this forum own.

Both Remington and Outdoor Life have repudiated Zumbo's position and even Zumbo printed an apology and retraction this afternoon but his repentence appears to have done little to quell the anger.

In fact, it's reported the Outdoor Life, which has had many, many of fits faithful readers cancelling their subscriptions, will announce Zumbo's firing tomorrow.

Remingon as well is supposedly severing all ties with Zumbo.

So, if you'd like to see a debate a little more substantial than the merits of having a pet coyote or whether calling in 25 mile per hour winds is productive, you may want to visit Predator Masters.

The debate about assault-gun bans and so on going on in your country doesn't affect me directly but believe me, we hunters and gun owners know all too well what huge negative impacts anti-hunters and anti-gun zealots have had up here.


----------



## Fallguy

Thanks for the update. I saw the discussions on it on PredatorMasters and quite honestly I had enough of that after reading a few posts. I don't care for that style of weapon personally. That's fine if others want to use them, but I will stick with my traditional style of guns. That's crazy that he may lose his job over it. I understand that this controversy is related to our rights as gun owners. Even so, I would rather discuss pet coyotes and calling in 25 mph wind.


----------



## Brad.T

He made his bed now he can sleep in it but i would rather discuss things on how to get more fur on the stretcher than Jim Zumbo's career which for the most part has never been respected much by the guys i have ever talked too. He has his own line of spices that tells me a lot! :roll:


----------



## fingerz42

How is this a "scandal" as you put it? I personally thinkpeople are blowing this way out of control. Assault weapons SHOULD be banned from hunting, if you want to shoot weaponry made for front line ARMY men then join the ARMY. Until then leave the assault rifles out of hunting. People need to step back and calm down and realize they are going overboard.


----------



## Horsager

Here is a link to exactly what Mr. Zumbo said, and how he apologized. I have my onpinions on this but I'll let you read the article and apology and make up your own mind.

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html


----------



## Horsager

Fingerz42, find an out of the box factory rifle that will shoot 5 shots like this with factory el-cheapo ammo @ 100yds.










Cause I did it with this on day 1.










That represents less than 20 rounds down the barrel. I expect that rifle will see lots of action shooting prairie dogs this summer.

Do you think a Mini-14 from Ruger is somehow different? Is a mini-30 appreciably different than an SKS? Both the AR and Mini are available with black synthetic stocks and SS barrels. Factory stocked SKS rifles came with wood stocks, same as a mini-30. How about a BAR or Rem 7400 with synthetic stocks?

Mausers used to be military weapons, are you going to ban my Classic actioned model 70's?

Many US military and LE snipers use Remington bolt actions very similar to Remington's custom shop 40x (hence M-40a1,2,3, etc). Has my bolt action Remington suddenly become a sniper rifle?

Fingerz42, your argument gives the anit's lots of ammo.


----------



## DOGKILLR

Fingerz, You dissappoint me. I have a AR15 and use it for hunting. I was never really interested in them except for hunting and they are damn good hunting rifles. Mine holds only 5 rounds just like any auto. Nothing wrong with any firearm if it's in the hands of someone that's using it for the right purpose. Jim Zumbo and others in this nation are not getting the point about guns. Outlawing firearms is not the solution to stopping murderers or terrorists. TIMELY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND PROTECTING OUR BORDERS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DETER THESE PROBLEMS. This country is way too passive in controlling crimes with punishment. If they would start hanging people for murdering and terrorizing others you would start seeing alot less crime. Don't just throw them in prison to lift weights, play basketball, and watch TV. If someone is found guilty of a murder with no reasonable doubt, he/she should be gone in 30 days or less.... that's the only solution. Making law abiding citizens pay the price for those who break laws solves nothing. Jim Zumbo should lose his job.. what a d-ckhead.


----------



## Gohon

> I personally thinkpeople are blowing this way out of control. Assault weapons SHOULD be banned from hunting,


Ever see anyone hunt with a assault weapon? I never have and I'll bet you haven't either. But, I have seen people hunt with semi autos that are designed and configured to look like a military assault weapon. But, they are not assault weapons. I've also seen hunters out hunting with new finagled compound bows. They are designed and appear to be copies of the recurve and long bows so maybe we should call them assault bows and get rid of them........ Ditto for those assult muzzle loaders. Wake up people. Your first mistake is to call the gun a assault weapon which it is not.

As for Zumbo I've never seen him appear or write about a hunt that I might find myself doing. He's either on a $10,000 guided hunt in Alaska or a $20,000 guided hunt in Africa.


----------



## DOGKILLR

That's right Gohon. They are not assault rifles unless you assault someone with them. I did assault these coyotes with my AR15. Does that count?


----------



## Horsager

Remington has posted to the homepage of their website they are in the process of severing all sponsorship of Jim Zumbo. The official press release is expected by noon today.

Zumbo's career is finished.


----------



## Horsager

The full press release is now posted to Remington's homepage.


----------



## Horsager

Fingerz42, maybe this is more your speed.


----------



## farmerj

fingerz42 said:


> How is this a "scandal" as you put it? I personally thinkpeople are blowing this way out of control. Assault weapons SHOULD be banned from hunting, if you want to shoot weaponry made for front line ARMY men then join the ARMY. Until then leave the assault rifles out of hunting. People need to step back and calm down and realize they are going overboard.


So turn in your Remington 700, Model 870, Mossberg 500. As they are all military issued firearms.

Careful how you word stuff. Pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles are very much military weapons.

As such, you won't be left with anything if you continue to think like this.

Mr. Zumbo got into this mess because of this thinking. As others have stated. Now he must reap what he has sown.

What is being missed here is this is not a discussion about a hunting rifle, as it is classifying a large portion of the hunting community as "terrorists"

The 2nd in not about hunting.


----------



## Jiffy

Horsager said:


> Fingerz42, maybe this is more your speed.


 :lol: :lol: :beer:


----------



## Jiffy

Personally I think everybody should own an "AR" of some sort. Why you may ask? Because we can! :wink:

You never know when one may come in handy. 8)


----------



## zogman

Thank you farmerj


> Posted: 19 Feb 2007 13:11 Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> .
> 
> So turn in your Remington 700, Model 870, Mossberg 500. As they are all military issued firearms.
> 
> Careful how you word stuff. Pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles are very much military weapons.
> 
> As such, you won't be left with anything if you continue to think like this.
> 
> Mr. Zumbo got into this mess because of this thinking. As others have stated. Now he must reap what he has sown.
> 
> What is being missed here is this is not a discussion about a hunting rifle, as it is classifying a large portion of the hunting community as "terrorists"
> 
> The 2nd in not about hunting


Alot of folks on this site seem to forget this :eyeroll: :sniper:


----------



## farmerj

zogman said:


> Thank you farmerj
> 
> 
> 
> Posted: 19 Feb 2007 13:11 Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> .
> 
> So turn in your Remington 700, Model 870, Mossberg 500. As they are all military issued firearms.
> 
> Careful how you word stuff. Pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles are very much military weapons.
> 
> As such, you won't be left with anything if you continue to think like this.
> 
> Mr. Zumbo got into this mess because of this thinking. As others have stated. Now he must reap what he has sown.
> 
> What is being missed here is this is not a discussion about a hunting rifle, as it is classifying a large portion of the hunting community as "terrorists"
> 
> The 2nd in not about hunting
> 
> 
> 
> Alot of folks on this site seem to forget this :eyeroll: :sniper:
Click to expand...

Something I failed to mention.

The Rem 700 action is the current action of choice for both the M24 Sniper weapon system in the Army and the M40A3 for the Marine corp.

The Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500 are the current issue tactical shotguns as well.

In the line of thinking being presented by Zumbo and Fingerz, they are assault weapons as well and should be banned.

This is the split the Brady Foundation and friends wants to see.

In no time, will they succeed in Feinstein's and Pelosi's wishes to "turn them all in"


----------



## Horsager

Outdoor Life is trying to sneak away from this. Here is a link to their statement.

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/statement_from_.html

Note quite so overt as Remington. It will be interresting to see their final response to this issue. I bet Mr. Zumbo's phone is smoking from all the incoming calls.


----------



## Plainsman

fingerz42 said:


> How is this a "scandal" as you put it? I personally thinkpeople are blowing this way out of control. Assault weapons SHOULD be banned from hunting, if you want to shoot weaponry made for front line ARMY men then join the ARMY. Until then leave the assault rifles out of hunting. People need to step back and calm down and realize they are going overboard.


After that constitutionally ignorant statement I may have to buy one while we are still free men. Never underestimate the power of ignorant people in large numbers. I have never wanted one before, but with the ignorance of the American public I better buy one while the buying is good.


----------



## saskcoyote

Fallguy and Fingerz appear to reflect the attitude of many in the hunting and shooting fraternity, ranging from disinterest in the "assault' rifle debate through to advocating an outright ban.

They and others should be reminded that what is banned today may not necessarily affect them but their choice of firearms may be next to come under fire. I don't own an AR-15 (I don't even live in the US) but here's what's happening in Canada.

When mandatory registration of hunting rifles and shotguns came into affect several years ago, many of us thought this would be the end of it (handguns have been required to be registered for the past 70-odd years) and that compliance, while an inconvenience, wouldn't be a huge burden and, as law abiding citizens, we would comply even though we didn't like the new law.

Since then we've seen the Liberal Party of Canada (basically the same politically oriented group as your Democrats) push for even more restrictions on gun ownership. They now talk about outlawing the Mini-14. During the last election in January 2006, which they lost, the Liberals announced they would ban all private ownership of handguns. At their annual convention last November the Liberal Party passed a resolution calling for the banning of all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

It's clear to me and to many hunters and gun owners the ultimate goal of the Liberal Party up here is to, by increments, outlaw the private ownership of all firearms in Canada.

