From Cabela’s Forums, a post by one Frank Ross, Cabelas.com admin:
Â
|
Â
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.Â
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.
|
…as well they should.
Cabela’s is a GREAT company, and this just proves it. My own awe-struck take on visiting a Cabela’s store for the first time this year is here. Maybe I’ll buy my Remington ammo from them.
JIm is smoked and he will never be able to pontificate on behalf of gunowners or hunters agin. It’s a sad day for a great guy. What in God’s name was he thinking would happen by that post?
[b]In Support of Jim Zumbo[/b]
In support of Mr. Zumbo, I would first like to say, I don’t necessarily agree with the way Jim articulated his thoughts on AR and AK style rifles, but can understand completely what he was trying to convey to his cherished fellow hunters.
The sad part is, that the Hunting community, is willing to watch this Good man’s career be totally destroyed, simply because so many hunters misinterpreted what he was saying.
He’s being accused of speaking against the Second Amendment, which just isn’t true. The Second Amendment reads:
[quote]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.[/quote]
Nowhere does it mention your/our right to use whatever weapon we wish, when it comes to hunting. Hunting regulations are a separate issue entirely.
I’m surprised that so many hunters, cannot separate the Second Amendment, from which firearms may or may not be appropriate for hunting use in the field.
I don’t even understand how the Second Amendment got into this conversation.
Jim never once said that AR and AK style rifles should be banned from ownership in America, thus infringing on your Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
He was instead trying to articulate how the general non-hunting public perceives you and I as hunters and how those millions of would be hunters, non-hunters, neutral bystanders, or even those would be anti’s might be swayed to think one way or the other by the hunting community, and how we have a huge responsibility on our shoulders in how they perceive us. He’s not worried about the present anti-gun, anti-hunting lobbyists out there. They already have their minds made up. He’s more concerned (as am I) about the way the rest of the general public perceives the hunting community as a whole.
Jim never once called hunters or the Armed forces for that matter, terrorists nor did he insinuate that any hunter or American soldier, hunting with an AR or AK rifle was a terrorist. I’m actually embarrassed and appalled that so many in the hunting community misunderstood him and mis-quoted him on this, and are willing to hang him out to dry.
The important message I got from what Jim had to say, is that us hunters, might want to seriously think about regulating ourselves in the woods, before those who perceive us and out number us in the millions, decide to outlaw us because of our own stubbornness and near sightedness.
I can’t believe so many of my fellow hunters are so quick to destroy one of their own. You should all be ashamed.
I think it’s time for those of us who can understand what he was actually trying to articulate in his statements, whether we agree with him or not, stand up and try to save this man’s career, before it’s too late.
This is my personal opinion
Steve
Hi Steve:
I’m not going to try to interpret what the man said, but I’ll quote you one of the sentences in his original post that opened up the sh*t storm…
“I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles.”
When somebody tells me that a rifle I own is a “terrorist rifle”, that makes me more than a little bit perturbed, because he’s (in essence) calling me a terrorist because I own a “terrorist rifle”.
You may not like it, but that’s what the man said.
So I say f*ck him, and the horse he rode in on.
And that’s my personal opinion.
Andrew aka Freddyboomboom
Steve, I saw a lot of angry commenters on other blogs and forums start with “I’m pretty sure I know what Jim Zumbo MEANT to say,” so I think you’re not so alone as you might think. However, most of those commenters were still furious at Zumbo for — at best — being so careless with his words. I agree with you that his original post seems based on a concern that the more ARs and AKs are seen in the woods, the more likely it is that hunting itself will be threatened. Unfortunately, that message he seemed to be trying to convey was not at all the primary thrust of his piece, because of (unwittingly or not) his use of the “terrorist” label as Freddy notes, and more importantly in my view his call for “banning” a type of firearm. No, it wasn’t a call for banning possession, but it’s a slippery slope.
I know several older duck hunters who have said similar things to me throughout my life — “nobody has any business hunting with an assault rifle,” etc., etc. I’ve not ceased to associate with them because of their views (although I’ve expressed my own). But Jim Zumbo is one of a privileged few with a bully pulpit, a vast audience, and his words matter more than most.
Bitter noted that the most important lesson of all this is not “the power of the grass-roots AR owners,” but rather that fact that we need to do a LOT better job of educating hunters (and especially hunting writers like Jim Zumbo) about ARs, their unbelievable accuracy, domination of the shooting sports, and incredible utility in the hunting fields — not just varmints, ’cause you can always swap out the upper for a larger caliber. All the press in the world within the AR shooting community does little good to elevate the awareness of the larger voting population that these are “good” rifles.
Bear in mind, possession of these guns is still banned in California (and no, I’m not interested in playing the stripped lower game with the Attorney General, thank you very much). Zumbo’s comments struck a lot of nerves here, perhaps more than elsewhere in the country.
Of course, Zumbo missed the point.
The point IS ALL ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Zumbo does neither hunters or non-hunting 2A people any favors when he refers to military weapons that way.
I have 2 rifles which shoot the fine .308 WIN cartridge. One is a weapon which was designed for hunting, a Savage Model 99E, and the other is a weapon designed for the military, a CAI CETME.
I would like to have Mr. Zumbo tell me exactly what the difference is if I, obeying ALL the hunting regs (for the CETME, that means using a 5-round magazine), kill a deer with either of the weapons. Why does he think that somehow, a deer killed with the military-style rifle is so “impure”, whereas he has absolutely no problem with my using the Savage to kill the deer with? The deer is just as dead, takes up the same space in my freezer, and will taste no different either way.
This whole discussion, if separated from the 2A, would be a stupid issue like fly fishing vs. bait fishing. The problem is, his words cannot be separated from the Second Amendment issues contained in them.
However, because of his intemperate language, Mr. Zumbo gave aid and comfort to the enemies of BOTH the Second Amendment AND hunting.
That, I declare, invokes the treatment he got by gun owners, and that treatment is correct, IMHO.
Zumbo is no dummy. He had to know what he was saying and what the result of that language would be. The fact that he said it anyway is very disturbing.
I think that a fair case can be made that Mr. Zumbo sold out to the gun-banners. If that is the case, he deserves to be stepped on, hard. If it is, like he claimed, just a poor choice of words, well folks, that means he is a hack writer not deserving of his employment.
I’ve wondered if Zumbo’s comments would have seen the light of day had they been submitted to Outdoor Life as part of a column, rather than posted to a blog (presumably without editorial input)?
The other interesting thing to me is that this is just another example of the Feiler Faster Theorem of the Age of the Internet. As others have noted, ten years ago OL would have printed a few select letters to the editor on both sides of the controversy, and Zumbo would have been able to continue on without experiencing any personal effect from his comments. Nowadays, it’s different. Old-timers need to get with the program.
Maybe with him gone it will open the door for another Elmer Keith , Jeff Cooper , Gene Hill , or Gordon MacQuarrie ! I never cared much for Zumbo’s drivel anyway : )