doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

Mr. Pirie,

I hope you don't consider this an attack, because that is not its intended purpose. I simply disagree with you (although, until recently, I could not say that on this subject), and here's why:

Lots of people enjoy pulling the trigger a lot (and I mean A LOT), and these semi-auto guns to which you refer are great for those people, not to mention their legitimate useage for home defence, etc. As long as they send all that lead those guns were designed to dispense downrange to paper, cans, bottles, etc. or to legal game, who are we (or anybody else for that matter) to say they should not be able to use those tools for that purpose which they enjoy?

The "public" view of those guns is skewed, due in no small part to the media, but also because those of us who hunt tend to want to distance ourselves from the supporters of those guns. I used to be one of those guys, but I'm changing my mind on the whole thing. The gun-ban crowd wants you to have no nice double shotguns, just like it wants the fella down the street to have no ARs. They will not stop at the ARs, and there's no reason to think they will.

The argument, to me at least, is about rights. We have no right to tell the AR owner that he or she should not own or shoot that AR, just as the AR owner has no right to tell us not own or shoot our doubles. I'm afraid that we are all in this thing together, and we'll either make it together, or we'll surely go down together.

Ty

Zumbo's a dumbo. He put himself under bus.

The gentle gunner's discussion of what's a sporting weapon and what's an evil killing machine bum me out. The Second Amendment is about keeping the .gov in check, not deer hunting. Hunting is privilege granted by the government, owning a military rifle is a constitutional right.

From my experience the sort of shooters that tend to make us all look bad are often attracted to such guns which seem "cool." I've also seen them drawn to any gun they can get their hands on. Many of the bolt action surplus rifles are used by these people to fire as fast as possible. Lever actions are also used in the same manner. I for that matter have a 10/22 and can waste vast quantities of ammo with it I even do fire fast at times. However it also happens to be my most accurate rifle at the moment. The kind of people that have fun doing things that make sportsmen look bad are going to do it no matter what they have.

The all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us polarization of public issues is part of our problem. Why should intellectual and integrity standards for a popular sportsman be different from those for political, church or social leaders representing similarly wide ranges of interest as ours every day? I don't have to agree with Mr. Zumbo to make him welcome in my home.

The US isn't the only country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our systems of government representing all the people violate their fine print every day. Canada and the US are in violation of human rights charters with respect to handling prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Bush was recently set down by the US Supreme Court in this respect. Executive fiat fills the loopholes.

The whole stately edifice of our democratic system rests on the inviolable right to dissent. A few years ago our countries went to war with popular consent; today the percentage of support is almost the reverse because publics see national interests in cost of lives with a positive resolution uncertain at best. People change their minds. To deny or diminish that right denigrates our institutions and ourselves.

Bless Canada, the United States and Mr. Zumbo---and let's move on.

Yeti is on target. Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with sporting activities but rather were intended to do with arming the public to protect themselves from a government gone astray.

If an American can't state his beliefs without fear, you might as well chuck all amendments to the Bill of Rights. I may disagree with Mr. Zumbo, but his right to speak out is as valid as mine to bear arms.

Friends:

I for one fully support Zumbo's right to his opinion.It is his absolute right and he should suffer no personal or legal injury for his position. Never the less, we are all accountable for what we say. As for the opinion he has espoused? I just believe it is not only wrong, incorrect,and wrongheaded , but basically illogical. I think he has a flawed understanding of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and, even worse, completely misunderstands human nature when it comes to politicians with an anti-gun agenda.

In classical western ( read "Christian" ) philosophy, objects are not moral, or immoral, they merely "are". It is men who are actors, and men commit "good" or "evil" acts. Only men have morality. It is therefore illogical and anthropomorphic to ascribe to arms ( inanimate objects)a moral coloration. Is a 30 round firearm " evil", but a 10 round firearm " good", or is it merely less evil? Does that make a two-barrel gun "more good"? My carry gun contains 9 rounds. Would it be "more good" if I only carried 7 rounds? If I use my nasty 30 round black rifle to defend my family against a home invasion does that make it " more good" or "less evil"? Would I be "more moral" or more justified if I had used my Ithaca NID for the same pupose, and just reloaded a lot?

Questions such as these, and the logical responses to them demonstrate the silliness of the false " good gun" versus "bad gun" dichotomy.

The false dichotomy "good-gun vs. bad-gun" is a game played by the gun banners, and played well. The intent is to seperate gun owners into small competing tribes, each of which may be defeated in turn. The accomodationists fall right into the hands of our opponents.

As for the use of an AR as a sporting arm? The AR types are now the most common type used for high power rifle competition in this country, not to mention "practical" and "service" rifle competition. In my part of Texas, I see a lot of them on gunracks of pickup trucks, where they do service as " ranch rifles". I know a few coyote hunters who swear by them as well. I cannot believe that Zumbo is not aware of this, but perhaps he is not. Maybe he needs to get out more.

Regards

GKT

I am amazed that Mr. Zumbo is unfamiliar with the current "state of tune" pertaining to AR type rifles and there uses, specifically the Colt clones. There have been numerous articles in the industry rag's extolling the high level of accuracy avavilable in this type of rifle. I guess I just take it for granted that someone in the "business" would have exposure to all the latest trends in hunting and shooting.

Ken

Ed Pirie, your argument falls apart as soon as you assume gun ownership is for sporting purposes only. The anti gunners planted that theme. The Second Amendment does not say the right to possess arms suitable for sporting purposes. The Second Amendment is intended to counter balance a government that thinks it would like to get too oppressive. The Second Amendment secures our liberty by giving us the means to successfully resist if required. Why should the government be trusted with machineguns if the people (from whom the right to govern comes) aren't to be trusted with the same. I would love to shake down the body guards covering Schummer, Clinton, Kennedy and Rosie O'Donnell and see just what firepower they feel entitled to for protection.

Yeah, but that was then, this is now. Anyone fantasizing about defending himself against government with an AK47 or AR16 is deluding himself. In Iraq the effective insurgents are using IEDs, car bombs and remotes. The brave fools with piddly assault rifles who go mano a mano against Blackhawks, armored vehicles and modern troops win nothing but a quick trip to meet Allah and their 72 virgins.

In 1775, there was little difference in weaponry between Yanks and redcoats. Chinese junk assault rifles may be okay to defend against the occasional midnight intruder, but today's 'armed citizen' is no match for the professional soldier.