Check this blog out...

I saw that too, Jay. Someone was stealing your identity over there.

Ray, my bad for not mentioning that there is no caliber or magazine limitation here in Montana. A sign appeared at the range last year that said "No 50 cal. BMGs." Hmmm, it doesn't say I can't launch a nuclear warhead. When common sense disappears, regulations appear.
 
AR type rifles when set up properly make for some fine and very accurate varmint rifles for coyote, groundhogs etc. They DO NOT have to be outfitted with the 20+ round mags etc etc.

Give our enemys (the antis hunting and gun) an inch, guess what, they'll take a whole lot more than that.

Thats my point.
 
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html

He "changed" his mind. I like Jim and truly feel that he had hunters and shooters in his best interest but mistepped, but I am 100% convinced that he doubts the need for such guns in hunting. By the way, I've fired M-16's, AK-47's, AR-15's and even shot a deer with an SKS one time...I just don't see the need for them in hunting. Target shooting, home defense, all out war...sure. Hunting, no!
 
Wasn't there a similar debate here earlier this year where duck hunting author Worth Matheson, made disparaging remarks about "camo autoloaders"? If I recall correctly the opinion of many here was that cosmetics and semi auto capability do not make a person less of a sportsman, and personal choice in selecting a tool for the job was embraced.

How is this current debate different? A Benelli M2 in camo with Steady Grip (pistol grip) could certainly look more "assaultish" than a more traditional wood stocked shotgun to the non shooting or hunting public. Should they be banned?

m2FieldTurkeySGTimber12Ga.jpg


The crux of the argument by both Zumbo and some of those who wrote above seems to be more based on appearance and image to the non-hunting public and not real issues with the capabilities of the firearm. I hope that we as knowledgeable gun owners can recognize that there is no functional difference between a semi auto rifle in walnut and blued steel and a semi auto rifle with synthetic stock, pistol grip and detachable magazine. The real question is how do we want to handle how the non-shooting public perceives these differences? Do we ban certain firearms based on cosmetics and the erroneous perceptions of the un-informed, or do we want to inform and make decisions on appropriate firearms for hunting based real facts and information.

For the record I shoot/own:
synthetic black semi auto 12 ga.
synthetic camo pump 20 ga.
30-30 lever Winchester (wood and blue)
wood and blue bolt action .22
single shot Stevens 12 ga. (family history)

I don't own one of the guns labeled as assault rifle, but I don't think they should be banned from hunting based on my personal choice in firearms or the opinions of the uninformed.
 
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/...i_was_wrong_big.html

He "changed" his mind. I like Jim and truly feel that he had hunters and shooters in his best interest but mistepped, but I am 100% convinced that he doubts the need for such guns in hunting. By the way, I've fired M-16's, AK-47's, AR-15's and even shot a deer with an SKS one time...I just don't see the need for them in hunting. Target shooting, home defense, all out war...sure. Hunting, no!
Click to expand...


I forgot that I had an SKS...I'v put two magazine loads through it and was amazed at how accurate it is.NOW..I have enough guns that I "forgot" I had an SKS..some folks would say that I don't need that many for hunting, I'd have to agree...but..when some one has the audacity to tell me how many I can own..legally.. who is going to stand behind my rights to own them? What if the gun to hate of the day was 10/22's? and people with Remington 552 speedmasters didn't like 10/22's and said "fine"?What if the double barrel gunners decided we didn't need pumps or semi's..we really don't you know..are we going to be regulated to slingshots, clubs and snares to be able to hunt?And, this just takes hunting into consideration,what about self defence or rebelling against a government that is repressive? The Second Amendment, according to the framers of the Constitution gave the "people" this right to prevent the government from becoming a monarchy by allowing the populace to be armed with equal firepower to the government. They didn't want standing armies and couldn't fathom the evolution of weapons over the centuries but their premise is still sound today as it was then.
 
Wow, that thread is huge now, I read his initial comment, but scanning down, I couldn't find his later post where he retracked his comments. I did laugh reading the UPDATE by the editor, distancing themselves from him.

I think it was shortsighted of him to make those comments without thinking through the ramifications. And a gun owner linking a gun to terroist activities, is just stupid.

I for one have been looking at an AR for a couple of years now, but just haven't been able "pull the trigger", somewhat due to cost and also concerned about public opinion. I do believe as Lee stated, if the caliber and capacity is legal what difference does it matter.

Now back to Outdoor Life, I don't have a subscription to it, I do sometime buy it at the store, but I won't be picking one up anytime soon. Outdoor Life needs to take a stand and either fire him or publicly punish him in some way, same goes for the networks that air his show. While I do respect First Amendment rights, people now days need to be held accountable for their actions. Saying your sorry is too easy and now days meaningless.

I say and will boycott OL and the networks that air his shows.
 
I have only read through about half of the comments from some of you guys and I can not tell you how ashamed I am to read a few of them.
You are ignorant. You are the type who let gun registration and the banning of "assault" weapons happen. I hope I'm reading all these the wrong way.
If you have actually shot an AR and don't think it is a hunting weapon fine, but you are wrong to want to ban them. And who cares what style of gun it is, they work no different then the BAR or a Remington 740. Many, maybe most now, AR's are very accurate guns that can shoot in adverse conditions. Jim Zumbo (who up until these remarks was one of my outdoor idols) has become a sponsor whore (look only as far as his remark about the new .17 bullets) and I suppose no AR companies give him money for his approval.

I can not believe someone who is at shows and events all over the country just learned that AR's are used for hunting. What kind of info are we getting from a guy that out of touch. You can't go into any shop around here without a line of them on the gun racks. Many coyote, fox and even deer hunters use them because they are a very accurate and dependable. It is not about the rapid fire power, most pride themselves on on one shot kills but if a second shot is needed no rifle does it any smother. I've seen people shot every kind of rifle in a dumb manner, it doesn't matter what type of action is on it.

Most troubling is is his "terrorist" comments. What terrorists are using AR's? What two serial killers on the east coast who only shot each victim once? One shootout in CA years ago when the city found out it shouldn't weaken the weapons it's police had? It just doesn't happen. What shotgun did the guy in the Utah mall use? Maybe it was an 870 or a model 12, I am sure more crimes have been committed with them then any "assault" rifle. Let's ban them from hunting because of that. Ridiculous!

I'm all for special traditional weapons seasons, muzzleloader and archery, and like them to be very restrictive. But the banning of all "assault" style weapons from any hunting is just flat out wrong. Most semi autos work in the same way it is just that AR's have been refined to a level most guns are not.

I won't look back at this thread because I don't want to say anything directly to someone that I may later regret. What next Hillary for President?

Tim
 
I agree that a magazine of 50 rounds is over kill for hunting. I believe that if a gun is legal to hunt with then you should be able to. As a person that has the public eye he was wrong in how he voiced his opinion. It just gives the antis more to work with. Here in Illinois there is a push by the antis for the ban of 50 cal guns. This would take away your 12 ga. your .50 muzzle loader etc. People who do not hunt get there opinions thru the media including outdoor life. A friend of mine who is a hunter had the attitude years ago that if they wanted to take away pistols thats ok I dont hunt with them. Now he lives in Texas and hunts hogs with them. Guess he has changed his mind. If we give in a little the more they will take. Just my .02
 
I just wanted to add something. This is obviously a VERY DIVISIVE issue. I've never been an "all or none" kind of guy but I guess on this issue if you listen to the majority of gun advocates that'd be dead ass wrong.

Anywhoo.....there are all kinds of restrictions on what kind of weapons can be used in hunting. Many states require that turkey hunters use nothing smaller than a 20 gauge and shot size no larger than 4's. Based much of the logic I'm hearing...the guy that has the 28 gauge should be freakin' out because it's just a matter of time before they take his 28 gauge away! There are bore restrictions for deer in some states and shotgun restrictions as well. And of course the magazine capacity rules. We cannot use high powered rifles for deer in Indiana BUT it's legal for a guy to use an AR for a coyote? Does that make any damn sense at all?

I'm not worried about the 10/22 at all...there have been banana clips available for those since the beginning of time....before the microwave at least(humor...laugh it's okay). Most magazine style semi-auto .22's are high capacity, my Mod 94 xtr lever holds 20 shorts I think, 17 long rifle...something like that.

I'm talking center fire here. When the typical military style rifle is utilized for hunting with a reduced capacity clip it's a fine gun for sure. They are accurate, theoretically weather resistant and functional in unsavory conditions, comfortable to hold and shoot etc etc. But, the thing that bugs me more than anything is the idea that a guy can put a 50 round clip in it. He can carry a back pack full of them. A kid can borrow daddy's gun and go out to shoot with his buddies and put a 50 round clip in it. I'm not sure why that bothers me so much...I guess these weapons deviate from tradition so far that it "bugs" me. That's a personal thing but I'd wager that MOST if not ALL non-gun, non-hunter, non-shooting sports individuals would be alarmed by the presence such a high powered weapon with potentially high capacity in their midst or even in a field nearby. I think of this weapon as something that has a place at the range or in a match. Or, in my gun case so if the shit really hits the fan I can pull it out and defend camp Anglin. If that requires some kind of special permit...so be it.
 
The problem lays with who writes the laws. How many politicians are truly firearms afficianado's? How many could sign a bill to outlaw "assault type" weapons without even knowing that daddy's 742 remington 30-06 that he has been using 1 week a year for his deer hunt up north since before you were born, would fall into that category because it is semi automatic, clip fed and has a "pistol" grip? Should people that are afraid of these weapons be allowed to trapse through the woods during hunting season? how about banning that? It makes the same amount of sense. And about your permit idea, what if the one charged with writing the permits doesn't like these types of arms..or doesn't like the way you look? You are screwed unless you make yourself a criminal and buy one illegally. What if the ones who wrote the laws decided that "in the public interest" that all these arms should be outlawed and that they can check all the firearms purchase records for all FFL holders to see who had bought one...would it be ok for them to enter your house and take yours? As long as they didn't touch your 870? Paranoid??? You bet! If it hadn't been for gun groups with millions of members the last time the "assault" weapon ban went into effect, the original writing would have outlawed your lever action .22. They saw no difference in a bannana clip for a 10/22 or a 50 round drum for an AK or AR. Inch by inch it's a cinch, especially with a national news media that can whip up a frenzy amongst the ignorant...like they did with the "assault" rifle..weapon of choice among criminals..when less than 1/2 of 1% of weapons used in crime were long guns..let alone AK47's and AR15's. Maybe the Movies should be banned that have the super smart criminals wasting whole blocks with their Mac 10's and Uzi's...it makes ignorant people think that this is the way real life is..if it was, the 6 o-clock news would be nothing but coverage of these shootouts...but who watches the news when Segal or Arnold is on the other channel hosing city blocks with chain guns? It's not a simple answer type of thing..it goes to the roots of freedom and individual responsibility..when you don't trust your neighbor, how can you expect their trust?
 
Folks should really look at what the AR15 varmit folks have been doing.

I'm not a big fan of the look and don't own one but I sure as heck can appreciate the time effort and accuracy that they are getting with them.

There are a bunch of folks playing with them and it has taken off like the Ruger 10/22's have done. In my opinion.

I think much of it has to do with after market support and 'goodies' like match triggers, match barrels, etc.

They take a military beater rifle and customize it generally for accuracy.

Reminds me of 40 years ago folks taking the Springfield '06 and sporterizing it.

I see the trend.
 
The problem lays with who writes the laws. How many politicians are truly firearms afficianado's? How many could sign a bill to outlaw "assault type" weapons without even knowing that daddy's 742 remington 30-06 that he has been using 1 week a year for his deer hunt up north since before you were born, would fall into that category because it is semi automatic, clip fed and has a "pistol" grip? Should people that are afraid of these weapons be allowed to trapse through the woods during hunting season? how about banning that? It makes the same amount of sense. And about your permit idea, what if the one charged with writing the permits doesn't like these types of arms..or doesn't like the way you look? You are screwed unless you make yourself a criminal and buy one illegally. What if the ones who wrote the laws decided that "in the public interest" that all these arms should be outlawed and that they can check all the firearms purchase records for all FFL holders to see who had bought one...would it be ok for them to enter your house and take yours? As long as they didn't touch your 870? Paranoid??? You bet! If it hadn't been for gun groups with millions of members the last time the "assault" weapon ban went into effect, the original writing would have outlawed your lever action .22. They saw no difference in a bannana clip for a 10/22 or a 50 round drum for an AK or AR. Inch by inch it's a cinch, especially with a national news media that can whip up a frenzy amongst the ignorant...like they did with the "assault" rifle..weapon of choice among criminals..when less than 1/2 of 1% of weapons used in crime were long guns..let alone AK47's and AR15's. Maybe the Movies should be banned that have the super smart criminals wasting whole blocks with their Mac 10's and Uzi's...it makes ignorant people think that this is the way real life is..if it was, the 6 o-clock news would be nothing but coverage of these shootouts...but who watches the news when Segal or Arnold is on the other channel hosing city blocks with chain guns? It's not a simple answer type of thing..it goes to the roots of freedom and individual responsibility..when you don't trust your neighbor, how can you expect their trust?
Click to expand...



