unix_jedi (unix_jedi) wrote,

David Codrea asks a damn good question:
The entire gun activist is up in arms and threatening boycotts over a stupid outdoors writer's ignorant remarks. They demanded his head, and it looks like, from Remington's standpoint at least, they got it.

Based on gun owner reaction, they wouldn't want any of the three leading GOP candidates to be retained as gun writers, but they'd accept them as president? Does that make sense?
Zumbo's ignorant diatribe resulted in thousands of furious comments on his blog, and countless angry emails to Outdoor Life, Remington, etc. Nice use of energy and outrage--but why don't we see enraged gun owners doing this to the chairman of the Republican party as well, now, while there's still a chance to affect the momentum?

Where is the LEADERSHIP from those who have the political reach (i.e., NRA) organizing a DEMAND to the Republican party that they field a candidate who understands the Second Amendment and will use his bully pulpit to proactively educate and evangelize to the voters about it? If someone wants to be a leader, don't you agree the Bill of Rights would be a good place to start leading?
This is a damn good question. (I don't mind having a President who wouldn't make a good gun writer - I just want them to not be an excellent Brady press release writer.) I'd answer in part: Because I don't think the Republicans are willing to listen. In all honesty, that's a weaselly (and self-fulfilling) evasion. So why do we do it?

To answer myself: Most people I meet in the shooting world have a sense of honor. They usually don't like to promise more than they can deliver. I'd love to say "I'll never vote for McCain, or Romney, or Guiliani!". But, what if in '08, the choice is Clinton or Obama with Sarah Brady as Veep?

And part of me hates to be "forced" to vote (or pledge support) for a Republican. There's a reason I don't belong to the party! But I can't imagine the Democrats will run a Constitutionally friendly candidate (If Richardson is the candidate, I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge landslide, including the first (D) to take the South in 30 years.)

There are almost 6000 comments on those 2 Zumbo posts. If you've commented there, or written about it, have you written to anyone in the NRA, RNC (or DNC), about the 2nd Amendment views held by the major candidates?

We've made our views felt inside our little shooting universe. Remington's fired Zumbo, I'll be surprised if Outdoor Life keeps him on for much longer. (Expect his next sponsorship to be Bushmaster or Barrett.) (Not kidding - he'd fit in perfectly at Ruger, and they know it, so they won't hire him. Watch, he'll get sponsored by Bushmaster (Or Barrett, because they kick ass and want to prove it) in order to "show" how AR's are suitable for hunting now.)

But Codrea is onto something. We've got to figure a way to translate those 6000 annoyed "terrorists" into political capital. In 2006, to show my feelings, I joined GOA - specifically not the NRA (Who's party line Zumbo was coming very close to). In 2007, I think I'll join JPFO.

This is my request: if you wrote about Zumbo, or were angry:

Write the NRA-ILA and tell them that that the Zumbo attitude is unacceptable.

It's the very same attitude that got NRA approval for the "A"WB. The '68 GCA, and the '34 NFA. It's the attitude that Brady and other controlling forces use to divide and seize innate rights.

(If you were also to tell them that they could stop being childish, and co-credit the SAF in their New Orleans Lawsuits, I'd appreciate it.)

Site Meter

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.