0
   

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

 
 
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:01 am
http://i16.tinypic.com/4gquihj.jpg

Full online report
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:02 am
Quote:
'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy

Zumbo's Criticism of Hunters Who Use Assault Rifles Brings Unforgiving Response From U.S. Gun Culture


By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A03

SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.

His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.

In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
[... ... ...]
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 11:19 am
As Comedian Elayne Boosler said, "If it takes you fifty bullets to bring down a deer, you need a new hobby".
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 03:43 pm
Hey smartypants, if you had any clue....

Zumbo's dirty laundry was aired on tednugent.com - Ted forgave him and welcomed him to the ranks. Zumbo admitted he was wrong - sort of.

About all I have to say about Zumbo is that he f--ked up royally - the only thing he deserves is a chance - and Nuge game him one.

His career as he knew it is over though. Maybe he can come up and push deer for me this fall.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 03:44 pm
Oh, did I mention that Nuge is on the NRA board of directors?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 04:57 pm
OOOOH. so what response would be appropriate to acknowledge that information?

How about a good ole BFD!.

The "I wanna hunt with machine guns crowd " are a bunch of douche bags who parade the second amendment issue around like it will ultimately be defined to allow ownership of 105 howitzers .
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 05:39 pm
Are you selling your howitzers?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 05:56 pm
farmerman wrote:
The "I wanna hunt with machine guns crowd " are a bunch of douche bags who parade the second amendment issue around like it will ultimately be defined to allow ownership of 105 howitzers .
I'm not sure a precise interpretation wouldn't allow ownership of 105 howitzers. As much as I'd like to disagree with any of CJ's paranoid screeds... and frankly I couldn't care less which high tech design is used kill animals... I don't think the 2A protection of assault rifles has (or should have) anything to do with their usefulness in hunting. 2A, IMO, was adopted as a measure against tyranny from wherever it may come. The entire purpose was to empower the people against tyranny, and I still believe it is a necessary safeguard for that purpose. Terrorists prefer the Kalashnikov for the same reason armies have for years. It's a versatile, dependable instrument for killing people. That is its purpose... and I believe that purpose is what's addressed by 2A.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 06:01 pm
2A says ZILCH about hunting. Mutually exclusive in that context.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 06:03 pm
That said, the AK is also a great pack weapon for extreme hunting, whether in Alaska or Afghanistan....
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 06:07 pm
Here you go folks. It's over a thousand posts long at this point. Zumbo didn't put much forth of an effort either.

http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/286904.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 06:29 pm
Gadzooks. I love to watch americans. You folks are like those japanese who fight to get on game shows where they wear diapers filled with cockroaches and sing the national anthem really loud.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 06:59 pm
blatham wrote:
Gadzooks. I love to watch americans. You folks are like those japanese who fight to get on game shows where they wear diapers filled with cockroaches and sing the national anthem really loud.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Btw, I have responded to your Odom nonsense in that other thread.

As for the 2A:

Approximately 10 percent of the approximately 10 million violent crimes each year in the US involve a firearm. Conversely; research done under Bill Clinton admits firearms are used in defense approximately 1.5 million times a year. That's a 3 to 2 argument in favor of firearms if you ask me.

I've tried many times to get my head around anti-gun laws (I prefer older methods of defense myself), but the more research you do, the less you can support the strategy. As badly as guns can and are used by certain individuals; they continue to act as an equalizer for the weak, defending themselves against the bully. Reams of statistics show: An armed woman is less likely to be raped, an armed community is less likely to be robbed, etc. The right to bear arms, in my mind, serves a very important purpose in that it acts as such an equalizer for the weaker among us.

"Bernie Goetz" is virtually defenseless in a gun free world, and would have suffered his 3rd mugging at the hands of 4 bullies with 14 open warrants between them. Perhaps he overreacted, but I'm confident the residual effect was for likeminded bullies to consider the consequences of attacking the innocent. In a city where carry permits are easy to get; this type of crime happens with considerably less frequency than they would otherwise.

And, all of that notwithstanding; an armed populace is infinitely less likely to be invaded. Any would-be invader would have to know that the day the event began; there would suddenly be a 200 million+ strong armed resistance. This is the true purpose of the second amendment.

If you want to reduce violent crime; simply enforce the existing laws more harshly. End the mindless prohibition that serves only to criminalize supply and demand of substances that will continue to pervade the country regardless. Use the extra jail space to hold the violent A-holes, and watch the violent crime rates drop like a stone. It is precisely the recidivism from repeat offenders that jeopardizes the safety of citizens… coupled with mindless criminalization over reasonable regulation that created and maintains a criminal subculture that is given no choice but to operate outside of the law.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:04 pm
Kudos Bill.

And I really think blatham wants to be a Japanese American.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:21 pm
Don't go thinking we're "brothers in arms" CJ (I don't even own one). I think you and yours are mostly nutcases… but nutcases that serve a valuable purpose in defending the constitution. The NRA is to the Second Amendment what Larry Flint is to the First Amendment. I would contribute not one dime to either, but recognize the residual effect of their seemingly outlandish positions as a necessary defense of the United States Constitution. When the ACLU defends the KKK's right to organize, I respect them with the same rationale.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:23 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Don't go thinking we're "brothers in arms" CJ (I don't even own one). I think you and yours are mostly nutcases… but nutcases that serve a valuable purpose in defending the constitution. The NRA is to the Second Amendment what Larry Flint is to the First Amendment. I would contribute not one dime to either, but recognize the residual effect of their seemingly outlandish positions as a necessary defense of the United States Constitution. When the ACLU defends the KKK's right to organize, I respect them with the same rationale.

The ACLU has defended the right of the KKK to organize.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:24 pm
I don't, but I'd still buy you a drink. I'd like to know more about the restaurant biz.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:26 pm
Quote:
CLEVELAND -- The American Civil Liberties Union today praised the Cleveland Mayor Michael White for his efforts to protect the First Amendment right of marchers scheduled to rally in Cleveland later this month.

The August 21st rally by the Ku Klux Klan has been the source of considerable controversy, with some community leaders critical of the decision to allow the Klan to march at all. Others have criticized the mayor for a decision allowing Klansmen to use a police garage to don their robes and hoods.

While recognizing the offensive and racist nature of the Klan's message, the ACLU today commended White for allowing the marchers to prepare in an environment safe from physical violence.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:29 pm
For the record, the only time I would support a klan rally is if they showed up to counter those "god hates fags" shitferbrains that protest at soldier's funerals. The klansmen would probably get beat up by the bikers though.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 07:29 pm
Quote:
Living in a free society is a benefit as well detraction. In our country the First Amendment of the constitution gives us freedom of speech. However this right to free speech comes with the sacrifice of having to hear opinions that are repugnant to the majority. So we have the incongruous situation, like oil and water, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

The ACLU defends our First Amendment right to free speech, as well as our other rights. The ACLU goes to court to fight those who would deny us these rights. Interestingly enough, it is usually the same government, which has given us these rights that tries to take them away. The ACLU defends free speech for all people and organizations no matter what their message or how reprehensible their views might be. "The ACLU believes that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom these rights apply," said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:36:06