Today, 'assault' rifles may be the target of anti-gun factions in your country but it may only be the first step. There are those in the US who, like in Canada, will never rest until private ownership of all firearms is outlawed.

So, Fallguy, maybe as interesting as you find the debate about having a pet coyote to be, there are topics that perhaps do require a bit more attention. And Fingerz, you may want to consider that just as you would support a ban on 'assault' rifles, be assured there is someone who wants to take your rifle away.


----------



## Fallguy

saskcoyote said:


> So, Fallguy, maybe as interesting as you find the debate about having a pet coyote to be, there are topics that perhaps do require a bit more attention. And Fingerz, you may want to consider that just as you would support a ban on 'assault' rifles, be assured there is someone who wants to take your rifle away.


Saskcoyote

Remind me never to move to Canada. I realize that this is related to our gun rights, but this is one man's opinion and statement. This might be being over emphasized in a way don't you think? All I know is if they try to take away guns it will be over my dead body. For now I would rather discuss things that I am interested in and I am sick of hearing about Zumbo's comments. Quit bothering me about it.


----------



## Plainsman

Saskcoyote, this subject would be perfectly acceptable in the political form.


----------



## Horsager

For those who believe this is a joke or can be marginalized read here:



> Sunday, February 18, 2007
> 
> 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 http://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.
> 
> 11:09 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment
> 
> 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.
> 
> http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007 ... fles_.html
> 
> 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.
> 
> PS from the Campaign:
> 
> We've read his apology. Stop copying and pasting it. If we wanted to post it, it would have been included already. Thanks to a few individuals who attempted to excessively spam the blog comments section, comments are now moderated for this blog post. We will still post comments from all viewpoints, as we respect and cherish the first amendment, but you have only those who refused to respect our requests to thank when you have to wait for your comment to be approved.


That's a quote from here:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...yToken=825c1a36-3495-475e-a7fa-33bdfb14f4dbML

Zumbo's moment of indiscression will cost us hundreds of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to undo. All of the sudden the 223, 308, 30-06, 7x57, and 6.5x55 are "sniper rifles". Apparently anything that shoots further than 100yds is a "sniper rifle" by this person's account.

This is of the most serious nature. To those who do not believe our 2nd amendment is under serious assault I'd beg you to do some more research. We cannot afford gun owners straddling the fence.


----------



## rednek

thanks for the post


----------



## DOGKILLR

Thanks for the post Horsager. Damn, it's great to go to the outdoor life website and see that everyone is upset over Zumbo's statement and are actually getting something done about it. I haven't seen people pull together like this in a long time. Now let's take it to another level. See the list of jack-*** politicians that Horsager listed above. Remember them next time you go to vote. They are ten times the enemy that Dumbo is. They are out for their own interests, not ours. Lets put them in the toilet.

Here are some of them:

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,


----------



## fingerz42

You guys are standing on a slippery slope. If a white guy kills a black guy, will all white guys kill all the black guys? No. So if they ban one gun, will they ban all? No. I do see where you're coming from though, I understand that if one type of guns get banned you are afraid they will continue to ban more and more until nothing is left. I understand, but its impractical. Listen, its America and we all can have opinions, just because I didnt conform to all of you guys' opinion doesnt make me a bad or stupid person, so dont treat me like it. Dont gang up on me, or anyone else for that fact, because of one statement you all dont agree on.


----------



## Plainsman

fingerz42, your being far to cavalier about this and endangering your freedom and ours. Like I told my children when they were children, take it serious.


----------



## DOGKILLR

Fingerz, if you want to donate your favorite gun to someone, I'll take it. My AR is my favorite. I thought long and hard before purchasing my Bushmaster AR15 mainly due to the expense. I found a need for a semi-auto for coyote hunting and after alot of research decided on it. I have Thompson Encores, Remington 700's, a Steven's and other guns to hunt yotes with but find myself picking the AR from the cabinet 95% of the time. I assure you that I am not interested in terrorizing or murdering humans. What gun one owns has nothing to do with how he uses it. Hell, you can kill somebody with a BB gun if you hit them in the right place. Should they outlaw Red Ryders?


----------



## Horsager

Fingerz42, if you haven't I *BEG* you to go back and read what I posted from the Brady/Myspace site. Those folks have labeled all bolt action rifles with scopes as *"SNIPER RIFLES"*. My Kimber Super America 223 that sits in the back of the safe so as not to get scratched is now somehow a *SNIPER RIFLE *How did that happen? How about something as American as Jack O'Conner's Winchester Model 70 in 270Win (hey, I have one of those!!), it's got a scope, it shoots past 100 yds. The 270 wasn't ever a military round but you can bet your last nickle if they get one '06 based case, they'll try to get them all. All we're trying to show is that we cannot give an inch or they'll take everything.


----------



## Horsager

I haven't any words:


----------



## fingerz42

I understand where you guys are coming from. Its just going to have to be a dark day in hell when all hunting is banned. I dont need lectured either, I have seen all the posts and read all the articles. I just cant see it happening.


----------



## zogman

Well as I count it I have 3 so called sniper rifles (all bolt actions with high powered scopes) 1 ruger 10/22, 1 so called assult shotgun (870), 1 automatic shotgun. A lever action 30/30 (we know thats a cop killer from previos posts), 3 single action revolvers. Well that leaves me with a .177 pellet rifle. Of course that a a cheap laser scope. Guess I'll start making sling shots.

Finger42 you are the classic example of a person with his head in the sand.
If you are a true sportsman/hunter you couldn't of read anything thats been posted here or maybe your just a gun control troll :******: uke:


----------



## Jiffy

HEY.....thou shalt not use thy name "sniper rifles" in vain!

fingerzzzzzz, guess which one I'm holding up! :******:


----------



## fingerz42

You're right, I'm not a "true" hunter because I dont agree with exactly what you want me to.

Do you see how bogus your statements are...?


----------



## Horsager

Gentlemen, it'd be easier to sway Fingerz to our way of thinking if you'd quit sticking his head in the toilet and flushing. Those in the middle ground need to be tactfully informed, not pulled off the fence, given a swirly, and then expected to agree.


----------



## pfast

For those of you who think so called assult rifles should be banned from hunting just remember . The gun haters of the world will use this as a step in banning all guns. First assult rifles then semi autos then what your favorite coyote gun. Oh no that will never happen they only want to get rid of the bad guns, you know the ones i dont use. If we dont stand up for gun ownership in general before to long we wont have the privilege of gun ownership. So those of you who would rather talk about cornfields and wind if you dont fight for your freedoms you just as well be aginst them. Not trying to upset anyone just hope to get you thinking.


----------



## Jiffy

pfast said:


> If we dont stand up for gun ownership in general before to long we wont have the privilege of gun ownership.


I don't mean to "single you out" pfast but the right to bear arms is not a privilege. It's a freaking RIGHT!! Remember that gents!! Do not give in....ever!!

Horsager, you're more diplomatic than I will ever care to be. Don't get me wrong. That is a good thing.  :lol:


----------



## fingerz42

Exactly horsager.. I understand fully where you all are coming from, and as I respect your opinions let me have mine as well.. Mine are not that far from yours BTW, i just think its a slippery slope to go from banning one type of gun to banning all hunting.. their is alot of crap that needs to happen in between there...


----------



## neb_bo

this topic saddens me. jim zumbo is a man, just like you and me. he is not in any sort of official representitive position for sportsman, nor does he claim to. he isnt forcing his opinion on anyone, hes not even trying to persuade others to follow his beliefs. all he did is utilize the freedoms that his statement has now been manipulated to threaten. i personaly dont feel that he should have said it, but do you and i have the right to pass judgement on him for his opinion? we've all said the wrong thing, in the wrong place, but just because he happens to be a highly publicized writer, is he not entitled to voice his thoughts without fear of reprisal. whenever i read an outdoor magazine that posts readers complaints about a certain subject or writer, i wonder if these people realize that they have the right to not read these things.

and for the record i am strongly against the ban of assault weapons. i feel they are a critical part of the well regulated militia that this country may need at any time.


----------



## saskcoyote

Fallguy, it wasn't my intention to 'bother' you. Nor Fingerz, did I hope to see anyone on this forum 'gang up' on you. Simply, my intention was to bring to light the debate about 'assault' rifles.

I'm a newcomer to this forum and believed the protocol was that if a post was made and one responded, the person responding would welcome further debate. I've also believed that when one stated an opinion, then one must be willing to support that opinion with fact (sorry, guess it's just my newspaper background kicking in).

I enjoy reading the posts about many different -- and I might say -- light-hearted topics, even about having a pet coyote. But sometimes, there are issues that affect hunters and gun owners that require serious consideration. One should not dodge these debates, even if they are uncomfortable. I hope this forum welcomes a diversity of debate.

That a well-known outdoor writer would support the banning of an 'assault' rifle, like many of you guys use, is a serious subject. As I said before, I don't have an AR-15 and I don't live in the US but to me, borders on issues like this are irrelevant. What's more important is that the fraternity of hunters, no matter what the borders, understand the implications.

From reading the posts, I'd conclude that most guys disagree with Zumbo's position because they, like I and my hunting friends in Canada, see banning 'assault' rifles is the beginning of the proverbial slippery slope.

When I posted this, it was not to create personal animosities but to let you guys know what was happening elsewhere. What you decide to do about it is something you personally feel you must do. Happy hunting.


----------



## saskcoyote

Fallguy, it wasn't my intention to 'bother' you. Nor Fingerz, did I hope to see anyone on this forum 'gang up' on you. Simply, my intention was to bring to light the debate about 'assault' rifles.

I'm a newcomer to this forum and believed the protocol was that if a post was made and one responded, the person responding would welcome further debate. I've also believed that when one stated an opinion, then one must be willing to support that opinion with fact (sorry, guess it's just my newspaper background kicking in).

I enjoy reading the posts about many different -- and I might say -- light-hearted topics, even about having a pet coyote. But sometimes, there are issues that affect hunters and gun owners that require serious consideration. One should not dodge these debates, even if they are uncomfortable. I hope this forum welcomes a diversity of debate.

That a well-known outdoor writer would support the banning of an 'assault' rifle, like many of you guys use, is a serious subject. As I said before, I don't have an AR-15 and I don't live in the US but to me, borders on issues like this are irrelevant. What's more important is that the fraternity of hunters, no matter what the borders, understand the implications.

From reading the posts, I'd conclude that most guys disagree with Zumbo's position because they, like I and my hunting friends in Canada, see banning 'assault' rifles is the beginning of the proverbial slippery slope.

When I posted this, it was not to create personal animosities but to let you guys know what was happening elsewhere. What you decide to do about it is something you personally feel you must do. Happy hunting.


----------



## Horsager

> he is not in any sort of official representitive position for sportsman,


He's a paid speaker at lots of events, NRA events included.



> he isnt forcing his opinion on anyone





> hes not even trying to persuade others to follow his beliefs.


He called for the banning of rifles he doesn't like the looks of, I think calling for banning something from atop his very high soapbox qualifies as forcing his opinion on me. That sort of statement if acted upon wouldn't allow me to follow my beliefs. If my rifle had been banned as his request my beliefs wouldn't mean squat.



> but just because he happens to be a highly publicized writer, is he not entitled to voice his thoughts without fear of reprisal


When you have "the microphone" as he does you are beholden to your audience. He has every right to his opinion, and to voice it in any manner he deems appropriate. We as consumers of his sponsors' wares have the right not to associate ourselves with those who have beliefs that are different from our own.

His statements are already all over the anti-gun websites, they are seeing this as a major victory and will get tons of mileage out of this.

To regain any shred of respect from the gun-owning community he needs to be front and center organizing rallys to protest the anti-gunners. I don't mean some segment on the outdoor channel where he apologizes again. I mean "boots on the ground" protests, plaquard in hand. I'd say he needs to be very visible doing this sort of work for 18-24mo. He needs to *PROVE *he's a defender of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## pfast

Jiffy you are correct it is a RIGHT not a privilege.


----------



## neb_bo

He's a paid speaker at lots of events, NRA events included.

he wasnt being paid by anyone when he made the statement, if the nra doesnt want him to speak at theyre events anymore that is theyre choice, but he still isnt in any official position. from what i understand, he made the statement on his personal blog, not in an article, or at a conference of some sort.

I think calling for banning something from atop his very high soapbox qualifies as forcing his opinion on me. [

i didnt realize he was "calling for" a ban. i didnt see a petitton attached to the statement. though you might feel threatened by this, i guess i dont.

His statements are already all over the anti-gun websites, they are seeing this as a major victory and will get tons of mileage out of this.

To regain any shred of respect from the gun-owning community he needs to be front and center organizing rallys to protest the anti-gunners. I don't mean some segment on the outdoor channel where he apologizes again. I mean "boots on the ground" protests, plaquard in hand. I'd say he needs to be very visible doing this sort of work for 18-24mo. He needs to *PROVE *he's a defender of the 2nd amendment.[/quote]

i agree with this. he may not have meant to rile the wasp nest, but he did, and now he needs to deal with it.


----------



## Plainsman

> but just because he happens to be a highly publicized writer, is he not entitled to voice his thoughts without fear of reprisal


He has the right to make an a$$ out of himself any way he wants. I have the right to call and email every outdoor magazine I subscribe to and tell them if I ever see the jerk in their magazine again cancel my subscription, and don't ever call me again. That is my right. Talk about lambs to the slaughter, it is this kind of naive thinking that will kill the second amendment of the United States. Like someone said a while ago, "why don't you just send me your guns now".



> but do you and i have the right to pass judgement on him for his opinion?


We absolutely have the right to judge. I don't want to ever read another article from this backstabber. He isn't a sportsman, he is a businessman. He is getting old and now that he has made his money off of us he is dumping on us. He made the same mistake as that female country singer (can't remember her name) that said meat is murder. Do I have the right to have an opinion about her? Then we all remember the dizzy chicks. What, don't I have the right not to want to listen to these people anymore? Where are my rights? Do I have to go buy an album from the dizzy chicks, and a book from Zumbo? We aren't slaves to these people, we have the right not to buy their products, and tell others why they shouldn't.


----------



## Horsager

> he wasnt being paid by anyone when he made the statement


While Outdoor Life has a disclaimer on the Blog site, it's still their site that he contributes to. Outdoor Life is also the entity that has shut down that page for now in the wake of the firestorm Mr. Zumbo created.

Here is Mr. Zumbo's closing statement.



> "I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods"


Neb_bo, I urge you to read the links I've provided if you haven't already, then do some more research on your own, come to your own conclusion. I'm confident we'll see things much more "eye-to-eye" if you look at the things that are being planned by the gun grabbers.

Things like this:



> I
> 110TH CONGRESS
> 1ST SESSION H. R. 1022
> To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> FEBRUARY 13, 2007
> Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was
> referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
> A BILL
> To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other
> purposes.
> 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
> tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
> 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
> 4 This Act may be cited as the ''Assault Weapons Ban
> 5 and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007''.
> 6 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED
> 7 CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO AS8
> SAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AM9
> MUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
> 10 (a) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS WHOLLY RE11
> PEALED.-Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a),
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 2
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922,
> 2 and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18,
> 3 United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal
> 4 made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control
> 5 and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted
> 6 into law.
> 7 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS PARTIALLY RE8
> PEALED.-Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is
> 9 amended-
> 10 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subpara11
> graph (B) and inserting the following:
> 12 ''(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f),
> 13 (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;''; and
> 14 (2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause
> 15 (i) and inserting the following:
> 16 ''(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled
> 17 shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the per18
> son shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
> 19 not less than 10 years; or''.
> 20 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
> 21 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 921(a)(30) of title 18,
> 22 United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act,
> 23 is amended to read as follows:
> 24 ''(30) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon'
> 25 means any of the following:
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 3
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
> 2 thereof:
> 3 ''(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74,
> 4 ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA
> 5 85, SA 93, VEPR;
> 6 ''(ii) AR-10;
> 7 ''(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite
> 8 M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
> 9 ''(iv) AR70;
> 10 ''(v) Calico Liberty;
> 11 ''(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or
> 12 Dragunov SVU;
> 13 ''(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/
> 14 LAR, or FNC;
> 15 ''(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
> 16 ''(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-
> 17 PSG-1;
> 18 ''(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
> 19 ''(xi) M1 Carbine;
> 20 ''(xii) Saiga;
> 21 ''(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
> 22 ''(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
> 23 ''(xv) SLG 95;
> 24 ''(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
> 25 ''(xvii) Steyr AUG;
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 4
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
> 2 ''(xix) Tavor;
> 3 ''(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
> 4 Thompson 1927 Commando; or
> 5 ''(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil
> 6 Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
> 7 ''(B) The following pistols or copies or dupli8
> cates thereof:
> 9 ''(i) Calico M-110;
> 10 ''(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
> 11 ''(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
> 12 ''(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scor13
> pion, or AB-10; or
> 14 ''(v) Uzi.
> 15 ''(C) The following shotguns or copies or dupli16
> cates thereof:
> 17 ''(i) Armscor 30 BG;
> 18 ''(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
> 19 ''(iii) Striker 12; or
> 20 ''(iv) Streetsweeper.
> 21 ''(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability
> 22 to accept a detachable magazine, and that has-
> 23 ''(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
> 24 ''(ii) a threaded barrel;
> 25 ''(iii) a pistol grip;
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 5
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(iv) a forward grip; or
> 2 ''(v) a barrel shroud.
> 3 ''(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a
> 4 semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with
> 5 the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> 6 ''(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached
> 7 tubular device designed to accept, and capable of op8
> erating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
> 9 ''(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability
> 10 to accept a detachable magazine, and has-
> 11 ''(i) a second pistol grip;
> 12 ''(ii) a threaded barrel;
> 13 ''(iii) a barrel shroud; or
> 14 ''(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable
> 15 magazine at a location outside of the pistol
> 16 grip.
> 17 ''(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed maga18
> zine that has the capacity to accept more than 10
> 19 rounds.
> 20 ''(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has-
> 21 ''(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
> 22 ''(ii) a pistol grip;
> 23 ''(iii) the ability to accept a detachable
> 24 magazine; or
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 6
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more
> 2 than 5 rounds.
> 3 ''(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> 4 ''(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or
> 5 based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a
> 6 firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A)
> 7 through (I) or (L).
> 8 ''(K) A conversion kit.
> 9 ''(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun origi10
> nally designed for military or law enforcement use,
> 11 or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm,
> 12 that is not particularly suitable for sporting pur13
> poses, as determined by the Attorney General. In
> 14 making the determination, there shall be a rebut15
> table presumption that a firearm procured for use
> 16 by the United States military or any Federal law en17
> forcement agency is not particularly suitable for
> 18 sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be deter19
> mined to be particularly suitable for sporting pur20
> poses solely because the firearm is suitable for use
> 21 in a sporting event.''.
> 22 (b) RELATED DEFINITIONS.-Section 921(a) of such
> 23 title is amended by adding at the end the following:
> 24 ''(36) BARREL SHROUD.-The term 'barrel shroud'
> 25 means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or com-
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 7
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 pletely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud
> 2 protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by
> 3 the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the
> 4 barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock
> 5 along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or
> 6 substantially encircle the barrel.
> 7 ''(37) CONVERSION KIT.-The term 'conversion kit'
> 8 means any part or combination of parts designed and in9
> tended for use in converting a firearm into a semiauto10
> matic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from
> 11 which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled
> 12 if the parts are in the possession or under the control of
> 13 a person.
> 14 ''(38) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE.-The term 'detach15
> able magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that
> 16 can readily be inserted into a firearm.
> 17 ''(39) FIXED MAGAZINE.-The term 'fixed magazine'
> 18 means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or per19
> manently attached to, a firearm.
> 20 ''(40) FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK.-The term
> 21 'folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds,
> 22 telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size,
> 23 or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the
> 24 concealability, of a firearm.
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 8
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(41) FORWARD GRIP.-The term 'forward grip'
> 2 means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions
> 3 as a pistol grip.
> 4 ''(42) PISTOL GRIP.-The term 'pistol grip' means
> 5 a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that
> 6 can function as a grip.
> 7 ''(43) THREADED BARREL.-The term 'threaded
> 8 barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed
> 9 in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm
> 10 as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms
> 11 Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).''.
> 12 SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
> 13 Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as
> 14 added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended-
> 15 (1) by inserting ''(A)'' after ''(2)''; and
> 16 (2) by adding after and below the end the fol17
> lowing:
> 18 ''(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
> 19 the possession or transfer of which would (but for this sub20
> paragraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and
> 21 which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the
> 22 enactment of this subparagraph.''.
> 23 SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.
> 24 Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as
> 25 added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 9
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 ''(3)'' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and
> 2 inserting the following:
> 3 ''(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
> 4 that-
> 5 ''(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level,
> 6 or slide action;
> 7 ''(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable;
> 8 or
> 9 ''(C) is an antique firearm.''.
> 10 SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE
> 11 TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMI12
> AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
> 13 Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as
> 14 added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding
> 15 at the end the following:
> 16 ''(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
> 17 a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1)
> 18 does not apply, except through-
> 19 ''(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of sub20
> section (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon
> 21 shall be considered to be transferred from the busi22
> ness inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer
> 23 shall be considered to be the transferor; or
> 24 ''(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if
> 25 the transfer is made in accordance with the proce-
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 10
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 dures provided for in subsection (t) of this section
> 2 and section 923(g).
> 3 ''(6) The Attorney General shall establish and main4
> tain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model,
> 5 and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault
> 6 weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has
> 7 been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State
> 8 law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime in9
> volved, including the outcome of relevant criminal inves10
> tigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall an11
> nually submit the record to the Congress and make the
> 12 record available to the general public.''.
> 13 SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR
> 14 TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNI15
> TION FEEDING DEVICE.
> 16 (a) BAN ON TRANSFER OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT
> 17 WEAPON WITH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
> 18 DEVICE.-
> 19 (1) IN GENERAL.-Section 922 of title 18,
> 20 United States Code, is amended by inserting after
> 21 subsection  the following:
> 22 ''(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
> 23 any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition
> 24 feeding device.''.
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 11
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 (2) PENALTIES.-Section 924(a) of such title is
> 2 amended by adding at the end the following:
> 3 ''(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall
> 4 be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10
> 5 years, or both.''.
> 6 (b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.-
> 7 (1) IN GENERAL.-Section 922(w) of such title,
> 8 as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended-
> 9 (A) in paragraph (3)-
> 10 (i) by adding ''or'' at the end of sub11
> paragraph (B); and
> 12 (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and
> 13 redesignating subparagraph (D) as sub14
> paragraph (C); and
> 15 (B) by striking paragraph (4) and insert16
> ing the following:
> 17 ''(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer,
> 18 licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large
> 19 capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufac20
> tured on or before the date of the enactment of this sub21
> section, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before
> 22 the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date
> 23 of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed
> 24 by the Attorney General, that the device was manufac-
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 12
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 tured on or before the date of the enactment of this sub2
> section.''.
> 3 (2) PENALTIES.-Section 924(a) of such title,
> 4 as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is
> 5 amended by adding at the end the following:
> 6 ''(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4)
> 7 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
> 8 5 years, or both.''.
> 9 SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.
> 10 Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is
> 11 amended-
> 12 (1) in paragraph (1)-
> 13 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the
> 14 period and inserting a semicolon; and
> 15 (B) by adding at the end the following:
> 16 ''(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
> 17 ''(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding de18
> vice.''; and
> 19 (2) in paragraph (2)-
> 20 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the
> 21 period and inserting a semicolon; and
> 22 (B) by adding at the end the following:
> 23 ''(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
> 24 ''(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding de25
> vice.''.
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
> 13
> •HR 1022 IH
> 1 SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMU2
> NITION FEEDING DEVICE.
> 3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 922(w) of title 18, United
> 4 States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is
> 5 amended-
> 6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''(1) Except as
> 7 provided in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ''(1)(A)
> 8 Except as provided in subparagraph (B)'';
> 9 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ''(2) Para10
> graph (1)'' and inserting ''(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
> 11 and
> 12 (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the fol13
> lowing:
> 14 ''(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import
> 15 or bring into the United States a large capacity ammuni16
> tion feeding device.''.
> 17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section
> 18 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of
> 19 this Act, is amended by striking ''manufactured after the
> 20 date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law
> 21 Enforcement Act of 1994''.
> Æ
> VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:31 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H1022.IH H1022 hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS


----------



## neb_bo

i agree with you guys, and as i said i dont agree with what he said, what im trying to say is that no matter what he said jim zumbo was, and still is a knowledgeable outdoor character. he said what he said, and thats that, he shouldnt have but he did. this doesnt mean that he is a complete idiot. ive jumped to conclusions before, and it usualy just makes me look dumb (that sheels guy is a moron). just try to keep an open mind about the man himself, he is still a wealth of knowledge. to say i never want to here of him again would be like me saying that i never want to here advice from plainsman, or horsager because i dont agree with theyre opinions on this matter, even though i realize you are both very knowledgeable, much more so than i. just because i dont agree with everything said on this forum doesnt mean that im going to stop reading and posting here, and the fact that i feel this way doesnt make me stupid or ignorant.


----------



## DOGKILLR

Saskcoyote wrote:


> From reading the posts, I'd conclude that most guys disagree with Zumbo's position because they, like I and my hunting friends in Canada, see banning 'assault' rifles is the beginning of the proverbial slippery slope


Exactly, let them ban so called "assault rifles" and watch the snowball get bigger and bigger. It's sort of like seatbelt laws, first it was front seat....now it is backseat ...next farmers will have to wear them on their tractors. If you give an inch they will take all they can. 
What gets in my crawl is they try to make honest, law abiding citizens pay for what a bunch of crazed murderers and terrorists do. It would be like giving your little girl a spankin' because her brother broke the picture window with a baseball.


----------



## zogman

Dog Killer


> they try to make honest, law abiding citizens pay for what a bunch of crazed murderers and terrorists do. It would be like giving your little girl a spankin' because her brother broke the picture window with a baseball.


And if I might add the Liberal judges don't hold the murderes and terrorists accountable (very light sentencing). They blame the rest of society for their actions uke:


----------



## Horsager

Read the article below, tell me if you think this guy would be encouraged by Zumbo's remarks.



> In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
> By Junaid Afeef
> ISPU Research Associate
> The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.
> 
> The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.
> 
> However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.
> 
> This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.
> 
> The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
> 
> Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
> 
> The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
> 
> Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
> 
> Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
> 
> Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.
> 
> The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.
> 
> In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
> 
> According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
> 
> This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.
> 
> So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.
> 
> Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at www.ispu.us. He can be reached at [email protected].
> 
> ©2005 Institute for Social Policy and Understanding


Posted from here:

http://www.ispu.us/pages/articles/2914/articleDetailPB.html


----------



## Fallguy

saskcoyote said:


> Fallguy, it wasn't my intention to 'bother' you. Nor Fingerz, did I hope to see anyone on this forum 'gang up' on you. Simply, my intention was to bring to light the debate about 'assault' rifles.
> 
> I'm a newcomer to this forum and believed the protocol was that if a post was made and one responded, the person responding would welcome further debate. I've also believed that when one stated an opinion, then one must be willing to support that opinion with fact (sorry, guess it's just my newspaper background kicking in).


Saskcoyote

Your right. You addressed me by name twice on one post so I just got the feeling your were trying to do a little oke:

Yes, this is what this site is for. Debating, discussing, etc. I shouldn't have jumped all over your back like that. I apologize.


----------



## Snowshark

It is obvious to me that the anti's want a total ban on Assault weapons. Once they have the ban in place. :sniper: All they have to do is change the definition of an assault weapon. I think it is pretty obvious by reading some of their articles that this is the plan.

I do not own a weapon that CURRENTLY would be considered and assault weapon, but MORE power to anyone who does!!! I have been thinking of an AR for predator and prairie dogs.

The constitution calls for a regulated malitia. Our forefathers did this so that the armed population could prevent the type of government overthroughs seen throughout the world. If you don't think it can't happen here! How will you stop it? Through your unarmed body at them. This is extreme, but true.

As for stopping hunting. They have already started the process and most people haven't even noticed. How many states have stopped spring bear hunts, running bear with dogs, baiting bear? They were able do accomplish this because sportsman are divided on these issues. Kind of like ASSAULT weapons!!!! Once they get one hunting season stopped they move on to the next one that sportsman are divided on TRAPPING maybe. It is a process that they are working and most people haven't noticed because they aren't affected yet!!

REMEMBER THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THEY GET TO YOUR FAVORITE PAST TIME!!! WE MUST STAY THE COURSE AND FIGHT THEM AT EVERY CORNER, EVEN IF IT NOT SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOU AT THE TIME. IF WE DON'T THE TIME WILL COME!!!


