NationStates Jolt Archive

or, Don't fuck with the NRA.

That's the lesson this guy learned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/)] the hard way. Jim Zumbo, according to the article, was a pretty famous hunter and outdoorsman, but he made one critical error--he had an opinion that was contrary to the NRA's on "assault weapons." Now let's be clear--he didn't call for them to be outlawed or regulated or anything of the sort.
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "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."
He expressed an opinion about their use as hunting rifles. That's it. And now he's being crucified by it. He's losing his livelihood because the NRA has decided, apparently, that his lack of adherence to their limited interpretation of the Second Amendment cannot be tolerated.

Now this is where some would expect me to rail about First Amendment protections, but I won't. The NRA is fully within its rights to try to ruin Zumbo for this. They're ethically wrong for doing so, I believe, but they're within their rights to do so. But it seems contradictory to me that a group that claims to exist in order to protect one right would seek to quiet an individual who claims an only slightly different position.

Guns over speech.

I believe that is the attitude that has made the US somewhat unpopular in the wider world recently.

Looks pretty simple to me. BTW, it wasn't the NRA - it was forum members of other forum sites, and blogger that wrote to Zumbo's sponsors like Gerber and Remington.

Let's see - do sellers of weapons want to be associated with people who want to do away with the things they sell?

The people who disagree with Zumbo have a First Amendment right to blog and post to forums about it - and they also have a right to stop buying from sponsors who support Zumbo. And those sponsors have a right to drop Zumbo.

Any questions?

Oh, and in Zumbo's article, he called for the elimination of the weapons in question.

Here's a forum post that made its way all the way to the pages of Outdoor Life - it was sent to editor Dave Petzal.

Jim Zumbo got exactly what he deserved and it is my sincere wish that you follow in his footsteps. The sooner the better.

My ARs will consistently shoot 1 MOA at 200 yds. How many of your bolt action rifles will do that?

That however, is merely a matter of choice. You are free to use whatever rifle and caliber you wish in pursuit of your hunting and shooting pleasures. I'm willing to allow you your choice. You on the other hand, have an elitist attitude that only your firearms are good enough for certain activities and that you have the stature and right to ban those you don't like.

More importantly, both you and Mr. Zumbo feel that you can save your beloved firearms by sacrificing those you don't like. You fail to realize that the goal of the gun grabbers is not just some of the guns, but all of them. They are just smart enough to attack the elephant one bite at a time. So they seek to divide and conquer and you play right into their hands.

I suggest you do a little research into the 2nd Amendment and what it actually protects. Hunting and sporting firearms are not on the list. The "evil black rifles" you decry, are.

We will not protect our gun rights by allowing Quislings in our ranks to aid and abet our enemy.

Oh, and in Zumbo's article, he called for the elimination of the weapons in question.

The full article wasn't posted--do you have a link to a place where it was saved, a screen shot or something, so I can see it? I'm just going by the article.

its a bit sickening to me that the gun nut faction of america is so crucial in the making or breaking of a famous outdoorsman. are they such a big part of his marketshare that pissing them off really would mean the kiss of death if his frightened employers didnt dump him at the first sign of trouble?

Guns over speech.

I believe that is the attitude that has made the US somewhat unpopular in the wider world recently.

The government didn't do anything to him. Gun owners are boycotting his programs. That's perfectly legal and an important form of protest. Is boycotting Walmart over their labor and business practices wrong? Think about it, because this is a very similar situation.

I guess Outdoor Life got the message:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/columnists/article/0,19912,1592623,00.html

And Remington

Zumbo terminated by Remington -

"We have ended our relationship with mr zumbo as his comments are out of line with our core beleifs.
A press release will go out tomorrow
Tommy Millner
CEO"

The government didn't do anything to him. Gun owners are boycotting his programs. That's perfectly legal and an important form of protest. Is boycotting Walmart over their labor and business practices wrong? Think about it, because this is a very similar situation.

Point taken.

And Cabela's - note that they support his First Amendment rights - that doesn't mean they have to pay him to keep saying things they don't agree with that severely hurt their business.

