The NRA’s jack-booted thugs

I’m a longtime gun-owner, a lifelong hunter and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment that protects the right of Americans to own and bear arms.

I also was, until recently, a member of the National Rifle Association. I turned in my membership card after the midterm elections because of the organization’s unabashed support of crooked Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) and racist Senator George Allen (R-VA).

Fortunately, both DeLay and Allen are gone from the halls of Congress. DeLay quit amid his mounting ethical problems and investigations into his criminal behavior. Allen lost his re-election bid to Jim Webb, also an NRA member.

NRA’s support of both men showed me the organization cared more about protecting elected officials they had in the bag than about morality, ethics or doing the right thing.

So I quit – tossing out back issues of American Rifleman, scraping the NRA decal off the windshield of my Jeep and sending my membership card back in the mail with a two-page letter explaining my reasons for quitting.

No one at NRA responded. I didn’t expect them do. I’ve known Wayne LaPierre, the head honcho at NRA, for more than 20 years. His arrogance exemplifies the NRA and its attitude towards anyone who disagrees with their lockstep mentality.

I also know Jim Zumbo, a gregarious outdoorsman who wrote for Outdoor Life magazine and hosted a popular show on the Outdoor Channel. Zumbo is both a straight shooter and a straight talker who says what he thinks – an admirable trait in most circles but not in the blinders-driven world of the NRA and gun fanatics.

On Feb. 16, Zumbo wrote on his blog on the Outdoor Life Web Site that he didn’t see any reason for hunters to need assault weapons.

“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity,” Zumbo said. “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.”

Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe. I own enough weapons to start a small war but my collection does not include an assault weapon nor will one ever find a place in my gun safe. I don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer, squirrel, quail or turkey in the mountains around my home. No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry. While I’m sure many owners of assault-style weapons are law-abiding gun enthusiasts like myself and Jim Zumbo, too many of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.

Zumbo didn’t advocate banning the weapons. He simply said real hunters don’t have any need for one and suggested states not allow them to be used for hunting. But that didn’t stop the NRA and its members from coming down on him with guns blazing. Assault gun owners, and the companies that make them, demanded Zumbo be fired from Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel. The cable channel suspended his show, he resigned from Outdoor Life after 6,000 readers sent in email demanding he be fired and Remington Arms Company, which makes assault rifles, severed its sponsorship of his program and activities.

The NRA cited Zumbo as a warning to anyone – including “fellow gun owners” – that opposing them publicly can be dangerous. LaPierre, in typical arrogant fashion, warned Congress to “take note” of what happened to Zumbo as an example of the consequences of crossing the gun lobby.

If I had not sent in my membership card after the NRA’s disgraceful performance during the November midterm elections, it would be in the mail now as a protest and expression of disgust over the treatment of Jim Zumbo.

The overreaction by the gun community has forced Zumbo to step back from his principles and try to salvage his livelihood. He apologized for his remarks and has offered to go hunting with an assault weapon – a capitulation I find disturbing but not surprising given a need to make a living.

I doubt Zumbo’s retrenchment will work. The gun lobby doesn’t forgive and it doesn’t forget. During the Clinton years, LaPierre criticized the Justice Department of then Attorney General Janet Reno and called federal agents “jack-booted thugs.”

The tactics utilized by the NRA and the gun owners who refuse to even consider a second opinion from one of their own show jack boot thuggery is not limited to the U.S. Department of Justice. Where I come from that’s known as the pot calling the kettle black.

(Revised at 6:00 p.m. EST)

230 Responses to "The NRA’s jack-booted thugs"

  1. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Jim Zumbo’s blowup didn’t have anything to do with the NRA. The NRA didn’t respond for days after the blowup began.

    Word of Zumbo’s blog spread over the internet and the response was a heartfelt reaction from gun-owners who happen to be fans of semi-auto rifles.

    ARs, AKs and FALs have grown in popularity due to their superior ergonomics and safety features, as well as their ease of use.

    The hunting and target versions of these rifles are vastly superior to their traditional counterparts.

    Most of us have scoped, hunting bolt actions in our gunsafes, where they have been sitting since we invested in better technology.

    Take your pick of .25 WSSM, 6.8mm Remington, 7.62×39, .50 Beowolf or 6.5mm Grendel. At $1-$2 per round for hunting ammo, hunters aren’t out shooting up the woods or prairies with their custom-built, $2000 AR-15s.

  2. bryionak  February 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    “Our right to bear arms, any arms, is there so that we can protect ourselves,first, from a tyrannical government, not hunt squirrels.”

    And I’ll go one step further. Without the second amendment, the rest of the Constitution is meaningless.

    The assault weapons ban is(was) simply outlawing guns that looked scary. The AR 15 you can go into a store and buy will not be automatic and therefore not an assault weapon.

    And the NRA supported Allen in 2000. Why didn’t you send in your card then since you already knew Allen was a racist at that point?

  3. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    BTW: Welcome to the 21st Century.

    Next you’ll probably start complaining about the laser range finding, automated rifle scopes.

  4. John  February 27, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    I have been a lifelong gun enthusiast, but like many others, apparently, I quit the NRA years ago because I could no longer tolerate the radical politics. They quit being just a gun organization and went to right-wing fanaticism.

    I wrote a letter to LaPierre after I got a flyer from him asking why I hadn’t paid my dues, and assuring me he would fix whatever my problem was. I told him what my problem was. He didn’t fix it. I was dropped from their mailing list and didn’t hear a word from them for years.

    Thank goodness.

  5. Jeff  February 27, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Great, another “hunter” who doesn’t get it. The Second Amendment is about self-defense, pure and simple. Semi-automatic rifles in medium calibers such as 5.56 and 7.62 x 39 are ideal weapons for self-defense, and are the core of what the Founders intended to protect with the Second Amendment. The Semi-automatic rifle is more accurate than a shotgun or pistol, and has less recoil and blast than a 12 gauge when using a medium caliber such as 5.56, which is why many police forces are replacing their shotguns with semi-automatic AR-15s. Anyone who has contempt for these weapons has contempt for the very principles the Second Amendment was meant to protect. Zumbo was fired not because of the NRA (who came late to the controversy), but because Zumbo expressed contempt for something his readers – and the customers of his sponsors – hold dear. Protip – when your paycheck is written by a company, don’t advocate that its products be banned.

  6. Ken C  February 27, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    You hunt? Disgusting. Hunting should be banned.

  7. Jack B.  February 27, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Oh Doug, how could you be so WRONG on such a basic constitutional concept?

    The 2nd Amendment gives free people a way to protect themselves from political tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting or shooting burglars. As a last resort, free people have the means to organize and take up arms against a tyrannical government. If you don’t think tyranny can happen here, you should take a minute and review a little world history. Once you allow government to dictate what kind of guns you are allowed to own (if any), you have lost your ability to stand up against a well-armed tyrant and ALL your precious freedoms can be lost. “A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment”??? You obviously don’t even know what the 2nd Amendment means.

  8. FortyFive Automatic  February 27, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Damn near all of you, especially the author and Electric Bill have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

    The whole reason Dumbo lost his bread and butter is because its not just “paramilitary” bozos like McVeigh with military-style weapons — it’s a great deal of everyday, normal private citizens. Nevermind what you have and have not personally seen. The above is a FACT, and Zumbo learned it too late.

    Once again, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. You’re an idiot if you think that.

    And military-style rifles are a FAR superior choice to a bird gun for personal defense. Bill, you probably also think that M16 rounds tumble in flight, enter the chest, and exit the toe. Do some research, at least for your own sake. Or not. I’m sure you’re just fine sticking to your delusions, Elmer J. Fudd.

  9. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    Doug

    You never read Jim Zumbo’s article did you? After insulting thousands of owners of a particular firearm HE DID CALL FOR A BAN OF THEM!

    Furthermore, the action against Jim Zumbo came from the ground up. Not from the “Gun Lobby”. Pissed off gun owners and others that know the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, and that nothing in the Bill of Rights is granting you rights but rather RECOGNIZING and PROTECTING preexisting rights, called and e-mailed Jim Zumbos sponsors and employers. The sponsors and employers promptly followed the wishes of their target consumers and acted accordingly.

    The NRA or the “Gun Lobby” as most anti-gunners call it got wind of the story after the fact.

    I’m sure Jim Zumbo is a nice person and a great guy. Probably thats why you wrote an article defending him without knowing any of the facts. But he insulted thousands of people then called for a BAN of that set of firearms. He made a real boneheaded move and obviously didn’t know who his target audience was. With assault weapons ban(misnomer) legislation currently in the house this was very very bad timing.

  10. Donna Hughes  February 27, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    Doug,

    I began engraving firearems back in 1980. I joined the NRA because it was the thing to do if you were “into guns”. But several years later the NRA ran a one-hour promotion of themselves on TV, during which they dug up Clint Walker, poured him into something reminiscent of his old Cheyenne TV series costume, and had him pitch the NRA. Can’t remember the rest of the “show” but it struck me as being tacky and not the sort of thing I wanterd to be identified with, so I never renewed my membership.

    Since then they have become, as already mentioned, strident and self-righteous.They sucked Charlton Heston in until it became obvious that he was ill.

    I don’t agree that one has to be armed with an assault weapon to protect onesself. Better to shoot well than to just simply have firepower — just ask the deer that we found entangled in our fence this past deer season because someone had shot her hind leg off except for a bit of skin, and she tried to jump the fence in terror. Shortly before that it had sounded like WW3 broke out in the woods. We put her out of her misery.

    I’m not sure if the NRA actually encourages that sort of mentality by fighting for the right for “hunters” to use assault rifles, but that is the way they come off to me, and I have considered them to be the Lunatic Fringe for some time now.

  11. Chester C.  February 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    Doug,

    It is quite obvious that you know little of our heritage, rights, and history. You go on and continue to forward the notion that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of citizens to go hunting.

    Moreover, you were obviously one of the folks who seems to know better than NRA so I have to ask, what other group did you join now that you know we at NRA are thugs?

  12. Erik  February 27, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    You said:

    “I’m a longtime gun-owner, a lifelong hunter and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment that grants Americans the right to own and bear arms.”

    “Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe. I own enough weapons to start a small war but my collection does not include an assault weapon nor will one ever find a place in my gun safe. I don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer, squirrel, quail or turkey in the mountains around my home. No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry.”

    You sir, have misunderstood the meaning and reasoning behind the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

    I hope you re-examine your beliefs and reconcile them with the ideals that made our country great.

  13. Scott  February 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    It is truly sad when a self-proclaimed longtime gun owner and lifelong displays his ignorance and arrogance about guns, especially after this Zumbo debacle. Apparently you haven’t read anything from Ted Nugent or Jim on his site. The AR-15 quite accurate out of the box, and is capable of very good accuracy for a fairly modest price. It’s not too hard to obtain 1/2 MOA with these rifles. They are also NOT fully automatic, like an assault rifle is. They are also not easily converted either. I would expect a longtime gun owner to not buy into the lies of the VPC so easily.

    As stated above, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. If guns are too dangerous for people to own for the intent of the 2nd Amendment, then hunting needs to be banned right now. In the modern day where fresh meat can be had at nearly every commercial corner there certainly isn’t a need for it. It’s not Constitutionally protected either. To hunt you need to own dangerous sniper rifles capable of killing at great distances or highly destructive shotguns which indiscriminately fire many projectiles with a single trigger pull.

    While the NRA isn’t perfect, they are playing a game. Do you think the anti-gun side was a bunch of warm, friendly fuzzy bunnies when the 1994 AWB was passed? Still, if you don’t like it, please join a group like the Gun Owners of America.

  14. Old Curmudgeon  February 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    ooooboy! This is going to be louder than the racist issue…Doug, you sure know how to light a fire, eh? On topic…as previously stated, assualt weapons are for killing humans. If they (NRA) are using the argument in regards to hunting, they’re blowin’ smoke – or smokin’ blow. As for protecting ourselves from an out-of-control government, the majority of the people will cave and kowtow without resistance. Those that think they can hold out and actually resist are seriously deficient when it comes to thinking sensibly – think about Ruby Ridge and Carl Drega. If the government decides to use those internment camps they’ve built out west there will be little an AK will do to stop them except precipitate executive action from the Jack-boot types. The only resistance plan that would work is if the majority of the people rise. But I don’t see that happening. We’ve grown to soft and comfortable. Maybe they’ll pray the problem away. Or just decide that the government knows what is best for us and just bend over. Personally, I think that if they insist on owning assault weapons they should volunteer. With the problems the military has indicated in getting cannon-fodder, I mean rercruits then they should take their “big guns” and go down to the recruiting station and sign up. With the lower entrance standards everyone of them should be qualified. But, that ain’t gonna happen, is it Bubba. That’d be putting your manhood on the line and talk is so much safer than action. And by the way, been there, done that – survived. But, that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion…

  15. AJE  February 27, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    You have your head in the sand if you think that your “superior” hunting guns are protected if you sell out to the gun banners and sacrifice military look-a-likes.

    Where do you think most of the guns you DO hunt with came from? Ever hear of a Mauser? How about that “deer rifle” in 30-06? Is it possible that these “hunting” firearms had anything to do with the military in the past?

    Do a little research before spouting off next time.

    - a Hunter and “clown”

  16. gabby  February 27, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    The reality is- the same politicians “protecting your rights” are the same who have taken away most of your rights without firing a shot- habeus corpus, sneak-and-peak, right to form unions, the Patriot Act, unfair trade, you name it. Every part of our lives are managed by the corporatists. So far you have been allowed to own guns only because the somebody is making money off it-thusly the government allows it. Many of the single-issue knuckleheads also vote against their best interests by supporting the conservative agenda which is conservative with respect to workers’ rights and liberal when it comes to unbridled corporate control of our government. Keep all guns but the assault rifles and cheap handguns. That is fair.

  17. Erik  February 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    It absolutely boggles my mind that in this day and age, after already experiencing one weapons ban in the 90s, that so much ignorance can still exist about the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA. If anyone has actually bothered to pick up and read the Constitution, they will notice that it has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with protection and defense (particularly from government). In case it isn’t clear enough, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison go into greater detail in Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46, respectively. I suggest actually reading them before going off about squirrel hunting and other dangerous foolishness.

    It’s not enough to know what you believe, but you needs to know WHY you believe it. My God-given RIGHT to keep and bear arms is what protects your PRIVILEGE to be able to hunt.

  18. Stryker  February 27, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Doug,

    I am a gun owner but not a hunter. I enjoy target shooting, yet I fully support your right to hunt. I could bemoan the deadly terrorist high powered sniper rifles that you use to kill game needlessly, when you could go to a grocery store to buy meat.

    The point is that all gun owners must support one anothers right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the personal activities conducted with them (legal, of course). Sacrificing one gun owning demographic to gun bans will only lead to the banning of all guns.

    First they came for the machineguns, and I did not speak out–

    because I did not own a machinegun;

    Then they came for the assault rifles, and I did not speak out–

    because I did not own an assault rifle;

    Then they came for the pistols, and I did not speak out–

    because I did not own a pistol;

    Then they came for the sporting rifles, and I did not speak out–

    because I did not own a sporting rifle;

    Then they came for me–

    and I was unable to defend myself.

  19. John Robich  February 27, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Doug – Thanks for showing your true colors as “staunch supporter” of the 2nd. Obviously your thesaurus was working when you spell checked.

  20. Kent Shaw  February 27, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    .

    I have two Glocks, a Remington 870, and a Bushmaster M4A3 but guess what? The government has me outgunned if it comes down to “defending myself against tyranny.” It has us all outgunned. Anyone want a great deal on a never-fired Bushmaster?

    .

  21. Roy Murtishaw  February 27, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Doug,

    It’s amazing it took you so long to take yourself off the ventilator and begin to breathe free. When the pathetic NRA bullies continue to believe their assault weapons, Hummers,

    camouflage costumes, and insufferable arrogance will somehow provide them with a functioning penis and necessary gonadal accessories, we’ll have to continue to tolerate their NRA card carrying status.

  22. Dustin Nemati  February 27, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Well, considering your first sentence states that the Second Amendment “grants” something, I didn’t bother to read the rest. Perhaps you should read up on Locke, the Declaration of Independence, the WORDING of the Second Amendment, and the Federalist Papers and then get back to us.

  23. Tac  February 27, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Doug, echoing the other “gun nuts” here. The NRA was very slow to jump on Zumbo. What Zumbo did was undermine other gun owners that didn’t fit his version of gun ownership. It is similar to a Formula One driver saying Stock Cars are hick vehicles that have no purpose.

    And again, the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting at all.

  24. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    ” Roy Murtishaw Says: Doug,

    It’s amazing it took you so long to take yourself off the ventilator and begin to breathe free. When the pathetic NRA bullies continue to believe their assault weapons, Hummers,

    camouflage costumes, and insufferable arrogance will somehow provide them with a functioning penis and necessary gonadal accessories, we’ll have to continue to tolerate their NRA card carrying status.”

    So Doug, this is the kind of people you are standing up for?

  25. Jim  February 28, 2007 at 1:03 am

    Doug, I’ll defer to hmfc as I’m not up on the details; I was just going to say they’d endorse A over B if A has a significantly better chance of winning. (As incumbants do.)

    Jim

  26. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 1:07 am

    HMFC:

    I have written many times that William Jefferson belongs in jail. As for Allen, I personally heard him use racial epithets on two occasions and wrote about it. I’ll never cut a racist a break and backing an incumbent didn’t work in Allen’s case. So much any legislative acumen by the NRA.

    –Doug

  27. WH  February 27, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    How can you claim to be a “staunch supporter of the Second Amendment” when you so obviously do not understand it’s purpose? HINT: its not about hunting

  28. Nick Hammer  February 27, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Well said. But I think you’re a little late. I sent my card in when the NRA supported public sale of armor piercing ammunition. There is no moderation in these things. I suppose everyone who can afford one could somehow manage to obtain a thermonuclear device, and the airplane to carry it, but I don’t view it as a second amendment issue.

    Nick

  29. Colin H  February 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Thanks for the post Doug. I agree with your response completely but am surprised that it took a person such as yourself this long to see the NRA for what it is. I was a member long ago and am owner of several handguns and was once a hunter and would be again if I needed the food. A large portion of the rank and file of the NRA are simple knuckle draggers who can only think when told what to think.

  30. Michael  February 27, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    The NRA is just like the Christian Right. They are to radical for me. I used to be a life member. But after see them for what there really are I told them goodbye. I still believe in gun ownership, but not in the way the NRA does. They have no common sense. All the NRA and the Christian Right want IS POWER AND MONEY. No thank you.

  31. Fred P  February 27, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    The real question in my opinion is what the limits of the second amendment are. Clearly, the right to bear arms does not include the right to own and use personal Hydrogen bombs. Clearly, it does permit the usage of rifles and shotguns. I’m not clear as to exactly where the line should be, although my preference would be to limit it to hunting weapons (such as rifles and shotguns) only.

  32. Electric Bill  February 27, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    I severed ties with the NRA long ago, although I still own several firearms and support the Second Amendment, no more than I do the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The NRA has grown increasingly shrill and strident in the last thirty years. Doug is exactly right when he refers to Wayne LaPierre and his cohorts as lock steppers and jack-booted thugs. LaPierre makes a lot of money by playing to the unfounded fears of ignorant gun-huggers who fear they will lose their only connection with what they consider to be manhood. Military style assault weapons are not only a poor choice for hunting, they are terrible for self-defense. They are too bulky for quick response and are too powerful to be safe in a home defense situation. Give me a 12-gauge with birdshot any day. It will do the job and won’t kill your neighbor two houses down. Real men don’t need AK-47s.

  33. Barbara Cunningham  February 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    It is true that one does not need assault weapons to hunt game. That is not what assault weapons are for. They are for killing people.

    The Second Amendment means exactly what it says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not limit the type of arms one can own or keep.

    I happen to agree that keeping atomic bombs in one’s house is foolish, but the Amendment provides for the people to protect themselves against the government. The framers of the Constitution had just won a war against the super power of their times. They knew the importance of an armed citizenry.

    If we are limited in what weapons we can own, how can we protect ourselves from the government when the time comes? And, unfortunately, I fear the time will come.

  34. Robert  February 27, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    You’re right about the NRA leaders and wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Our right to bear arms, any arms, is there so that we can protect ourselves,first, from a tyrannical government, not hunt squirrels. By the way, a true “assault” weapon either is or can be switched to full auto and are prohibited by law except with special license, so what the hell are you talking about anyhow?

  35. Robert McEowen  February 27, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Please explain to me how a plastic stocked AR-15 in .223 caliber is any more dangerous or deadly than a wood-stocked Remington 7600 in 30-06. You are advocating the restriction of a vital civil liberty based on the APPEARANCE of a tool. That is illogical.

    Zumbo’s comments gave aid and comfort to the enemies of liberty. He deserved what he got. And your views are nothing more than an attempt to appease those who would destroy a precious freedom. Do you really believe the people in this country that fear liberty will stop at banning ugly rifles?

  36. Rob Ludlow aka podunk  February 28, 2007 at 1:10 am

    I pitty your poor resoning for leaving the NRA. There sole job is to back the canidate that best backs the 2nd. Its your job as a voter to figure the rest of the issues out. Or do you even vote? I think probably not. And as for Mr. Zumbo he is a neibor of mine and he infact infuriated me with his ill choosen words. And yes even I called his sponsors. Not at the request of the NRA but of my own doing. In fact I bought two new remington rifles for there quick responce. And in doing so was part of his demise. But I have hope for the upgrade on Mr. Zumbo for he may see the light here and become one of our strongest ally’s. Forged by fire ya might say. And this makes it all worth while all the way around.

    And if you think that throwing us black gunners i:e HR1022 under the bus will save your shot gun think again. Like the hungry man and the cake one bite and he’ll devour the whole thing. Well HR1022 is the perverbial bite of cake. And mark my words they will eat it all. And what will you do when the knock comes to your door demanding all your guns? As for me they can have e’m BULLETS FIRST LET E’M Fly!!!!!!

  37. A Freeman  February 27, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Mr. Thompson,

    Your ignorance would likely make our founding fathers cry.

    The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting but thankfully does cover some of the tools used for it, just not the ones you use apparently.

    According to the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). Military type weapons are exactly what the 2nd amendment was intended to protect.

    Though I doubt it the following quotes may help you to understand how important defending the 2nd amendment in its entirety is.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” (Federalist #28)

    George Mason: “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

    Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ( Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)

    James Monroe: “Liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”

    James Madison: “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ( June 12, 1823)

    Samual Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.” (Letter to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98)

    Samuel Adams: “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

    Samuel Adams: “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” (The Father of the American Revolution)

    Samuel Adams: “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” (U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788)

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776)

    Thomas Jefferson: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (letter to William S. Smith, 1787)

    Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” (Letter to John Cartwright, 1824)

    George Washington: “The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

    George Washington: “A free people ought…to be armed.” (speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.)

    Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (3 Elliot, Debates at 386.)

    Thomas Jefferson: “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” (to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition; Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)

    Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution of most of our states and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

    John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.)

    George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence.”

    Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” –

    Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

    Their intentions were clear and hunting was not on the radar.

  38. Jim  February 27, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    I am also an avid hunter and gun owner, however unlike you sir, (author of article)I understand that people like you are the reason we will lose all guns eventually.

    It’s ok to ban “Assault rifles” even though thats not what they are according to the likes of you because there isn’t any sporting use.

    I don’t seem to remember one word in the 2A about hunting or target shooting. I am sure it says something about security. hmmm……

    In short you better wake up before you lose your 1A rights because certain topics don’t NEED to be said.

    Jim

  39. Chuck Bryant  February 27, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    I was going to write a careful and well thought out debate to your article, explaining that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, and that AR-15′s are not assault rifles as they’re only semi auto. I was going to explain to you how many legitimate sporting purposes there are for the AR and how they are a good choice for self defense. I was going to lay before you the proven fact that once the anti gun crowd bans semi auto military lookalike weapons, they’ll come after your beloved bolt action, long range, sniper rifles next, the kind htat can shoot down an airplane. And let’s remember, no one should own a rifle that can shoot down an airplane. And since you will have alienated all the other gun owners, you hunters will find no support to stop them from doing it.

    But after I started I realized that not only are you too stupid to understand it, you’re also an elitist that doesn’t want to understand. You’re an enemy to gun owners and an enemy to the 2nd amendment. Like the Brady bunch, VPC, HCI and the rest, you must be fought at every step. Unlike the above mentioned you come from behind, with a stab in the dark, much as you did with the 94 AWB and much like you do now with your fake shooting and hunting organizations that are nothing more than flimsy fronts for the afore mentioned anti gun groups.

  40. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Jim Zumbo called for a ban of them, despite what your article claims.

    Because of his highly influential position and place amongst the community he was brought down. People in the gun/hunting community didn’t want to financially support Jim’s views by buying products from his employers.

    You seem to have missed that and manufactured your own version in which Jim didn’t call to ban them and the NRA told its 4.3 million members to collectively sack this guy.

  41. John  February 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    I have been a hunter for 30 years and a wildlife officer for 15 years. When are you hunters going to get it that the Second amandment does not say anything about hunting. Hunting is not a right! Owning a firearm is. The anti gun groups don’t give a crap what we use our guns for they just want to take them away because they think they know how we should live our lifes. And they will forse you to live it the way they say as soon as they get the guns taken away. Stop pissing about what kind of gun they are after and start fighting the fact they are trying to take any gun away because they will be after yours next. And the AR15 people will not be there to help you.

  42. Scott  February 27, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    Doug,

    Why don’t you take a look at an accurized AR-15 then? Even my standard 16″ HBAR AR-15 with only a minor trigger job that I have done shoots 1 MOA with good ammunition. There are camoflage painted AR-15′s and 5-round magazines which make them perfectly suitable for hunting. A semi-auto rifle is a semi-auto rifle. We are arguing that we shouldn’t ban based on aesthetics or color (We stopped doing that with people, right?)

    Please explain why it isn’t. Spend a little time to research a rifle you are bashing and perhaps you may learn something.

    And again, as to the NRA being ugly in Congress, it’s politics. I don’t care for it much either, but the sad fact is that is how that game is played. Don’t play by their rules, then you do not get anything done in Washington.

  43. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Doug:

    “In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.”

    Those are fighting words, my friend. All the doctors, lawyers and engineers, programmers, rocket scientists, machinists and other AR fans have been notified of your opinion, via the internet, of course. I haven’t told the NRA yet. Won’t have to.

  44. Jeff  February 27, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Doug,

    Oh, we understood your column well enough.

    (1) Zumbo said: “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.”

    (2) You said: “Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe.”

    The obvious implication of Zumbo’s statement is that hunters should throw semi-auto owners under the bus in order to appease the Brady retards. You stated you agreed with this statement. Once can naturally conclude from that statement – as well as from the general contempt you expressed for “terrorist” rifles, that you would be quite happy to throw us under the bus to protect your Fudd gun.

    Yet we are somehow asked to believe that you “respect” the 2nd Amendment. Pardon our disbelief.

  45. GySgt G  February 27, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    As an active duty Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, my professional and recreational use of firearms extends well beyond the hunting season. I also understand the real mechanical differences between an M-16 and the rifles you’d apparently be happier to not see in civilian hands. I also consider my range time with my legal semiautos to be professional development.

    Hunting is not the reason for the second amendment, it is merely a benefit.

    Jim Zumbo did this to himself. He chose to use incorrect and inflammatory idiom of the Brady Bunch to describe the rifles and users that he didn’t like, and then to drop his bombshell at the same time that HR 1022 sits before the House Judiciary Committee. That bill would ban evil black rifles, as well as fair number of other visually benign semiautos, too. A semiautomatic self-loading rifle is a semiautomatic self-loading rifle, regardless of whether the stocks are wood or plastic, aesthetic or utilitarian.

    If you insist on (mistakenly) using hunting as a determination of whether these rifles are appropriate for our possession, remember that our Grandpas likely learned to shoot using their M1903 service rifles on a military range. They later used those same surplus rifles to harvest game.

    For hunting, no one has changed legal magazine capacity or minimum caliber rules in game law to accommodate the rifles this bill seeks to ban.

    Today, each US serviceman, like myself, is taught to shoot using an M-16. He’s trained to know how to safely and accurately use that rifle. NFA and State game laws preclude his using a real M-16, but why can’t he use a legal semiauto rifle, that is only ergonomically similar to his M-16, either to hunt, or to shoot for recreation and/or competition?

    The rifles that HR 1022 seeks to ban, are used in long-range iron sight competition at Camp Perry, by civilian and military competitors. Many other venues are available to sport shooters, who use these same rifles in legal and safe fun, everyday

    These are reliable and safe platforms that are easily adaptable to a greater spectrum of legal activities than previously enjoyed in the shooting community.

    Semper Fi,

    Dave

  46. MrKrink  February 27, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Your about as an ignorant bastard as Dumbo Zumbo WAS!!! You need your US citizenship card revoked in addition to your NRA card!!

  47. Wayne K Doilk  February 27, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Doug this NRA piece was another great rant. I am a NRA active member in good standing. So, this gives me a chance to share some of my feelings about gun ownership. I highly recommend that, your readers get armed and trained in the use of firearms. Why heck, the 2and Amendment is one of the last freedoms we have left! Now, let’s cut to the chase with the NRA.

    Back in the late 80’s and early 1990’s the NRA was about the only force for good against government oppression under Bush 1 and Clinton. Gun owners were harassed by government agencies and in far too many cases wrongly accused and incorrectly identified. The NRA was right by calling those government people Jack Booted Thugs. They were if you study the history of that behavior. Of course that behavior has returned in the War on Terror.

    Next the NRA was joined by the Texas Crazies known to all of us here as the Neocons. That’s when the NRA really did change. For example, the NRA no longer was speaking out like they did for our freedoms. Instead they endorsed Bush 2 for president. When they did that I became concerned for several reasons. One under Bush 2 the NRA lost part of free Speech, (Campaigns Finance Reform), and we were given the now infamous Patriot Act. This was no reason to endorse Bush 2 for President.

    Lastly, I understand old Jim Zumbo’s bias about assault weapons for hunting. If the NRA was more balanced in its outlook they should have given Zumbo a pass on that. Jim Zumbo has been a long time friend to hunting and the Second Amendment. The NRA is sorely in need of balanced reform. But, like the Republicans they too have a case of the Crazies.

    When they finally come to take my guns, I have a message for them. From my cold dead hands!

  48. Marv  February 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    Doug,

    If you were any less cluless, you would no doubt be classified as an endangered species for your subhuman ability at rational thought. Your little diatribe is so filled with assumptions, falsehoods, and distortions of fact that, for a moment, I thought I was reading the work of Al Gore.

    Trying to conduct a rational dialogue with people like you is futile. “Jack-booted thugs?” Is this an historical commentary on Nazi Germany? Doug, do the right thing. Go play in traffic and leave gun issues to the adults.

  49. AR-15  February 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    I’ve never heard a bigger group of gunhating asshats in my life. A so called “assault rifle” to some morons looks scary? They are no more lethal than any other firearm. Idiots.

  50. Kyle  February 27, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    What a sad, sad, old fool.

    I will not support the NRA, I don’t like their compromising. JPFO.org is where it is at. Get rid of those jack-booted thugs, the ATF.

    It’s a pity that their are hunters like you out there. I support hunting, target shooting, and most importantly gun ownership. I don’t care if you hunt with them or if they’re safe queens. The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting (directly) and it ain’t about target shooting. It is about the ability for the People to be able to defend themselves properly from their own tyrannical government should we ever have to. I don’t expect you to understand because you already sold the rest of us out to save your precious wood stocked rifles. Perhaps you can give me your address so I can send you a bottle of KY Jelly cause we know you’re going to bend over and take it when the government is done with us and goes after your precious wood stocked rifles.

    Repeat after me – this outrage isn’t about hunting, it is partially about being labeled a terrorist but mainly due to the fact that Zumbo (and you) are selling the rest of the gun owners out to save your own hide. Grow a pair because this is the most disgusting, deceitful, treasonous act you can commit.

  51. James23  February 27, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    I understood your article quite well, Mr. Thompson.

    In it, you choose to compare anyone who owns a AR style rifle to a domestic terrorist. That is painfully ignorant and a slap in the face to law abiding, tax paying citizens who choose to own that style of rifle.

    Just as I advised Mr. Zumbo, maybe your comments will come back to haunt you after they ban AW’s, and they come for your .30-06 “sniper” rifle next. What will you say in your article then?

  52. Haris Pilton  February 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    The NRA had nothing to do with the gun owner community’s reaction to Zumbo’s remarks.

    The NRA was the last organization and sponsor to cut ties with Zumbo. What Zumbo did was personally insult every American that happened to own a semi-automatic rifle for sport, competition, defense, or just plain recreation.

    Zumbo should have thought things out a little more before insulting and alienating his sponsor’s intended customer base. Those so-called ‘terrorist rifles’ are chambered for a cartridge called the .223 REMINGTON. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Zumbo got exactly what he deserved.

  53. Rusty Shakelford  February 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    What a misinformed boob.

  54. B. Pounmex  February 27, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Gun-control is all about rich white men trying keep the minorities disarmed.

    Keep your racist gun-control to yourselves.

    How the hell are we supposed to protect ourselves when you people start lynching us again?

  55. Will Rogers  February 27, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Doug,

    Thank you for outing yourself as a weak supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I am sorry that you are offended by the appearance of some firearms. I am comforted to know that your firearms pass the Fudd test as being pretty enough to own and shoot.

    Those of you who own firearms and do not support the right of all Americans to own the firearms of their choice (and not your choice) and do not support the NRA because you are too spineless to defend something that your liberal Fudd buddies dislike need to get a grip and your hanhood and stand up for personal freedom.

    America was not made great by elitist Remchester-toting snobs. You panty-waist gun banners are what is wrong with America.

  56. Kyle  February 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    I don’t need a bolt or lever action to hunt deer, squirrel, quail or turkey in the mountains around my home. No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry. In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving these sniper-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.

    All you need for hunting is a good ol’ muzzleloader. Preferably a flintlock, a real hunter doesn’t need any of those in-line synthetic “assault-style” muzzleloaders.

    ====

    In all seriousness, it’s time for you to enter the 21st century. There’s nothing wrong about hunting with a modern semiauto rifle with ergonomics-enhancing features such as a pistol grip or adjustable stock.

  57. Kent Shaw  February 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    .

    The insults flying around here do no good whatsoever. Reasoned discourse please.

    .

    Anyone know where I can get a good deal on a surplus trident submarine?

    .
    :)

  58. Hank Rearden  February 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    My Russian business parter from Moscow was vistited the DC area last week.

    Me and a few other collegues took our guest to the NRA Range to shoot. We let him shoot our Makarovs, AR15s and AKs in various configuatation, Glocks, S&W 357s, 1911s, and even some suppressed (silenced) firearms. He had the best of time of his life. At the end of the envening. He made to comments… (1) he founded it ironic that it was only here in America that he was able to fire weapons manufactured in his own country (refering to the Makerovs and AKs) and (2) he stated that it would be impossible for any enemy, foreign or domestic to ever conquer the American people, as long as cilvilans are able to arm themselves as they do. He added, that Europeans never had this right and as such have been and will remain slaves to their governments for generations and generations.

  59. John  February 27, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Mr. Thompson,

    You said – “I sure hope some of your shooting is better at hitting the mark than your ability to understand a column.”

    Make no mistake sir. I, and many others, understand your column perfectly fine. It is you and those of similar mindset who do not undesrtand. You do not understand the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not about “sport shooting”. It is not about “recreational shooting”. It is not about “hunting”. It is not an any way remotely related to the words sport, sporting, hunting, hobby, etc.

    It was, and IS, about the People having the means by which to protect themselves from tyranical and/or oppressive governments, criminals, foreign invaders, etc. It is about the natural and inherant God given birthright of every man (and woman)to have the means with which to protect themselves and fight if and when neccessary.

  60. Gloria Bryant  February 27, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    I own a gun and told the NRA to ‘bite my ass’ several years ago when they started pushing hatred. Michael was correct when he compared them to the Christian Righteous groups. Both types tend to put more emphasis on hating and getting rid of everybody else who doesn’t ‘think’ like they do, if they do. Does anyone remember a paperhanger a few years back who operated the same way?

  61. Larry Lawson  February 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    We have an absolutely CRIMINAL element running this nation into the ground, MURDERING Americans in the phony ‘war on terror’ and this poor slob ooooh, can’t own a semi-auto rifle hyterically tagged as an ‘assault’ rifle.

    Have you wimpy clowns even SEEN the gun ban bill coming NOW?

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2668

    WAKE UP! Grab them squirrel guns and get ready for a ‘target RICH’ environment!

  62. phil evans  February 27, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    is the second amendment about hunting.

    is the second amendment about despots.

    should the citzens of a nation have the right to revolt against its existing government??

  63. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    Feb 16, 2007- Jim Zumbo writes his original post. Tam summed this up best in a single sentence, “On Friday evening, a gunwriter who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.”

    Feb16, midnight– Jim’s original post attracts 1 comment.

    Feb17, 8:15 PM- Over on AR15.com, “IIRC” notices Zumbo’s blog post and starts a thread. This thread, as of today, spans 59 pages.

    Feb 17, 10:52 pm- T D gets his licks in as the first known blogger.

    Feb17, midnight– Jim’s original post attracts an additional 193 comments for this day

    Feb 18 at 1:49 AM- Xavier picks up the Zumbo story, “A New Gun Control Advocate”

    Feb 18, 10:02AM- Tam runs with the Zumbo story.

    Feb 18, 01:29 PM- first letter from Tommy Millner, CEO and President of Remington, shows up in the comments of Zumbo’s blog

    Feb 18, 02:39 PM- Glenn Reynolds runs with the Zumbo story.

    Feb 18 at around 04:21 PM- Jim posts his first, (still confused about the issues), apology. This second post attracts 413 comments in about an hour, based on the time stamp of the first comment and the last one preserved when I took a snapshot. Last comment I preserved was at 05:30 PM. There were likely many more.

    Feb 18, 04:44 PM- “Joe Milkor” posts a comment about Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership’s brand new Myspace presence. Many believe the initial page is fake.

    Feb 18, between 07:10 and 8:37 PM- Outdoor Life Magazine slaps a CYA disclaimer statement on Zumbo’s blog “These opinions do not necessarily represent those of…”

    Feb 18, 8:49 PM- Dave Cordrea receives a letter from Tommy Millner stating that Remington is disassociating themselves from all sponsorship of Jim Zumbo.

    Feb18, midnight– Jim’s original post attracts an additional 2865 comments for this one day

    Feb 19, 2007 8:56 AM- Sharp as a Marble posts the best damn parody.

    Feb 19, 8:59 PM- Xavier notices that Zumbo’s blog has been taken down

    Feb 19- Sponsor Cabela drops all ties with Jim Zumbo

    Feb 21- Gerber Cuts Ties with Jim Zumbo

    Feb 22 9:21:44 AM- First post on AR15.com by “Hellbound_Train” citing a press release from Outdoor Life Magazine on the occasion of accepting Jim Zumbo’s resignation.

    Feb 22- First NRA press release NRA Publications Suspends Ties to Jim Zumbo

    Feb 23, 10:32 AM- I post a comment over at SayUncle’s and follow that up with a blog entry showing that if that Brady MySpace page was fake in the past, at least it’s not now. I note that all Zumbo related content on that MySpace page has been scrubbed

    Feb 23 07:04 PM- Ted Nugent opens a thread on his forum. and transferrers a few messages (dated 02-22-2007 02:03 PM ) from Jim Zumbo into them. After a few false starts, Zumbo seems to finally get it.

    Feb 24- “Pravda on the Potomac” brings the Zumbo saga to the mainstream media on page A03. Fully a week from Jim’s first post.

  64. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    “Anyone know where I can get a good deal on a surplus trident submarine?”

    No, but if you find one, remember, you’ll need a tax stamp for each trident missile. If they have multiple warheads, you need a tax stamp for each warhead….it’s the law.

  65. Ben  February 27, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Real men protect the Bill of Rights.

  66. Slyvester Putz  February 27, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    Anyone blogging on morals and ethics should better know the Second Amendment before posting.

    Unfortunately, both Doug and Jim have no concept of what the Second Amendment means. Not one word of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” contains any reference to hunting.

    And yes, I hunt deer, feral hog and turkey with my AR15. Completely legal in my state.

    Doug, check you ethics. They are defective. People in glass houses…

  67. Joe  February 27, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    AGNTSA.

    Maybe you don’t particularly care for military styled firearms. That’s your business. I don’t see any need to justify owning one to you or anyone else for that matter.

    Bottom line is this, and it’s something the “hunting” community had better understand… If a semi-automatic AK-47 or AR-15 is too dangerous for people to own then so is that 30-30 lever action rifle.

    That lever action rifle can be used to gun down defenseless people all day long. The fact you have to work the action (maybe 1/2 second) just means you have to slow down a bit and aim. Do you think that scoped 30-06 Remington 700 can’t pick off people at 800 yards? Imagine how much death and mayhem someone could cause with one of them.

    If society accepts the logic that an AR-15 is too dangerous then it won’t take long until they see those shotguns and wood stocked rifles as too dangerous also. The gun grabbers are coming for your guns too.

  68. Mr.P.  February 27, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Ah, another good weed for the Brady Camp.

  69. Beth  February 27, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    A question to all the anti-Zumbo’s posting here: what is it that you found insulting with – that fact that he basically called anyone who hunts with an assault weapon a pussy or that assault weapons are “terrorist rifles.”

    Funny that everyone of the pro second amendment poster never seem to mention the amendment in its entirety – always seem to leave out a very important phrase – WELL REGULATED.

  70. Justin  February 27, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    I’m not familiar with the word “klavern” so I Googled the term.

    .

    Klavern

    .

    In case the formatting doesn’t work, copy and paste:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/klavern

    .

    Glad to know that Doug thinks that thousands upon thousands of competitive shooters who show up to Camp Perry every year, to say nothing of all of the 3-Gun and USPSA shooters who use AR15′s are all a bunch of racist hillbillies simply because they opt to compete with an exceptionally accurate and reliable firearm.

    .

    Way to take the high road, Doug.

  71. Commie Matt  February 27, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Hunters might not NEED an AR-15 to hunt with. But it doesn’t matter one bit. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or any sport whatsoever. It is my legal right to protect myself, my family and my country.

    Stop thinking that you’re “pro-gun” because you go shoot a deer every season and pop a few squirrels. You’re pro-gun when you see BS like what was spewed by this Zumbo fool and call it for what it is. Everyday more and more people think that the Second Amendment preserves your right to go hunting.

    When you finally let them take away our rights to own the weapons we need to protect ourselves, don’t be surprised when they take away your rights to post this web page.

  72. MrDigger  February 27, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    For once I find a lack of superlatives to describe your stance. While Claiming to support the Second Amendment you advocate the banning of firearms you don’t see a need or use for. Well thank you for your opinion, who or whom appointed you the arbiter of need and use. Hipocritical there is a descriptor to fit. Vacuous, is another. How many Black Powder guys Bitched and Moaned when them dang eaterners came with “Brass Cassings and called them repeaters “Killing Machines”.

    I ask you Whatis the difference between a Sporting BAR in .308 and an AR in .308, How about the sporting version of a BAR in 30-06 and a Garand? To presume that since a firearm dosent’t fit your Standards it is therefore unecessary for everyone else is sophomoric and actually violates the rights of others just because you in your INFINATE wisdom disagree.

    Take your opinions and your Wisdom and put them somewhere that dosent infringe on MY Civil Liberties.

    P.S. I hunt, and oddly enough don’t own or see a need to hunt with the weapons you describe as Assult Weapons. I still think Banning them is preposterous.

  73. Bruce  February 27, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Wow.

    Just wow.

    How can you possible be so off base? So completely illogical?

    Take the average bolt action 308 caliber hunting rifle with a scope sight.

    The army uses a slightly altered version as its primary sniper weapon.

    So when the liberals point out that your bolt action is a “sniper rifle”, are you going to hand it in?

    After all, you can hunt deer just fine with a slug from a shotgun. Buckshot works great too. The danger of ricochet is greatly reduced. (In some states that’s all that they allow.)

    Suppose you want to hunt with a 300 winchester magnum bolt action. You don’t need that much power to kill a deer. Do you NEED the ability to put a 180 grain bullet thru a deer at 800 yards?

    Why not use a much less powerful 30-30 lever action with iron sights? They are THE most popular deer gun in the eastern states. You TRULY don’t need any scoped 30-06 or 300 win mag “sniper rifle” to hunt deer.

    Considering the TRUE FACT that you can hunt virtually any game with a single shot shotgun (using deer slugs, buckshot, or birdshot as needed), I cannot see how your “high powered sniper rifles” have any “legitimate hunting purpose.”

    So turn them in immediately, you hypocrite.

    You know, I can understand how some clueless soccer mom falls for the “assault rifle legitimate need” crapola, but you hunters should know better.

    A semi auto AR15 is no more deadly than your 30-06 or pump shotgun. In fact, you could argue that it is LESS of a menace due to its tiny cartridge.

    The truth is that ANY gun is deadly and ANY gun can be used for crime. And the liberals want to take away ALL of them.

    While you hunters are busy licking the liberal’s boots and cursing the “ugly gun” owning NRA members, the libs are setting their aim on your “legitimate” guns.

    The fact that you hunting snobs are not NRA members comes as no surprise at all – we NRA members have been dragging your “legitimate” elite dead weight for 50 years already.

  74. MD  February 27, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Change the type of firearm to say an SUV, and the article gets even better, almost like a form letter…

    “On Feb. 16, Mr Z wrote on his blog on the Automobile Life Web Site that he didn’t see any reason for automobile-owners to need SUV’s.

    “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these automobiles among our automobile fraternity,” Mr Z said. “As automobile-owners, 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’ vehicles.”

    Mr Z put into words what many automobile-owners, me included, believe. I own enough automobiles to start a small carlot but my collection does not include a SUV nor will one ever find a place in my garage. If others want to waste good money on those oversized, macho, gas guzlers, that’s their foolishness. I don’t support banning the SUV-style vehicles because I don’t believe it is the role of government to save people from their own stupidity.”

    See you can substitute any menacing object for the “demon of the day”, this is an attempt to divide firearms owners into camps, one of the worst things we do as firearms owners is “eat our own” we should rally together, not be divided.

    Doug Thompson, you sir are a Brady shill, neither an NRA supporter nor a gun rights advocate, this is a further attempt to drive a wedge between firearms owners.

  75. phillip110  February 27, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Doug, this is a quote from your article:

    “In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.”

    Are you serious? What the heck is wrong with you? Why is it that you and Zumbo feel the need to compare me and many of my good friends to terrorists? Don’t you understand how insulting that is? This is the reason why Zumbo was dumped, not because he said ARs aren’t great for hunting. No one gives a shit if a hunter doesn’t like ARs or AKs. But we certainly care when you compare law abiding citizens to terrorists!!!

  76. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Beth, you’re stupid. Here is why.

    We will start with the whole Amendment. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I will dumb it down so you can understand it. First it states a well known and accepted fact “a well regulated(meaning trained and disciplined) militia is necessary to keep our country free from tyranny” as the reasoning to say “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

    No where in the Bill of Rights are there limitations or restrictions on rights of “the people”. The limitations and restrictions are on the rights of the government. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant anyone anything but rather recognizes and protects preexisting rights.

    If you still are living under the delusion that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what you think it means, don’t take my word for it. Research it, look at the first few drafts of the Second Amendment. Read quotes from the framers.

    Hell, check wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  77. John  February 27, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    “Beth Says:

    February 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    A question to all the anti-Zumbo’s posting here: what is it that you found insulting with – that fact that he basically called anyone who hunts with an assault weapon a pussy or that assault weapons are “terrorist rifles.”

    Funny that everyone of the pro second amendment poster never seem to mention the amendment in its entirety – always seem to leave out a very important phrase – WELL REGULATED.”

    Beth, I suggest you study up on what “well regulated” meant in reference to the militia. Here is a hint though, it had nothing to do with your implication that the govt should regulate weapons.

  78. George Washington  February 27, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Wow

    another hunting elitist and his NRA hating friends.

    Why dont you fudds do the rest of us a favor and move to north korea

  79. Ross  February 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    Doug Thompson: Nowhere in the column did I say that the Second Amendment exists to protect hunters. I simply said I am a hunter and gun owner who supports the Second Amendment.

    Jim Zumbo:“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.”

    Doug Thompson: Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe.

    First off, let everyone know that Doug speaks out of both sides of his mouth like every crooked politician in Washington. Nice ploy; you are clearly implying that the issue (which is purely a 2nd amm issue) is about hunting, meaning that you think the second amm is about hunting. You are calling everyone who does not think the 2nd amm is about hunting is a “terrorist.” Then, when you get a overwhelmingly negative response, you say that you didn’t actually say those things. You need to decide once and for all, are you a journalist or are you a politician? Your behavior repeatedly suggests the latter.

    A Free Man’s quotes pretty much sum up the issue, but here are some more

    2nd Ammendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I’m surprised nobody bothered with this yet. There can be no other interpretation but that the 2nd Ammendment is meant to preserve a private militancy among the citizens of this country, because as Chairman Mao said, “Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.” By the way, Communist China does not have the 2nd ammendment.

    I do not own a gun, and I have never hunted, because I am not trained to use a weapon effectively. I am reminded of this the few times I fire weapons. Let me explain why this makes me insecure: in 2004, I was visited by an unmarked, unidentified man, wearing combat fatigues and a helmet, carrying an M16. He put me and all of my neighbors on house arrest, saying we could not leave without the permission of the sherrif’s department. I have fired shotguns, and I have fired an AK 47, which do you suppose I was insecure about not having?

    Insecurity about penises come from having sex with a naked girl, not from being confronted by a battle ready “law enforcement officer” (?) who treated me like I was some insurgent in Iraq, rather than an American citizen. Ask an Iraqi if you can fight American tyrrany with an AK 47, they seem to believe you can.

    On the other hand, here is another quote: “Just make sure Bush gets in, ’cause that other guy…what’s his name, he’s gonna take away your guns.”

    -A convicted felon coworker of mine, who legally can neither own guns, nor vote

    The NRA is a rightwing political group, and they use propaganda to get Republican politicians into office. Where is this militia, composed of the entire citizenry, of which the founders spoke? It is certainly not the NRA. In fact there is no such thing, because the average American, Doug included, does not seem to know how our rights are being taken away constantly, little by little. Freedom-loving, and -understanding, Americans cannot support such politicized groups, nor the politicians they support, nor ANY politicians, nor political parties, nor Congress, nor government, the president, the media, etc.

    A Free Man quotes Thomas Jefferson: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.” Gee that puts us, by Thomas Jefferson’s standards, about 11 times more tyrranical than we should be.

  80. Slyvester Putz  February 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    “regulated” in the Second Amendment means PREPARDED AND CAPABLE.

    Doug, you are very myopic. The issues of your posting (and Jim Zumbo’s) which are most inflammatory are the ad hominum attacks.

    As far as your leaving the NRA, good riddance.

  81. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    Doug, you’re still missing it.

    You didnt call for a ban, jim Zumbo did. Your article says he didnt. Which is incorrect. Its also the reason why people didnt want to support the companies that support him. It isnt paranoia, its pending legislation RIGHT NOW in the House.

    The NRA had nothing to do with it. I’m not even a Member. Read this timeline please. http://standardmischief.com/2007/02/25/the-washington-post-spins-the-zumbo-saga-plus-a-timeline/

  82. Scott  February 27, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    Beth said:

    A question to all the anti-Zumbo’s posting here: what is it that you found insulting with – that fact that he basically called anyone who hunts with an assault weapon a pussy or that assault weapons are “terrorist rifles.”

    Funny that everyone of the pro second amendment poster never seem to mention the amendment in its entirety – always seem to leave out a very important phrase – WELL REGULATED.

    Here is a non-partisan analysis from Journalism professor and on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary

    “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. http://www.largo.org/literary.html

  83. George Washington  February 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    First of all zumbo wasnt taken down by the NRA, in fact they had nothing to do with it. It was an effort at the grass roots level by american citizens who were offended by zumbos definitin of the ar-15 as a terrorist weapon.

    Apparently you didnt learn much from the zumbo affair, calling those who own an ar-15 rifle akin to those who blew up the murtha building in oklahoma city

    Why dont you take your hate filled diatribe over to the brady center, maybe they can find you a job. You certainly are no friend to the american people.

  84. Jeff Hawkins  February 27, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Zumbo spouted what he did out of his own admitted ignorance of the function and utility of a specific weapons platform. He vilified a large segment of firearm owners with inflammatory language and emotion driven drivel in an attempt to ingratiate his small “fraternity” to the anti-gun left. His blog was as completely devoid of any facts or rational thinking as the current HR 1022 bill being introduced in The House of Representatives.

    Nice to see his writing style is still alive.

  85. Nathan  February 27, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Doug, you went beyond calling them a stupid appendage for hunting. You compared everyone who owns an “assault weapon” to the OK city bomber. You did basically the same thing Jim Zumbo did. Nice job correcting “grants” to “protects.” You claim to support the 2nd Amendment and oppose a ban on assault weapons. I’ll take your word that you aren’t calling for an assault weapons ban. Let me ask you this, if you did support a ban on assault weapons, what would you write differently? Nothing you wrote in this article is productive or will have a positive effect on our Second Amendment Rights. Please point out how this column could help prevent any further encroachment on our Second Amendment Rights. With 2nd Amendment “supporters” like you, who needs Brady? I also love all the name calling, “cry baby,” “idiot”. You are certainly are a well spoken “Second Amendment supporter.”

  86. SicknTired  February 27, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Well reasoned response Doug. It’s clear yours is the superior intellect. Us uneducated fools can hardly cope with the vast power of your amazing words. You’re right, Nothing in your powerful, hard-hitting article of pure reason and illumination could be construed as offensive to this multitude of OKC bombers and crybabies. How truly foolish of us to take offense. After all the freedom to express ones opinions is only reserved for people such as yourself. Should anyone else express their opposition to your opinion they are clearly overreacting and crying.

    You are a mental giant in your own mind.

  87. GySgt G  February 27, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Beth,

    Regulate can also mean “to bring order, method, or uniformity to ”

    I’ll assert that they meant to ensure each member of the militia was well trained in marksmanship, not overburdened with administrative requirements.

  88. Skeet  February 27, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    This motto is at the very top of this web site: “Because nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied”

    I guess that only applies to people who own only your definition of “hunting” guns?? It seems as though you think my guns should be taken from me. Guess you are not any better than those you ellude to in your motto. Pretty sad. You are just a hippocrate who really does not understand the Constitution or the 2nd amendment.

    Enjoy your “hunting” rifles why you can – Because of people like you and the lack of understanding for the differences in why people choose to shoot or collect a particular firearm, its not going to be long before they are labled “sniper” rifles and will be taken from you.

  89. Second Amend  February 28, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Quote: By DOUG THOMPSON

    “He apologized for his remarks and has offered to go hunting with an assault weapon – a capitulation I find disturbing but not surprising given a need to make a living.”

    Quote: “Yep, just like John Kerry on a photo opp with that old’ shotgun.”

  90. Jim  February 28, 2007 at 12:14 am

    Doug. I’m not sure how many of these replies you’re reading, but here’s mine, for whatever it’s worth.

    I read Jim Zumbo’s original column, and his retraction/apology. Both linked from a friend. I have no problem forgiving someone for a heartfelt apology because, well, everyone screws up sometimes.

    I realize Zumbo didn’t call for a BAN on black semi-autos, just on their use in hunting. Similarly, you didn’t call for a BAN on black semi-autos, you merely called their users “clowns” and compared them to Timothy McVeigh.

    I’m surprised you are shocked at the subsequent reaction by people posting comments here.

    The problem is not necessarily the fact that gun owners disagree from time to time. The problem is that your comments, and those of Zumbo, can be taken out of context and used by Sarah Brady and her ilk. “This long-time gun owner thinks AR-15 owners are clowns.” Etc.

    You and Zumbo both have every right to your opinion. But you shouldn’t be shocked when you get hostile backlash after giving it to such a wide audience, because said audience has a right to respond. (Non-violently, of course.)

    With regards to some of the other posters, the comparison between an AR-15 and a hydrogen bomb is ridiculous. Even if someone like Bill Gates could afford a weapon and delivery system, the likelihood of him using it defensively would be tiny. It would be far more efficient to employ a small air / air defense force or private army, with far less resulting collateral damage. Even if the US Government became dictatorial and it was time for the People to rise up against it (with their various black guns,) who in their right mind would nuke Washington D.C.?

    I hope this has made some kind of sense to you, and didn’t merely seem the ramblings of an uneducated gun nut. I do not (yet) own an AR-15. I am in the military, I have been to the middle east twice, and I am starting on my Master’s degree. So I’m putting my money where my mouth is.

    Regards,

    Jim

  91. John  February 27, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Doug, no, you didnt come right out and say it. However, the condescneding tone of statements such as “your precious assault-style semi-autos” says plenty.

  92. Rudolf  February 27, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    By your logic..real car drivers don’t need sports cars. They are designed for high speed racing and exceeding speeds over 65 mph. The top speed in many parts of the country is about 70mph. Most or all cars have a top speed of 120-150mph. We should ban them because they are fastest growing cause of death among teenagers and young adults who want to be “TOO FAST, TOO FURIOUS” like in the movie. We should register, license, and insure all sports cars in current possession so they don’t cause trouble. But that’s your logic in relation to guns, because real car drivers like real hunters don’t need sports car and big gas guzzling SUV’s same as Ar15′s and AK’s. This country wasn’t founded on needs, it is run by wants. Sorry that disappoints you.

  93. Austin,texas  February 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    So you don’t condone guns that you feel are inappropriate for killing animals? The problem here is that you are another elitist writer trying to sway others opinion. “God, what a bunch of crybabies screaming at the wind over nothing.” Don’t be mad at the populous that stood up and was heard causing your best friend Zumbo to be ostracized. You better make sure you have the opinion of everyone you represent or you will lose credibility. I enjoy shooting but I see no need to shoot animals.

  94. Brian  February 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    What is the difference between a semi-automatic .223 with a wood stock and a semi-automatic .223 with a 4-position retractable polymer stock?

    What is the difference between a semi-automatic Browing Gold 12 gauge with a wood stock and a semi-automatic Remington 12 gauge with a polymer stock?

    You’ve been completely fooled by the liberals’ usage of cosmetic features as alleged performance improvements. A firearm does one thing: discharges rounds per pulls of the trigger. How it looks while doing it is completely meaningless.

    What’s even worse was that you compared the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle that accepts a 30-round magazine to the bombing of a Federal building.

    Your writings do not include a “point” grounded in fact or reason.

  95. Innocent Bystander  February 27, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    The 2nd Amendment is about fighting not the sporting uses of firearms. They will come for you if we fall, that is a fact.

  96. Doug Thompson  February 27, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    HommieDaKlown Says:

    Doug, you’re still missing it.

    You didnt call for a ban, jim Zumbo did. Your article says he didnt. Which is incorrect. Its also the reason why people didnt want to support the companies that support him. It isnt paranoia, its pending legislation RIGHT NOW in the House.

    Zumbo did not call for a ban on the sale of assault-style rifles. He said he thought states should prohibit their use for hunting. States as a matter of course regulate what weapons we can or cannot use for hunting. That’s why I can hunt with a rifle for deer in some Virginia counties but must use a shotgun in others.

    Like so much of this affair, what Jim said has been taken out of context and out of proportion and he is being deep-sixed simply for stating an opinion about the use of assault-style weapons for hunting.

    I didn’t see a single word in Jim’s post that suggested an ban on sale of such weapons to those who want to buy them. It was the paranoia of those who see anyone with a differing opinion as advocating a gun ban that made this whole thing a mockery.

    –Doug

  97. Doug Thompson  February 27, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    John Says:

    Doug, no, you didnt come right out and say it. However, the condescneding tone of statements such as “your precious assault-style semi-autos” says plenty.

    Yeah, it says I don’t much care for assault-style rifles but I’ve always been a supporter of the Second Amendment and if people want to waste their money on them that’s their business and the government should not have any role in it.

    Don’t look for nuances in what I write. Regular readers of my column known full well that I never, ever, mince words.

    –Doug

  98. Front Line  February 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Wonderful Doug, I can not tell you how good it makes us feel to not only be called terrorist by Zumbo, but now racist klansmen by you.

    I joined the service during the Carter admin, I am now a LEO — or JBT as I am sure you would like to call me. I have exactly three privately owned guns: an AR15, a Glock and an 870 shotgun. I have shot and killed one animal in my life, a dog that was mauling one of my team members.

    I have spent decades living in places that out right sucked; I have been shot at; assaulted; had my vehicles, home and family members damaged or threatened; and, I have burried way to many friends that have not been as lucky as me.

    Why? Well Doug, I doubt you would understand, but it is simple… I guess so you can write your dumbass opinions and hope to assend to some internet stardom?

    Let’s see Doug… over a 150 felons in jail, saved at least a dozen lives and stood toe-to-toe with realy enemies of our Nation both on their soil and ours. All because I made one promise almost 30 years ago: To defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against ALL enemies Doug. And in all of this I learned maybe one thing for sure, there are no extraordinary men, only ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances.

    Your moment of fame here on your blog is not an extraordinary moment Doug, nor are you an extraordinary man. Get over yourself and take a look around you… when history is read, do you want to be on the wrong side?

    But, I guess it is about your beloved First Amendment, and the right to say what you want — I can say what I want too Doug: Piss on you.

    EOM

    OUT

  99. Dean  February 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    IMHO gun owner solidarity is the key to protecting our constitutional 2A rights regardless of our personal reasons for owning any type of firearm. If we let ourselves be divided, as Mr. Thompson evidently has, we will all surely suffer the consequences.

  100. Mike in Alabama  February 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    The Second Amendment is not a “hunting” right. It is the right of the people to be armed.

  101. RobG  February 27, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    “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.”

    “Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe. I own enough weapons to start a small war but my collection does not include an assault weapon nor will one ever find a place in my gun safe. ”

    No you did not advocate any banning – But Zumbo did. You did however, admit that you also believe these types of rifles are terrorist weapons and not “nothing more and nothing less” than saying they should not be used for hunting.

    Jim Zumbo is absolutely entitled to his opinion as are you. You have not claimed to be a supporter of the second amendment- while that might make you ignorant, it does nothing more and nothing less.

    Jim Zumbo, however, goes on and on about his support about the second ammendment, yet his first post and subsequent apologies show that he has absoulutely no idea what the second amendment is for. Hunters- your ability to hunt with any type (rifle pistol whatever) of firearm is a byproduct of our ability to own any type of firearm. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and thouse of you who say that it should be limited to hunting arms, are either uniformed or have some pc media prescribed fear of inanimate objects. Please do not take this as an insult, i t is not. I invite any one of you to come and experiece target shooting first hand.

    What if we were to limit the first amendment to only that free speech which was not offensive to the masses???

    And to Scott with the “WELL REGULATED” objection. First of all this professor is anything but non- partisan.

    let me give you another Example

    An educated electorate being necessary to the maintenace of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall nor be infringed.

    Does this statment that only the well educated electorate should be able to write books???

  102. Sarah Mastison  February 27, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    Doug Thompson is a fake gun rights advocate, just as is the “American Hunters and Shooters Association”. You can learn about this fake gun rights group at

    http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/31/37/

  103. Windsor  February 27, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    So, Jim Zumbo is at least capable of being educated.

    You seem to revel in your ignorance.

    If you don’t “LIKE” certain guns because they are scary to you, you are as much a supporter of the 2nd as Bill Clinton.

  104. RobG  February 27, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Sorry, was running out of time this is how it should have read –

    A well educated electorate being necessary to the maintenace of a free state, the right of the people, to read and write books shall not be infringed.

    Does this statment that only the well educated electorate should be able to write books???

  105. John Hanks  February 27, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Guns are Toys. The NRA is a protection scam based on nothing. The second amendment is misquoted.

  106. Mike in Alabama  February 27, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Oh and I find it funny that the Fudds decry the NRA for supporting AR-15′s and the AR-15 owners decry the NRA for not doing enough to protect AR’s.

    The irony.

    If we can’t stand together, divided we will fall.

  107. AndyC  February 27, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    “orchestrated NRA effort”?

    You should post a pic of this as proof, because I sure didn’t get anything like that.

    All I saw was the people on all my favorite firearms-related forums all heated-up over Zumbo. Doesn’t take long on “those-there intarwebs” now, does it?

    As for “clowns waving assault-style weapons” – well, I would be one of those clowns, I imagine. Served in the military, served in Iraq – but I guess that doesn’t matter to you. Or is it only veterans who should have access to semi-auto rifles, in your opinion?

    Yeah, you go play “sniper-sniper” with your bolt-action, Elmer – don’t talk to me about playing soldier.

  108. James Phillips  February 27, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    Dear Sir, I am not a NRA member, haven’t been for over a decade, I have my differences with them. So saying I am upset with Mr Zumbo due to the NRA is ludicros in the extreme. Actually it is my belief if you realy had a defense of Mr Zumbo you would present it and not bring up the NRA as a “Red Herring”

    Mr Zumbo and you apperently simply “Do not get it”. Hunting is allowed to exist in this country due to the 2nd Ammendment, Not the other way around ( if you have any doubts look up USSC USvMiller).

    I do not care what firearms Mr Zumbo shoots or likes, it is a matter of complete indifference to me.

    However when Mr. Zumbo calls for the ban of weapons that he does not like that matters a great deal to me. That is why I have and will continue to write about this issue.

    Respectfully

    James Phillips

  109. Ross  February 27, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    Doug in what world does Remington have to pay a guy to call them terrorists? I think our gun industry largely comprises of terrorists (where are their weapons coming from? -research it!).

    Zumbo can say whatever he wants, the 2nd isn’t the only ammendment, after all, but people can surely get pissed of at being called terrorists, especially when we are in a “war” against such people, a “war” in which America is a theater of combat. It’s even more justified to not pay for such nonsense.

    Like Jefferson said, banning guns (which you DID advocate, by means of your words have advanced that position-whether you directly said so or not) only helps CRIMINALS, who would find a way to get guns anyway, and would only harm LAW-ABIDING citizens, who respect the law and would not act against it.

    This is true of all behavioral or property bans:anti-marijuana laws only help DRUG DEALERS, because their product becomes more valuable. Read the Patriot Act: it is directed at AMERICANS, but was in response to FOREIGN terror. A criminal/terrorist would have an easy time circumventing these laws, yet they make America a police state, and we are reminded daily of our lost freedoms.

    The second ammendment will have its day, but you will likely be dead or in some internment camp making BULLETS, before you realize its purpose. If you understood the ammendment, you would be talking about DE-arming the criminal police state (nuclear bombs, ICBs, etc.), not whining about Americans exercising their constitutional rights.

  110. HommieDaKlown  February 27, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    Doug please paste the email with date a header information that you received from the NRA.

  111. Matt B  February 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Repeat after me.. The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting. Read up on your history.

    And since we’re fixing up some revisionist history here.. the NRA had nothing to do with Jim Zumbo.

  112. Scott  February 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Doug,

    So are you saying that ALL centerfire rifles should be banned from hunting?

    *********************************

    Again I’ll ask you to learn about an AR-15 that you are bashing, and explain the technical difference between it and your average semi-automatic hunting arm.

    *********************************

    The NRA didn’t deep-six Zumbo’s job. Pissed off gun owners expressed their opinion and sponsors pulled the show. Subsequently, with no sponsors the show was pulled.

    **********************************

    You’re not calling for thos weapons to be banned? Please. Not all of us are stupid. We can read between the lines. ******************************

    QUOTE: No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry. In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.

    *******************************

    No ban, just that AR-15′s have no legitimate need, and the owners are mostly paramilitary clowns with a propensity to perform terrorist acts and kill innocent people. There would be little difference if you said they should be banned. Maybe you should sit back and re-read your statement with an open mind.

  113. luecman  February 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    When will people realize that banning a certain type of gun will only lead to banning more types of guns. In the eyes of gun grabbers, once “assault rifles” are gone, all of your bolt action rifles will become “long range sniper rifles”. Todays shotguns will become tomorrows weapons of terror. I could clear a room a lot faster with a semi-automatic shotgun than a rifle.

    The second amendment has nothing to say about rifles for “sporting purposes”. Once any single type of gun is banned, the foundation of the second ammendment eroded, and will become further eroded with each new gun banned, until they just do away with it altogether for posterity.

    I own and hunt with “assault rifles”. My AR-15 delivers sub-MOA accuracy, and so does an M-1. They are both more accurate than most of my bolt guns. You also forget that “assault rifles are neither fully automatic, nor can they easily be converted to fire automatically. Anyone who has the skills to make convert a rifle to function in full-auto mode also has the skills to manufacture an AK-type rifle in their garage!!

  114. John Galt  February 27, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Quote:

    “# John Hanks Says:

    February 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Guns are Toys. The NRA is a protection scam based on nothing. The second amendment is misquoted.”

    You should read the Federalist Papers. If what you say is true, then there is no basis for the separation of church and state. Be careful about the precedence you are trying to set.

  115. Kaylee  February 27, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    “The second amendment is misquoted.”

    Oh? So tell me, what part of “the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE” says the government has a right to arm its soldiers? And further, whoever heard of a legal document (particularly one dealing with individual rights) being used to confer such a power?

    Anyone who says the Second Amendment ISN’T an individual right is either blind or lying.

    As to *your* article Mr. Thompson, you should be ashamed of yourself. So now we’re all racists (klavern? please!), “para-military wannabes,” and itching to blow up a daycare? Because we have rifles you don’t like?

    That kind of unfounded namecalling is beneath you, sir. Shame on you.

    -Kaylee

  116. The Truth  February 27, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    You need to be fired.

  117. Fred Sullivan  February 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    The Second Amendment isn’t about sporting guns or hunting.

    “The great object is, that every man be armed.” – Patrick Henry

    “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible. “- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

    “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe

    “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them” – Tench Coxe

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions.” – Samuel Adams

  118. Brian  February 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    “Recent events have caused me to Join the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. There is a Bill in the House Judiciary HR1022 that goes way too far. The 2nd Ammendment should not be disregarded. Every piece of Gun Control legislation will erode our rights. The Gun grabbers will not stop till we are like Great Briton and are completley un able to defend ourselves.

    It will start with Semi-autos and move on to Hunting Rifles which will be reffered to by the Brady Bunch as “Sniper Rifles”. We all need to stand together and Write our Representatives in congress and let them know how we feel.

  119. mitchshrader  February 27, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    No, you are mistaken entirely that it had a darn thing to do with the NRA.

    I also let my membership lapse due to their CONCERN FOR HUNTERS AND NOT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. They aren’t NEARLY rabid enough to suit me. I own NO AR’s and don’t intend to, and hope never to need one.. but the bans proposed by the antigun handwringing defectives that can’t read history have no limits.

    You, sir, are a coward.

    In sum, lacking all civic duty and responsibility and lacking any rights to claim your citizenship.

    And thank you ENTIRELY for relieving me of the responsibility of defending your rights.

    Mitch Shrader

  120. Jeff Hawkins  February 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    “Don’t look for nuances in what I write. Regular readers of my column known full well that I never, ever, mince words.”

    –Doug

    From your article,

    “In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.”

    You equate “assault rifle” owners with terrorists in a time when we are at war with terrorists. Don’t try and say you are for ownership of semi-automatic weapons with one breath and say that said owners are the equivalent of the enemies of this nation with another.

  121. TXLEWIS  February 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    I shoot ar’s because they are accurate.

    I’ll put my ar15 against ANY non benchrest hunting rifle you bring, out to 300 yds.

    I’ll put my ar-10T against ANY non benchrest rifle you want to shoot, out to 1000 yds.

    You have me email. Come to Texas, where we have a few nice 1000 yard ranges to choose from.

    BTW, the deer I have taken with my AR10T don’t care what kind of rifle the 168gr winchester ballistic silvertip bullet came from.

    TXL

  122. Kent Shaw  February 27, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    .

    Doug Thompson wrote: “God, what a bunch of crybabies screaming at the wind over nothing.”

    .

    I wouldn’t exactly call my trident submarine “nothing”. Geeeeez… ‘specially now that I find out I need a tax stamp for EACH MIRV… damn!

    .

    (grin, duck, run…)

    .

    sorry…

  123. 45-70  February 27, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    You’re precious pumps,o/u’s,and rifles will go to the scrap heap just like the semi’s if you don’t wake up.Banning semi’s for hunting is the first of many incremental restrictions that will be pushed.

  124. jack-booted thug  February 27, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    So you don’t condone guns that are inappropriate for killing animals. The problem here is that you are another elitist writer that is trying to sway others opinion. “God, what a bunch of crybabies screaming at the wind over nothing.” Don’t be mad at the populous that stood up and was heard causing your best friend Zumbo to be ostracized. You better make sure you have the opinion of everyone you represent or you will lose credibility. I enjoy shoot but I see no need to shoot animals.

  125. Roy Murtishaw  February 27, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    Doug,

    You can’t fix STUPID any more successfully than the gun goons can fix

    their damaged egos with specious reasoning or their assault weapons. When I suggested their attending to damaged body parts, I obviously left out their most critical crippled organ. Can we all spell B-R-A-I-N?

  126. Wayne Gilchrist, DVM  February 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    I am disgusted with the way some people are disregarding our constitution. Our Second Amendment rights are just that RIGHTS – they are not privileges like a driver’s license which can be taken way. I hunt with rifles, handguns and shotguns, I shoot in competitions with rifles and handguns and I truly enjoy all shooting sports. All of the people who are against guns – have you ever gone to a shooting range and had any experience with them or because you don’t like the looks of them you are against them?

    One gun is not more dangerous than another – it is the operator/handler of the firearm. Everyone purchasing a firearm LEGALLY in the United States needs to pass a background check.

    Many people die from motorcycle accident and from smoking cigarettes, shall we ban these too?!

    Any ban on legally owned and obtained firearms will give criminals and terrorists the upper hand. This FACT has been proven in other countries where bans on firearms exist.

    To add: YES, I am a member of the NRA and numerous other organizations; and, Mr. Zumbo, I am also a Traditionalist – I also enjoy shooting blackpowder firearms, the kind that we won our FREEDOM with from Britain!

  127. FortyFive Automatic  February 27, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Last time I was at a prairie dog hunt, the ONLY type of gun people were using was the AR-15.

    Once again, never mind what you have and have not personally seen. Pay attention to the facts. The NRA is against individuals who are in favor of legislation against all guns and those who legitimately own them.

    Zumbo was just such an individual. He didn’t realize how big the bull he was messing with really was, and he bit the hand that fed him, plain and simple. He got everything he deserved.

  128. Mark Thompson  February 27, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    You sir, are a hack and I place you in the same boat as Zumbo, and desire your fate to be the same! I have every much a right to own the AR-15, FNFAL, AK-74, AK-74, and every other military semi automatic I own, as you do your “sporting arms”. Guess what? I DONT hunt. Never have, never will. But I dont take potshots at what you call “sport” ie. the killing of wild game with a firearm. I would rather watch steel plates fly off their stands at 300-500M while using iron sighs, than plant a slug into a deer or other wild game. Thats my choice to make, not the governments, and certainly not yours. So, I’m a paramilitary wannabe, am I? I spent 4 years in the 10th 2/14 infantry, sir. Does that make me a “wannabe?” I also earned my CIB during that time. I enjoyed shoting then, I enjoy it now. I collect and shoot these firearms because it is my hobby, and I enjoy it.

    By the way… I TASK YOU… Name the “assault rifle” produced by remington, please.. Id like to know what this magic mystery rifle is, unless of course you mean the pump action non semi automatic rifle they make.

    In conclusion, you Sir, are yet another “Fudd” in a long line of those that have absolutely no understanding of the second ammendment. Its fine for you when they ban my semi auto AR or AK. But scream bloody murder when they tax your precious hunting ammuntion at .50 a round, or when the come knocking for your semi auto shotgun,then eventually your bolt action hunting rifle, which will be considered a “deadly sniper weapon”. Piece by piece…. They will take our rights, you are too simple to understand that taking my AR is the first step to taking your Winchester.

    You are no friend of any gun owner what so ever. You are simple pawn in the game of political correctness, the “ME” generation. As long as its not YOUR firearm they are after, you don’t care. You disgust me, and I hope you, along with zumbo get what you deserve.

  129. Beavis  February 27, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    You Fudds just don’t get it. Fine. Hang on your your shotguns and killer sniper rifles, they’ll come for them next. What a bunch of ignorant asshats.

  130. Tom Sargis  February 27, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    Amazing! I simply can NOT fathom the shallow, near sighted comments from fellow gun owners who defend what THEY like but consider an assault STYLED rifle bad, innapropriate or evil in some fashion. Do you actually believe that the anti-gun types will STOP when assault rifles are outlawed? You think the NRA is RADICAL?!? I assure you, I promise you, next will be your bolt action hunting (NO, sniper!!!) rifles. And then those horrible bird hunting/”clays” shotguns capable of MASS INJURY. Honestly, I hate to resort to name calling but people that think that way are surely idiots that can’t think past their respective noses. Sorry. I’m very sorry…………….

  131. John C. Garand  February 27, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Great, another Fudd who thinks that a hunting license and an online blog makes him an authority on firearms and constitutional law.

    Shut up and hunt.

  132. Mike  February 27, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    You ignorant rube. If you can’t see the writing on the wall, that first the non-PC guns will be taken, and then all others, there isn’t much hope for you. Are you really so oblivious to miss that this process has already taken place in the UK?

  133. qualityhardware  February 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Mr. Thompson,

    I don’t think people appreciate that to you, their ownership of a type of firearm equates them with the actions of Timothy McVeigh and/or the Ku Klux Klan.

    Because you own a scoped bolt-gun does not make you responsible for the death of Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., or the killings from the University of Texas Tower. It would be stupid to suggest that you, or anyone else who owns a bolt gun is an Oswald, Ray or Whitman just waiting to snap.

    Those comparisons are the refuge for people with weak arguments, short on fact, long on emotion.

    For what it’s worth, Jim Zumbo DID suggest that all AR15s should be banned after labeling owners of AR15s terrorists.

    Curious way to supoort the Second Amendment.

  134. Dave the Rave  February 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Gee, I just re-read the 2nd Amendment, and it didn’t mention hunting in there at all! Oh teh noes! Guess your argument holds about as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

    Just keep lobbying for “assault weapons” bans. Your ” scoped sniper rifles” are next, and I will help lobby to have them taken away, along with your “streetsweeper” shotguns.

  135. Steve  February 27, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    No Mr Thompson I understood your column perfectly. You, like Jim Zumbo, and Pat Wray is another hunter ignorant closed minded “hunter” who is more than willing to toss your fellow man under the brady bunch’s bus. I don’t hunt. I could care less if you go out murdering innocent animals. But keep your paws off my guns.

  136. J. Desselles  February 27, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Old Churmedgeon says: Those that think they can hold out and actually resist are seriously deficient when it comes to thinking sensibly – think about Ruby Ridge and Carl Drega. If the government decides to use those internment camps they’ve built out west there will be little an AK will do to stop them except precipitate executive action from the Jack-boot types. The only resistance plan that would work is if the majority of the people rise. But I don’t see that happening. We’ve grown to soft and comfortable. Maybe they’ll pray the problem away. Or just decide that the government knows what is best for us and just bend over. Personally, I think that if they insist on owning assault weapons they should volunteer. With the problems the military has indicated in getting cannon-fodder, I mean rercruits then they should take their “big guns” and go down to the recruiting station and sign up. With the lower entrance standards everyone of them should be qualified. But, that ain’t gonna happen, is it Bubba. That’d be putting your manhood on the line and talk is so much safer than action. And by the way, been there, done that – survived.

    For someone using a screen name you sure do spout off alot about what it takes to be a man. Also, refering to our troops as “cannon fodder”, what the f$%k? Yep, thats classy brother, real classy. I hope the day does not come too late that folks like you realize that the Second Amendment has so very little to do with hunting; and everything to do with freedom. If you do not agree with owning a military rifle, its you’re choice. Just dont tell me I dont have the right to. See, thats what freedom is all about.

  137. Stan  February 27, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Mr. Thompson,sits in an ivory tower and pronounces legal “EBR” owners as:clowns,paramilitary wannabes,wannabe killers of innocent men,women and children and gun nuts.He professes to be a protecter of the 2nd A. while at the same time he’s ignorant of the fact that his guns and ammo. are derived from such weapons in the past.The term *** HYPOCRITE*** comes to mind!

  138. MIKE  February 27, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Doug~

    Your Comments fall into the SAME Category as ZUMBO’S.. Your ignorance is not wasted on me..

    I work everyday to support my Family and Myself, and as a Constructive Member of society I have every right to own any LEGAL firearm I wish and will continue to do so.

    My Hobbie happens to Be Collecting and Shooting OLDER Military style firearms. So what, because of that you call me a “CLOWN”!!

    ________________________________________

    Quote~

    “Zumbo put into words what many hunters, me included, believe. I own enough weapons to start a small war but my collection does not include an assault weapon nor will one ever find a place in my gun safe. I don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer, squirrel, quail or turkey in the mountains around my home. No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry. In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children”. End Quote

    _____________________________________

    I have NEVER Committed a Crime, I don’t do Drugs, I belong to NO Paramilitary Group, I am NOT a Criminal, nor Gang Banger and I resent being Lumped into your ridiculous statement..

    I “CHOOSE” Not to Hunt, and When I do Hunt it is generally for Feral Hogs only.

    So what, I like shooting Paper and Steel Plates, I “ENJOY” Shooting in Matches and Challenging myself and my Firearms to increase my Skills and accuracy.. More than Anything I ENJOY shooting with my Sons. Funny they seem to enjoy these types of firearms as well, guess you would call them Criminals tool?

    It is Called “SHOOTING SPORTS” for a Reason and it is Great Fun (you should try it). I have met MANY Good people I would consider my Friends at some of these events, and NOT once was a Questionable comment Uttered about Killing Innocents.. That Statement is So FAR OFF BASE I am simply appalled by the fact that YOU said it.

    YOU have NO desire to SAVE the Second amendment, you just want to save your Elitist beliefs..

    The SECOND AMMENDMENT has Nothing to do with HUNTING, maybe “YOU” Should read it yourself before you go mouthing off with your Tripe.

    Lastly the NRA had NOTHING to do with my Opinion of ZUMBO’s Comments.. NOTHING at all Rest assured, I unlike you support Shooters of ALL Disciplines, and I would NEVER talk the SMACK you talk about those that prefer another sport over my Preferred discipline.

    In MY opinion YOU should suffer the very same Fate as ZUMBO for your Words are just as Traitorous..

    You will Notice I “DON’T mince my words Either, and I have No Column to protect…

  139. Zundfolge  February 27, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Doug Thompson said: “Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired? You see, the NRA still has me on their mailing list even though I quit their organization.”

    I call shenanagans. There was no such NRA alert email or any other alert email about Zumbo. Period.

  140. Justin  February 27, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    “Oh really? Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired?”

    .

    .

    Hi, Doug, would you mind reproducing the contents of that message, along with the email headers?

  141. Lee  February 27, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Doug, you are another blabbering Fudd. I have the constitutional right to own the firearm of my choice. Your right to hunt is not a constitutional one. I hope they ban your hobby before mine.

  142. John  February 27, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    “I don’t much care for assault-style rifles but I’ve always been a supporter of the Second Amendment and if people want to waste their money on them that’s their business and the government should not have any role in it.”

    Doug, waste their money? Again, your dislike of certain firearms based on their appearance, keeps coming though. It comes across to me, and many others, as though it would not bother you in the least for a new AWB to be passed. If that is not how you truly feel, then you need to rethink how you state your position. Especially since, as you said, you do not mince words.

  143. Paul Tapar  February 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    The miss-information starts with the first anti-gun commentor Mr. Nick Hammer.

    The NRA apposed the original bill to ban armor piercing ammo because it would have banned virtually ALL rifle ammunition.

    The NRA helped write a bill to ban very specific handgun armor piercing ammo only.

    By the way, NO OFFICER HAS EVER BEEN SHOT WITH SO CALLED “COP KILLER” BULLETS!

    The second ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or sporting firearms. It is to have every man be able to come to the aid of his country to orotect it from oppressors and tyrants.

  144. Greg Donovan  February 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    “Oh really? Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired?

    Hi, Doug, would you mind reproducing the contents of that message, along with the email headers?”

    Yeah, all of us NRA members want to know why we didn’t get one, too.

  145. Darcy  February 28, 2007 at 12:01 am

    Doug Thompson Says:

    February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    George Washington writes:

    First of all Zumbo wasn’t taken down by the NRA, in fact they had nothing to do with it. It was an effort at the grass roots level by American citizens who were offended by Zumbo’s definition of the ar-15 as a terrorist weapon.

    Oh really? Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired? You see, the NRA still has me on their mailing list even though I quit their organization.

    This was an orchestrated NRA effort made to look like a grassroots movement. I’ve watched them pull this stunt many times and it works because people are foolish enough to fall for it.

    Doug,

    First of all I take offense at being lumped in with terrorists because I own an AR15 and an AKM. I have never committed a terrorist act in my life and never plan to, but I guess I am already guilty of being one just because I own those 2 rifles.

    Second, I do not remember the Murrah Building being attacked by people with AR15′s or AK47′s. I think the guys that did it used a truck filled with explosives.

    Third, I have been a member of the NRA for a few years myself and in all that time I think I have received 15 or 20 emails from them and each time I do, it has to do with an upcoming election. I know for a fact that I did not get an email from the NRA on the Zumbo issue to this day. So could you please post a copy of the email you stated you received from the NRA concerning Zumbo, along with the date/time stamp on the email? Please, do not falsify the email as we can check with the NRA to see if it is a valid email.

    Fourth, I can see by your replies that you are unable to defend yourself in a logical, adult manner. You have started to act like a child, calling us names and making rude comments. You are acting like a truly weak-minded person. When you can no longer argue your point of view with facts, you resort to demeaning, personal attacks. Kind of like the libs on the left do.

    Finally, just to set the record straight, Zumbo got treated just like the Dixie Chicks did for their stupid comment about President Bush. Their record sales got hammered and they learned a very valuable lesson. Free speech goes both ways. Zumbo is free to have his opinions and he is free to say them where ever and how ever he wants. I am also free to say what I want, when I want, in a manner of my choosing. Jim stated his opinion and I stated mine. Jim referred to me as a terrorist because of the rifles I own and he stated that my legal property should be banned, which infringes on my God given rights as Guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. So I voice my opinion to Remington, Outdoor Life and a few other companies asking them to read Jim’s comments and let them know in no uncertain terms that if they kept supporting a man like him, then I would not support them.

    All in all it seems like a fair trade to me, his job or my freedom.

    I feel no guilt whatsoever, nor will I, about my actions in helping to send a message to Mr. Zumbo and people like you. I will do the same thing to anyone who tries to take away ANY of my Rights.

  146. Hillbilly  February 27, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Everyone is still missing the point in this discussion. I personally own over twenty guns and am a staunch supporter of the 2nd…but I quit NRA in 1986 and will never give another dime to their cause. This was and still is because of their politicial stance…not their message. In 1986 we had an US Congressman incumbent republician of six years who had always been a lobbist for huge corporations before being elected. The democrats had a good canidate with more values and more drive to protect the second than the incumbent ever imagined…but even with the urging of hundreds of NRA members of this Congressional District…the NRA still maxed out for the incumbent even though he had joined NRA at his first congressional run…oh, by the way the Democrat challanger had been a life time member for over ten years at the time and NRA ran their full blitz of advertising against him as if he were anti-gun. The NRA doesn’t represent a person’s position on guns…but rather their position on politics. I’m sure Doug can relate to this since he was so deeply entrenched in the party at that time. That’s the way it was then and nothing has changed. They control voters much in the same fashion as the far right controls the Christian sector. I am living truth that a person can be: 1)a gun owner…2) a christian…3) and a Democrat…so stick that in your pipe and smoke it…

  147. bakerjw  February 27, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    I do not hunt! I am also not some jack booted racist para-military goon.

    I do however own a number of the Evil Black Rifles. I do collect WWII rifles and pistols. I do go to the range regularly. And above all I believe that the 2nd amendment was to provision me with my right to defend myself against a tyrannical government.

    There is one thing you hunters need to open your eyes and see. The left wingers that want to ban the guns that I enjoy shooting are laying in bed right next to the animal rights anti hunting activists that would love nothing more than to see you “BAD EVIL” hunters lose your right to kill little innocent animals. They row the same boat friends.

  148. Curious  February 27, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    You speak out against consequences that you feel are extreme and unwarranted. Which makes me surprised that you would choose to use these seemingly “extreme” terms.

    “clowns”

    “wannabes”

    “like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City”

    “klavern” (KKK reference)

    “nuts”

    “blind idiots”

    “myopic fools”

    “whining fools”

    “crybabies”

    All in defense of someone who alluded to semi-automatic rifle owners being terrorists.

    You state that there is paranoia over a differing opinion, is your differing opinion just that anyone with a AR-15 or AK-47 is by your own statement a racist terrorist crybaby whining fool? Or is that your opinion of what the NRA stands for?

  149. Tyler Durden  February 27, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    All of your posturing and lying about what was said isn’t going to change the fact that the Brady crew want to eliminate private ownership of arms. There is a global trend toward disarmament and if you don’t put aside your self righteous attitude towards every other type of shooter and gun owner, there won’t be any of us left. I don’t complain and ask for legislation about your “evil, long range, high powered, baby killing sniper weapon” just because you’re ignorant and can’t hit paper at fifty yards. I don’t whine to the range master when your .45-70 or .300 win mag comes near to detaching my retinas from the muzzle blast even though you bitch and moan about me shooting too fast (gotta blame anything but your own marksmanship for the size of that group, right?). I don’t complain because I understand how vital to our society firearms are and I don’t want any gun or shooting discipline to go the way of the dodo. Nobody’s talking about changing game law and nobody’s forcing you to touch one of those icky plastic guns so jut come off it already.

  150. Jim  February 28, 2007 at 12:19 am

    Oh. Forgot something: for the guy who said his shotgun with birdshot is plenty for home defense – I disagree in one point: birdshot is a terrible defensive stopper. Makes a nasty flesh wound but it doesn’t penetrate enough to effectively stop a threat. (It also doesn’t penetrate walls very well, so in that sense it *is* good in the home.)

    FWIW, my under-the-bed defensive shotgun has 00 Buck. Far more effective against a drugged-up home invader.

  151. The Rabid One  February 27, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    The divisions within the firearms community is playing into the hands of Socialists and others who wish to disarm all of us, not just do away with the genera of “military style” firearms. It would be well advice for all 2nd Amendment supporters, especially those who believe it is ‘all about hunting’ to order the following book and read it.

    “The Second Amendment Primer”, by Les Adams. Published by Palladium Press. [and no I don't have a stake in the book sales]

    The book will show the purpose for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights, and also lays the philosophical foundations for the Right of Self Defense from tyrannical governments.

    If the “military style” firearms are banned you bet your sweet brass that your hunting arms will follow close behind. Already some politicians have referred to normal hunting rifles (with scopes) as ‘sniper rifles’. Only a fool will think they are immune from the anti-Liberty forces. Either a person supports the 2nd Amendment or not. It is all of it or none of it. The following quote should serve to sum up the 2nd Amendment.

    From the Pennsylvania Gazette

    (Philadelphia)

    (Tench Coxe, writing in support of the proposed

    Constitution, under the pseudonym

    “a Pennsylvanian”)

    The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia” Are they not our selves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [Emphasis in original] February 20, 1788

    ————————

    Molon Labe

  152. Jonah  February 28, 2007 at 1:10 am

    Ok listen to this, you don’t NEED to hunt, its a hobby, I don’t need an AK47 or AR15 its also a hobbie, and your no better than the gun control dems, when you try and decide what gun I use for what purpose See this is my country, this is my life this is my gun, freedom and the 2nd amendment means I can do what I want with what gun i want to do it with and when I want.. Let me tell you what toothpaste you have to use.. see ive never hurt ANYONE with any kind of gun yet you think you have the right to tell me when and where I cant use it? Move to china with that kind of attitude. See how it feels being told what you’ll do and when..

  153. Gerald Sutliff  February 28, 2007 at 12:19 am

    Dear Doug,

    You wrote, “On Feb. 16, Zumbo wrote on his blog on the Outdoor Life Web Site that he didn’t see any reason for hunters to need assault weapons.” The only reason to own (or to use) an assault weapon is when hunting persons who also have rifles and/or assault weapons. Just who are the NRA assault weapon owners expecting to hunt?

  154. Cosmoline  February 27, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    You say:

    “… the NRA and its klavern of gun nuts from coming down on him with guns blazing.”

    Did you bother to check this assertion? If you had you would have found that the NRA had NOTHING to do with the Zumbo fiasco. He posted his blog on the long weekend, and the reaction came from gun owners who got wind of it. The NRA didn’t even issue a response for several days, after the dust had settled.

    Whether you love the NRA or hate it, get your facts straight.

  155. hmfic  February 27, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    I agree that this firestorm over Zumbo has nothing to do with his calling for a ban from hunting with these types of rifles.

    Zumbo’s career suicide has everything to do with kicking the owners of such rifles in the teeth by equating their ownership and use or such rifles to the proclivities of terrorists.

    Speaking only for myself, I was offended by Zumbo’s unenlightened commentary because I am a veteran of the armed forces. At least in our own country, by most outdoors writers, we are not considered a generally terroristic group.

    Yet there was Zumbo, flying his freak flag in ignorance.

    At his advanced age and being a denizen of Wyoming, I find it incredulous that he didn’t know that the AR-15 series rifle, is *the* weapon of choice for varminting such prey as p-dogs. I know of no serious issue among ethical hunters regarding the merits of hunting “big game” with such rifles. In most states, the .223 Remington is already listed as inadequate to hunt such animals, and so, by proxy, the AR-15 is already banned from such use.

    It all comes back to the “terrorist rifles” quote of Zumbo’s. I cannot see any earthly reason why, with active fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, why any Marine or soldier would not want to stay proficient with a facsimilie of America’s current service rifle. If such practice entails the shooting of p-dog colonies, or other state authorized game, why question the practice in as outrageous a manner as Zumbo did?

    The NRA had nothing to do with dragging down Zumbo. The “netroots” gun websites such as AR15.com, thehighroad.org and thefiringline.com do not take their marching orders from Wayne LaPierre. In many ways the NRA has the same “legacy media” problem that many other organizations do. They are never in front of an issue unless the issue arises in more esoteric situations such as the courts or in Congress, where they stand a good chance of catching things early.

    On the internet, the NRA has been a non-factor and a johnny-come-lately, swooping in, as here, to take credit for a development they were merely chasing.

    What is sad about this blog is that its author foments an atmosphere that gives it no ability to rise above name calling and stereotyping in order to seriously discuss whether one has a right to corporate free speech in the clear from repercussions, or whehter firearms rights might be better served by a different approach that maintains the best of a militant unwillingness to compromise with foes combined with a savvier public relations approach for the consumption of the undecided.

    Oh well, continue to rant on about what a totally non-supporting supporter of gun rights you are.

  156. Alec Dawson  February 27, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    The word “hunting” does not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to recognize that the People have pre-existing right to defend themselves against tyranny.

    Hunters who are complacent about protecting this right will soon find their hunting rifles villainized as “high powered sniper rifles”. Rifles that are capable of hitting targets in excess of 1,000 yards with armor piercing capability.

    This is about supporting freedom. Mr. Zumbo deserves the infamy he has gotten and frankly so do you. You might as well join the VPC, Brady Campaign, and hang out with Senator Boxer.

    Having lived in California for many years, I know what the nation’s freedom loving people are up against. Every year they try and pass laws like ammo taxes, bullet serialization laws, microstamping laws, and general bans.

    Don’t let it happen to you.

  157. Cosmoline  February 27, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    “Oh really? Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired? ”

    I’m wondering how you got an email alert after you quit the NRA. Maybe you should reprint this with the date.

  158. Justin  February 27, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    John, I’m not a hunter, have never stalked game in the field, and don’t have a huge interest in it.

    .

    My interest in shooting is primarily competitive and defense-oriented, and I primarily shoot the sorts of firearms that Doug seems to disdain.

    .

    That said, I have no problem speaking up for his right to own a scoped bolt-action rifle, nor his ability to go afield for bird or beast.

    .

    I guess I don’t understand why someone who’s a member of one part of the shooting culture would cast such disdain on a separate sub-set on which he doesn’t know much about.

  159. eswanson  February 27, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    How is it that you’re a “staunch supporter of the Second Amendment” and somehow be laboring under the misconception that it guarantees your right to own a hunting rifle? Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers thought it necessary to amend the Constitution to protect your right to hunt? It’s not about hunting, and it’s not about hunting rifles. It’s about exactly the type of rifles that Zumbo derided as “terrorist rifles”. I suppose that makes me a terrorist a few times over, since I have them in my safe right next to the shotgun I use for pheasant hunting.

    Take a good hard look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and try to reconcile your “staunch support” with the fact that you don’t believe Americans should have military-style firearms because they’re not suitable for hunting. I don’t know what it is you support, but it’s sure not the Second Amendment.

  160. Stacy Nelson  February 27, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    It is truely sad that ignorant people, such as this author, are so bent on dividing the gun owners of this country. What most of these elite, confused idiots can’t get through their skulls is that most of the AR15s, are leaning next to a Remington or Marlin, in the same safe. Idiots! The gun grabbers want all three of those guns! But if they can only get the ones you don’t own now, with your help, they will wait until ours are gone, to come and get yours. If you folks can’t get it, we will have to either knock it into you, or throw you to the curb.

  161. NMA  February 27, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Zumbo and yourself just don’t get it; the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

    Please review the Constitution and Federalist Papers and tell us where hunting is mentioned.

    What is really wrong about all of this is that you equate ownership of an inanimate object to be the same as being a terrorist or “wannabe”.

    Please stop spouting ignorance, you are making yourself look like a fool to people who have studied the documents you are calling into question.

    - NMA

  162. TenRing  February 27, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    You Fudds sure are a bunch of short-sighted, simple-minded Asshats.

  163. A Freeman  February 27, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    —”Oh really? Then why did I get an email alert from the NRA headquarters on the day Zumbo’s blog post appeared? It urged me to write Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel and demand that Zumbo be fired? You see, the NRA still has me on their mailing list even though I quit their organization.”—___________

    Well now we know you are simply a liar, nice try though.

  164. elmer fudd  February 27, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    people fear what they dont understand, such as ar15′s as sporting rifles. nra sanctioned service rifle high power is my sport. anyone who claims the ar15 has no legitimate purpose clearly has no idea there is competative target shooting sports with a century old history going on in america today. the national match’s havebeen held at camp perry since 1903.

  165. RW  February 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    First they came for the Black rifles, then they came for the Brown Rifles, and then they came for?

    Thank God for the NRA, the GOA and the1 Jpfo.org

  166. Johnny  February 27, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Yet another columnist and hunter who does not get it. You are clearly not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have zero understanding what it means. Please find a single instance in the 2nd Amendment stating the purpose either hunting of sporting use.

    What you care to hunt with is your personal choice and I 100% support you in that choice. Should it be a crossbow, black powder or the latest Remington 700. However, you have zero right to attempt to limit what I decide to hunt with. My 2nd Amendment rights are not granted or governed by your limited opinion on aesthetic appeal.

    You would be better off educating yourself on weapons you have clearly zero understanding of or about. You would also be doing yourself a favor of familiarizing yourself with the 2nd Amendment.

  167. jim  February 27, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    It is wrong of hunters to sacrafice the guns of others to attempt to save their own. It is sad that they havent learned that once the freedoms have been trampled that will not be enough and more freedoms will need to be suspended and Hunting arms are next on the list. The second ammendment has nothing to do with Hunting It just so happens that you use guns to hunt with.

  168. AndyC  February 27, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Justin, you just don’t understand – old Doug there is “range qualified with both his Glock 19 and his Beretta 92″, so he must know what he’s talking about.

    *snigger*

  169. callgood  February 27, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Doug Thompson said-

    “Zumbo didn’t advocate banning the weapons.”

    Zumbo said-

    “As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.”

    Guess it depends on your use of the word. Le Affair Zumbo began over Presidents Day weekend. It was a child of the internet. The quote was daisy chained from gun board to gun board. The NRA was late to the “hunt.” They were criticized for their delay.

    In his apology, Zumbo blamed fatigue for his outburst-

    “I was hunting coyotes, and after the hunt was over and being beat up by 60 mph winds all day, I was discussing hunting with one of the young guides. I was tired and exhausted, and I should have gone to bed early. When the guide told me that there was a “huge” following of hunters who use AR 15′s and similar weapons to hunt prairies dogs, I was amazed. At that point I wrote the blog, and never thought it through.”

    If he had thought it through maybe he would have concluded, “Do you think a prairie dog really cares if he gets his .223 Remington from a Bushmaster Varmint Special as opposed to a Savage?”

    His quote was picked up by the gun grabbing portions of the media and other organizations, as we knew they would be. If Sarah Brady had made the remarks no one would have lifted their eyebrow. Coming from “one of our own” elicited an entirely different response, bolstered by the change in the political climate.

    There is a segment of the gun owning public that sets a high bar for what is “necessary.” Namely, their least expensive firearm. I’ve heard AR shooters make snide remarks about Cowboy Action Shooters. It cuts both ways. Only the people who haven’t read the Constitution, or who want to parse its meaning, or who don’t give a damn are unanimous in the outcome they desire. The rest of us had better mend fences, unite, and let bygones be bygones. Listen to the few honest gun grabbers who make their intentions known. No more talk of “divorce,” please.

  170. Mark W  February 27, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Zumbo was merely exercising his first ammentment rights. Luckily in America, we still have some freedom, including the freedom to do stupid things, like go outside with wet hair, eat Big Macs, or write inflamatory career ending blogs. After Zumbo exercised his right to free speech, an amazing thing happened. Thousands of other Americans exercised their rights to free speech too and informed Zumbo’s sponsors that they could not, in good conscience, continue to do business with entities that supported Zumbo’s point of view. Those entities then exercised their right of free association to discontinue their relationships with Zumbo. Zumbo did it to himself. He chose to call rifles owned by 10′s of thousands of law abiding Americans “terrorist” rifles. Like you, Zumbo claims to be a supporter of the 2nd ammendment. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

  171. Slyvester Putz  February 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Well, I never got the NRA email on Jim Zumbo either.

    Doug has been effectively trumped. He doesn’t mince words, he fabricates reality.

  172. Gary  February 28, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Your sensationalistic,fabricated type of journalism is not worth the paper it is printed on. Quit twisting the facts to suit your personal goals. It is all about the Second Amendment, a RIGHT that belongs to everyone of us. A RIGHT that is guaranteed to everyone of us. A RIGHT that will not be taken away from any of us. If you do not support the US Constitution then just say so. The Constitution will not be diluted.

  173. Matt  February 27, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    I agree whole heartedly on the Dough’s opinion of the NRA. However what other organization has the membership and ability to throw its weight around in DC?

    .

    As much as I agree on your first point, your mentioning of Mr. Zumbo and your opinions illustrate how ignorant you are in regards to the constitution.

    .

    Whether or not a 5.56 or .223 round is sufficient for hunting is irrelevant to the nature and meaning of the Second Amendment.

    .

    As Thomas Jefferson said:

    .

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    .

    .

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.” – George Washington, First President of the United States of America

  174. VPC  February 27, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    Yawn. Go back to bed Doug. No one cared about you before, and no one will care about you later.

    Your just another idiot proves that lies, ignorance and stupid opinions should not be given a forum.

  175. joe  February 27, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    I do not condone any segregation in the firearms community. If you firearm is used in the limits of the law then who cares what type it is or if you hunt with it or not. Besides if the anti gun people want to justify taking hunting firearms away too the can say that grocery stores are everywhere and there is no need for hunting. Beleive me when I say this: Hunting is a priveledge. The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting at all.

  176. Roy Hill  February 27, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    What you don’t seem to understand is that the NRA wasn’t the one orchestrating the “assault” upon Zumbo.

    You are either failing to see this fact, or you are just ignoring this fact in order to get your agenda and spin out.

    Zumbo had already been lambasted and fried into retirement BEFORE the NRA ever issued a statement.

    That’s what guys like you just cannot comprehend.

    This Zumbo affair is an example of the power of the internet-savy American gun owner, acting on their own, and getting their information from a whole host of gun-related chat and message board sites.

    The NRA didn’t make any statement at all about this whole mess until after Zumbo’s fish had been fried.

    And no, the NRA doesn’t support and maintain all these private internet chat sites, either.

    Get a clue.

    We’re out here. There’s millions of us.

    And we’re all aware and informed because of the Internet.

  177. Ed  February 27, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    Mr. Douglas:

    You have a lot of gall, accusing owners of legal, semi-automatic firearms of being the same ilk as those that blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma. You accuse them of being “para-military wannabes”.

    Yet, your hobby consists of going out and killing things for fun. Not necessity, entertainment. Does that mean that you are a bloodthirsty killer with no regard for life?

    Your words mark you as a hypocrite of the first order.

  178. Fuggit  February 27, 2007 at 11:49 pm

    “Don’t look for nuances in what I write. Regular readers of my column known full well that I never, ever, mince words.”

    –Doug

    You do realize that each subsequent post of yours shows that not only do you mince your words, your foot goes further into that hole under your nose.

    Obviously you’ve never varment hunted with an AR. There really isn’t a better platform for it. I control the hog population on my property in E. TX with nothing but the AR. I’ve never had one run over ten yards after being nailed by a well placed shot in .223.

    How many deer and other game animals have been wounded and never recovered by Fudd hunters that only practice two days before hunting season starts? Wounded by .243, .270, .30-.30, .30-.06, 7mm, .300 calibers, etc.etc.

    It would be fair to guess that quite a few AR owners spend more in ammo every year than what their rifle cost.

    At least most AR owners know what the SA is about. You obviously don’t have a clue. Just because you put some kittens in the oven, don’t make ‘em biscuits. And just because you say you do, doesn’t make it so. Your beliefs are transparent.

  179. Pamela  February 27, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    I am not a hunter, nor do I shoot for competition. I simply shoot because I enjoy it. You Sir are impinging on my persuit of happines simply beacuse my choice of weapon doesn’t fit your sense of “fashion”. I am appalled at the number of life-long hunters and gun owners that want to take away MY guns thinking your own will not be next.

    I for one will defend (and have been) your right to own what you choose… will you not do the same for me?

    I have joined the NRA because they are our best bet for defeating the new gun bans coming through… especially because we can no longer count on you and other like you, that just dont get it!

  180. Kevin Starrett  February 28, 2007 at 12:06 am

    When I started reading this article, I thought, “Well this makes sense.The NRA has always been more about making friends with politicians than protecting gun owners.”

    The I got to the author’s real point about attacking the only Constitutionally protected guns, and I thought…”what a moron.”

  181. Riverside  February 27, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Doug,

    You’ve been “Zumboed”. This is the RKBA equivalent of “Borked”. The worst is yet to come.

  182. Lord Thor  February 28, 2007 at 12:01 am

    Doug Thompson,

    It would seem that you are another traitor to the Constitution. Do you think I’m a terrorist too? I don’t hunt, but I do shoot. I think I’m a bigger patriot than you could ever dream to be. I’d like to know who in hell died and made you God, for you to say what I should or shouldn’t own. How many sniper rifles do you have in your collection, sir? In your ignorance, sir, you are condemning us all. You are trying to give us up as a sacrifice to keep your precious hunting rifles. Be warned, sir, that when they have taken us….they will most assuredly be coming for you.

  183. Dr. David Martyn  February 28, 2007 at 12:21 am

    “The overreaction by the gun community has forced Zumbo to step back from his principles and try to salvage his livelihood. He apologized for his remarks and has offered to go hunting with an assault weapon – a capitulation I find disturbing but not surprising given a need to make a living.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Zumbo’s principles? I suppose you could also say your elderly grandfather, who has a penchant for drinking and driving, has “principles” that you wouldn’t dare question. Would you take away his keys, or give him gas money and a bottle of Jack Daniels? Apparently, you would do the latter.

    I personally stay away from hunters because I have found they tend to drink while handling guns. I would much rather be around a sober “clown” than a drunk hunter stumbling around with a 12 gauge shotgun. You and Cheney would get along swimmingly, assuming you weren’t both dead from poor firearms handling by the end of the hunt.

    As far as your statement insinuating that owners of military style firearms are the same type of people as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols…

    As an Oklahoman who was in downtown OKC on the day of the bombing, all I can say, without having my post removed, is that I hope your writing career suffers the same fate as Zumbo’s.

    You are a hack unworthy to write on the bottom of my shoe.

  184. Steve-kbi  February 28, 2007 at 12:23 am

    So a AR15 in .308 or .458 with a 5rd mag isnt acceptable for hunting but the cartridge’s are ? How long before the anti’s find your Remington 700′s and 870′s unacceptable and label them high powered sniper rifle’s and combat shotgun’s and want them banned? I use my so called military style rifle’s for recreational shooting , competition , introducing new shooter’s to the sport who would otherwise find a bolt gun or shotgun uncomfortable and I also use mine for home defense (can you use your 700 against multiple intruder’s and do you think the 2nd amendment was just about you hunter’s and taking a buck or elk once a year? Open your eye’s they want all our weapon’s and the go after the one’s that look the most menacing 1st.

    Now excuse me why I go apply for a few tax stamp while I can.

  185. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 12:27 am

    Jim writes:

    Doug. I’m not sure how many of these replies you’re reading, but here’s mine, for whatever it’s worth.

    I read Jim Zumbo’s original column, and his retraction/apology. Both linked from a friend. I have no problem forgiving someone for a heartfelt apology because, well, everyone screws up sometimes.

    I realize Zumbo didn’t call for a BAN on black semi-autos, just on their use in hunting. Similarly, you didn’t call for a BAN on black semi-autos, you merely called their users “clowns” and compared them to Timothy McVeigh.

    I’m surprised you are shocked at the subsequent reaction by people posting comments here.

    The problem is not necessarily the fact that gun owners disagree from time to time. The problem is that your comments, and those of Zumbo, can be taken out of context and used by Sarah Brady and her ilk. “This long-time gun owner thinks AR-15 owners are clowns.” Etc.

    Jim, your thoughts are appreciated. I have been reading all the comments as well as having to edit out comments by people claiming to be Sarah Brady and two comments posted by people claiming to be me (the IPs have now been blocked).

    I did not mean to imply that all owners or users of ARs or other assault-style weapons were clowns or para-military types on the level of Timothy McVeigh. I meant to say that I have run across too many of them who are but I realize the comment was taken too literally and have edited it.

    However, I am concerned about the sudden and shabby treatment of Jim because of a single opinion written after a long day of hunting and one that he now admits may have been poorly thought out. Jim has a long and distinguished record of service to outdoors enthusiasts and hunters and to be treated this way because of one blog post after so many years of excellent work is, in my opinion, a gross overreaction and unduly harsh treatment of a fellow gun enthusiast.

    The original point in the column was the NRA’s hypocritical support of Tom DeLay and George Allen — a issue not mentioned in the 170 plus responses to the column so far. Don’t any of the NRA members here find it disgusting that their organization continued to support an ethically-challenged Congressman like DeLay or a racist Senator like Allen, particularly when Allen was running against an NRA member who not only supported their causes but even has a concealed carry permit in Virginia?

    That was the issue that seems to have been lost here in all the uproar over whether or not Jim or I want to ban assault rifles. We do not but the reaction to what we wrote shows there is never, ever, any room for debate in the gun argument. That, in itself, is a bad sign.

    –Doug

  186. jwp  February 28, 2007 at 12:28 am

    good that you left the nra, you sir are a FUDD – you say you care about 2A but you diss those that support it the most – i’m a 40+ year member of the nra and don’t always like what they say or do – but your trashing of my right to own LEGAL firearms is the reason for this post

    your position only helps the anti gunners and as you could see your wood/steel firearms are on the vpc proscribed list [evil sniper weapons/22s/30-30s, etc] so you are in the pot with us even though you think you may be protected because you bought into the “hunting” excuse

    guess what FUDD your firearms are gonna be collected as fast as the “evil black rifles” and your position helps the antigunners just like zumbo’s did

    jim has recognized the error of his ways and started learning about ar15s, etc

    be advised i’ll help continue to haunt your FUDD words until you understand that we are united against antigunners or disarmed – you sir are calling for disarmament and that is a bad thing – you too can be zumbozoed

  187. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 12:29 am

    FYI to all:

    A post appeared earlier in this thread from someone claiming to be me and claiming to have received an email from the NRA. I did not make the post and it has been removed. If I had received such an email that fact would have been included in the column. I have also removed two posts from phonies claiming to be Sarah Brady and one claiming to be Charlton Heston.

    –Doug

  188. Bill Smith  February 28, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Just so everyone knows it, the posts that appear here are selectively edited (and not for vulgarity, either) or not posted at all so as not to stack the deck too heavily against the author. Typical liberal tactic.

  189. Louie  February 28, 2007 at 12:38 am

    Wow!

    Doug, You really are clueless bastard.

    You, Zumbo, and Pat Wray must all share the same mother. Not one of you has a clue what you are talking about, let alone the 2nd Amendment.

    I am not a “Terrorist’ nor am I a jack-booted thug. (For jack-booted thugs, please see Mayor Bloomberg, NYC.)

    I strongly suggest that you set aside the crack pipe, abstain from the Jack Daniels, and open the garage door when you start your car.

    Better yet, do not operate a motor vehicle, it is quite obvious that you are dillusional.

  190. MD  February 28, 2007 at 12:39 am

    Mr Thompson, I do not own any “Assault Style” firearms, but personally I don’t really care if others do. I am not a member of the NRA nor am I a member of the KKK or any other such group.

    If you received an email from the NRA, post it here to show everyone, its pretty simple, even the “myopic idiot” writing this can cut and paste an email with date a header information into a text box.

    MD

  191. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 12:39 am

    Bill Smiths says:

    Just so everyone knows it, the posts that appear here are selectively edited (and not for vulgarity, either) or not posted at all so as not to stack the deck too heavily against the author. Typical liberal tactic.

    Bill, we do not edit posts. Entries from first time posters are moderated to verify email addresses and we sometimes delete posts if we know they are fake (as we did with posts from phonies who claimed to be me, Sarah Brady and Charlton Heston). If you posted a response to those fake posts, the response was also deleted. I think you will find that the vast majority of posts on this thread are less than thrilled with what I wrote. Kinda blows a hole in your theory.

    –Doug

  192. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 12:42 am

    MD says:

    Mr Thompson, I do not own any “Assault Style” firearms, but personally I don’t really care if others do. I am not a member of the NRA nor am I a member of the KKK or any other such group.

    If you received an email from the NRA, post it here to show everyone, its pretty simple, even the “myopic idiot” writing this can cut and paste an email with date a header information into a text box.

    I made no such claim but someone claiming to be me did. I suggest you read posts 180 and 182.

    –Doug

  193. Scott D Elliott  February 28, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Ok Doug,im gonna put my 2 cents in. I’m a 38 year old, married father of 4. I used to hunt because we were made to, growing up. Never really cared for it though so I quit doing it. I do love to shoot though and after handling a Bushmaster at Cabelas I took the plunge and purchased one. I bought it not only to target shoot with but also as my weapon of choice if any number of scenarios happen to hit my area.(Flooding, riots, dirty bomb)I am not a paranoid person, but all you have to do is turn on the news to see what could happen (9/11, Katrina, L.A riots.)So when a well known sportsman calls my weapon a “terrorrist weapon”, myself and alot of other gun owners are gonna be offended and rightfully so. As far as him losing his sponsors, what do you think would happen if any celebrity who is payed to endorse a product would publicly state that they prefer a different product than the one they are paid for. They would be dropped of course, it busines. As far as your attitude goes you state that your not against “assault weapons”, but than post this garbage

    “In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children”.

    I cant tell you how many times ive been muzzle swept at the firing line by hunters, but me and the group I shoot with are very safety minded. Another zinger by you.

    “If some of you want to feel macho with your plastic toys, be my guest”. You honestly dont think this reeks of disdain for our rifles?

    I dont have my rifle to feel macho, I have it for the safety of myself, my wife and kids and those around me if needed. If you dont think that once the anti-gunners get rid of the “assault rifles” they wont come after yours, remember this. When John Kerry was trying to appeal to the hunters he did a photo-op with him holding a gun, whats ironic is it was one that would have been banned if the AWB would have been reinstated. Finally, ive only been with the NRA for 3 years now. How many years do I need till they start e-mailing me to try to get people fired as I didnt get that e-mail.

  194. Jim  February 28, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Doug, I don’t disagree that some debate is good on nearly any issue. I also don’t think that someone should be totally ostrisized (sp? No spell-checker in IE) over one comment. I’m willing to forgive people on a certain issue – once.

    The problem remains twofold as I see it:

    1) Your headline is, well, a headline. The majority of people will not scroll down here where you moderate your comments some.

    2) In such a polarized issue as this, people will have a tendancy to jump at any perceived scism in a group. I don’t have a problem with a deer hunter thinking AR-15s are silly and that bolt-action iron-sighted 30.06s are the cat’s meow. I don’t have a problem with a .22LR plinker thinking that centerfire weapons are over-priced and excessively loud. I don’t have a problem with a black-powder Civil War reenactment guru thinking that brass-cartridge smokeless powder Nostler bullet rounds are some kind of new-fangled hocus-pocus. I don’t have a problem with an IPSC enthusiast teaching his 8 year-old how to shoot his target pistol (as long as it’s done with a heavy emphasis on safety.)

    I *do* have a problem with those people loudly and vocally denouncing the others in a very public forum.

    I appreciate that you have trouble supporting the NRA when they support individuals you feel to be unworthy. But the NRA is the GUN LOBBY. Their job (well, the PAC anyway) is to support politicians who are against gun control, regardless of their stance on other issues.

    Similarly, a pro-choice PAC will support pro-choice politicians regardless of their stances on other issues.

    Maybe I should start a “Strict Constructionist PAC” and support politicians who endorse and try to emulate the beliefs and ideals of our Founding Fathers.

    Hm. Maybe I SHOULD. :)

    Jim

  195. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 12:57 am

    Jim writes:

    I appreciate that you have trouble supporting the NRA when they support individuals you feel to be unworthy. But the NRA is the GUN LOBBY. Their job (well, the PAC anyway) is to support politicians who are against gun control, regardless of their stance on other issues.

    Point taken, but why did the NRA support Allen over an opponent who did not suffer the stigma of racism and who was as pro-gun as the incumbent?

    –Doug

  196. BOB WHITEENMORE  February 28, 2007 at 12:58 am

    you sir are a tool for the brady campain.of the i have guns but those dirt encrusted commoners should be disarmed.say hi to rosie o’donnald.fienstien ted kennedy et. al. at your next limosine liberal social engineering meeting.

  197. The NRA baby!  February 28, 2007 at 1:00 am

    Quote: By DOUG THOMPSON

    “He apologized for his remarks and has offered to go hunting with an assault weapon – a capitulation I find disturbing but not surprising given a need to make a living.”

    Reply:

    “Yep, just like John Kerry’s photo opp’s with that old’ hunting shotgun – a capitulation I find disturbing but not surprising given a need to make a living.”

    Mr. Thompson, where I come from that’s known as the pot calling the kettle black.

    First they came for the Black rifles, then they came for the Brown Rifles, and then they came for???

    Thank God for the NRA, the GOA and the JPFO.

  198. hmfic  February 28, 2007 at 1:00 am

    I’ll take up your challenge on DeLay and Allen.

    As far as DeLay is concerned, he had earned his spurs and deserved some slack from the NRA. It’s still innocent until proven guilty except for enemy combatants right?

    For Allen, he was only “allegedly racist.” As soon as you can definitively define the non-word “macaca” means let us all know. I believe the ex-Senator meant to call his mild tormentor a “macaque,” but nevertheless, Allen remained on the ballot. In cases where there are two NRA members in the same race, the incumbent will be the endorsee.

    That holds true even of the rare pro-NRA Democratic Party incumbent. Rep. John Dingell will continue to earn the NRA endorsement against even a theoretical challenger who could “outcredential” him on gun rights. If the NRA and Senator Webb come to grips with one another, I am sure Webb could earn the endorsement going forward if he doesn’t vote to enable the agenda of the Kennedy-Schumer-Feinstein troika of gun controllers.

    I love that we are supposed to feign outrage that our “side” supports its allies through thick and thin and we are supposed to ignore that Rep. Willia Jefferson still stalks the halls of power and has committee assignments for no discernable reason.

  199. Kaylee  February 28, 2007 at 1:13 am

    Gosh.

    Sure sucks to get called out on the alleged email, doesn’t it? Especially since (thanks guys!) they archive their alerts on their website.

    http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/Read.aspx?ID=379

    I’d wondered why I never saw it in my email box.

    So.. you were a longtime NRA member before quitting in disgust, eh?

    So how about tracking down your membership number? C’mon Mr. Thompson, if you were a member for all those years, you must have an old extra card or mailing lying around. So how about laying that sucker on the ol’ scanner?

    Or is that a lie to?

    -K

  200. Dr. David Martyn  February 28, 2007 at 1:16 am

    Doug wrote: “I did not mean to imply that all owners or users of ARs or other assault-style weapons were clowns or para-military types on the level of Timothy McVeigh. I meant to say that I have run across too many of them who are but I realize the comment was taken too literally and have edited it.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Excuse me? You didn’t mean it, but you wrote it? You meant it at one point in time. Then when you were called on your negligence you edited it. That ranks with one of the worst trait in journalism. The fact that you have editorial rights on the comments also says something about your journalistic ethics. I’m wondering why I am even posting here. If you don’t like the comments you will simply edite them out.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Doug Wrote: ….a gross overreaction and unduly harsh treatment of a fellow gun enthusiast.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Zumbo is not a gun enthusiast, he is a hunting enthusiast. I am sure bow hunters across the world can tell the difference.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Doug wrote: “The original point in the column was the NRA’s hypocritical support of Tom DeLay and George Allen — a issue not mentioned in the 170 plus responses to the column so far.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Because Democrat, card carrying, A+ rated, NRA members have chosen to turn their backs on our Second Amendment rights in the past. The Democrats endorsed convicted drug addict Marion Barry and KKK member Senator Robert Byrd. Are you saying the NRA shouldn’t support folks merely accused of impropriety, or those actually convicted? To put this in “hunter speak” for your understanding, tis better to have to have a bird in the hand than two in the bush.

  201. Hal Brown  February 28, 2007 at 1:26 am

    I get as frustrated as Doug when someone jumps all over something I write without having seemed to have read it carefully.

    .

    My reading of Doug’s column was that he emphasized two points for his quiting the NRA. The major one seems to be this:

    .

    “NRA’s support of both men (crooked Congressman Tom DeLay and racist Senator George Allen) showed me the organization cared more about protecting elected officials they had in the bag than about morality, ethics or doing the right thing.”

    .

    The second one had to do with the NRA’s treatment of Jim Zumbo because of his position on using AR-15′s for hunting, and can be summarrized in Doug’s comment as follows:.

    .

    “The NRA cited Zumbo as a warning to anyone – including “fellow gun owners” – that opposing them publicly can be dangerous. LaPierre, in typical arrogant fashion, warned Congress to “take note” of what happened to Zumbo as an example of the consequences of crossing the gun lobby.”

    .

    My goodness, what tangents of disrespect and misintepretation a few posters went on from there.

    .

    Americans have Constitutional right to own guns and frankly I really don’t think gun owners need the NRA to portect it. And yes, I am a gun owner but not an afficinado. I one one snub-nosed revolver, have a CCW, and it is only for personal protection.

    .

    Some may go ballistic (pun intended) with that comment. But the 2nd amendment is very clear. I think the NRA exists to perpetrate itself and (I bet) its higly paid executives.

    .

    I think it is nothing but a fantasy that it is the NRA that stands between us and government agents kicking in our doors to confiscate our guns. The NRA does everything it can to maintain this paranoia.

    .

    If you want to be worried about government taking away your liberties, take a look at their snooping on your private life and the new plan to require a national drivers license.

  202. Robert S.  February 28, 2007 at 1:33 am

    You are mistaken. I am an owner of firearms of many types including hunting,target and tactical. I find the fact that you would lump me in with the Oklahoma city bombers deplorable and offensive. The firearms I own are tools to be used for a specific purpose. Having the best tools for the defense of my family is,I feel,my duty as a man, husband and father. The fact that I have training in their use,I feel makes me more responsible not less. I am not some kind of wannabe commando. I am a homeowner and a responsible citizen with no criminal background. Nor do I have any militant anti- government tenancies.

    I am just exercising my rights as my forefathers intended. If they intended otherwise I do not believe they would have made the 2nd amendment without exclusion of military type arms. The bill of RIGHTS is not to be interpreted as the modern government sees fit. It should be interpreted in the language of the times it was written in.

  203. shooter94  February 28, 2007 at 1:40 am

    Zumbo didn’t advocate banning the weapons. He simply said real hunters don’t have any need for one and suggested states not allow them to be used for hunting. But that didn’t stop the NRA and its members from coming down on him with guns blazing. Assault gun owners, and the companies that make them, demanded Zumbo be fired from Outdoor Life and the Outdoor Channel. The cable channel suspended his show, he resigned from Outdoor Life after 6,000 readers sent in email demanding he be fired and Remington Arms Company, which makes assault rifles, severed its sponsorship of his program and activities.

    ———–

    You Sir, are deluded and myoptic into thinking you’ll not be affected by the extreme left at the DNC. The DNC caters to not only the Brady bunch, but PETA as well. Here in California, hunting of Cougars has been outlawed. People in metropolitan areas are now directly affected by the cats due to overpopulation.

    Here in southern California where I reside, hunters are looked at with disgust and revulsion. Gunowners are looked at in the same light as Charles Manson.

    Does it really matter to you to hang on to your superiority as a hunter over the owner of a semi-auto military copy of a service rifle? Your arrogance astounds me…disgusts me.

    You stated you threw away your membership to the National Rifleman Association, yet they still fight for your rights.

    The American Socialist party AKA the DNC has taken Congress and the Senate. The only political party that cares about you have been pushed aside…and will most likely loose the Executive next term.

    When the DNC comes down with a ban on bolt action rifles with scopes (Sniper weapon systems) will your sense of smug superiority save you and your privilage to hunt?

    BTW…Zumbo did state the wepons should be banned.

  204. DK Wilkins  February 28, 2007 at 1:44 am

    It’s sad really…. your opening sentence “I’m a longtime gun-owner, a lifelong hunter and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment that protects the right of Americans to own and bear arms.” yet you don’t seem to understand that the second amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting or “sporting” rifles. I could wax eloquent on the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this but it’s my considered opinion that you wouldn’t listen (or learn).

    I own these types of firearms that you seem to dislike so, and I also own many of the types you probably have in your gun cabinet. I choose not to hunt but I will not decry your decision to do so nor your chosen type of firearm to do it with. I will say that I am a law abiding citizen exercising my rights and I will not be made to feel ashamed of the type of rifles, pistols, or shotguns I own and enjoy.

    What happened regarding your good friend Zumbo had nothing to do with the NRA, but was a grass-roots response of people just like me who are tired of being scorned for the type of rifles we legally and lawfully enjoy. And I’m no NRA apologist; as far as I’m concerned the NRA hasn’t done ENOUGH to help protect the rights of those who enjoy these particular firearms that you so disdain.

    For the record, it wasn’t Wayne LaPierre who coined the phrase “jack-booted thugs” to describe Federal Agents, it was Democrat Representative John Dingell, but I wouldn’t assume you’d know that as you don’t seem to be to well informed.

    You sir, are an elitist snob, looking down your nose at those of us that don’t conform to your idea of “proper” gunowners. I sincerely hope you change your opinion or I fear you will suffer the same fate as “Zumbo”.

  205. English Mike  February 28, 2007 at 1:47 am

    “No real hunter has a legitimate need for such weaponry. In fact, most of the clowns I’ve seen waving assault-style weapons around are para-military wannabes — just like the ones who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed innocent men, women and children.”

    Sir

    The 2nd Amendment was NOT written in order to protect your hunting rifle; it was enshrined in the Constitution in order that citizens had the means to protect themselves from those who wished them harm.

    The firearms available for this use today ARE NOT “assault weapons”(a name coined by those who would see ALL firearms removed from citizens’ hands), nor are they “assault rifles (a firearm capable of selective fire).

    The AR15′s, AK’s, FAL’s, etc. that you denigrate are no different in function from many semi automatic rifles used by hunters, yet you condemn their owners for the cosmetic appearance of their rifle.

    Like Jim Zumbo, you obviously have little knowledge of these firearms & even less of those who own them.

    You Sir, are a disgrace to the great Nation in which you reside & the freedoms granted by its Constitution.

    Mike Sterland – Disarmed Englishman

  206. Stoney Browning  February 28, 2007 at 1:56 am

    Sorry, Doug! Gotta call you on this one! Well- call you half-way!

    I too own firearms, I own an SKS CARBINE it is indeed a CARBINE having NEVER been designed to be selective-fire, or even modifiable to be selective-fire! (Oh don’t go every body go flying into a rage with the old “drop in seer” scenario! Anyone who has little enough sense to even consider that to be selective-fire knows nothing about firearms!) Yet it was lumped into the “assault weapons” bin right along with the M-1 carbine which likewise is not now, or ever has been an assault rifle!

    Basicly what I’m trying to say is it doesn’t matter if you have an AR-15, or Grandpa’s single shot bolt action. That’s YOUR business! The second amendment says what it says, and you either support it, or you don’t! I happen to own a .44 magnum, and .357 magnum, and a riot-style pump shotgun. Squirells, and deer don’t break into my house and threaten my family! When one does, I know what to do!

    As far as the NRA goes: Yea! They are a bunch of knuckle-dragging nut-jobs! But even a blind dog gets a bone sometimes! They are right to protect ALL gun owners, but not at the expence of a good man’s livelyhood just to get their point across! But when you hang out with Republicans long enough, The “All or nothing” mindset kinda rubs off on you!

    Thank God I don’t hang out with Republicans

  207. Stan  February 28, 2007 at 4:19 am

    The only “bad sign” as you put, is people like you wanting to demonize anybody that doesn’t think the way you do.People like you and Zumbo think you can express your 1st A. rights with no rebuttle.Now you both have to hear our 1st A. response and you say you don’t like it,tough break but that’s the way it is.I suggest you study up on both the 1st and 2nd as well as a little firearms development history before you go off and write any more of this sort of tripe in the future.

  208. MME  February 28, 2007 at 2:03 am

    You know, you really ought to show us, by quitting hunting and selling off your entire gun collection. It will truly break my heart, if you are no longer one of the freedom loving Patriots, who answered the criticism by Dumbo, rather than ignore it. As much as I love Ted Nugent, I am not going to forget what Dumbo said, simply because he wants to go hunting with an AR. Now, I for one, am wondering why you have so many guns. In your words, you stated you have enough guns to start a small war. Are you going to start a small war? Are you psychotic? Perhaps we should be worried that you are going to assault a school in a fit of anger. There are some gun owners out there that think you are a bit of a zealot, for having so many guns. You can do all your hunting with a .300 Win Mag and a .22 LR. The Brady Bunch has already started calling your bolt action hunting rifle, a terrorist sniper rifle, which can bring down and entire airport of planes and Superman in a single round. Soon, Mr. Fudd, you are going to be the one on the defensive.

    Now, what you need to do is take a step back and see this backlash for what it really is. We lost some rights during the Clinton administration, that we were lucky to get back. We dont want to lose them again, because next time, we wont be getting them back. People are on their guard now, waiting for the next incident, which will be coming soon. I am happy there was this much response over Dumbo’s comments. It means people are finally getting off their collective tushies and taking action. I am tickled in a way I cant even describe…

  209. Mike  February 28, 2007 at 2:05 am

    I’ll just touch on a couple of things:

    Doug, if I believed the reasons you gave for dropping your NRA membership I’d hope your significant other reaches the level of perfection you expect from that organization.

    Hal, for this comment “I think it is nothing but a fantasy that it is the NRA that stands between us and government agents kicking in our doors to confiscate our guns” I have to say you’re either not really a gun owner (this IS the internet) or you’re incapable of rational thought. Have a nice day.

  210. AndyC  February 28, 2007 at 2:12 am

    I get Doug’s point about the politicians – problem is, what’s the alternative? I mean, who can find an honest politician anywhere anyway? ;)

    Stoney Browning – the NRA didn’t have anything to do with my decision to jump all over Zumbo, I assure you. Did you happen get an email the rest of us didn’t? ;)

  211. kevin  February 28, 2007 at 2:17 am

    You are no supporter of the 2nd Amendment. To say so only makes you appear even more disengenuous than you already are.

    It’s going to be a mighty interesting war.

  212. John D  February 28, 2007 at 2:38 am

    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. I’ve hunted my whole life and also own those so called evil black rifles that people mistakingly call assault rifles. With that said, the second I lose my second amendment right to own Ar15′s, ect…. then I’m going to quit hunting and do everything I can to also get hunting banned and every hunting/sniper rifle banned. Those of you that can’t see that the military sniper rifle is just a accurized hunting rifle need to educate yourselves on firearms. Hopefully hunters, black rifle owners, and all firearm owners can read, comprehend, and understand the second amendment and fight together, otherwise we’ll just have a civil war amongst ourselves and all firearms will be banned, and all hunting will be banned.

  213. Ben  February 28, 2007 at 2:39 am

    To: Stoney Browning.

    Hey Stoney, The Republicans are the only Party out there that have NOT promoted Anti-Second Amendment legislation.

    Of course, you can also count the Libertarians, but hey, WTF good are they?

    Stoney, you are an asshole! Damned Redneck Beeeotch.

  214. Michael B.  February 28, 2007 at 4:27 am

    Hey DOUG THOMPSON, I don’t hunt, I punch holes in paper. After they come for my “evil” black guns, I’m gonna join them when they come after yours brother… We all stand together or we all swing together…

  215. Darwin Holmstrom  February 28, 2007 at 2:43 am

    I used to read Capitol Hill Blue everyday in the months leading up to last November’s election, until I read a blatant anti-gun rant and I realized that I could not work with people who hold such irrational attitudes, even though we had similar goals regarding ending the war in Iraq. I have not visited the site since, until today, when I was alerted to Mr. Thompson’s ill-conceived column.

    I have two primary issues with this column. First, an assault weapons ban is completely illogical because it targets guns based on cosmetic features. To outlaw such guns because their looks scare those among us with weak constitutions is about as effective in stopping crime as returning your seatback to the upright position is effective in helping to survive a fiery airplane crash.

    These expensive guns are primarily bought by law-abiding hunters, competitive target shooters, and weapons collectors. Their use in criminal activity is statistically insignificant number of crimes because they are expensive and hard to obtain.

    My other issue is the fallacious thesis that the NRA is responsible for the downfall of Mr. Zumbo. I am not a member of the NRA (though I now plan to join to help counter the influence of people like Mr. Thompson). Like tens of thousands of other concerned sporstmen and firearms enthusiasts, I sent perhaps 20 emails to Mr. Zumbo’s employers and sponsors before the NRA even issued a statement on the situation. This was a true grass-roots, organic expression of political will. Your assertation that we were manipulated by the NRA is as offensive as it is ludicrous. Quite the opposite ocurred: we, the people, manipulated the NRA into action.

  216. walt  February 28, 2007 at 2:45 am

    To stop and settle the debates on different types of firearms just support HR 1096 and pray it passes.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1096

  217. FlyingPortagee  February 28, 2007 at 2:49 am

    The NRA had nothing to do with my decision to Jump on Zumbo either. I’m not a member. It’s funny how someone could think this is some type of scheme by the NRA rather than a bunch of Gun Owners who were honestly and rightfully pissed off by his comments.

  218. Bob  February 28, 2007 at 2:57 am

    As other people have said the 2nd is not about hunting………I own a few assualt rifles as well as several hunting arms. We as gun owners have to look out for ALL gun owners. After they take the assualt rifle, handguns and various other UGLY guns, they will come after your Remington Model 700 BDL…..Sniper Rifle, then who will speak for you? Wake up and look at reality. They want ALL guns, one way or the other and you are helping them!!!!

  219. RO N  February 28, 2007 at 3:15 am

    The NRA is Far Right and Christian? In whose exaggerated, ignorant dreams? They don’t go far enough to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, which have nothing to do w/ hunting.

    As far as Zumbo, I’m used to being called a union thug but draw the line at being called a terrorist. He got at least what he deserved.

  220. Backstop  February 28, 2007 at 3:15 am

    Doug, you’re an idiot.

    The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable.

    You most certainly are not a “staunch supporter of the Second Amendment that protects the right of Americans to own and bear arms.”

    Zumbo got what he deserved; do you write for a nationally circulated periodical?.

  221. From So Cal  February 28, 2007 at 3:24 am

    If you can’t understand the divide and conquer tactics of the anti-gunners then you are as much an idiot as Jim Zumbo. The RKBA is not about hunting you old fool, where in the world did you get such any idea?

  222. sett  February 28, 2007 at 3:25 am

    I feel that this article deserves a reply as well reasoned and thought out as it is. However, I left my crayons at home. The lack of analysis, the lack of understanding, and the lack of basic reasoning skills is breathtaking. A remedial course in history and economics would be a good starter for you. You were asleep in one or the other and need to make up for lost time. You might then be able to understand that your critics are quite correct. In the meantime, return your paycheck, apologize to the employer and find another line of work.

  223. Jerry G  February 28, 2007 at 3:35 am

    I also quite the NRA. I quite when they supported the legislation that banned the private ownership of MACHINEGUNS. The Second Amendment Shall Not Be Infringed.

  224. Ed  February 28, 2007 at 3:38 am

    You claim that people that own perfectly legal semi-automatic firearms are “wannabes”. Yet, you go off and kill things for fun. Not necessity, not because your family needs the provisions. For entertainment. So, with this in mind, who’s the real “wannabe?”

  225. Jordan  February 28, 2007 at 3:43 am

    The 1st amendment is not about Scrabble. Neither is the 2nd about hunting.

  226. Derek Huffman, AZEX  February 28, 2007 at 3:44 am

    Another gunwriter whore jumps in front of the bus for Dumbo-Zumbo.

    You elitist morons got stung by the members of the Gun Culture whom you’ve encouraged Legistraitors to toss “under the bus” time and again, in a vain attempt to save your Bambi-slaughtering hides.

    I’M not a member of the NRA either. Because they are too willing to “compromise”, and appear “reasonable”.

    Compromising with EVIL (and that’s what Leftist scum traitors who write magazine articles and hold public office are) always leads to a LOSS of Rights.

    “may your chains set lightly upon you” and all that.

    You well-fed brats are the pro athlete of a dead medium. The printed word for pay.

    You better get used to it, gunwriter whore, the big networks arent’t the only ones experiencing the power of us lowly Proletarians.

    And like them, you’ve had your own way for years, unaccountable speech with no reply, except the filter of the Editor in the abridged and selectively published “Feedback” section.

    Unlike you, I will always fight for your rights to own whatever guns you prefer for your sport.

    I sincerely hope you reap what you have sown. The more of you Constitutionally-ignorant fools we can “out” the better to divert monies to those who won’t play politics with our Rights.

    D.

    AZEX

  227. looney lefty  February 28, 2007 at 3:45 am

    Another Anti-2A, Fudd.

    Dougy boy, I’m speechless.( not really though I expect this kind of thing from the fuddnation).

    Well I like douche bag writers and what not, but, but, but dougy should be banned from writing anything more than the directions on a shampoo bottle. And the reasoning behind it is because he looks evil, ya know the terrorist type.

  228. Ed II  February 28, 2007 at 4:04 am

    I read only: “We need the guns to protect us against a tyrannic government”. Bull. The tyrannic government works without guns, with e.g. the Patriot Act that holds us all for ransom. Guns, just like binge drinking and sexual boasting, are a measure for the immaturuty of people.

  229. Doug Thompson  February 28, 2007 at 4:40 am

    What I find interesting is that none of those who want my ass on a pole now seem to remember what I wrote in 1994 opposing the efforts to ban assault weapons or my efforts in the 90s working with the American Shooting Sports Council in support of the Second Amendment.

    Like the case of Jim Zumbo, it only takes one difference of opinion to create an grossly inaccurate perception that fails to recognize an overall body of work.

    That is my main complaint with the gun lobby and many other special interest lobbies. Those who lobby in such a gung-ho fashion for unfettered support of the Second Amendment seem to forget the First Amendment — the one that says something about freedom of speech. Jim should have the freedom to express an opinion without fear of being driven from the business.

    I guess it is telling that the Capitol Hill Blue editor’s email account has received more than 1500 emails demanding that I be fired. Don’t these folks realize I own the place?

    A number of the comments to the column have been reasoned and well written but they are drowned out by the din of hyperbole, double negatives and bad grammar. It is also interesting that those who scream the loudest claim, incorrectly, that Zumbo and I support a ban on assault weapons. We don’t and nothing we wrote suggests that we do.

    Doesn’t speak well for some of those who own assault weapons.

    There’s been enough venting, repetition, hyperbole and insults posted here. Discussion is closed. If you want to comment further, join the thread on ReaderRant

    –Doug

  230. [...] Remember, gun nuts, we’re the ones that are paranoid. Not them. [...]

Comments are closed.