----------



## zogman

From Remington's web page :beer:

"Remington to Sever Sponsorship Ties with Jim Zumbo

Madison, North Carolina - As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington.

"Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights," commented Tommy Millner, Remington's CEO and President. "As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights."

We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter."


----------



## Plainsman

Snowshark, your absolutely right. Remember when they cried about steel leg hold traps. That will come up again, and I think shortly. The reason they will pick trapping is because very few people do it anymore. I don't trap, but I will support them because I will be next. Anyone who tells you otherwise has a political agenda and you can't trust them. They may even be fellow hunters, but evidently have more important priorities than hunting or the second amendment. This, for even the below average IQ, is crystal clear. Those opposed to guns and hunting will give you no choice fight it or take up shuffle board.


----------



## scott

I was married to an M-16A2 Assault rifle for a year, and loved her very much. I still wake up in the middle of the night wondering where she is. I have no desire to hunt with her, but I am going to buy another assault rifle for personal protection, and because they are fun as hell to shoot as soon as I get stationed back in the USA. Just my two cents.


----------



## irish

At least he will have a new Job !

http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2007/ ... Clerk.aspx

oke:

Irish


----------



## Horsager

> Latest News
> A recent comment by Jim Zumbo, a writer for Outdoor Life Magazine, indicating his dislike of AR-15 Rifles for hunting purposes is a disgrace to American Gun Owners! His apology is not accepted by this company. We will begin to disconnect from Zumbo's sponsors immediately!


The above is pasted from the DPMS website. Their advertising dollars will be headed towards non-Zumbo publications.

High Mountain Jerkey was another of his sponsors, they have posted their intent to sever all business relationship with Mr. Zumbo as well.

http://www.himtnjerky.com/

10 minutes of indescresion have cost this guy everything. That same 10 minutes of indescresion has cost gun owners even more!!


----------



## zogman

Horsager wrote:


> 10 minutes of indescresion have cost this guy everything. That same 10 minutes of indescresion has cost gun owners even more!!


Exactly

One of my favorite tag lines "Hang together or hang alone"


----------



## DOGKILLR

Dang, he sure screwed up.


----------



## People

He should loose his job because of this. "Hang together, or hang alone" states it very clearly. As it has been stated before it is just the first step. Then they would go after 50 cals then truly full auto guns. Then hand guns then your pumps and levers. Then your bolt guns. Granted the order can be in any order and even turn it all in. It is sad but it is true.

As gun owners we have to support ALL FIREARM OWNERSHIP. This is even if you do not support that type of gun.


----------



## Plainsman

So DPMS dumped his arrogant dumb behind. Hmmmmm, I might have to purchase one.

I think gun owners have a great chance to make a statement. Maybe next time I am in a sport shop and see his dumb face on an elk call I will tell the owner I will come back when it is gone. A few dozen like that and boxes of calls going back might send a message. The only bad thing is if your dumb enough to say things like this you might not be smart enough to get the message. He joins the self destructive Kattie Lang and the Dizzy Chicks.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Just thought some of you would be interested to see that others are thinking like Zumbo as well and the sad part is they are in Washington sent there by the peoples vote.

Sorry to say this but, those of you who have voted for Dorgan,Conrad,and Pomeroy are the reason this bill will get legs and come forward again. Your votes allowed the left wing antis of the Dem party a platform to spout thier BS again. *Pay close attention to the bold areas!*

110th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes
HR 1022 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

*`(iii) a pistol grip;*
`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

*`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.*
(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

*`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.*
`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection  the following:

`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.
[/b]


----------



## Plainsman

> as determined by the Attorney General


It's bad enough when the supreme court legislates from the bench, but they want the Attorney General to have that kind of power?

I doubt if someone who goes off the deep end will be looking for a Thompson Center Encore with thumbhole stock. The greatest fools per capita surely must be in Washington, DC.


----------



## zogman

> The greatest fools per capita surely must be in Washington, DC.


And they have been sent there by the Liberals in American including the ones on this site with their heads in the sand or hiden some where else.


----------



## Horsager

Mossy Oak pulls the plug on Zumbo as well. This is copy/pasted from their website.



> Mossy Oak Responds to Zumbo Blog
> Mossy Oak strongly advocates the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which gives us the right to keep and bear arms regardless of type. The Second Amendment is vital to the outdoors lifestyle we all appreciate and enjoy here at Mossy Oak and across the entire outdoor industry.
> 
> "It is unfortunate that a long-time hunter and outdoor writer took a personal position that was unsupportive of the Second Amendment which does not differentiate between firearm types." said Butch English, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing for Mossy Oak. "As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Haas Outdoors, Inc. the home of Mossy Oak Brand Camo has ended all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While we strongly disagree with Mr. Zumbo's opinion, we respect his constitutional, guaranteed right to speak freely."
> 
> As shooters and hunters, we should all help educate and promote responsible firearm information and safety. It is important for the outdoor industry to focus our attention to educate those opposed to any type of anti-hunting or anti-Second Amendment movement.
> 
> -Mossy Oak


Here's the site:

http://www.mossyoak.com/content.asp?id=1460


----------



## Horsager

I was just on the Outdoor Life website. I can find no more links to Remington's Home Page. That's gotta be an expensive mistake all on it's own. Same for Mossy Oak, no links to their site from OL, another "advertising heavy" type company, *OUCH*

*Something to remember throughout all of this. Some companies have stepped up and said "we won't stand for this crap!" more or less. Show them your support for their decision with your wallet! They are doing their best to stick by us. They are also the corporations that will be dumping large sums of money attempting damage controll in the wake of these statements.*


----------



## DOGKILLR

Talk about a bunch of people getting something done. I'm glad to see everyone pulling together and getting these companies to drop Zumbo like a hot potatoe. Now it only needs to be carried on in the political platform. Find out how your congressmen, senators and presidential candidates stand on this and other important issues and hit them where it hurts....at the polls.


----------



## fishless

Im really glad to see everyone sticking together on this matter. The termination of Zumbo by all his sponsers should send a clear message to Washington how the country feels about this matter. Remember as Horsager said SUPPORT THE COMPANIES THAT SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! As for Zumbo, when this is all done he might be able to get a job with the brady bunch. :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Danimal

THANKFULLY most of us are sticking together on Zumbo, but I think there is another point that was overlooked by the majority.

Now, without giving any one person a swirly........

*An AR15 is NOT an assault rifle!* It may look like one, but it is not capable of full auto. Heck, your wives and daughters look like prostitutes because they are female, but are they?!?!!? I bet you'd be offended if someone called them a prostitute just because they looked feminine.

*I am begging ALL gun owners to stop referring to AR15's as assault rifles!*

This may seem petty, but the non-gun owners listen to what terms the gun owners (presumably KNOWLEDGABLE people) use and use the same terms. Since TOO many people use the term Assault Rifle to describe certain SEMI-AUTO rifles, the majority of non-gun owners think that it is a correct term.

Here is part of post from a few years ago that needs to be reposted and re-read by everyone who wants to SAY ANYTHING about so called "assault rifles".

________________________________________
An "assault rifle" is a firearm capable of full-auto fire (i.e. a machine gun or sub-machine gun).

An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle as it is only capable of semi-auto fire. The media and most of the public ERRONEOUSLY calls AR-15's and other semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles".

PLEASE, PLEASE do not call semi-auto rifles "assault rifles". IT PERPETUATES THE ANTI's FALSE INFORMATION that the general (non-gun educated public) hears and believes.

*Now if we look at true assault rifles (firearms capable of full auto) are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). *
Anyone wanting to own a full auto firearm (FAF) may pay a $200 transfer tax, provide two sets of fingerprints to the BATF and go through a very strict background check,....BEFORE being issued a Class 3 Federal Firearms License and BEFORE taking possession of the FAF. Have you priced FAF's lately??? THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, preventing most from even thinking of going through the process of owning one.

*In addition FAF's were further restricted in 1968 in regards to interstate transfer. In 1986, more restriction, no more FAF's can be manufactured after 1986 to be sold to civilians. *FAF's already in existence may be sold to civilians under the NFA. This prohibition of manufacture also includes converting semi autos to full auto. Since 1986 this is illegal so anyone converting a firearm to full auto is committing a felony.

Now that I have clarified "assault weapons", let's look at the real issues.

*Assault rifles are NOT regularly available to the general public by laws already on the books (SOME OF WHICH DATE BACK TO 1934!!!) *New laws can not make them more illegal. For example isn't is already illegal to murder someone regardless of the method (beating /stabbing/ shooting)?? Can you make it more illegal?? NO, but you can make the penalties harsher for committing the crime. YOU PUNISH THE 1% CRIMINAL POPULATION, NOT THE 99% LAW ABIDING POPULATION.

Semi-auto rifles that look like military assault rifles (ie AR-15's) ARE NOT ASSAULT rifles. Cosmetics do not give firearms the capability of full auto fire. (BTW dad's AR-15 is twice as accurate as my single shot .223. So if I really want to compete or shoot varmints, during season, I should use his rifle not mine!!!!)

The Anti's today use the disguise of banning assault weapons (WHICH ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED) to try to ban semi-auto rifles. And once they are do that, then they will go after the next type, maybe semi-auto shotguns next. Say, "Bye" to your 1100's, 1187's SBE's, Auto-5s, B-2000's and everything else. Then maybe all semi-auto rifles, no more Ruger 10/22's...

