"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.

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.....

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

"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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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