Recent

Check Out Our Forum Tab!

Click On The "Forum" Tab Under The Logo For More Content!
If you are using your phone, click on the menu, then select forum. Make sure you refresh the page!

The views of the poster, may not be the views of the website of "Minnesota Outdoorsman" therefore we are not liable for what our members post, they are solely responsible for what they post. They agreed to a user agreement when signing up to MNO.

Author Topic: Jim Zumbo is in trouble  (Read 11797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fishahollik

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 268
  • Karma: +0/-0
When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
"When asked what man has done in his life, I can say,' I was in the United States Navy'" JFK

I am member #297

Offline Outdoors Junkie

  • MNO Director
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • AKA "Outdoors Junkie"
Too bad for Jim.
www.mnoutdoorsman.com
Voted #1 Outdoors Website in MN

Offline supercruiser

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Just Do It!
This should help him. You can learn alot by hanging out with Uncle Ted.

Jim Zumbo Takes Aim At U.S. Senator
posted March 30, 2007

From "The Outdoor Wire"

In February, hunter and outdoorsman Jim Zumbo enraged shooters across the United States with comments appearing his now-discontinued blog on Outdoor Life. Since that fateful blog, Zumbo's professional life has changed - profoundly. A marquee career in hunting has effectively been reduced to nothingness. Television sponsors bolted, contracts were cancelled and a former front-man for hunting found himself the object of hatred and ridicule by shooters who felt betrayed by his comments.

Zumbo hasn't tried to shift the blame to anyone else. In fact, he pledged to go on the offensive to fight HR 1022, the newly introduced and significantly broadened, assault weapons ban.

Last week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, a staunch opponent of firearms, used Zumbo's remarks to attack firearms owners, reading portions into the Congressional Record. Zumbo has fired back, sending an open letter to the United States Senate that responds to Levin's action and makes it plain that Zumbo isn't letting that action pass.

Last night, Zumbo provided us a copy of his response to Senator Levin. Today, in the sense of fairness, we offer it in its entirety - without comment.

An Open Letter to the United States Senate

Dear Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

It recently came to my attention that one of your colleagues, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, has chosen to attack firearms owners using remarks I wrote in mid-February as his launch pad. As you probably know, Sen. Levin has been making anti-gun speeches every week for the past eight years because of a promise he made to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1999.

Mr. Levin has an agenda, and he should have spoken to me before using my name in one of his speeches, especially since his remarks were entered into the Congressional Record. I would like my remarks here entered into the Congressional Record as well.

Sen. Levin is only one of 16 members of the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the confiscation of a privately-owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster when possession of that gun is not prohibited under state or federal law.

Eighty-four senators voted for that amendment, inspired by the egregious confiscation of firearms from the citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005. Those seizures, you will recall, led the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association to join in a landmark civil rights lawsuit in federal court that brought the confiscations to an abrupt end.

The taking of private property without warrant or probable cause - even firearms - was considered an outrage by millions of American citizens, and yet Sen. Levin joined 15 of his colleagues in voting against this measure. It is no small wonder that Sen. Levin gets an "F" rating from gun rights organizations. He would have American citizens disarmed and left defenseless at a time when they need their firearms the most, when social order collapses into anarchy and protecting one's self and one's family is not simply a right and responsibility, it becomes a necessity.

That in mind, Sen. Levin must know that almost immediately after I wrote those remarks, I recanted and apologized to the millions of Americans who lawfully and responsibly own, compete with and hunt with semi-automatic rifles. I took a "crash course" on these firearms and visited with my good friend Ted Nugent on his ranch in Texas, where I personally shot an AR-15 and educated myself with these firearms.

Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.

This legislation that Sen. Levin appears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns - firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren - as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.

It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don't want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.

I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.

A few weeks ago, in a letter to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I promised to educate my fellow hunters about this insidious legislation "even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done."

I will amend that to add that I will bring my effort to Capitol Hill if necessary, even if I have to knock on every door and camp in every office of the United States Senate. In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.

Sincerely,
James Zumbo
Cody, Wyoming
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by thethings you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throwoff the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catchthe trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Offline orsbar

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
So you were coyote hunting and if i may so bold to ask what type of rifle would you have been carrying on this hunt that was not an assault rifle???

orson
orsbar@izoom.net


The bottom line is you don't have to support your fellow hunter's choice of weapon
but you do have to support your fellow hunter and his right to have that choice.!!!!!
The bottom line is you don't have to support your fellow hunter's choice of weapon but you do have to support your fellow hunter and his right to have that choice !!!!!!!!

Offline tripnchip

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: +1/-1

I think the point is being missed, though.  Defending our Second Amendment Right has NOTHING to do with Hunting.
[/quote]
Just my opion but I think you are wrong there Ice-Hole. If you read what guns they have put on the list in the past it has everything to do with hunting.They will consider anything used by military or police as a asult weapon.  To my knowledge every thing from flint lock to full auto has been  or is being used by the military.Now as a anti gunner or hunter if I can get all the types of actions used by military or police baned, what is left to hunt with. I know this post is about Jim and mag. capacity but that is not what the anti gunners and anti hunters are about. They want the whole pie and if they have to get it one small slice at a time they will.

Offline holdemtwice

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • BURNSVILLE
 ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito ::dito
  WELL PUT .
member  # 569

Offline Ice_Hole

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-0
Hey tripnchip:  I'm with you.  I think we are saying the same thing.  My point with the "nothing to do with Hunting" is that it doesn't matter what I hunt or IF I hunt - We all need to stick together on this.  Give an inch lose a mile.  It doesn't matter if I hunt, shoot targets, defend my home or just simply like to look at em  (I'm guilty of all),  we all need to be on the same team.  Just because I never plan to own (xxx caliber firearm) doesn't mean I think they should ban you from having it. 

I still contest that no where in the Second Amendment does it mention hunting.  Now, if the anti-gunners get their way will it IMPACT hunting?  Hell yeah it will!  I don't disagree there at all. 

Offline guythathunts

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 836
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The brothers with my 2006 buck.
There are false immages and other factors that turn people off to ALL guns that don't need to happen. I was looking at the Mills Fleet Farm ad the other day and I saw a Remmington 870 in all black decked out to look like something that came out of a Rambo movie in the hunting fishing section. I know exactly what a Remmington 870 is, I have 2 of them. I could not beleave the caption under the picture of this long time well known Hunting shotgun. It said "For personal or home protection". Protection from what... Grouse? It is immages like that that scare people away from guns. What about a caption like this "For enjoying the outdoors with loved ones". That is what my 870 is for. It seems like the marketers for different gun makers are willing to sell there guns to anyone for any purpose. Don't get me wrong an 870 could be used to protect yourself... but is that the point? And if you are honestly looking into something to protect yourself with is a 20 or 12 gague 870 pump realy your best option? I don't think so. It is just bothersome for me to see some of these marketing scheems to sell guns. To respond to the ban of guns. I am from Sauk Rapids MN, originaly. Every single cop car is equipt with a Remmington  870 12ga in the front seat, they are not the Rambo looking ones either. If police work guns are taken away does that mean I have to give up my shotgun? I hope not.
~ Greg
Ps. Remember that if they try to take guns away from us... we are the ones with the guns! :bandana: ::50cal:: :bandana: ::50cal::
Find a bird Duke... find a bird... ROOSTER!!! BANG! Bring it here boy. GOOD BOY DUKE, GOOD BOY!!!

Offline bambambiggero

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim Zumbro gets fired for his opinion about our rights and inanimate objects, Don Imus gets a 2 week suspension for his opinion and real people.
Our country and priorities are so f'd up that we as human beings should be ashamed of ourselves. 
All you military men fought for big money and their freedom, not everyone's freedom!  Thanks for your service and sacrifice.
My gravestone will not say " I wish I would have worked more..."

Offline Ice_Hole

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim Zumbro gets fired for his opinion about our rights and inanimate objects, Don Imus gets a 2 week suspension for his opinion and real people.
Our country and priorities are so f'd up that we as human beings should be ashamed of ourselves. 
All you military men fought for big money and their freedom, not everyone's freedom!  Thanks for your service and sacrifice.


Well put bambam!

Offline Mayfly

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 5689
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • MNO
Jim Zumbro gets fired for his opinion about our rights and inanimate objects, Don Imus gets a 2 week suspension for his opinion and real people.

I didn't even put that together until you said something ::)

How crazy!

Offline tripnchip

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: +1/-1
ice-hole , sorry I got the wrong impression from your post.

Offline muskies4fun

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
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.



He is getting crucified in the gun forums for this. I have also read that Remmington pulled their sponsorship.

I for one agree with him. NOBODY needs a AK47, SKS, AR15 for hunting. Sure they may be fun to shoot, but lets be real. If we want to pass the scrutiny from the uneducated, dimwitted general public, we as hunters need not be seen with the same type of guns that they see on CNN used by terrorists. I got no problem with 3-4 round cclips in a semi auto HUNTING rifle like a Browning, Remmington, HK etc...even the lever guns that hold 6-8 rounds are ok.  This includes pistols, nobody but the military and police NEEDS a Baretta or Taurus with a 15 round clip, it also includes full automatic weapons as well as the .50 bmg I mean c'mon hunting anything short of Grizzlys or Elephants with a .50 cal rifle is kinda rediculous don't you think?  Unfortunately if we do not support the right to own ALL types of firearms the anti gun anti hunting crowd will ban them all if we let them get their "foot in the door".  Seems common sense isn't very common these days.

Offline KoRn_2956

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
« Last Edit: August 08/08/09, 08:37:35 PM by KoRn_2956 »

Offline brandbll

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 97
  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't think that he should be fired over this :o But I don't agree with him. I say buy, use whatever you want as long as you are safe.



Yeah i agree.  I think he went overboard calling them terrorist weapons, however he shouldn't have been fired over it.  Personally i somewhat agree with the guy that assault rifles shouldn't be used for hunting.  I don't really care and neccessarily think they should be banned, but at the same time if they were banned i wouldn't give a damn about it.

I think it's funny that all these people got pissed about him saying this and how it could negatively effect the second Amendment.  So then they go and stomp all over the first amendment by effectively silencing him for merely speaking his opinion. 

Offline sochr000

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
I can understand Remington dropping their sponsorship, what with their variation of the AR...  It might be his opinion, but if any of you were to go on about how whatever you do at work is bad, and terroristic, I bet you'd be jobless pretty quick.

The other people firing him and dropping sponsorships though is just petty.
This is the internet, please remain calm.  I mean you no harm...

Offline boogityn

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Team Xtreme
This is very old news. Jim has already apologized for his coments. He wishis he had never said anything. He has sence spent a week with my blood brother Ted Nugent and now thinks that the assault guns are ok. Jim says it is now like he is just trying to get into the bussiness for the first time. Very difficult. :nerd:
" If you have a chance, take a kid fishin"