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

Ed Pirie - No sporting purpose for an AR-15? An AR will work on a groundhog with a 52 gr. BTHP. Plus, if you shoot NRA hipower that's what you shoot. Don't let your highminded sense of sportsmanship prejudice you against those who might shoot with something other than a Parker or granddaddy's Model 73. We either hang together or hang seperately. Jim Zumbo deserves the spanking he is getting; obviously, when he's hit in the pocketbook his opinion changes. I can hear his wife now, "Honey, you better put those words back in your mouth so's we can make the mortgage payment." Cheers.

Ed Blake
Manakin, Va.

JM - big difference in whether USA soldiers would actually fire on an armed citizenry or whether an unarmed citizenry would ever rise. There is a good bit of modern evidence that fellow citizen soldiers will not attack citizens if the citizens have the means to make a fight of it. Do you have some reason to suppose that they use only IED's etc. in Iraq and no small arms? Do you suppose that Americans are incapable of making IED's if needed? Like it or not, mano-a-mano is still the common demonimator and that means small arms are still important.

Rocketman - you've been seeing too many Bruce Willis flix. The outcome of a gunfight over gun rights between US citizens and soldiers is pretty clear from Waco. Only a nut case would try it, and those nut cases surely had the means to make a fight. When push came to shove, our "fellow citizen soldiers" didn't hesitate.

In Iraq, the overwhelming majority of US casualties and fatalities are caused by IEDs and RPGs. AK47s don't perform well against modern armaments.

Fantasies about the 'armed citizen' taking on the army are just fantasies. Stick to shooting grouse and woodcock - they don't shoot back!

Several posters are defending Zumbo with logic that just doesn't fly. Yes, he can say what he wants to say, but his supporters have the right to remove that support if Zumbo is costing them money and customers. My friend King Brown makes comparisons among various countries and their human rights behavior and support of the letter of their constitutions. Others make illustrations of the bad PR of camo clad hunters. Let's face it, the world is full of powers attempting to deprive their citizenry of the right of self defense. The world is also full of individuals and groups attempting to maintain the right of self defense. The people of the United States are just a little more protective of this right than the people of other countries. There is very little difference in principle; it is just a matter of degree. Maybe we will go down in flames, but we will be last to do so.

Mr. Maloney:

I do not know from whence you acquired your knowledge base, but I have spent a good deal of my life studying and developing Light Infantry tactics and capabilities, both as a paid employee of my Uncle Samuel and in various academic pursuits.

A reasonable analog to examine is the war between Slovenia and the Yugoslav Federal Army, the Croats against the Yugoslav Federal Army.

Those conflicts were fought by light infantry - citizen soldiers, against the mostly Serb central govt. They were sucessful, although at significant cost.

Light infantry, which is what "citizen-soldiers" are, can be successful on the modern battlefield if they are motivated - and defending your home is an excellent motivator. Also, it must be pointed out that in civil conflicts, even among the most repressive governments ( Husseins Baathists excepted) there is generally a hesitation to use extreme measures such as carpet bombing, NBC, and MLRS or systemns of a similar nature, as such cause a total breech between the people and the government.

Waco is not an analog. It was not open warfare, nor declared combat. It was a forcible arrest gone awry after the responsible agency stupidly and incompetantly grandstanded for the Congress and the TV cameras. 50 religious zealots surrounded by about 1000 cops.

Your set-up of a straw man, which is then conveniently knocked down, is not very instructive.

The "Second Amendment" rebellion is an extremely unlikely scenario, and would be the end result of a gross breakdown of the American civic polity and Constituional authority. None the less, it is the purpose for which the Founders envisioned the amendment, and such a rebellion against tyranny certainly is more likely of success if the citizens have arms than if they do not. I also posit that 100,000 armed men in the streets would give any government, no matter how odious, pause. If this were NOT the case, dictatorships world wide would not have as their first agenda item upon accession to power : "collect all the guns".

Simply because the Second Amendment scenario is unlikely, and possibly unlikely of success, it is no less true that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last resort against tyranny.

Regards

GKT

In my post, I deliberately stayed away from the constitutional issues on this. I never stated that these guns should be "outlawed," in fact I said something just the opposite. I made my argument from the point of view that I have a hard time understanding the use of assault weapons as a sporting arm. I am sure rocket propelled grenades would be pretty effective on prarie dogs as well, but I would also find them to be lacking as a sporting arm.

