Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
Right. Anyone following this knows NRA was days in responding, and it was the grassroots that led all the way. But I guess the "authorized journalists" at WaPo need to believe they're in a crusade against a monolith, as the alternative, that the yeomanry are capable of mustering themselves to the green across the land when there's a threat, is too terrifying a prospect to consider--and certainly not an idea they want to implant in the minds of their readers.
So they trot out an apologist for AHSA and present him as the voice of responsible sportsmen. You'd better believe this is an attempt to divide and draw battle lines, and we owe it to ourselves to know who's on our side and who is a fifth columnist working to serve us up.
A fellow blogger who I have a great deal of respect for thinks we need to stand down. I disagree. This fight is just starting to get interesting, and it's time to find out who making money off the gun community understands and supports what it's all about--and pressure sponsors to withdraw all aid and comfort to the enemy.
And remember, the Trolley Square shooter used an unplugged chukar gun.
[Via 45superman]
14 comments:
Ahh--now I take your point about Wray. It looks as if the real fallout from the Zumbo debacle is just beginning.
"...zealousness...to the point of actual foolishness..."
So, we're fools because we stand up for the 2A in its pure form? Yeah, we're fools, just like the signers of the Declaration of Independence were fools!
Molon Labe, Wray!
Scares the crap out of the elites when the peons start to fight back, don't it?
Now is not the time to falter.
The MSM is starting to take notice. Now they're trotting out their pet sources.
Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer
That's the best you can do? Find some unemployed writer who doesn't have any major works to his name? (And what the #@*$ is a Chukar? (I know, just making a point)).
Now is not the time to allow fake apologies to sway us. As I said on Uncle's site - Petzal wasn't honest with his assessments. Which leads me to believe, he's the same Petzal that we "misunderstood" in 94, when he "didn't support" the law that he wrote the editorial.. supporting.
We've made the industry sit up and take notice. We've made politicians notice the market power (and presumably votes) we bear.
We got the NRA to disassociate themselves with a guy who typifies the outlook their strategic thinkers project on us.
Now is the time to say to the Petzals, Wrays, Zumbos and the other Fudds, no, you cannot claim to be a guns-rights supporter if you'll sell out guns based on aesthetics.
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies
The NRA was one of the main defenders in all of this. This goes to show how reliable a source Wray is. (and how far they had to go to find one who agreed with the "politically correct narrative".)
(Obligatory Disclaimer: Knowing how media types can twist and misquote - I'm also willing to give Wray the benefit of the doubt that he didn't say what was reported/quoted. Always keep this in mind).
Petzal doesn't have that excuse, he's the columnist/editor.
This is a time when we can be less "frenetic" - but we must be steadfast.
If you are willing to throw "ugly" guns to the Brady Wolves - then no, you're not one of us.
Well, this is interesting.
Seems Mr Wray has been fighting with the NRA as of late:
Unfortunately, the NRA’s ‘efforts’ on behalf of hunting are, for the most part, a smokescreen, much ado about damn little..
(a reply/rebuttal is here)
Don’t think I’ve ever stopped by your site, or as Ms. Clinton would respond, “I don’t recall”.
Your message gets clouded by the cryptic manner in which you present it. I would have preferred your opinion on gun ownership to have been straight forward without the trend of shortcutting such as Fuddites and the like. I take it you are in favor of an individual’s God given right to bear arms as found in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms contains no definition as to what sort of weapon; be it a long gun, shot gun or pistol, fully automatic or bolt action, appearing to be a sportsman’s tool or a weapon of war. The individual has every right to maintain weaponry of his day and time, equal to or better than those who would take away his property or his life. There is no distinction for a citizen who wishes to use that weapon for hunting game, target practice or shooting at government officials intent on depriving that individual of his God given rights; those who paint such pictures are deluded.
What we have going is a war of words, (a psychological battle). Against the enemy of fear, (one of the most powerful and prevalent emotions that drive man). One in which occasionally spills over into much worse than mere 'words'; i.e. - Fincher, New Orleans, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.
In order to win a war by use of words. The tools of battle need to be used in a surgical manner. (Such as David C. does). With a touch of passion, and a dose of sarcasm sometimes. In order to drive the point home. Drawing out the 'sledgehammer' only on rare occasions when needed.
The point attempting to be made. Is that sometimes a Bic lighter is better to use than a flamethrower. The heat is still applied, but not in the 'scorched-earth' policy type of manner.
We have the TRUE FACTS, as well as RIGHT on our side. If the fight is directed and done wisely, our war is already won. Getting the enemy to realize and admit it, is what our present battle is about.
The devout enemies are entrenched. We shouldn't make more enemies out of potential allies. (Ones whom are even partially, however slight they may be - such as Zumbo). Which would tend to drive them into the enemies trench. The light of Truth and Reason will prevail, if used wisely.
I had little or no interest in owning or shooting military arms until the advent of the so called "assault weapons ban."
I was primarily a hunter, and the guns I was most interested in were the likes of single shots like Ruger #1 rifles and Thompson Contender handguns.
I then shot the ubiquitous SKS, and was hooked.
Since hunting has become a rich man's game, I am now primarily a target shooter.
There are probably a lot more target shooters than hunters. In fact, there are a lot of shooters who have little or no interest in killing a deer or elk.
I have NO SYMPATHY for the Zumbos of the world.
In fact, the worst thing that will come from this for Zumbo, et al, is that he will have to learn what it's like to be Joe average, and have to buy his guns, ammo and license fees out of his own pocket.
He is obviously an elitist, and an ignorant one at that.
I haven't bought a Field & Stream since Petzal advanced his ignorant elitist screeds against "assault weapons."
IMO, there's not enough that can be said or done to remove the traitors in our own ranks.
Now - lets turn this energy on the maroons who would vote for HR-1022, and every other anti-gun measure in congress and state houses.
Let the whiners cry. They aren't on our side anyway.
Forgiveness can come when the Zumboites have all changed their stripes.
But they'll have to do that on their own.
Keep up the pressure - and let's do the same for the anti self-defense idiots who violate their oaths of office.
Oh - btw - as everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows - the 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting.
At least Zumbo won't be working against us any more - except for possibly writing press releases for the Bradyites. (Thanks for that, Syd)
Ned Weatherby
I would rather be a fool for liberty as Mr. Wray suggests we are than be a fool in chains as he and Mr. Zumbo's surrender of rights belonging to others would dictate.
I don't expect Mr. Wray to understand that, but as little as a chukar's head is, he knows not to allow a pot shot.
It seems Mr Wray, could learn a lot from small headed fowl. It would beat his present condition of being small headed and foul.
"...how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies..."
That implies that we are robots, with no minds of our own. Sounds more like something Sarah Brady would say.
I suppose that anti-gun newspaper editors don't require their outdoor writers to be anti-gun as well, but I don't think it would hurt one's chances of getting published - so who are really the ones who are "trained"? Independent, individual, gun owners who often have to kick the NRA into action, or professional, outdoor writers beholden to their anti-gun bosses?
I'm not an NRA member and I attacked rather viciously (or sarcastically if you will). The NRA's mind-control is amazing!
The true damage is going to be a major rift between the cowardly rifle quislings and those of us who make no distinction between types of firearms. You should see the comment just left at my blog a little while ago.
"You people better think about what you are doing because the majority of us do not use those guns and never will but if you keep proving your stupidity we can help take them away!"
I posted this at Say Uncle's site"
Ned W. Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 12:44 am
“The American public — and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public — would be better off without the hardcore military arms.”
Exactly which “hardcore military arms” would the gun-owning public be better off without?
Maybe - bolt action rifles - which were developed for combat?
How about rifles that shoot 7 mm. or .30 cal. ammunition? What were the 30.06 and 7 and 8 mm cartridges developed for?
How many were used for hunting herbivores before they were used for killing human opponents during wartime?
How many idiots out there actually believe that modern firearms technology developed from anything other than, well - military arms technology?
Lever guns were first used in war, as were bolt-action rifles. Even single shot rifles and muzzle loaders were developed for wartime use.
It’s possible that only really expensive shotguns and really large bore rifles were developed primarily for the pursuit of “game.” But the technology that preceded them was military technology.
Self-loading rifles have been used for both hunting and war…but then - that’s not the point.
In fact, it’s possible that Zumbo’s and Petzal’s expensive specialty guns are the only ones that aren’t protected by the 2nd Amendment.
After all, elephant guns and trap and field shotguns aren’t really necessary for a “well regulated militia.”
I won’t bother explaining what “well regulated” means. Everyone with two brain cells and access to history books can discover what that means.
The enemy in our midst - like Petzal, et al, can stand by their elitist views. But they can stand by themselves, in the unemployment line, as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps when they have to work to save money to apply for a hunting license they will understand.
Forgiveness can only come after first asking to be forgiven, and then making amends for one’s trespasses.
I’m ready for our “friends” like Zumbo and Petzal to actually make amends. (Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, that doesn’t include asking high-end AR manufacturers to GIVE THEM A DAMN RIFLE TO TEST ON GAME.)
After that, ask me about forgiveness. Until then, elitists like Zumboites and Petzalites can STFU.
They have already given Sarah Brady, et al, enough press releases.
Skrewem.
BTW - I haven’t purchased a copy of Field & Stream since Petzal let me know that he is the enemy.
Let’s not forget who the enemy is.
I wrote about this at Say Uncle's, but thought everyone should check out Pat Wray's more recent commentary at the Corvallis Gazette titled "Introducing America's Gun Owners":
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2007/01/28/sports/venture/1ven01_wray.txt
While it might appear to be written by someone in full support of the second amendment, he includes this:
“We are willing to consider creative new ways to identify weapons that have been used for criminal purposes and wish the National Rifle Association were more cooperative in this effort.”
Blah, what an ass… He setup that sentence stating this just before:
“…we do not support the creation of new laws designed to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens…”
So, as long as the gun bigots are able to sell the next "creative" gun control law as “designed” to stop crime, he will support it. When it further erodes the right to bear arms, I guess he, and his kind of gun-owners, will be surprised of that outcome. (No matter what history has shown happens with EVERY other feel-good law supporting further gun-control.)
Definition of insane or maybe he's smart enough to answer just one question:
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/Just+One+Question.aspx
Oh, while it may appear to be open comments at Corvallis Gazette, they have been know to screen out comments in support of gun rights.
This issue has been festering for a lone time. The EBR's have carried the weight of gun-control for the hunters in Congress.
18 to 20 million hunters, and 4 million NRA members. 2 plus 2 doesn't make 5. Many hunters think the same as Zumbo and Petzal. My World is Safe they think. Wrong! They don't and won't get it.
This "BLOOD BATH" over Zumbo thoughts was always coming to a head. You sir are right, more "BLOOD-LETTING" needs to be done. Who are our friends and who are the sunshine soldiers. The 2A has lots of enemies, inside and out.
Gunwriters who live in ivory towers like Zumbo and Petzal must be shown the "LIGHT" of FREEDOM one way or the other. These men found out that they do have feet of clay like the rest of us. Must have shocked both.
One is fooless and the other a divider. Not to be trusted with our rights, no matter what they write about in the future. GOD forgive them and the damage they have caused.
What a terrible mess!!!!
Post a Comment