My point from all of this is that the Anti's don't want to "just" ban assault rifles, they want them all banned. But they are willing to chip away a little each day/month/year until no more guns can legally be owned in this country. Can you imaging duck hunting with out a shotgun, only using a sling shot?? (if they are still legal)

If the Anti's get their way, they will BE ERODING THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


----------



## Plainsman

Danimal, very good post. We have seen many of our rights erode so slow that to some it is invisible. This generation never experienced the things us older folks have, so they know of no loss. Your grandchildren will be restricted more, but they will not miss it never having experienced your freedom. Incremental is how it is done so as not to upset the general populace.

I wish I could get my hands on the list they had proposed less than ten years ago. It would have taken about 30 percent of the guns we can currently posses. I hate to say it, but if I had to bet, I would say in 50 years people will no longer hunt with firearms if at all.


----------



## Danimal

Thanks Plainsman!

In Maryland, there is no instant check, there is a waiting period.

In Maryland, handguns are considered RESTRICTED FIREARMS, (so are many semi auto rifles, like AR15s, mini 14s....)

Guess what, by state law, we can only buy ONE restricted firearm per month!

That means, if I want to buy a T/C Contender, Ruger Mk3 .22, Kimber .45 and maybe a Mini 14,.... I'd have to spread that over 4 months.... WHY???? Because the ANTIs say so and in a few years, they'll add to that list, maybe semi-auto shotguns. Then they'll change it to one firearm every 90 days.....

We can keep our heads in the sand and say that it can't happen or we can stick together and fight it! Protesting companies that support the Antis, protesting companies that suppport idiots like Zumbo AND PROTESTING the use of MISLEADING TERMS.

ANYONE WHO HAS USED THE TERM ASSAULT RIFLE TO DESCRIBE AN AR15 IS GUILTY OF HELPING TO ERODE THE 2nd Amend! :******:

Maybe some of the members here think that they don't have to worry about it in the mid-west..... how many Congressman do you have in DC??

How many does LIBERAL NY, CA, MASS, CONN have??? Probably more than ND, SD, MN, WI, NE, OK, KS, WY, MT and IA put together.

WE ARE LOSING THE WAR on protecting the 2nd! :******:

Oh yeah.... JUST LIKE THE THREAD ABOUT FIREARM/WEAPON.... either use the correct terms when speaking or refrain from exercising your 1st amend right!


----------



## Jiffy

Why don't you tell us how you really feel...........


----------



## Danimal

Jiffy,

I've already turned my soapbox over to someone else.


----------



## Plainsman

You have it pegged Danimal, now if only the others would understand. The apatheric sportsmen will be our downfall. Only when it is over will they cry in thier beer.


----------



## Jiffy

What does apatheric mean? 8) Is that anything like apathetic? :lol:

I am starting to agree but DAMN it chaps my hide having to play semantically "correct" games!!


----------



## Danimal

Jiffy,

I know it sucks to play semantically correct games.... but you know what sucks worse???? Not being able to exercise our 2nd Am Rights!


----------



## Jiffy

True..... :beer:


----------



## Danimal

Hey Jiffy,

My soapbox was just returned!! 

I saw a great bumper sticker a few weeks ago.... it said

What, you don't trust the government??? Just ask an Indian!

Well, I'm not Native American but I still don't trust the Govt....

EITHER did our FOUNDING FATHERS,....HENCE THE BILL OF RIGHTS!


----------



## Jiffy

Agreed.....100%!!

I was also taught that complacency kills. Shall we never forget that!


----------



## Bore.224

Yeah thats the problem with the middle of the road mindset. Cause you know what happens in the middle of the road don't you? Yes thats right you get run over!


----------



## Danimal

Trying to get back to the original thread...... not only should Zumbo work overtime to correct his HUGE error in judgement. I think he should also be a major donor to the NRA-ILA! The repercussions of his statement will be felt for a long time.... uke:


----------



## Plainsman

Jiffy said:


> What does apatheric mean? 8) Is that anything like apathetic? :lol:
> 
> I am starting to agree but DAMN it chaps my hide having to play semantically "correct" games!!


It's hard to stretch my old fingers all the way to the T on the keyboard. :beer:


----------



## sasquatch2000

Snowshark said:


> It is obvious to me that the anti's want a total ban on Assault weapons. Once they have the ban in place. :sniper: All they have to do is change the definition of an assault weapon. I think it is pretty obvious by reading some of their articles that this is the plan.
> ...


It is Goldilocks gun control. These are too fast (automatics and semi-automatics). These are too big (50 Cal.). These are too small (concealed carry). These are too inexpensive ("Saturday Night Specials"). These look ugly (AK's, "black guns"). These are for snipers (anything with a scope).

Here is the truth:

"The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--[except for law enforcement]--totally illegal." Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, executive director of National Council to Control Handguns (now Handgun Control, Inc.) quoted in the July 26, 1976 edition of The New Yorker Magazine.

"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." Sarah Brady, Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993.


----------



## Horsager

And the final blow is dealt by Outdoor Life.



> Outdoor Life And Jim Zumbo Part Ways
> By Todd. W. Smith
> Editor-in-Chief
> 
> Outdoor Life magazine Editor-in-Chief Todd Smith released the following statement today regarding writer Jim Zumbo:
> 
> February 2007
> 
> In light of comments made by Jim Zumbo in his February 16, 2007 blog posting on the magazine's website, Mr. Zumbo has offered to terminate his association with Outdoor Life, and the magazine has accepted his offer. Accordingly, he will no longer be contributing to the magazine in print or online. His final column with Outdoor Life will appear in the April 2007 issue, which has already gone to press.
> 
> We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error. However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.
> 
> We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights.
> 
> We appreciate the comments we've received from our loyal readers about this matter and encourage them to continue to correspond with us. Please direct any additional comments to [email protected].


Link:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/columnists/article/0,19912,1592623,00.html


----------



## Gohon

Ya know, it seems to me that it just may be possible that Mr. Zumbo was not the great talented and loved writer that some say he was. If he were then after his apology, all these companies wouldn't be giving him the boot as quickly as they are. At least some of them would accept his apology and try to mend fences. Beginning to think the loss of Jim Zumbo to the shooting world is not that much of a loss after all.


----------



## Snowshark

I have watched Jim's shows and read his articles. It is obvious that without a guide this guy would probably come up empty. There is nothing to leard from his work, no skills, no animal traits, no shooting skills. All of his shows and articles were just a story about his guide getting him his animal. 
I say good riddens to bad rubish! "*He just ran over your best hunting dog with a semi and thinks that apologizing will make every thing ok again*". The dog is dead!!!! And so is his career!!!


----------



## sasquatch2000

Zumbo doesn't get it... He only approves of black rifles because he found out people use them for HUNTING. The irony in that, too, is probably 75% of the flak he got is from people with black rifles that rarely or almost never use them to hunt... you would think that he would get a clue and at least worded his statement a little differently. IMO if the nuge is smart, he'll try to impress this a bit on zumbo. We can only pray for reprogramming, lol.

I hope that there is some positive overall effect.... even if only indirectly. I can't imagine that he's the only Fudd hunting writer that has had such embedded anti leanings.

By saying that he approves of the AR (still no mention of the AK) because he has recently decided that it has "legitimate hunting purposes", his implication still is that any gun that he decides is not suitable for hunting, has no "legitimate" purpose. By extension one can only deduce that guns with no "legitimate" purpose must therefore only be useful for "illegitimate purposes" such as crime or terrorism.

It is significant for us because the anti's can say the following:

"Even the prominent long-time NRA member, hunting writer, and gun rights activist Jim Zumbo agrees that Gun X has no legitimate purpose. We at the Brady Campaign agree with Mr. Zumbo and call for the ban of this deadly weapon."

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING! IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM!

He still manages to essentially completely skirt the "terrorist" accusation with no apology to the Armed forces and all the various federal and local law enforcement agencies who employ the AR platform on a daily basis. I had no idea that you could both be a decorated Marine and a terrorist.

That guy needs to retire to a rocking chair and lament his utter ignorance of the firearm many of the rest of us own, know and love.


----------



## sasquatch2000

This thread should probably be moved out to the open forums area or somewhere less specific than "Fox and Coyote Hunting". No?


----------



## Plainsman

The debate is in open form under the title Outdoor Life Magazine.


----------



## Dak

From the Billings Gazette:

Montana Outdoors: Zumbo doesn't deserve this much grief
Web log posting turns national outdoor writer into pariah

By MARK HENCKEL
Montana Outdoors
Poor Jim Zumbo. I honestly feel sorry for him. He doesn't deserve the beating that he's been getting. Certainly not this bad of a beating. Not for just 255 written words on the Internet.

Zumbo is the hunting editor for Outdoor Life magazine and a resident of the Cody, Wyo., country. He has been at the center of a firestorm in recent days that has burned him personally and professionally.

It all began with a post on the "Hunting With Zumbo" blog on the Outdoor Life Web site last Friday.

In his post, Zumbo said he was coyote hunting in southeastern Wyoming testing a cartridge with a couple of Remington Arms Co. representatives when his guide told him that AR and AK military-style rifles were becoming popular hunting weapons.
That surprised Zumbo. In all his life, he had only ever seen one of them used.

Post goes south

That's when things went sour with the post - real sour. Under the heading of "Assault Rifles For Hunters?" he went on to describe these rifles as "terrorist" rifles that have no place in hunting.

Zumbo wrote, "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.'"

Zumbo continued, "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 (sic) and woods."

That's how the post ended.

Lighting up the Internet

From there, the blog and the issue pretty much took on a life of its own.

Before Outdoor Life shut Zumbo's blog down on Monday, there were more than 3,000 comments posted. Other blogs on other Web sites also began to light up across cyberspace.

Gun rights advocates blistered Zumbo. Anti-gun advocates latched onto Zumbo's words saying that even an influential hunter was calling to ban more guns. And, in the process, they vented their wrath on anyone and everyone associated with Zumbo.

Outdoor Life made a statement about how the magazine is a "a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting."

Remington Arms severed all sponsorship ties with Zumbo effective immediately.

Mossy Oak, a camo clothing manufacturer, severed all sponsorship ties with Zumbo effective immediately.

Zumbo's TV show on the Outdoor Channel didn't appear at its scheduled time this week.

And the latest word is that Cabela's, another Zumbo sponsor, is reviewing matters before it makes a decision on continuing its sponsorship.

Will more follow? Who knows? Think of it as a feeding frenzy among the big sharks of the outdoor world.

Zumbo apologized quickly for his choice of words and his call for the gun ban, both on national radio and on his blog before Outdoor Life shut the blog down "for the time being." Zumbo's blog post was headlined, "I was wrong, BIG TIME."

Bankrupt brand

Yet, as Jim Shepherd of the Internet-based The Shooting Wire, noted, "Zumbo has gone from bankable brand name to leper status in record time."

That's really sad.

As I wrote to an outdoor writer friend of mine as this was blowing up, "You know, that could have been me. I could have written much the same as Zumbo did. I wouldn't have worded it that way. I wouldn't have called for a ban on those guns. But I know exactly what Jim was getting at in what he wrote."

For one thing, Zumbo writes from the standpoint of being a lifelong hunter - not necessarily a target shooter. There are differences between hunting and both competitive target shooting or simply target shooting for fun.

Choosing the ideal hunting rifle is far, far different from choosing the ideal target rifle. You look for different things.

You don't carry many heavy barreled target rifles up mountain slopes - not more than once, anyway. Very few big game rifles in the West are semi-automatics - most are bolt-actions which are considered more accurate. I don't like light rifles because they're too hard to hold steady, or heavy magnum calibers because they kick too much. I do like 3x9 variable scopes.

In hunting, everyone has preferences that are all built on picking the best rifle for the task and the conditions they expect to encounter.

That being said, in Montana, one of the quirks of our big game hunting regulations is that we have no rifle caliber or bullet restrictions for taking big game animals, except for bison.

You can legally hunt elk or moose with a .22 rimfire short, long or long rifle cartridge. You can hunt bighorn sheep or mountain goats with a tiny .17-caliber. Or, as in the case of a friend of mine last fall, he could legally hunt his antelope with a .50 caliber rifle.

Why anyone would want to take a big game animal as small and thin-skinned as an antelope with a humongously powerful .50-caliber - other than to simply say he did it - is a mystery to me. So I teased him about it all fall long. And I asked him what he was going to do if he took on a full-blown deer? Perhaps he ought to move up to a Howitzer if he could find a stock to fit it - I think that's legal, too.

My guess is that many of the serious gun advocates who are blistering Zumbo now would have a hard time being advocates of using a .22 short for moose. They'd wonder about that Howitzer for deer, too.

Undeserved

I've known Jim Zumbo for years. He's not anti-gun. He's not anti-hunting. He does believe in using the best and most efficient rifle, caliber and bullet to make a clean, one-shot kill. If people are doing that with ARs and AKs, that's fine, but I'll admit that it's a surprise to me, too. Those wouldn't be my first choices for hunting rifles either.

Granted, Zumbo's choice of words was inflammatory. He didn't spell out what he meant as well as he could have either, in terms of hunting guns and shooting guns for the range. And to talk of a hunting ban was stupid. Instead, he should have simply said there are far better rifle choices out there to accomplish hunting tasks.

But to wash away all the good things he has done in support of guns and hunting over the years because of one 255-word blog post? To make him the Second Amendment whipping boy for both sides of the issue? To treat him as Shepherd's so-called leper of the shooting world?

No, that's not deserved at all - not like this. And for that, I truly feel sorry for him.

Mark Henckel is the outdoor editor of The Billings Gazette. His columns appear Thursdays and Sundays. He can be contacted at 657-1395 or at [email protected].


----------



## DOGKILLR

Henkel said:


> Why anyone would want to take a big game animal as small and thin-skinned as an antelope with a humongously powerful .50-caliber - other than to simply say he did it - is a mystery to me. So I teased him about it all fall long.


What about a muzzle loader Mr. Henkel. Most are 50 caliber. And yet another writer opens his mouth without thinking it out.


----------



## Plainsman

He didn't put much thought into it at all. He was narrow minded in that all he could think about was big game. Sure a 22 short or long rifle is small for big game, but a 223 semiauto is not small for coyote.


----------



## Jiffy

However, everybody knows it's too small for deer. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

Jiffy :stirpot: Jiffy :stirpot: Jiffy :stirpot:


----------



## Jiffy

:wink: :beer:


----------



## wyogoose

I believe that this is Mr. Zumbo's opinion whether is was wrong or right. I know that we have all said things that maybe we shouldn't have but hey we ware human. I have met Jim multiple times as we used to live in the same town. He is not a bad guy and regardless of what some say is a hell of a hunter and a shot. I have seen it myself. As for his coment, I must agree with some of it. I belive that these weapons do not belong in the field for big game hunting under most situations. I live next to a large air force base where there are a lot of young people people who move from back east, find out that they can hunt elk as a resident, take hunter safety and go hunting with their "assualt" rifles. I have heard many of them personally tell me that they love hunting with those rifles because they can here something in the timber that they believe is an elk, point at it and unload their rifle in less than a second. Therefor you end up with many wounded elk or maybe worse, you. That is why my opinion is that they should only be allowd to be in the field after the owner has been trained and proves that they are a safe hunter.


----------



## Horsager

wyogoose said:


> I believe that this is Mr. Zumbo's opinion whether is was wrong or right. I know that we have all said things that maybe we shouldn't have but hey we ware human. I have met Jim multiple times as we used to live in the same town. He is not a bad guy and regardless of what some say is a hell of a hunter and a shot. I have seen it myself. As for his coment, I must agree with some of it. I belive that these weapons do not belong in the field for big game hunting under most situations. I live next to a large air force base where there are a lot of young people people who move from back east, find out that they can hunt elk as a resident, take hunter safety and go hunting with their "assualt" rifles. I have heard many of them personally tell me that they love hunting with those rifles because they can here something in the timber that they believe is an elk, point at it and unload their rifle in less than a second. Therefor you end up with many wounded elk or maybe worse, you. That is why my opinion is that they should only be allowd to be in the field after the owner has been trained and proves that they are a safe hunter.


So are we back to "blame the gun not the shooter"? Wyogoose, in the case you described above wouldn't education be more beneficial than restriction?


----------



## wyogoose

Thats exactly what I am saying. I have no problem with people using them as long as they are educated.


----------



## Gohon

> point at it and unload their rifle in less than a second


I don't believe that at all. Care to explain how someone can empty a semi auto rifle magazine in less than a second while hunting. I doubt even Wyoming allows elk hunting with a fully automatic assult weapon which by the way is not what Zumbo was talking about. Sounds like you have been listening to old Jim to long.


----------



## Dak

Gohon,

You are so correct...


----------



## wyogoose

I did't mean an literal second. But yes these weapons will fire much faster than say a Browning BAR. But my point was not the gun but the lack of education with most people who hunt with them. Think about it, if I am going hunting for big game, my first choice weapon is not a .308 military rifle unless I want to unload fast. I never said I was in complete agreement with Zumbo only that I am sick of people not respecting others opinions. That is the problem with this website. There are too many people on here that are so excited to bash someone elses opinion that they dont think about what is said.


----------



## saskcoyote

DOGKILLR said:


> Henkel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to take a big game animal as small and thin-skinned as an antelope with a humongously powerful .50-caliber - other than to simply say he did it - is a mystery to me. So I teased him about it all fall long.
Click to expand...

DOGKILLER responded: "What about a muzzle loader Mr. Henkel. Most are 50 caliber. And yet another writer opens his mouth without thinking it out."

DOGKILLR, I started this post, thus, I've been following it with some interest. I read Mr. Henkel's article and when he alluded to the "humongously powerful .50 caliber" I automatically assumed he was referring to .50 caliber rifles such as the Steyr or the Barrett.

It didn't even cross my mind he would be bringing .50 caliber muzzleoaders into the debate. From what I see, Mr. Henkel assumes those of us reading his article are intelligent enough to discern he's not talking about a muzzleloader when he refers to the .50 caliber.

I've found it useful that when one wants to debate a point, then one gets to the core issue and doesn't employ what's called the "straw man" argument, meaning you take someone's words, twist their meaning to suit your point of view, and then attack him on the interpretation you have arrived at.

Mr. Henkel is entitled to his opinion -- as we all are -- but let's not twist what he's intending to say. Mr. Henkel credits us gun owners and hunters with having the intelligence to understand what he's talking about -- .50 caliber centerfires and not .50 caliber muzzleloaders -- without having to explain every word. I'm hoping, DOGKILLER, you credit gun owners and hunters with the same assumption of intelligence Mr. Henkel does.


----------



## zogman

wyogoose,
The anti are loving this. Let me say this in a very elementary way it's called 
:sniper: DIVIDE AND CONQUOR :sniper: 
What don't you understand about that :******:


----------



## 280IM

The man made an apology, been fired by 3 companies,and lost a lot of money. He wasn't holding a high office in the government, he made the mistake of opening his mouth before thinking about something that other gun owners believe to be true but never say so in public. Because of his remarks doesn't mean everyone in this country will not be able to own or have guns. I have put together a few guns the past 45 years and some of them I have were used before WWll, at that time where they not looked upon by ALL to be something everyone should be able to have ether. I don't own any black guns, don't plan on owning any, don't care if you own one,I simple don"t like them. To tell you the turth if it isn't a Mauser, Per 64 Winchester.or flat top colt, I don't like it very well either. He has paid for his not PC statement.


----------



## Longshot

For those of you trying to defend him (as you are 280IM), your only argument is he has a right to state his opinion. You need to get it through your head I also have a right to not respect his point of view as many others do. I have no more respect for him and I have the same right to state such. What part of that do you not understand? Why is it that there are so many uneducated people on here in regards to the anti gun agenda. Listen closely the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable it is a right. Stop and think about it before trying to play the politically correct game.


----------



## 280IM

Yes I would defend his right to have an opion just as I would defend your right to have an opion, even if I don't fully agree with either one of you.


----------



## Longshot

Thanks 280IM that's all I ask. I spent a few years in Phoenix and had many of the same "unethical" statements made to me by anti gun people that some of my fellow hunters have also made. It is a touchy subject. We all need to stand together to insure we keep our precious past times.


----------



## 280IM

Longshot I had a older gentleman that was a gunlover as Iam, tell me that the right to your opion is just as important as the right to own a gun. 
Handle both with care and be as accurated as possible with both. Too bad I don't remmber that more often DC


----------



## Gohon

Yes they are both important but, the right to own a gun is the insurance that guarantees your right to have a opinion. Without the former the latter most likely will not exist. At least I think that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

There is one possible silver lining in all of this. If our representatives in Washington are paying attention and are awake, then surely they will take note of the wrath the gun owners have taken on one of their own for stepping out into the never-never land of gun bans. This should send a message that the shooting fraternity will quickly react to any attempted restrictions they may think about imposing. Remember&#8230;&#8230;it's those fence sitters we have to work on.


----------



## 280IM

Gohon how do you think Jack O'Conner or Elmer Kieth would have handled this?


----------



## Gohon

I don't have a clue what Keith or O'Conner would be saying but since they both publicly showed dislike for each other I'm sure their opinions would have been opposite of the other.

I think what some are missing here is that it is not that Zumbo was ignorant of certain types of rifles being used in hunting, or that he felt they should not be allowed for hunting but the fact he branded these rifles as terrorist rifles and in doing so insinuated that anyone who owned one was a terrorist. Then he adds insult to injury by calling for a ban on these type rifles. Had he used the word restrict instead of ban, I doubt this whole ordeal would have been as explosive as it has been. Zumbo was a trophy hunter. A big game hunter that usually used the service of guides to put him on large game in Canada, Alaska, and Africa. He didn't appear to do very much upland hunting or small game hunting at all and certainly did not participate in varmint hunting. Match shooting was something he never paid attention to and knew nothing about. Couple this with his spending most of his time in camps and out in the brush with nothing on his mind but trophy game, powerful big bore rifles and it can easily be seen he most likely and in all honesty did not know how far the black rifle has come in the last 15 years as a target and varmint shooter and with accuracy that will match or better the best of the bolt rifles. I've read some of Zumbo's articles and watched a few of his shows but personally have never cared for either one. But, he had to of had a large following or Outdoor Life would have not employed him. I hold no ill will towards Mr. Zumbo and to a degree feel sorry for him but he will never recover from the fallout of making the fatal error of jumping into a subject he knew nothing about. I understand what Zumbo was trying to say. It was the way he actually said it that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

If this were 15 or 20 years ago I might have said something very similar to what Zumbo said. I have no need, use, or desire for a AR-15 type rifle. I suspect there are far more hunters that think along Zumbo's thoughts than is believed or will admit to it as to the image these guns in their opinion portray the hunter to the public. I believe there are far better choices for hunting most game but, for matching shooting, just general plinking, and varmint hunting these guns are coming into their own. I could really care less if someone wants to use the proper black rifle for hunting if that is their choice. But one thing is for sure and that is these are not assault weapons. When I see people call these rifles assault weapons I know I'm listening to someone that has bought into the jargon of the antigun crowd and don't know their *** from a hole in the ground. The model 1911 comes closer to being a proper assault weapon than a AR-15. Military type guns they may be but assault weapons they are not. A Uzi is a assault weapon, the AR-15 type rifle is not.

Ok........... of the :soapbox:


----------



## Bgunit68

Any one hear if the Outdoor Channel is going to stop running Zumbo Outdoors? I pay for a package which includes the Outdoor Channel. If they don't remove it my cable bill will get cheaper. I know he is just exercising his freedom of speech. But isn't that what the rest of us are doing by boycotting? I just checked the schedule and it's still listed. I don't call it a hunting show anyway. They drive him in he walks about 50 feet he shoots his quarry the gets back in the truck and goes back to the lodge to sit on the front porch and put his feet up. I'd like him to hunt with me and my buddy one day. Oh and if you think banning just one gun will stop it, just ask the Australians. There is a small article below about one incident that started a chain reaction. You can't even own a semi automatic 22. Good Luck. His word are very damaging!

Going Down, Down Under
by GOA founder Sen. H. L. Richardson, (Retired) 
Let's study the horror of what's happening to our Australian, English, Canadian and South African gun owning friends. The Aussies, like us, are a gun owning population; or should we say, were. The Australian continent is a vast, arid land, populated with only 19 million people. It also has an abundance of varmints, a pest problem of major proportions. It is little wonder that practically every rural house contained a firearm, used for the control of these bothersome critters.

The crime rate in Australia has been historically low: 1.8 per 100,000. It is an isolated country with no borders for the illegal to slip across. It has been rightfully referred to as a sleepy, peaceful land. That is, until the leftist government implemented a draconian gun confiscation policy.

For years, the Labor party [socialists] and the Liberals [conservative] were closely balanced-- a six-percent swing one way or the other could change their parliament. A small but vocal group of hard leftists split off and formed the Australian Democrat Party. They held few seats in Parliament; however, they have been mouthy, and the driving force behind the anti-gun movement.

On April 28th 1996, a maniac shot 35 people in Port Arthur. The media went ballistic, screaming about the evil of "assault" firearms. Australians were shocked. Nothing like this had ever happened in sleepy, peaceful Australia. The shrill cry and incessant anti-gun propaganda paid off and, in just 12 days, Federal resolutions were passed and the states enacted them into laws.

What did they enact? Did they just go after "ugly" guns, those military look-alike assault weapons? Think again! They outlawed every semi-auto, even those "pretty" duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100's. They even struck down pump shotguns; the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870 are two examples. The law read "Any pump shotgun with a magazine capacity of 5 rounds or less."

Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn't miss a one.

You may ask, "Surely they left 22's alone, didn't they?" Nope, the criteria the government used was simple. If it's a semi-auto, it's gone. If caught with one of these "illegal" firearms, the crime was considered serious, punishable by multiple years in prison.

The Australian government offered to buy back all of the listed firearms. They then imposed a 1% tax on everybody to raise the money necessary to secure the "illegal" firearms. The massive 500 million buy back program was quickly, but poorly, implemented. Of the estimated 7 million firearms, roughly 40% are now prohibited. Close to 2.8 million firearms should have been surrendered to authorities. Was it a success? Hardly. Less than 25%, or 640,000 weapons, were turned in.

Gun Control and left-wing politicians said great things about the new law. A university of criminology professor stated, "It is probable that the crime rate will drop by up to 20 percent."

Nothing of the sort happened, in fact just the opposite took place. In 1997, just 12 months after the new laws went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Prior to the new dictatorial anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly.

In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, new figures reveal that the assault rates in the state of NSW has risen almost 20 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially less than Australia, Canada, and Britain. The data from a comprehensive study from the University of Chicago [Lott, Mustard] showed that in these same three countries, people were home almost half of the time when the burglaries were committed.

In the US, it was less than 13%. Fear of firearms in the American home was the reason given.

Again, in Australia, Canada and Britain, all handguns were already severely controlled. Failure to yearly re-register in a prompt manner could bring law enforcement to the doorstep to confiscate the firearm.

Reasons must be given why anyone needs a license. The government lists only 10 reasons for owning a firearm-- protection of self and family is not considered a "reasonable" request!

Guns aren't the only things prohibited.

In 1998, a new law was passed outlawing an assortment of knives. The fine for owning a classic Bowie knife? Up to $10,000 or two years in the crow bar motel. Owning handcuffs is prohibited. Caught with one of these items, the fine is up to $11,000 or up to 14 years in prison.

Hunting anywhere other than private property is now extremely difficult, where one must have written permission by the owner. One has to acquire a permit from government to hunt on government-controlled land. The Australian government is under no obligation to honor hunting requests and it is common for permits to be refused.

American hunters, especially those who hunt on western public lands-- take notice! Someday soon we will face the same problem on federal and state lands.

The anti-gun movement is the creature of the most radical leftist elements of the world wide socialist movement. The tactics are the same, with only slight propaganda alterations to fit each country. It's not surprising that the internationalist nose of the United Nations poked its way into the gun issue. The Sport Shooters Association of Australia stated that they had been "aware of a connection between the United Nations {UN} and Australia's new so-called 'national' gun laws." Look no further than the UN Security Council's pronouncements; they endorsed sweeping gun control measures, including a ban on private ownership of assault rifles.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for ways to reduce the global stockpile of some 500 million handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons.

We gun owners are not just fighting for our gun rights; we are fighting for all our freedoms. The Second Amendment just happens to be the linch-pin.


----------



## sasquatch2000

wyogoose said:


> I did't mean an literal second. But yes these weapons will fire much faster than say a Browning BAR. But my point was not the gun but the lack of education with most people who hunt with them. ...


Change the tool, and suddenly the tool's user becomes stupid? I don't think so.


----------



## wyogoose

I am saying that it is that way around here. 95% of the people in my area who hunt with say an AR-15 are military guys from back east who own one rifle and that is it. They decide to hunt elk or mulies with it and many brag about doing exactly what I said. You can call me a lier if you want.


----------