Frank Ross
Cabelas.com Admin Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sidney, NE
Posts: 31

Re: Jim Zumbo...Friend of The Antis?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Cabela’s believes everyone has the right to express their own opinions, we strongly disagree with Jim Zumbo’s February 16 posting on his Hunting with Jim Zumbo blog on Outdoor Life’s Web site.

Throughout our 46-year history, Cabela’s has firmly supported all aspects of shooting sports. We strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the right of every U.S. citizen to purchase, own and enjoy any legal firearm of their choosing.

While we fully support Mr. Zumbo’s First Amendment right of free speech, we believe his opinions on this matter are counter to those shared by Cabela’s and many of our customers. Cabela’s Legal Department is currently reviewing contractual obligations and commitments regarding our sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show.

The full article wasn't posted--do you have a link to a place where it was saved, a screen shot or something, so I can see it? I'm just going by the article.

Outdoor Life removed it - the surge of people looking at it crashed their servers, and they put up the apology.

Zumbo's blog has been removed.

But it's on other forums:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. 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.

Here was his apology, before his blog was blown away.

I was wrong, BIG TIME

Someone once said that to err is human. I just erred, and made without question, the biggest blunder in my 42 years of writing hunting articles.

My blog inflamed legions of people I love most..... hunters and shooters. Obviously, when I wrote that blog, I activated my mouth before engaging my brain.

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.

Now then, you might not believe what I have to say, but I hope you do. How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don't know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.

I never intended to be devisive, and I certainly believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. 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.

What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I'm taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.

When I started blogging, I was told to write my thoughts, expressing my own opinion. The offensive blog I wrote was MY opinion, and no one else's. None of the companies that I deal with share that opinion, nor were they aware of what I had written until this firestorm started.

Believe it or not, I'm your best friend if you're a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way. I simply screwed up. And, to show that I'm sincere about this, I just talked to Ted Nugent, who everyone knows, and is a Board member of the NRA. Ted is extremely active with charities concerning our wounded military, and though he's known as a bowhunter, Ted has no problem with AR 15's and similar firearms. My sincerity stems from the fact that Ted and I are planning a hunt using AR 15's. I intend to learn all I can about them, and again, I'm sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth.

There's an important step between "I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods." and saying he supports the banning of the weapons. And I certainly understand--as I put in my opening post--that the NRA and these other companies are within their rights to divorce themselves from Zumbo's words. They have to make business decisions.

What I think is unfair is that he's being jumped on simply because he made what sounds to me like an aesthetic statement about the guns used in hunting--for this, a large number of people are accusing him of saying something he didn't, and his long career is ruined as a result.

And part of the reason this has happened is because of the view held and espoused by the NRA that any gun regulation is by definition bad. If Zumbo, who before now was a respected voice, makes a statement questioning that orthodoxy, then some gun owners might start to wonder if the absolutist position held by the NRA is the best one. And they can't have that.

Gerber's response:

Hey Yancey - I emailed Gerber about this clown Zumbo. Here's their response:

"Gerber Legendary Blades
A Division of Fiskars Brands, Inc.
14200 S.W. 72nd Avenue, PO Box 23088
Portland, OR 97281-3088
www.gerberblades.com
For Immediate Release Contact: Jason Kintzler
Phone: 307.857.4700
JKintzler@GerberGear.com

Gerber Cuts Ties with Jim Zumbo

Portland, OR, February 21, 2007:

Gerber Legendary Blades reacted to Jim Zumbo's recent public statements moving to sever all sponsorship ties with the long-time outdoor writer and hunter, effective immediately.

"After careful evaluation and consideration, we have made the decision to
discontinue our relationship with Jim Zumbo," said Brendon Weaver, Director
of Brand Management at Gerber. "At Gerber, we value the hunting heritage
and cherish our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

While we respect the opinions of sponsored professionals, customers and
end users of our products, Mr. Zumbo's recent statements are not consistent
with Gerber's culture and ideals as advocates of the hunting industry.

For more information please email Jason Kintzler at
JKintzler@GerberGear.com

Zumbo hates us for our freedoms.

Srsly though, the NRA is just doing its job. For much the same reasons as Roy Innes isn't going to win any NAACP awards. (If it even was the NRA).

