Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Wulf, Mar 3, 2007.

  1. Wulf

    Wulf Premium Member

    Y'all been followin' this?

    Dumb Bastard <shrug> :roll: Hava good weekend. :)

  2. Deluxe247

    Deluxe247 Supporting Member

    I'm suprised it took this long for something on this topic to be posted here. Don't be a Zumbo...


  3. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    he says he is a traditionalist, but i don't see him heralding a return to smooth bore muskets.

    apparently high precision bolt action rifles are fine. but high precision bolt action rifles were once "new fangled technology" designed to give an army an advantage in war over an opposing army with single shot weapons. thereby making them scary weapons of war to somone from the early 20th century.

    in 1863 the scariest thing anyone ever saw was a henry rifle. i'm sure it was viewed as having no sporting purpose back in the 1870's. but no one ever talks about banning lever actions.

    how many sons and daughters grew up and took their first animal with a marlin or a winchester lever action. that was high technology at the time, but today seems as american as apple pie.

    the american indians were avowed traditionalists, but the spear was never the same after the atl atl.

    stone tools gave way to iron and then steel tools. a true traditionalist would throw down the steel knives that work so well and work with a more traditional bone knife.

    agriculture, inarguably the single most important development that led to modern civilization was very non-traditional when first introduced. i'm sure there was some old guy in 8,000 bc who thought that plowing and planting 200 acres to feed the village was the death of the traditional society he grew up in. and it was!!

    but..i've never heard anyone who wanted to go THAT far back.

    the problem with any type of traditionalist, in any genre, be it music, dance, art, anything... is that the tradition is based on a specific time frame.

    if someone really wants to be a "traditionalist" someone would have to shun society and return to the days of cave dwelling and hunter gatherer status. no language, spoken or written. no math, no technology. no shelter. EVER !!!

    hey man... seriously. the teepee was non-traditional to people who slept under the stars or in caves.

    every step that human kind has made since then has introduced new ways for humanity to prosper, and new ways for humans to destroy each other.

    in other words, if you're a traditionalist of any sort, great!!! do your tradition and do it proud. but don't try to inflict it upon unwilling people.

    because... where one man inflicts his will upon another, there can be no resolution other than force. when two men do battle, the best tool provides a distinct advantage. modern rifles are superior weapons when compared with weapons of the past. just like guns are superior to spears, spears are superior to knives, and knives are superior to fists.

    so people buy modern rifles; because they are superior to the older, more traditional weapons. and use them for sporting purposes. so what?

    the prairie dog doesn't know what weapon the bullet was fired from, so why would it care?

    a .223 round is a .223 round. period. would it be better if the weapon was pink with little tassles hanging down?

    image is everything, and unfortunately, "assault rifles" have developed a bad image. well, not developed. they've been given a bad image by anti-gun people that knew a little about marketing.

    the funny thing is that right now there are soldiers in iraq, using m-16's to fight. and these same soldiers will yearn to return to THEIR traditional weapon once a new weapon replaces it.

    i knew a guy who deer hunted with an m-1 carbine. a gun developed specifically for tank crews and para troopers and a whole host of others for whom a garand or a browning automatic was too large and heavy. it was built specifically for war. the point?

    the point is that this was the weapon he used. this is what a gun was to him. this is his tradition. just like mr. zumbo has his interpretation of what a gun is. just like our forefathers, firing smooth bore muskets or maybe the odd rifle at that time had their idea of what a traditional firearm was.

    tradition is great. it means that someone had a great idea. so good that it deserves to be remembered for some time to come. but not at the expense of stopping progress.

    the cycle goes on. and to prove the cycle goes on, i'm here preaching to the choir. sorry.

    but i will do my part. when my grand children show me the gun barrel that has been surgically implanted in their index finger with the 50 round helical magazine implanted in their forearm. which is hooked to an optical nerve scanner which positively identifies the target and guides the bullet using laser tracking and gps technology, i will let it pass. i will not call for an end to this newest weapon.

    but i will keep shooting my "old fashioned, turn of the century" steyr s40 plastic pistol.

    because it will become MY tradition.

    shove it zumbo. you deserve it.

    go team steyr!!!!
  4. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member


    I had to read Bictaco's post like 3 times......