Many of you will disagree with me over this. I can tell you that as a lifelong hunter, I feel uncomfortable when I meet hunters in the woods during deer season that are dressed and armed like it is a special ops event. I did not grow up in that sort of a tradtion. Maybe todays young people will feel differently about this and that is their privilege.

I do believe that our sport is freguently at risk. I think as hunters and sportsmen, sometimes we need to look at our own behaviors and how we present ourselves to the public. Our constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. I would hate to think that we have brought any loss of firearms privileges upon ourselves through our own short-sightedness.

As far as Mr. Zumbo's programs on tv go, I will not miss them. Most of these hunting programs seem to be just about filling tags. That is a kind of hunting I left behind in my youth.

Sorry for ruffling feathers. I am one of you, but I do not always agree with you.

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Mr. Pirie: It seems to me you have missed the point entirely. I'm a hunter, target shooter, former law enforcement firearms instructor and strong supporter of the 2nd Amentment. I have never felt the need for an AR-15 or similar firearm with which to hunt, or even shoot targets. I do, however, support those who do. For large game hunting, my M-70 Winchester .30-06 or M-94 .30-30 have served me well and I see no need to change. That said, the choice of an AR-15, SKS, AK-47 clone or whathaveyou, is up to the individual. That individual may hunt with whatever legal firearm he chooses so far as I am concerned, as long as he/she remains a careful, safe and ethical hunter. I will follow the same practice with my choice(s).

The bottom line to this whole arguement is simply that, as has been stated very eloquently earlier in this thread, it is imperative that we shooters and hunters present a positive united front to the anti-gun zealots. As Franklin said, "We must all hang together or we shall assuredly hang separately".

You shoot the guns you like, and I shall do likewise, and hopefully we will move in the same direction to stop those who would relieve us of ALL of our firearms.

Regards,

Ed Stabler

The Second Amendment is certainly about government tyranny BUT it is also about the eventual defense of our country in a time of National emergency. Here is the law;

Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
#(b) The classes of the militia are—
#(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
#(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As you can see, the founders meant for all of us to be able to come to the defense of our country and as part of that we are to be armed. I don't own an AR. Before anyone accuses me of being a Rambo wannabee, I have no fantasies about being thrust into a militia to defend the country. However, I love this country and would come to her defense if I were called upon. Further, I have a solemn responsibility to defend my family and the RIGHT to be armed for that responsibility is sacrosanct.

If you have a stake in America's future, you'll keep well armed.
I do not trust the change of god, or fast buck new arrivals.
They've no stake in America!

Re-read the above. This is the short cut to the end of shooting sports and firearms ownership.

I'm not fond of ARs either, and I do wish that crowd would tone it down a bit for their own good, and for the rest of us as well. I don't own a semi-auto rifle or shotgun. All of the long guns I use, rifle and shotgun, have two barrels, and I don't have much use for anything else.

So, you and I agree that ARs are "politically incorrect" for hunting today. What will it be tomorrow? It WILL be SOMETHING. When it becomes "politically incorrect" for sporting purposes, the sporting guns will be gone. When keeping a deadly weapon for self defense becomes "politically incorrect", the rest will be gone. That's how it went in England, and much of the rest of the world.

Here in the States, we haven't had any "rights" for a long time. It's all privileges now. We crossed that pass long ago, and are now on the slippery slope. How fast do you want to go on the trip to the bottom? The antis go one step at a time. Today it's assault rifles. As soon as that one is under their belt, they will immediately start on the next group. What will it be? Rem 1100s? "Assault" single action revolvers? Or maybe those horrible "assault" double barrel shotguns that can fire two devastating swarms of hot lead at one time (I saw print ads to almost exactly that effect in England some years ago)? Or the evil soft nose bullets that could only be wanted to murder schoolchildren more efficiently? Give them a "freebie" for the ones that you don't want, and the ride to the bottom will only be that much faster.

The shooting community is beleaguered. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and freedom of speech. However, he made his living off of us for 42 years, and took money that he would never have received had his views been known to us. His words are already being used by Brady and others against us. Even if his mea culpa is sincere, it does not reverse his treason. He deserved to swing, and swing he has.