Zumbo is history

[Ithaca 37]

A-Con, Thanks. The MSNBC article is a good one and will have a lot more visibility than the hunting blogs.

Whiskers, My only point is that some activities are dangerous and there's a cost to all of us when they cause an accident, or are more likely to result in an injury in case of an accident. Examples are: not wearing a seat belt, not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, driving drunk or talking on the cell phone while driving.

 

[mtmiller]

When we start passing laws based on someone seeing a "need" it will be dark days indeed.
Laws, all laws should be based on the actual facts, hard evidence, not perception.

Are you saying it doesn't happen? There are a pile of laws to the contrary, doesn't make them all bad laws.

It is obvious you disagree with my opinion on the .50 centerfire. Do you have a threshold where you "feel" there should be a limit? Should we repeal limits on waterfowl guage size and permit 8 guages, maybe 4's as well? Why were these laws passed? Was it based on "actual facts, hard evidence" or just percection? Is there some "hard evedence" that four shotshells in my waterfowl gun is bad, but three is OK?

Some states require a bow to have a 40# pull for big game while others don't. Maybe some states haven't seen the science and "actual facts" that a 38# bow won't kill a deer? My perception is that crossbows shouldn't be permited during bow season. Montana agrees, but Wyoming doesn't share my "perception".

In summary, we agree to disagree (although I have better perceptions) .

 

[Whiskers]

[QUOTEWhiskers,
You think journalists and reporters should only write what the advertisers want them to write?

Any other parts of the constitution you think should be ignored][/QUOTE]

YEA, if your taking the money from Remington, you cannot expect them to continue to pay you for bad mouthing thier product. If you want to freelance, then you can say whatever you want. Pretty sure your employer would terminate your employment if you bad mouther their product over a competitors. Employers and advertisers have rights too.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Whiskers,

I hope you never buy a Remington product based upon a favourable review in OutdoorLife. Or, better yet, I hope you do, and I hope it turns out to be a piece of crap that you regreat ever buying.

Journalists are supposed to be free from commercial influence to report the news. That is how our society works, without a free press, we are headed to an even worse dictatorship. You think the journalists in Iraq or the USSR were free to report the facts? What are you, a communist?

 

[cjcj]

Once again Jose shows his skill at reaching out to the people hump

 

[Nut]

My perception is that crossbows shouldn't be permited during bow season.

This is why it bothers me when I see some of the uproar about this. Some of the ones who are whining about what was stated would feel perfectly fine about disallowing the use of crossbows here in Ohio during archery season. Which I am all for.


Just using your quote as a example miller Not trying to argue with ya.

 

[mtmiller]

Just a bad perception on your part Nut, no problem.

 

[Nut]

Just a bad perception on your part Nut, no problem.

I have lots of them.

 

[Whiskers]

[/QUOJournalists are supposed to be free from commercial influence to report the news. That is how our society works, without a free press, we are headed to an even worse dictatorship. You think the journalists in Iraq or the USSR were free to report the facts? What are you, a communist?
TE]

Jose, no I ain a communist, are you a Mexican?
Suppose you have a business, you advertise in your local newspaper. The newspaper runs editorials in direct opposition of your political views. Do you have the right to quit advertising with that newspaper? Are you going to send your hardearned money to that paper. Your not telling the newspaper what to say, your just not going to subsidize their views.
By the way, I have several Remingtons, and none of them have ever let me down.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, no I ain a communist, are you a Mexican?
Suppose you have a business, you advertise in your local newspaper. The newspaper runs editorials in direct opposition of your political views. Do you have the right to quit advertising with that newspaper? Are you going to send your hardearned money to that paper. Your not telling the newspaper what to say, your just not going to subsidize their views.

You sure sound like a Communist. Is May 1 a big day in your family? At which part of Dr. Zhivago do you cry?

It is a sad day when Advertisers have editorial control over the media. I can just imagine that you enjoy watching hours of Infomercials on Tv.

 

[Whiskers]

Jose, you sure sound like a liberal. If you cannot post a decent article you resort to personal attacks. I thought you were intelligent, guess I was wrong.

Its not that advertisers have editiorial control over the media. Its the freedom of where your going to put your advertising dollar.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, you sure sound like a liberal. If you cannot post a decent article you resort to personal attacks. I thought you were intelligent, guess I was wrong.

Its not that advertisers have editiorial control over the media. Its the freedom of where your going to put your advertising dollar.

Do you understand the importance of keeping Advertisers apart from the Editorial Content?

Just look at the Hunting boards like Monster Muleys vs. Hunttalk. On MM, you have to be suspicous of any product reccommendation because they are afraid of pissing off their advertisers. On Hunttalk, if somebody bashes a product the rest of us can read the review without it being removed. A free press is important, and you should be boycotting Remington for attempting to censor a writer, unless, of course, you are a Communist.

 

[cjcj]

Ya Lablue Tibia Drago

 

[A-con]

It is obvious you disagree with my opinion on the .50 centerfire. Do you have a threshold where you "feel" there should be a limit? Should we repeal limits on waterfowl guage size and permit 8 guages, maybe 4's as well? Why were these laws passed? Was it based on "actual facts, hard evidence" or just percection? Is there some "hard evedence" that four shotshells in my waterfowl gun is bad, but three is OK?

Some states require a bow to have a 40# pull for big game while others don't. Maybe some states haven't seen the science and "actual facts" that a 38# bow won't kill a deer? .

Yes, I disagree. Hunting big game with a .50 has no different affect on game populations than hunting with a wood stocked, bolt action 30-06. One shot one kill.
8 gauge and larger shotguns were outlawed because of there use by “market hunters” to “flock shoot” causing multiple kills and multiple wounds with each shot. The net result was a drastic decline in water fowl populations. Similar reasons apply to limiting shotgun shell capacity. Low poundage bows don’t provide enough penetration to consistently produce quick clean kills on big game. All of this can be illustrated with facts, not just “feelings”.

 

[mtmiller]

8 gauge and larger shotguns were outlawed because of there use by “market hunters” to “flock shoot” causing multiple kills and multiple wounds with each shot. The net result was a drastic decline in water fowl populations.

Do you have some literature or science on this? I know this is why punt guns were made illegal, but don't know about 8 gauges. Please show me. Market hunting causing a drastic decline in waterfowl, absolutely. Flock shooting, please, that happens all the time and there ain't no law to remove that type of hunting. I don't care if you give an unethical hunter with a .410 or a 4 gauge, they are no less likely to flock shoot. Can they kill (or wound) birds further out with the bigger gun, no doubt. Same can be said for a .50.

Similar reasons apply to limiting shotgun shell capacity.

So 4 shotshells causes "drastic declines in waterfowl populations", but 3 is OK? Put down the pipe. Please show me where you found these "facts".

Low poundage bows don’t provide enough penetration to consistently produce quick clean kills on big game. All of this can be illustrated with facts, not just “feelings”.

Where are the "facts" on this one? Is poundage the only qualifier for "penetration"? Why are there some states that require a specific poundage, others by how far an arrow can be shot and others, none at all? Please illustrate with facts. Hell look at different state laws on bow hunting for big game; minimum arrow length, minimum arrow weight, minimun broadhead diameter, fixed vs. expandable legality, let-off weight. If these are all based on facts, then why are they different in about every state you look at?

We have gotten way off track and I really don't want to get into a shit flinging contest over something this stupid, but I would hope you would agree that all laws are not based on facts, or however you worded it.

 

[A-con]

Well mtmiller, I just typed out a long post returning fire, and then I read your last line.
Yea, we are way off track. I would agree to some extent. There are some laws based on emotion and how different people “feel”. I just think that’s a bad way to make law, and produces bad laws. I think (my opinion) any time we as a people threaten our fellow citizens with punishment, we should do so based on more than just “how we feel”. Laws should be grounded in facts, evidence and scientific data.

 

[shoots-straight]

A free press is important, and you should be boycotting Remington for attempting to censor a writer, unless, of course, you are a Communist.

Remington hired Zumbo because of his popularity,writing ability, and what they thought was his support of the shooting sports. (He was commercialy viable). When he wrote his blog, he threatened millions of American shooters and crossed the line. He now was on the other side of the fence to those that support Remington. So what else could they do but fire him. It had nothing to do with censorship. He was no longer marketable.

 

[JoseCuervo]

When he wrote his blog, he threatened millions of American shooters and crossed the line. He now was on the other side of the fence to those that support Remington. So what else could they do but fire him. It had nothing to do with censorship. He was no longer marketable.

How did he "threaten" millions of American shooters?

You are starting to sound like an NRA simpleton who is paranoid.

 

[Nemont]

After a week of all Zumbo all the time, I am wondering if anybody has gone back and actually read into what he meant.

I will say that his choice of words were not very smart. The terrorist weapons comment was especially ill advised.

However if you go back and dig a little deeper into what he was actually attempting to say you would find out that he wasn't saying anything anti gun per se. He was speaking soley from the standpoint of how using AR 15's would appear to the public at large, mainly the non hunting public. In addition it was his opinion that AR 15's and similar weapons were not the image he thought hunters should encourage.

He never said ban them from ownership, disarm the public and throw away your liberty. It is interesting that hunters and shooters will throw one of their own under the bus faster the the anti gun/anti hunting crowd will. He was tried and convicted before he even had a chance to explain what he was attempting to say. Even if he was wrong about the issue it was his opinion. The reaction was and is totally out of proportion.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I agree 100%...nice work.