And some could easily see themselves as the Zumbo at the Altar.
Field and Stream's Petzal, who pressed and supported the "Assault Weapon" Ban attempts to change the record for Zumbo's favor.
He starts off well enough:
What Jim said was ill-considered. He’s entitled to his beliefs, but when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.Those glasses on your forehead? You might want to drop them to your eyes, Petzal. Because that's exactly what he did. There's no way if you've been "reading for days" you've missed that the "apology" was taken even less well than the original blathering.
Even so, Jim made an immediate apology. He did not equivocate, or qualify, or make excuses. He acted like a gentleman and said he was wrong, and he was sorry. Apparently this is not enough anymore. We now live in the era of one strike and you're out.
From Zumbo's "Apology": Let me explain the circumstances surrounding that blog. 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.
What happened to no "equivocation, qualify, or excuses?" Zumbo went on, of course, to say " I've been an NRA member for 40 years, have attended 8 national NRA conventions in the last 10 years, and I'm an advisory board member for the United States Sportsmen's Alliance which actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter's rights."
If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.You seem to speak from some experience, Mr. Petzal. Could it be from your tossing of those "evil black rifles" on the altar last time?
Your use of Brady is rather odd - the Brady banners have been agreeing with you for years. The EBR's first, then the "sniper" rifles. (h/t to Codrea) "Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons," writes Petzal. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma" Petzal concludes by advocating compromise, something that Knox and other members of his regime say they will never accept.
Mark Henckel (bylined "Montana Outdoors") agrees: "You know, that could have been me. I could have written much the same as Zumbo did. I wouldn't have worded it that way. I wouldn't have called for a ban on those guns. But I know exactly what Jim was getting at in what he wrote."
Yes, it could have been you. So it's our fault, for daring to challenge what you know to be true, of course.
Choosing the ideal hunting rifle is far, far different from choosing the ideal target rifle. You look for different things.And for those people who want to use their father's/grandfather's M1 Carbine, or who like the light weight of the AK-derivatives, what of their preferences?
You don't carry many heavy barreled target rifles up mountain slopes - not more than once, anyway. Very few big game rifles in the West are semi-automatics - most are bolt-actions which are considered more accurate. I don't like light rifles because they're too hard to hold steady, or heavy magnum calibers because they kick too much. I do like 3x9 variable scopes.
In hunting, everyone has preferences that are all built on picking the best rifle for the task and the conditions they expect to encounter.
Personally, I hunt in South Carolina, either over large fields, or in the deep woods. My preferences change based on what I need. In the woods, I find my Romanian SAR-1 to be an excellent choice.
I'm happy that the Fudds are starting to come out of their cowed reaction to the Zumbo affair.
If they feel this way, we ought to know that. Not, like Petzal, supporting gun bans, and then whitewashing history. We need to know that, and know who supports them. This is why we need to organize, and make sure that the NRA (especially) gets the word.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. "Sporting purpose" is code for "take my guns later".
Good to hear the Fudds starting to come back. Elmer would be proud.