There's an important step between "I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods." and saying he supports the banning of the weapons. And I certainly understand--as I put in my opening post--that the NRA and these other companies are within their rights to divorce themselves from Zumbo's words. They have to make business decisions.

What I think is unfair is that he's being jumped on simply because he made what sounds to me like an aesthetic statement about the guns used in hunting--for this, a large number of people are accusing him of saying something he didn't, and his long career is ruined as a result.

And part of the reason this has happened is because of the view held and espoused by the NRA that any gun regulation is by definition bad. If Zumbo, who before now was a respected voice, makes a statement questioning that orthodoxy, then some gun owners might start to wonder if the absolutist position held by the NRA is the best one. And they can't have that.

It's not a "view held and espoused by the NRA" primarily. If you were a member of the shooting fraternity, you would know that most gun owners (and therefore hunting goods customers) hold this belief. You can't blame the NRA for this, because we all talk about this amongst ourselves.

This isn't a world where the monolithic NRA tells us what to think, any more than there's a monolithic world where the New York Times tells US liberals what to think.

It's not a "view held and espoused by the NRA" primarily. If you were a member of the shooting fraternity, you would know that most gun owners (and therefore hunting goods customers) hold this belief. You can't blame the NRA for this, because we all talk about this amongst ourselves.

This isn't a world where the monolithic NRA tells us what to think, any more than there's a monolithic world where the New York Times tells US liberals what to think.
The two go hand in hand, and your analogy is particularly ridiculous, as the NRA is an advocacy group--and a very effective one--while the New York Times is a corporate media group.

Also, his career is as an entertainer, not as a hunter. He's still free to hunt for a living.

And the cardinal rule of entertaining is don't piss off your audience. Case in point Michael Crichton, or Arthur Godfrey.

What is interesting is that there's an 11% Federal excise tax on ammunition that is used to support things like wetlands, hunting, etc.

Where do you think the lion's share of this money comes from? From Joe average hunter who buys a box of 20 rounds for his 30-30 every deer season? Or from a typical AR-15 owner who buys his ammunition in 1000-rd lots from Midway?

Black rifle shooters ARE financing the majority of this tax - and the total expenditure on ammunition and other sundries related to shooting totals more than 40 billion dollars a year - just as much as the total expenditure by fans on the NFL.

It's not a "view held and espoused by the NRA" primarily. If you were a member of the shooting fraternity, you would know that most gun owners (and therefore hunting goods customers) hold this belief. You can't blame the NRA for this, because we all talk about this amongst ourselves.

This isn't a world where the monolithic NRA tells us what to think, any more than there's a monolithic world where the New York Times tells US liberals what to think.

its very wrong to can a guy over a blog because it doesnt fully support a "view held and espoused by the NRA" or of the majority of hunters.

he said something...... oh lets call it ignorant. what should have happened is that users of these rifles responded with why it is indeed OK to use them in hunting.

a dialog would have ensued with the end result being that mr zumbo would have come to realize that long range hunting is perfectly fine and he was being elitist in his oppostion to it.

in the end, everyone would have been happy because a full discussion of the issue would have resulted in an affirmation of the "view held and espoused by the NRA" and the majority of hunters.

instead they can the guy immediately making it look like there can be no discussion of hunting issues in the hunting community. it makes his employers look like cowards and his detractors look like assholes.

The two go hand in hand, and your analogy is particularly ridiculous, as the NRA is an advocacy group--and a very effective one--while the New York Times is a corporate media group.

If you knew more about shooting, and the writings that form its philosophical underpinnings in modern America, you would realize that the NRA has nothing to do with it.

To me, this is an example of the responsibility of using one's freedom of speech.

Zumbo said what he felt and what he believed in. That is his right. The public (or in this case, AR owners) are reacting to it. That is their right. it's one of the dangers of excercising one's Freedom of Speech.

I love people flippantly throwing around big mean phrases like "Assault Weapon".

I love people flippantly throwing around big mean phrases like "Assault Weapon".

Look! It has an evil bayonet lug! Oddly, bayonets when mounted on rifles haven't see use as a waepon in crime in the US. Oh look! It's a .50 caliber bolt action rifle! How evil! Oddly, not one has ever been killed with one in the US!