    It's deep.....

    Excellent post Big

    ...now I am going to read it again....
  5. BulletBait

    BulletBait New Member

    Wulf where did you get this editorial?

    I "like" the way the he edited out the most inflammatory word Dumbo used, "Terrorist".
    By doing so the writer makes it seem like we were being unreasonable.

    The article really shows how just how much Zumbo's super sonic smack down scared the Anti's.
    No "healthy debates" where the gun grabbers try to make us see "reason" and make "reasonable compromises", which naturally favor more restrictions.
  6. Wulf

    Wulf Premium Member


    ...this is from Remington's Website:

    "What a maroon...." --Buggs Bunny
  7. QPluralisT

    QPluralisT Guest

    I will have to agree with the end of the article, this is a bit of a reactionary statement, and portrays firearm owners in the United States to be unreasonable and vindictive. Not to say an assault weapon ban is a reasonable alternative, but this is a bit extreme. It's also a bit difficult to say one's defending the 2nd Amendment when one can't defend someone using their 1st Amendment to denounce their 2nd Amendment.

    I think this is an attempt by the gun lobbies to keep the discussion of another AWB completely out of the public light. After all, it would be very difficult to say "Yeah, but.." to someone quoting Mr. Zumbo in a future debate on the topic. I can understand their want to do this, but I'm afraid this sort of behavior is going to cause the opposite result.

    Link to Zumbo's rant
    Having read this, I don't see what the fuss is about. Mr. Zumbo is attempting to make an ethical plea for hunters not to hunt with assault rifles. I don't think he properly defined "terrorism" in the statement and I think that is the main point of contention. To my understanding, Mr. Zumbo is asserting the rise of assault weapons in the hunting community will increase the anti-assault weapon sentiment in this nation due to pre-existing fears. The public is generally terrified of assault rifles (rationality aside) and since a rifle is an inanimate object that cannot terrorize, the person attached to the assault weapon is the instigator of terror. Further, he is making a personal statement of ethics as a hunter. I see no fault in his statements to render the response he has received.

    But, you know how it is, a giant game of internet telephone tag. Ultimately, I think the message went out loud and clear, but I do hope that Remington, Outdoor Life, and the NRA resolve their differences over this issue with Mr. Zumbo and move on.
  8. nc_gunner

    nc_gunner Guest

    I would have expected that, with Mr Zumbo's exposure to the "gun culture" and to industry people over the decades, he'd have realized what would happen. Perhaps he thought of himself as too high profile to be taken down by comments of that nature. It's hard to say whether what happened to him was overkill or not, but with HR 1022 in the pipeline, he picked just about the worst time ever to start making overtures to the Democrats' philosophy. He stepped into the street without looking and is blaming the bus for hitting him.

    Something that has always bothered me about the argument that only "sporting weapons" should be available is the fact that, last I checked, the 2nd amendment said nothing about "sporting weapons". There's no provision that says that the public should only possess bolt action hunting rifles. We don't need automatic weapons IMO, but trying to make the 2nd amendment read "the right only to bear sporting arms" without an actual amendment is a load of crap. The Dems want my M4, they're gonna have to change the Constitution because right now I'd say it supports me more than a NY Democrat.

    I'm seeing guns as more of a free speech situation now than I ever did before. I couldn't make the parallels in the past, but it's starting to make sense. Guns and words are both tools; put them in the right hands and they're handled carefully and properly. Put them in the wrong hands and people can be killed.

    Over time, we've revised free speech very little, only limiting it in the cases of the most inflammatory and malicious speech. Problem is, today we're looking at legislation every year that seems to be nibbling away at our freedom of speech; often in the name of security. We're letting the same thing happen with guns. It's what lawyers, judges, politicians, and John Q. Public call a "slippery slope" and once you're on it, you're generally along for the ride. At the bottom of the slope is a society free of guns or free of offensive speech, but also devoid of other freedoms as well. Freedoms like the right to defend yourself not only against criminals but also against the government if necessary. Freedom to speak your mind, whether somebody in a position of power likes it or not. Oops, didn't mean for that to happen now did we?

    People who don't understand guns don't have to own them or like them. People who don't like what I say don't have to agree with me. But I have a right to own a gun and a right to speak my mind. So does the next guy. Now I've exercised my right to speak my mind... I wish UPS would get here with my order of evil hi-cap mags and ammo for my evil black rifle so I could exercise my right to scare the hell out of a paper target. You know, rough it up, threaten its paper family, terrorize its paper friends and then shoot it repeatedly just for the thrill of killing that poor poor piece of paper that did nothing to me. :roll:
  9. MrApathy

    MrApathy Active Member

    second amendment is not about hunting those wishing to separate guns for hunting with crazy definitions just drive a wedge in the community that will divide us of which gungrabbers are trying to do continuously.
    hang together or you will surely hang separately

    todays hunting rifles are yesterdays assault weapons they were more accurate and loaded easier than what the American Revolutionaries had in 1776. look at the various weaponry developements and how one commander condemns such advancements because of there effectiveness on the field.

    I will agree on one point hunting with Machine guns. then again we dont have very big game around. if we had dinosaur type predators I would go for it.

    they wont ban your hunting rifle they will call it a sniper rifle first.
  10. Never forget that the goal of the Brady Campaign and other anti-Gun Lobby folks is to have a UK style system.

    In the UK you can't ever hunt anymore without going to a lot of trouble to file paper work and are heavily restricted on the type of firearm you use. Even Olympic target shooters find themselves having to leave the UK just to practice, which is insane.

    So called "Assault Rifles" go buh bye and pistols will be right behind followed by so called "high-powered" rifles.

    The Brady Campaign is already talking about banning what they call "sniper rifles" or bolt action rifles with scopes basically.

    So, either we all stand-up for the Constitution or we'll all go down together.
  11. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    Care to place any bets on what the American People choose????????
  12. 73sbVert

    73sbVert Member

    Depends on where in America you ask: Ask the question in Texas, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, (Red states) etc. and you will get one answer; ask it in San Francisco (or just about anywhere in Kommie-fornia) or Oregon, or Washington, or NY, or Massachusettes (Blue states) and you will get an opposite answer. Remember, just over half this country decided they wanted the likes of Nancy Pelosi, John sKerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Boxer, Feinstein, Murray, etc. to remain in office and to take over the Congress.
    :roll: :cry: :evil:

    Heaven help us if a Democrat gets the White House too. :cry:
  13. That is why we as responsible gun oweners have to keep highlighting the facts.

    Like that less than 2% of those in our state and federal prisons used a so called "assault rifle" in their criminal act.
  14. sewerman

    sewerman Premium Member

    big tee, you kick *ss and take names better than r.lee ermy!

    i'm with you 200% you go!.....team steyr!
  15. Deluxe247

    Deluxe247 Supporting Member

    Zumbo goes into "rehab" (with Ted Nugent)


  16. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    that's probably the hardest thing he'll ever write.

    but good on him for making it better.

    now let's fire up the phones and call our representatives. they can't represent YOU unless they know how YOU feel!!! you probably found this site on google. find your rep on google.

    let them know how you feel.

    call your dem reps and remind them that they are alienating the working class base they claim to represent.

    call the repub. reps, let them know we're within our rights to use our second ammendment priviledges to keep our second ammendment priviledges.

    let this be your new mantra:

    i'll give up my guns when i'm out of ammo!!!!