Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Zumbo the idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An AR with a heavy barrel is more accurate, fits more comfortably, and easier to get on target, and also allows for a second shot without removing your hand away from the action.

If you notice most Sniper teams both civilian and military are going to the AR series of rifles.

Also comparing a cross bow to a compound bow is not a fair comparison. ( I agree with you on the point about not wanting them during traditional bow season). The comparisons between the AR series and other semi auto is purely cosmetic, the operate the exact same way.

Zumbo never made any comment about the AR rifle being unfair to the game, or offering too many rounds, his comments associated the AR series of rifles with terrorists (I wont go into what he said any more as it is all over the net and probably this forum).

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes an AR more accurate? A commercial round is a round, and steel is steel. Is the interior of the barrel designed differently that a Weatherby or a Browning?

I thought most Sniper teams were using digitally enhanced, electronic firing .50 calibers? Ever shot one? They're awesome!!

I know Zumbo never made any comments about the AR offering too many rounds, or being unfair to game, but this post has forked off in different directions a few times already.
grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Educate yourself; if you are using an AR for big game hunting, you must use a five round magazine. So there is no debate on that. Most AR's used for varmint hunting also use five round magazines, or magazines with a five round block. What does magazine capacity have to do with accuracy?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think one is supremely more accurate over the other, however, the AR offers the user the ability to quickly come back on target without removing the hand or head from the stock. I don't think the 50 is used in most sniper applications, especially for police applications, I do believe the 308 and similar are gaining ground again for longer range applications.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.

Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

Jim Zumbo

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

As others have said on this topic, Education is the answer, most that complain about these particular rifles are ignorant about the subject. Mr Zumbo figured that out the hard way. In the end, I think he gets off easy though, like he said, he is old enough to retire, unfortunately for the rest of us, we will be debating his comments for the foreseeable future, and the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms will be using his words as evidence of their cause.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait for the anti's to use his blog statements against gun owners.
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

No need to wait. It started immediately when his comments were posted on the Brady Bunch site and others within hours ….. and in a somewhat related matter, the next day a bill called HR.1022 was introduced. HR 1022's main intent is to reinstate the Clinton "assault weapon ban".
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait for the anti's to use his blog statements against gun owners.
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

No need to wait. It started immediately when his comments were posted on the Brady Bunch site and others within hours ….. and in a somewhat related matter, the next day a bill called HR.1022 was introduced. HR 1022's main intent is to reinstate the Clinton "assault weapon ban".

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, Zumbo has now become their poster boy for gun control.
 
And the advocates of these limitations are the very one we fought and are fighting to protect. Hurrah for the Iowa boys that spoke up ! In the real world today you raise your head and you get the third eye-----
That's the way firefights are Jim buddy------and you earned your boots, rifle in the sand with your cowboy hat presented.
 
This is a post I made on the other site that teeroy commented on. I hope you all understand the thoughts I was hoping to convey.
Believe it or not I have read all these posts and have been trying to form what I want to say. I still am not sure how to put it. I think Mr Zumbo's comments were both ill concieved and dumb, not to be read as ignorant, especially about banning some of these guns and the terriost remarks. However I can understand what initally shaped his comments, as I have had some of those same thoughts in the past. I will try to explain at least my thoughts but only my thoughts. Most of the people on here are much younger than Mr Zumbo and myself so you don't understand some of the views that were formed in the 50's, or 60's, or even the 70's. I grew up reading magizine stories by Jim Zumbo, Jack O'Conner, Skeeter Skelton, and Ted Trueblood about guns, shooting, and hunting and I gaurrante you that most if not all would have shared Mr. Zumbo's views on these AR and AS or SK types of rifles. These were all out standing men of the old school where style and tradition in the shooting sports were paramont. If it wasn't a bolt action or a double barrel it wasn't a real rifle to Mr. O'Conner. He really disliked and didn't trust any auto or pump gun of any kind. While Skeeter Skelton wrote about and shot some semi automatic pistols, his real love were wheel guns built by Smith & Wesson, Colt, and some Rugers. Mr. Trueblood carried a side by side shotgun and more often than not a lever action rifle. My point is that at that time people were just as predijusticed about some kinds of guns as Mr. Zumbo's current remarks made him out to be. At that time no one knew what a "terriost" was or what kind of guns were associated with them. Also at that time no one knew what an AK47 was. We were introduced to both the AR15-M16 and the AK47 as the result of the Viet Nam war. Common knowledge at that time was that the M16 wasn't nearly as accurate as the older M14 or M1 but that they could spray a lot of rounds and the ammo was smaller so that troops could carry a lot more of it. The AK47 was a cheaply made stamped out Russian or Chinese rifle that was not accurate at all. All the "sniper rifles" for both sides were customized M14s or Remington 700s. Ask any Viet Nam vet how accurate or how reliable either M16 or AK47 were. This is a lot of the basis of my opinion and I belive that of Mr.Zumbo's. I now know, mostly from reading on Iowa Outdoors, that these so called "black rifles" can indeed be very accurate and do have at least as many hunting as tactical applications.

On the other part of the problem, I do believe in and support the 2nd ammendment, but I also believe that there are certain types or classes of firearms that law abiding Amercians should not own. These classes have and will continue to shift as more and more technology becomes available. I don't want some sudeo-millitary group buying the farm next door and owning fully automatic rifles and big bore machineguns, or anti-tank guns, or RPGs or most of the other millitary weapons legally. In 1968 the most wide sweeping anti-crime gun laws were enacted, but the gun world didn't end. The Brady laws were passed later and not a lot changed. The Clinton years saw the back ground checks and the banning of certain "assault weapons" but now they are back. With all these laws I see two things. One, crime rates have not shrank nor have they escalated greatly as a result the enactment of these laws. Second, at each of these intervalls the same cry went up from a segment of gun owner and the NRA about 2nd ammendament rights being infringed upon and that gun bans and confiscation was just arround the corner. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I think that we must be very active and watchful, but I don't think that means fighting any gun legislation tooth and nail. I personally parted ways with the NRA some years ago when I came to feel that their main goal had become raising funds to pay for large sallaries to their officals, huge sums to lobbiests, and to maintain their presience, all on scare tatics centered arround my 2nd ammendment rights. I do feel that the NRA has done some good things in the past, but latley it is just all about money and making me feel guilty for not doing "my part" with all their mailings and advertising. At this point I think that they are just trying to justify their existence and use my money to do it.

Wow! Sorry but some times I just get going. I need to stop now, my fingers are really sore.

Thanks for understanding the general theme of my post. I do really understand the errosion theroy and that almost all of these gun laws removes some of our liberties, but I do question how they will really effect our lives and roles as sportsmen and shooters. I did hear all these same arguments in 1968 and made many of them my self in more than one college argumentive paper. My point is that no one has taken our guns away and no one has really been harmed by not being able to get guns by mail order. We have all adjusted to changes. It may have made things a little more inconvient and complicated but no one has been denied a fire arm because if it. A very old and well applied principal of law is that of the "reasonable man" and whether we like it or not I believe that we must view gun laws or restrictions in the context of the reasonable man. If we are very out spoken and addamatley oppose any and all gun laws, then what we see as being passionate and standup, the average "reasonable" man or woman sees as being a nutcase or radical and is then switched to the opposition. Again whether we agree or not, there are more and more people frightened by and opposed to guns of almost any kind. With all the city crime, gang stuff, and driveby shootings they see the guns as the problem more than people as problems. These folks see the NRA as a bunch of radicals who want to be able to walk down the middle of a street carring a M60 just like Rambo. We know that that is not the case, but the more radical and unreasonable our position is, the more they feel justified. We don't want or need to have these people think of us in terms of Ruby Ridge or Waco. I tend to get wordy about things as thoughts roll out, sorry. My point is that we are restricted in hundreds of ways in our everyday lives. Everything from speeding laws, drinking, paying taxes, even as simply as where you can smoke a cig all basicaly becasue of the "reasonable man" and we need to find ways to swing "him" to our side and I don't believe that blindly and staunchly lineing up to oppose ANY gun law is the way to do it. Thanks again for a place to express ourselves and maybe enlighten each other.
I know that this is really long but it is what I feel.
 
I am very concerned anytime I hear of someone defining the 2nd amendment as only including what the general public think of as hunting firearms. His retracted statement certainly does just that...

The intent of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit the government from taking away our ability to rise up against it, by force of arms, should it become tyrannical (like England had become to the 13 colonies). Last time I checked, a shotgun or hunting rifle doesn't stack up well against the modern weaponry of our military...
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is a post I made on the other site that teeroy commented on. I hope you all understand the thoughts I was hoping to convey.
Believe it or not I have read all these posts and have been trying to form what I want to say. I still am not sure how to put it. I think Mr Zumbo's comments were both ill concieved and dumb, not to be read as ignorant, especially about banning some of these guns and the terriost remarks. However I can understand what initally shaped his comments, as I have had some of those same thoughts in the past. I will try to explain at least my thoughts but only my thoughts. Most of the people on here are much younger than Mr Zumbo and myself so you don't understand some of the views that were formed in the 50's, or 60's, or even the 70's. I grew up reading magizine stories by Jim Zumbo, Jack O'Conner, Skeeter Skelton, and Ted Trueblood about guns, shooting, and hunting and I gaurrante you that most if not all would have shared Mr. Zumbo's views on these AR and AS or SK types of rifles. These were all out standing men of the old school where style and tradition in the shooting sports were paramont. If it wasn't a bolt action or a double barrel it wasn't a real rifle to Mr. O'Conner. He really disliked and didn't trust any auto or pump gun of any kind. While Skeeter Skelton wrote about and shot some semi automatic pistols, his real love were wheel guns built by Smith & Wesson, Colt, and some Rugers. Mr. Trueblood carried a side by side shotgun and more often than not a lever action rifle. My point is that at that time people were just as predijusticed about some kinds of guns as Mr. Zumbo's current remarks made him out to be. At that time no one knew what a "terriost" was or what kind of guns were associated with them. Also at that time no one knew what an AK47 was. We were introduced to both the AR15-M16 and the AK47 as the result of the Viet Nam war. Common knowledge at that time was that the M16 wasn't nearly as accurate as the older M14 or M1 but that they could spray a lot of rounds and the ammo was smaller so that troops could carry a lot more of it. The AK47 was a cheaply made stamped out Russian or Chinese rifle that was not accurate at all. All the "sniper rifles" for both sides were customized M14s or Remington 700s. Ask any Viet Nam vet how accurate or how reliable either M16 or AK47 were. This is a lot of the basis of my opinion and I belive that of Mr.Zumbo's. I now know, mostly from reading on Iowa Outdoors, that these so called "black rifles" can indeed be very accurate and do have at least as many hunting as tactical applications.

On the other part of the problem, I do believe in and support the 2nd ammendment, but I also believe that there are certain types or classes of firearms that law abiding Amercians should not own. These classes have and will continue to shift as more and more technology becomes available. I don't want some sudeo-millitary group buying the farm next door and owning fully automatic rifles and big bore machineguns, or anti-tank guns, or RPGs or most of the other millitary weapons legally. In 1968 the most wide sweeping anti-crime gun laws were enacted, but the gun world didn't end. The Brady laws were passed later and not a lot changed. The Clinton years saw the back ground checks and the banning of certain "assault weapons" but now they are back. With all these laws I see two things. One, crime rates have not shrank nor have they escalated greatly as a result the enactment of these laws. Second, at each of these intervalls the same cry went up from a segment of gun owner and the NRA about 2nd ammendament rights being infringed upon and that gun bans and confiscation was just arround the corner. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I think that we must be very active and watchful, but I don't think that means fighting any gun legislation tooth and nail. I personally parted ways with the NRA some years ago when I came to feel that their main goal had become raising funds to pay for large sallaries to their officals, huge sums to lobbiests, and to maintain their presience, all on scare tatics centered arround my 2nd ammendment rights. I do feel that the NRA has done some good things in the past, but latley it is just all about money and making me feel guilty for not doing "my part" with all their mailings and advertising. At this point I think that they are just trying to justify their existence and use my money to do it.

Wow! Sorry but some times I just get going. I need to stop now, my fingers are really sore.

Thanks for understanding the general theme of my post. I do really understand the errosion theroy and that almost all of these gun laws removes some of our liberties, but I do question how they will really effect our lives and roles as sportsmen and shooters. I did hear all these same arguments in 1968 and made many of them my self in more than one college argumentive paper. My point is that no one has taken our guns away and no one has really been harmed by not being able to get guns by mail order. We have all adjusted to changes. It may have made things a little more inconvient and complicated but no one has been denied a fire arm because if it. A very old and well applied principal of law is that of the "reasonable man" and whether we like it or not I believe that we must view gun laws or restrictions in the context of the reasonable man. If we are very out spoken and addamatley oppose any and all gun laws, then what we see as being passionate and standup, the average "reasonable" man or woman sees as being a nutcase or radical and is then switched to the opposition. Again whether we agree or not, there are more and more people frightened by and opposed to guns of almost any kind. With all the city crime, gang stuff, and driveby shootings they see the guns as the problem more than people as problems. These folks see the NRA as a bunch of radicals who want to be able to walk down the middle of a street carring a M60 just like Rambo. We know that that is not the case, but the more radical and unreasonable our position is, the more they feel justified. We don't want or need to have these people think of us in terms of Ruby Ridge or Waco. I tend to get wordy about things as thoughts roll out, sorry. My point is that we are restricted in hundreds of ways in our everyday lives. Everything from speeding laws, drinking, paying taxes, even as simply as where you can smoke a cig all basicaly becasue of the "reasonable man" and we need to find ways to swing "him" to our side and I don't believe that blindly and staunchly lineing up to oppose ANY gun law is the way to do it. Thanks again for a place to express ourselves and maybe enlighten each other.
I know that this is really long but it is what I feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand age as a factor in forming an opinion that is why I advocate education.