Well put Lee. Thats exactly what I;ve been try to convey. Though not as eloquently as you have. Just because something 'looks' different than others with the same form and function does NOT make it somehow evil.
 
Yep ol" Zumbo really pooped in his mess kit this time. I wonder how many cancelled subscriptions and angry e-mails to OL sponsors it will generate (get the hint ?).

It may take some guy a 20 rounder to fill his tag. I don't need that many, but the next guy might and as poor a job as the recent administration has done defending our border we may all need something with high capacity mags down the road aways.

I see one side of the argument. If I saw some creep with a 10 round extension skybusting away at waterfowl I would be ready to see him neutered or worse. On the other hand, I don't want anyone telling me my pumps or semi autos are weapons of mass destruction or bad mouthing me for using them. It's been a long time since duckhunters were limited (by technology) to twice barrelled guns and I for one don't want to have to go back to two shots only. If we let the anti gunners have their way on any issue we wil be setting the stage to lose all of our guns.

Boo on Zumbo.

Gun control is hitting your target.

Best to all,
Harry
 
I am going to get a subscription to OL today! I will see if there is room for another Remington in my arsenal.
I wonder if Zumbo is also against anyone driving to the hunting grounds in a real terrorist weapon ... a vehicle. I also wonder if he has ever arrived at one his favorite hunting trips using another terrorist device ... a Boeing 757 or 767. I am totally for first amendment rights and think they should be defended...Jim's rights, Remington's rights and Outdoor Life's rights.
 
better than nothing but little more than a slap on the wrist....

Congrats to Remington for their action but OL still needs to grow a sack and do something besides hide the blog until the shit storm passes...thats nothing but defending what he said while appearing to be concerned....

Steve
 
I never understood Mrs, Hammer when she was president of the NRA and used to think along the same lines as you do if I read your posts the right way. Here is what changed my mind. Massachusetts has no more trapping now based on the exact same thinking. A few shrewed antis sensed the lack of unity among the sportsmen and women of the state and took political action. Guess what happened? The duck hunters said, "Trapping, who the heck is still doing that anyway? And why should I care?" The fisherman said, "Trapping, oh those guys can't catch and release like I can, and what they do is different than me so why should I care?" Guess who went and voted? Now if you want to remove a beaver in your back lower acres a state sponsored nuisiance trapper is your only route. Same for muskrats, skunks or raccoons. Maine was darn close on banning bear hunting, esp. with bait.
Do I think Parks Buddy's 50cal. is the farthest thing in the world from what I would take elk hunting...Sure. BUT... My concern is that the political forces that would like to see us all gone don't give a rats a$$ if you kill your duck with a Purdy or a black pistol grip Bennelli. They would love to see your dads sporterized Springfield lumped in with Military arms in the latest hunting bill. They hate you because you like to kill your food before you eat it. And they hate you for using public land to kill a wild creature and eat it. And you are going to teach your kids to make their own food too. Peta hates you cause you buy a chicken that was raised for food and it died to feed you your cesars salad, just look here at their Naked Truth AHUS just hates you. And Sorous the billionaire, god knows what he is up too. Lets face it. We are a declining numeric group in a nation that votes to decide what you can and can't do. Divided we are an easy lot to cherry pick at Law by Law. Just like the fox hunters in England.
With fewer hunters and fewer kids going hunting we are being led down the road by a bunch of marketers at Cabella's and Bass Pro trying to figure out what it takes on a 30 min TV show to get us to buy the latest dumb stuff to go hunting with. These same folks are presenting our collective image to the country, because, as a Political Lobby we sportsman are not what we used to be when bills like Pitman Roberts and the Federal Duck Stamp were passed.
Trust me when I say that the guy taking an AR-15 clone in the woods to take his deer has much more in common with you than the other side. Do you think the same? NO. Do you have a lot in common when it comes to how you see hunting? Probably not, but you both hunt and to keep doing that you need a strong national lobbying group working for you. A strong local lobbying group working for you, and every darn one of us voting together when needed to help each other out when the tide is running against us on a ballot question or election. I think I have come to understand Mrs Hammer's commitment to my right to keep the arms I enjoy, and the forces that want to change that. I hope I can keep the same right for my son and daughter to enjoy. I think the second amendment is a crucial part of that, just as I feel equally committed to state and federal protection of public hunting land and game management. Without any one, my hunting tradition is over.
 
Bob, well said, and I appreciate the education vs the other approach.

If anyone on this board is having trouble with anti's encroaching upon their right to hunt or to bear arms, I'll be waving the flag right alongside helping you out. I live in the antiest anti-state (even worse than MA where I grew up). People don't wave at me going down the highway when my duck boat is attached and say hey nice boat, they give me the finger. I have 5 shotguns in my safe. I support the usual hunting organizations...

My point, and maybe it gets lost in the translation because it's an emotional issue, is that the so-called "AR" with the clip longer than a Tom's beard, doesn't represent to me what hunting is about.

When I think of an AR, I'm not thinking black synthetic stock (I have a Browning 12 gauge with one), I think of body-armor and helmet piercing super charged ammo at 900 rounds per minute. I think AK, I think the modern M-16 equivalents and the machine pistols that drug dealers carry. That's what I think of, and that's the symbol that will attract anti's from all corners. It's what the anti's see as "people killers", and it's the one symbol that will resonate with John Q no-hunter and his wife Jean Q on-the-fence hunter.

I am a firm believer in the old adage "perception is reality"... I don't disagree with Lee's finely articulated position, regarding who cares what it looks like, a legal cigar is a cigar, but the problem is that the anti's will use this AR issue and paint us with it, and it will resonate with the general public and it will come back to haunt us.

Bob, I don't subscribe to the "it's the other guy's problem" mentality as you outlined. I'm not a big game hunter, but I certainly support their rights to hunt and to bear arms. I don't live in the plains, but I support national politicians who support CRP. I don't fish either (no patience), but I would support any referendum to keep fishing areas open. To sum up, carrying a machine gun in the forest isn't the right symbol for us hunters, it's an in your face approach for the anti's to bring it up a very effective notch.

My sincere hope is that this whole Zumbo thing gets swept under the rug, before the national press picks it up. "Hunters kill one of their own, news at 11" Poor bastard didn't deserve the carpet bombing, he's a good American, a passionate hunter and deep down y'all know that. He admitted that he doesn't know much about the damned things and he sees them on CNN every night in the hands of the not-so friendlys just like every one else who watches the news.
 
as it gets Andrew. You nailed my sentiments.

I posted this a few hours ago on a borderline thread on the refuge forums:

I spoke to a friend in the industry at length a while ago. You may know who he is but I'm not going to mention names. He agreed with the logic of my stance but in the end said it wasn't possible to have my stance and not hurt the cause. He stated flat out,"Dude, that's the way it has to be. You DON'T have a choice on this one". I never looked at it that way. I guess I will have to re-program myself based on the reaction this created.

Still, the words of Bill O-Reilly ring in my ear,"....the zombie-like, hateful warrior who spouts cliched propaganda will drive reasonable folks away. All fanatics hurt whatever causes they are attached to". While those words do not apply to anybody that posted here(DHBP)I think those words ring true for many who posted replies to Mr Zumbo's first blog on the OL site.

And yes, the sooner this blows over the better. OL pulling the blogs off was the quick fix and I'm sure there is more to come from them. I emailed all of his sponsors. Obviously, Remington didn't have much of a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top