« ZUMBOMANIA: David E. Petzal’s take on the Jim Zumbo fiasco | Main | Roll Out the Barrel »

February 23, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

ZUMBOMANIA, PART II: David E. Petzal responds to your comments

As has been pointed out by those of you with long memories, I wrote a piece 13 years ago about the then-looming assault rifle ban. The story was unpopular with a lot of people, but nowhere in it did I endorse the ban, as some are claiming. I note that none of you have seen fit to haul up the many, many times I’ve said critical things about Senators Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, and of course our beloved former President Bubba. But then it seems that most of you who are visiting here don't read this blog, or Field & Stream, or what I've written to defend the Second Amendment over the years.

Here’s some other relevant information: When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now. We can’t afford to sacrifice them, just as we can’t afford to sacrifice .50-caliber rifles (which I wrote about positively a couple of issues ago in a story called “Way Out There”).

In case you’re wondering, I’ve been using black rifles since 1965, when I hunted woodchucks with one of the very first AR-15s sold commercially by Colt. I’ve worked over many a prairie dog town with one AR variant or another, and if Les Baer were to send me one of his rifles (a heavy barrel flattop in .223, please), I would not send it back. I currently own an M1A. I don’t know if that qualifies or not.

Most important, you shouldn’t construe any of this as an apology. It isn’t. But it is the last thing I’m going to say in this space about the Zumbo matter.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e200d834642acc69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ZUMBOMANIA, PART II: David E. Petzal responds to your comments:

Comments

f&s reader

Editor,
Why in the world did you allow Petzal to write these columns? You knew this was a touchy subject and people were on edge and ready to flash again.
Why not just leave the subject alone and move on.
If anyone should be thrown under the bus it should be the editor of OL and the editor of F&S. You are ultimately resposibile for the content of the website and magazine.
You both (editors) have allowed more damage to be done to hunter/gunowner relations than anyone since the clinton administration.

Kevin Baker

"When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now."

Yet, had the gun-rights community backed down on the "evil black rifle" topic an inch, if they had, in fact, taken your advice and not paid the "heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons," they would not be as popular as they are to day. The would not be the dog, rather than the tail. And your M1A would most probably be banned as well, with your evil "long-range sniper rifles" next up on the agenda.

How can a "gun guy" not get this?

We cannot be divided on this topic. The right to arms is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot birds or clay pigeons. It is the right TO ARMS. Defend THAT, and you get to keep your particular sport. Deny it, and risk losing all.

The Black Rifle people understand that. The Fudds for some reason don't.

Kevin Baker

Note to self: Hit "preview" not "post." Typos suck.

Eugene P.

So what the damage has been done! All of you should lose your jobs.... As A hunter and a member of the NRA I am ashamed at the conduct of both of you so called Hunters.....

Jay

Good lord. Another out-of-touch gun writer completely misses the point. Is there something in the water lately? You folks seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

andrew

sir

Anyone can make an appology, once their feet are in the fire. I don't believe this appology is sincere, I think he is scrambling to cover his backside.

further, your own comment of 'Here’s some other relevant information: When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now. We can’t afford to sacrifice them,' you also claim 'what I've written to defend the Second Amendment over the years' Well, if you truely defended the 2nd A, you would have supported 'black guns' even when they were not an important part of sport shooting

NobodySpecial

More proof that anger makes you stupid.

TimW

"As has been pointed out by those of you with long memories, I wrote a piece 13 years ago about the then-looming assault rifle ban. ....But then it seems that most of you who are visiting here don't read this blog, or Field & Stream, or what I've written to defend the Second Amendment over the years."

A lot of people seem to think you DID support the 1984 ban. I've not read one comment from a reader contradicting that.

If your version is true, how can they be so incorrect as to what you wrote?

Why not re-post it for all to read and decide? I am certain someone has a copy to make sure that it's posted verbatim and in its entirety.

You wouldn't be trying to salvage your career after having just pulled a Zumboner, would ya?

DirtCrashr

Black rifles and the .50 BMG have been sacrificed in California, a state populated by many-many hunters who evidently care little about other gun-owners or even voting.
What's funny and terribly ironic is that I have read more than once in gun magazines, that when bolt-actions were introduced they were at first most commonly used by returning foreign-war veterans, M1898-Krags and later '03 Springfields, and such were looked-down upon by the Hunting Establishment as inferior arms - so blame Bannerman for the mess.
My Grandapa hunted with an un cut-down 1898 Krag during the Depression, in a rather frightful monte-carlo stock - he probably wouldn't have been invited into any fancy hunt-club either.

TimW

Here's something a reader posted in the other commentary:

""Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma".An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive." David E. Petzal 1994"


Did you, or did you not, write this?

A REAL gun guy

Whether they were an important part of the sport at the time is irrelevant. What matters is that people fought to protect them.

There is no middle ground. People are with us or against us. As we have seen, incrementalism has been used to great effect in gun politics of America.

Jeff

Think about how you're helping the Brady Bunch before you start insulting gun owners.

raf

Thanks a lot, Dave. Quisling then, Quisling now.

Editor at Large

Mr. Evans...the arrogance must stop! We actually do read, and we can sense the mockery. Please hire some young, energetic, and relatable writers. It is obvious that Petzal is stale and out of touch.

FieldAndStreamWritersSuck

!! LOL!! What an assclown you are. You write this:

"Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma".An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive"

Then you say this:
"but nowhere in it did I endorse the ban"

Your splitting hairs. Your very words were a tacit endorsement of the ban.

It sounds like your still living in the Clinton era, trying to figure what the definition of "is" is.

Maybe you didn't inhale either.

Belmont31R

You were sure willing to sacrifice them back then wernt you? Just as you say when they were not as important as they are now! They have always been just as important!

Dave, there is no grey area in the gun debate. You cannot ban one type of rifle an allow others. Each gun from .22 short to the .50 bmg is capable of killing a human, and there is no compromise when it comes to defending any of them which seems to have been lost on you and other hunting writers. Every gun owner needs to realize that the anti's are against EVERY gun no matter what their purpose. They have admitted they'd like to see guns banned/gone to the point police dont need to be armed anymore. Our military rifles are just the begining, and are an easier target than anything else. You should be thankful millions of us are on the front lines while many hunters get to sit in the shadows feeling safe for the time being. You can just look at other western/modern countries where one ban led to another and yet those bans produced negative results.

What Id like to see happen is for all gun owners be they hunters, competitive shooters or military rifle shooters stand up to any freedom infringing law no matter what. This has no happened yet, and many hunters continue to be willing to sacrifice us for their own percieved safety. This is not acceptable, and you, as a leading hunting writer needs to take the action necessary to ensure hunters recognize the battle as we see it for both our futures.

Until you do so we will just see you as just another fudd who is just looking out for his PC (for the time being) hunting guns and no one else.

Gary

Interesting set of quotes in the response above mine.

"An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive."

Comparing availability of a firearm to explosive devices. This just gets better and better...

Although I not an "average sportsman"-whatever the hell that is-the only "real dilemma" facing me is will my fingers hold up to all the typing to F&S advertisers coming up.

Your remarks above may very well be the last you will make here, but I'll bet many, many others will have their say as this spreads across the firearms bulletin board world. I understand 150,000 people posted to Zumbo's blog before it was taken down. Ready for your 15 minutes of infamy?

Toto, it ain't 1994 any more. Zumbo learned that, and you will too before this is finished.

SnoopisTDI

Dave,
I admit I don't regularly read your blog, but that is not relevant. Just like Zumbo stuck to hunting, you are still talking about "sport." That is the divide between yourself and those of us who support the Second Amendment, and it is terribly obvious. We are trying to point out that we support the Second Amendment in its original intent, and own guns for "the security of a free state." If the last couple days are any indication of your position, you are only a sportsman who happens to use guns(AR15 or not) for your sport. You have shown no support of the Second Amendment. You and your guns are no different than a hockey player who owns a hockey stick.

Please, understand and support the Second Amendment in its original intention.

Bull

"As has been pointed out by those of you with long memories, I wrote a piece 13 years" YOU WROTE A INJUSTICE DAVE! YOU SOLD US OUT PERIOD!!!!

Ed

Folks, I realized today that this is just a nobody that wanted attention on his blog. My guess is that the reason this is the last he is "going to say in this space about the Zumbo matter" is because Field & Stream told him to shut up and quit stirring the pot. I am very angry at Field & Stream though and will actively spread the word they keep a gun control advocate on staff. Ignore this attention grab. He is right about one thing though. Many of us do not read Field & Stream. A lot quit after his support of the first assault weapon ban.

Brian

You ignorant fudds just don't get it, I'm sure you touched on something controversial to get posts to your stupid blog instead of the usual dozen or so.
If you fudds really want to help and support the 2a you should just keep your mouth shut on the subject, that is the best help you can give.

Mike T.

What turned you against the 2nd amend. in the last thirteen years? If you were such a proponent of it why do you now so casually disregard it by endorsing Jim? I suppose you’re a patriot also because you fly a flag. You may have become stagnant in these past years and just don't realize it so please wake up and return to the David of old. Your position as a major outdoor writer has a lot of weight but anymore you seem to treat it as just a job. The majority of Americans, not just gun owners, are filled to the brim with stupid feel good legislation that does nothing but harm the average law abiding working men and women. People that work hard for their money, not some thief that will rob regardless if guns are outlawed or not. Then when a person such as you who is very well regarded in the industry decides to try to capitalize on the Zumbo affair to gain readers by first endorsing then distancing it destroys all credibility. If you really want to leave the cornfields to write for the political arenas you should begin by being vocal about enforcing the thousands of laws on the books instead of requesting more. Stricter penalties and quicker sentencing. There are many things you could speak out on and the 2nd is not one of them. Thank you for no longer discussing Zumbo. I fear if you were to keep it up you may find yourself in the same ice shack as Jim without a pole.

A firearm is a firearm is a firearm. Remember your stance on the first AWB? You should be using your influence to help. Your comments about AK-47's, AKM's, etc. will be heard forever. If you really cared about the 2nd amendmant, you would be using this blog to help not to stir the pot.

No apology given, so none taken Petzal...now let's get back to talking like GUN NUTS!

Jim

Mr. Petzal,

You sir, have yet to learn the humility which Mr. Zumbo exhibits in his 3rd and most recent apology

Quothe Zumbo:

"Thank you all for letting me speak. Yes, I know the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and hunting guns, and yes, I promise you I am now dedicated to educate all shooters that we must all stick together regardless of our gun choices, and also tolerate the firearms others may choose to use if they are dissimilar to ours. I will do everything I can, within my power as a journalist and public speaker, to protect the 2nd Amendment and America’s gun owners."

Mr. Petzal, might I ask; just WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU WERE, AND ARE, to adjuge which category of firearm was then, or is now, important or not* to the defense of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

* here's a hint: they're all important, dammit!

If you can't understand the need to defend one's right to a Hammerli Free Pistol or a Thompson M-27 SubGun, with equal ardor to any gun used afield in the hunt, then your grasp is at best, lacking.

Mr. Petzal...if Mr. Zumbo can learn, then why the hell can't you?

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.


Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate