I'm going to steal quoted material from Jeff Alworthy in order to disagree with him about a Blue Oregon post . Have no fear, I think Jeff is one of the better writers in blogging and I can usually follow how he got where he went, even when we disagree. This time, nope. If you think I don't respect Jeff, back up, he's one of the people who backed me politically, even with some disagreements. I admire how he got there and appreciate it.
Zumbo wrote in part this regarding "assault weapons":
"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 prairies and woods."
I'm sorry about you losing your jobs for this, but really, you deserved to. Many jobs have serious to deadly consequences of actions this stupid. I beat nails for a living, if I screwed up this bad a building would fall down. There is so much wrong with this piece of nonsense that it's not just a matter of a slip of the tongue, this is basic.
First:
An assault weapon is a military short rifle capable of large capacity and full automatic fire. These things aren't generally available, not since the 1930s. This is a machine gun.
Second:
The things Zumbo is referring to are "assault rifles" in appearance and ammunition capacity. They are NOT assault rifles, they are semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic refers to the fact that the weapon auto-loads, each firing loads another round in firing position.
Third:
Most states have hunting regulations regarding ammunition capacity, making an "assault rifle" no different than any other semi-automatic except in appearance. Well, too small a round and too little power for some hunting purposes, but that's an individual decision.
Fourth:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting other than tangential references to its utility in hunting. It's not about hunting, it's not about bad guys in your living room, it's about your right to be armed for the security of a free state. Your state of freedom, not the US or Oregon, or ... The other stuff follows in those heels.
Now, if you think getting fired is overkill, let's take a real look at this. This writer stuck out in front of people the idea that what a gun looks like has some bearing on its legitimacy. Now that would be laughable except that the Congress of the US banned guns on that basis, California did so and then confiscated them. NYNY and DC have blatantly unfair and unevenly enforced rules regarding firearms. This guy knows all this and still handed to the opponents of the 2nd Amendment a gift. He knows what the game is, he knows who the players are, and he knows what the stakes are; then he chose to write this. Do you want me to build your house like this? Would you care if I put the roof on top like everybody else does? What does the appearance of terrorist weapons have to do with anything at all? Looks is everything? So a shiny paint job on a car makes it faster? Or it means it looks good while it can't get out of the driveway?
Most hunting rifles are deadlier than "assault rifles." Sorry, it's a fact. Very little body armour will stand up to a 30-06 round much less some of the other stuff used for hunting. I have no doubt that Zumbo owns and shoots stuff that would make kindling out of advanced body armour, I certainly do.
Yep, I'm a gun totin' drag racin' Leftie and I think the NRA is stupidly right wing when it should be concentrating on the 2nd, gun safety, and shooting issues, but on this one, there is no middle ground. And yes, I'm a long time NRA member. There is not one piece of the Bill of Rights that the people espousing the middle ground would tolerate getting the abuse the 2nd gets.
The Democrats have gotten back from the woods (a little) which shows that Parties can recover, Rights on the other hand do not. People know this, they will vote against their own economic and social interests for this reason. The Religious Right is a very apt example of people voting against their own economic interests, almost completely against. I'm not willing to watch the Democrats sacrifice the welfare of this nation over something this ridiculous and they'll get put back into the woods if they go there. Pay attention to details.
10 comments:
Chuck, I appreciate the kindness in disagreement. This is, in fact, the main thrust of the post--or was supposed to be. This shouldn't be a sacroscant issue in American politics. No one should lose his job over an opinion. That a guy can be so brutally crucified for voicing what was a mild (if strangely misinformed) opinion shows that it's not the Dems who refuse to debate in good conscience--it's the gun cartel who now have Zumbo's hide.
In the main, I'm with you on gun issues. In the absence of predators, we need hunters to help manage wildlife, and I personally have no concern over anyone owning any number of registered firearms.
On the other hand, gun violence is a serious issue in parts of the country and the idea that we shouldn't even DISCUSS it is fascist and absurd. I'm always freaked out when I see people wield political power unhealthily, and this case is a perfect example. To think that it won't be directed at Dems in the not to distant future is, in my view, shortsighted. These guys are bullies (the Zumbo-attackers) and I think we ought to say so.
Nothing is sacrosanct in American politics but you do pay a price for what you say and what forum you choose.
I don't know that it's bullying to tell someone no I won't buy your product (writing) and no I won't pay you to cut my throat (sponsors). I agree it's harsh.
I'd rather take a discussion of gun violence into another forum than this one. It gets too involved for a comments section and too unreliable as a means of communication.
"I'd rather take a discussion of gun violence into another forum than this one"
Gun control and ban are mostly kept very secretive from the average Joe six pact, till it's too late.Big O, Willie Weak, and Tribune won't tell you, so where can one go to see what demons are being flaunted in the legislature? Blogs such as this are very necessary to inform us of the shenanigans of our politicos. I too am a gun-totin" dimmo.
The nature of a comments section make an actual discussion extremely difficult as I found when I tried it previously. I may well clean up the email and post it, w/permission.
Nothing secret about my views, they're scattered throughout the Blog.
One short exchange between you and Tryan and that post is half way down the page, something extended will be gone.
I think the Outdoor magazine was well within the rights to fire Zumbo. This is a gun magazine, even though hunting seems to be the focus on guns. In fact of machine guns, owning one is quite legal if you have the treasury sticker, and fill out all appropriate forms. [at least this was the way it was last time I looked].Of all the crazy hunting disasters I have heard, a machine gun was never involved. Shooting Elk and using a chainsaw to take desired parts was the worst Hunting folly I've heard. Poaching [ if for money and not to feed a family] has been the poster ad for dept of Hunting and wildlife, for years. So Zumbo should have either quit his position or not written so blatantly about a bogus anti-gun article. I also support NRA and agree about the whackos that are so intense in their beliefs.
The NRA risks losing the moderate to left side of gunowners by playing politics that have nothing to do with guns.
Steven Colbert has now had fun with this mess. Pretty funny but also distressing with "copkiller bullets" and some other guncontrol fictions used as the reality counter to Colbert's faux reasoning.
Of course Zumbo was fired. Just like a staffer for NARAL would be fired for saying they should find a "middle ground" on abortion. His comments showed shocking ignorance of or perhaps even sympathy with the true objectives of anti-RKBA groups. He would have done better to educate non-gun-owners about the disconnect between cosmetic appearances and lethalness. But he didn't. I'm sure the Brady Bunch could use a staff writer of his experience; perhaps he should send them a resume and some clippings.
I'm a businessman and I believe I'd have taken another approach, some serious apologizing (assuming he could honestly) and some real serious damage repair. But I also know that people buy a product from me and expect that, not something else. They certainly were well within their rights to say that the product produced was not satisfactory and bye-bye. We'll see where this winds up.
Post a Comment