Understand one thing: Hunting is not a right under the constitution, owning firearms is a right. Sometimes these two issues get confused or turned around.

Dont let the antis pit one against the other, that is what they want us to do, and that is exactly what Zumbo did with his comments, and unfortunately no matter what he does now, he can never un-change what he did.
 
Where are all these "reasonable" beings? Do we slide into permissiveness and acceptability that ALLOW modification of (a) our ethics (b)our morals (c) the Natural Law, and now our rights to own firearms?
 
I’ve held my thoughts long enough. I’ll start by saying I don’t trust many people and almost no politicians. That said:
Certain people want to keep certain guns out of the hands of everyone. Why? Because of the way it looks. Their claim is it has the ability to shoot too fast and only “bad people” have them (not true). Once they start banning things, where will they stop? A corvette can go twice the posted speed limit, should we ban those also? What about motorcycles? More people die from them, then the big bad assault rifles. Since I’m on the road and going downhill fast. How many drunk driving deaths are there each year? There goes the Miller Lite (and the High Life, sorry). Oh no! Guess what, arrows don’t have ballistics! Better put an electronic ID in them (it should only cost about $8-$10/arrow) or better yet, lets ban them also. Where do we stop?
IMHO, this is only the start of trying to legislate someone else’s sense of right and wrong on everyone. I don’t know about you, but I get my idea of right and wrong from the Bible, not from some man, or woman, from California, or where ever. We are on the edge of a very big, very slippery slope. I for one don’t see the bottom. I want to keep the freedoms I have fought for, not just for me but for all those that follow.
893soapbox-thumb[1].gif
893soapbox-thumb[1].gif

I'll shut up now, thank you
crazy.gif
 
Well, I am glad to see that there are many 2nd ammendment supporters on this site. My wife and I both have concealed weapons permits, assault rifles, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. We do 99% of our hunting with a bow and 100% of our big game hunting with a bow. It is my right as an American citizen to have these firearms to protect myself and my family against an uprising government, a foreign invasion, a natural disaster, or the criminal that wants to do myself or my family harm. With all of the gun owners in America, we would surely be a force to be dealt with in an attempt to disarm or invade our homes. Look at what just happened during hurricane Katrina, if you don't think that we need guns to protect us.I am a Lifetime NRA member and this organization is the best one that I have found at promoting our 2nd ammendment. We already have too many gun laws on the books, to have Jim Zumbo making a dumbass statement like he did in public. His hurtful comment should have been kept to his circle of people and out of the public. I commend Remington Arms and Outdoor life for firing him. I am glad that other sponsors followed suit. Alright,I am done.
smile.gif
 
a couple thoughts
Zumbo made wrong comments, then appologized.....he realized he made a huge mistake.....who are we to throw the first stone??
maybe we should stop crucifying his name and let it be......
he lost his career due to his comments...isnt that enought punishment?
that was thought one....and just that..... a thought.
second thought and fact
the second ammendment is a right....
the right to bear arms...
and we have given our own countrymen's lives to maintain that right
i dont own many guns at all but i have no probelm with those who do,
for those of you who think we dont need to be able to own "assult weapons" do you really think that if it becomes illegal to own one of those, crime will stop......black market exists for a reason.....to traffic illegal weapons.....duh, that isnt going to stop, although i would like to see it stop reality says other wise.....

Zumbo made a big mistake and i disagree with his comments, but he will have to live with the consequences the rest of his life......
he appologized, give him a break.
 
[ QUOTE ]
a couple thoughts
Zumbo made wrong comments, then appologized.....he realized he made a huge mistake.....who are we to throw the first stone??
maybe we should stop crucifying his name and let it be......
he lost his career due to his comments...isnt that enought punishment?
that was thought one....and just that..... a thought.
second thought and fact
the second ammendment is a right....
the right to bear arms...
and we have given our own countrymen's lives to maintain that right
i dont own many guns at all but i have no probelm with those who do,
for those of you who think we dont need to be able to own "assult weapons" do you really think that if it becomes illegal to own one of those, crime will stop......black market exists for a reason.....to traffic illegal weapons.....duh, that isnt going to stop, although i would like to see it stop reality says other wise.....

Zumbo made a big mistake and i disagree with his comments, but he will have to live with the consequences the rest of his life......
he appologized, give him a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not going to give him a break, even though he apologized, that does not take back what he said, and how those comments will be used against us for a long time to come.

Think about it, he lived the life most of us dream about, he got paid to hunt and shoot, that was his living.

Give him a break no way.
 
at least Zumbo stepped up and was a man about it and apologized....
when you grow up Youngbuck, you will realize that EVERYBODY puts their foot in their mouth at some time.
you Especially are not exempt from that.
Zumbo "the idiot" got to hunt for a living.......what are you doing with your life.....if you had his job and everything you said or did was monitored so closely that all your thoughts were public knowledge....
im pretty sure, young buck, the way you shoot your mouth off, you'd never last in this industry. maybe you oughta lay off and do some self examination and figure out what it is that makes you so much better than him.
 
I never have really liked or disliked Zumbo. The only thing that really pisses my off is any one talking about banning any type on firearm. Coming from a person like myself that actually uses an AR for coyote hunting, the reason is not to look like Habib Abdula, but to have a fighting chance to get a shot off at a second coyote that I might call in. So whether the gun looks like a military rifle or a semi auto 30.06 remington, can you tell what the difference is, other than the way the gun looks. After hearing what he said he will still be in the outdoors mens eye, but you can bet his crediability has been shot all to hell
 
[ QUOTE ]
at least Zumbo stepped up and was a man about it and apologized....
when you grow up Youngbuck, you will realize that EVERYBODY puts their foot in their mouth at some time.
you Especially are not exempt from that.
Zumbo "the idiot" got to hunt for a living.......what are you doing with your life.....if you had his job and everything you said or did was monitored so closely that all your thoughts were public knowledge....
im pretty sure, young buck, the way you shoot your mouth off, you'd never last in this industry. maybe you oughta lay off and do some self examination and figure out what it is that makes you so much better than him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zumbo stepped up and apologized, AFTER he and his promoters received several complaints. Don’t think it had a lot to do with being a man, had a lot to do with trying to save his reputation, and appease his promoters and the gun industry. Zumbo made a huge mistake, and yes he will pay for it personally, however, as I have said, the rest of us will also pay for his "foot in mouth" statements. Think about it, do you really believe that if his words only hurt himself that there would be this huge public outcry? Think about what he did and how most gun supporters have reacted. You act like his comments were taken out of context or were something that was discovered by accident. He made these comments on his blog, the blog that is on the net to be read, wasn’t’ a slip of the tongue. Why the personal attack? Why the accusations? And where did I say I was better than him? Most people educated on the subject know that his comments will be regurgitated several times by gun control advocates and similar. His comments are doing exactly as I and others have said, the worst of it is proved out by what you wrote about me.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Zumbo "the idiot" got to hunt for a living.......what are you doing with your life.....if you had his job and everything you said or did was monitored so closely that all your thoughts were public knowledge....
im pretty sure, young buck, the way you shoot your mouth off, you'd never last in this industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be in the industry and shoot your mouth off all you want as long as it is SHOOTING THE RIGHT MESSAGE. Look at Ted Nugent. He shoots his mouth off constantly but everything he says is pro gun, pro hunting, pro habitat improvement, pro wildlife management, and pro individual rights/freedoms. Ted is not afraid to call out a state like Iowa that still doesn't have a dove hunting season when it is the number one hunted game bird world wide. He calls out state's that don't allow hunting on Sunday's. When the average Joe works 5-6 days a week to provide for his family, he may only have one day (Sunday) to take his kids hunting and put some meat in the freezer. I personally accept Mr. Zumbo's apology. I believe in retrospect he really sees how distructive his comments were. I am afraid we will see how much damage he has really done in the near future. What everyone has done and is still doing is distancing themselves from Mr. Zumbo. You have to do this because you want as many people as possible to know that you think his actions/thoughts are not the same as yours and that you actually couldn't disagree more. I would give Jim a second chance on two conditions. I would even write all of Jim's sponsors and ask them to hire him back if for one whole year he hunted exclusively with different caliber AR-15's. He could use a .308 for his elk, sheep and bear hunts. A .243 for his deer hunts and a .223 for his varmit hunting. He would also have to do commercials for companies that build AR-15's or the accessories for them without compensation for one year to show how well they work for both hunting and how fun they are for recreational shooting. I've always felt that actions speak louder than words.
grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom