Tag: Gun bigots

More Reasoned Discourse

KevinLeave a comment

More “Reasoned Discourse”?

A blogspot blog popped up the other day entitled Soulless Letters, and it contained a pretty anti-gunrights post that was commented on by several members of the Triangle of Death, me being one. As a matter of fact, here’s my comment in its entirety, since I saved it just in case:

However, do you really need your gun in the grocery store or your local Wal-Mart? Really, do you?

Ask that question to Joyce Cordova, a Wal-Mart employee in Albuquerque. Her ex-husband, Felix Vigil, violated his restraining order and attacked her where he knew she would have to be – in the deli department where she worked. He stabbed her multiple times and most likely would have killed her had not 72 year-old Due Moore, a licensed CCW holder, not drawn his handgun and shot Mr. Vigil, stopping the threat.

I would invite you to ask Megan Leann Holden, a Wal-Mart employee who was abducted from the parking lot as she left work, but she’s dead. Her killer, Johnny Lee Williams, later attempted to rob an RV park, but the attendant there was armed, and Mr. Williams ended up going to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder.

There has to be a better solution than guns.

Phasers?

Call me crazy, but I just don’t want to have to think about my fellow hikers carrying guns.

If you’re not already thinking about it, then you’re living in a fantasy world. Criminals are already there. Concealed-carry permit holders just want the ability to protect themselves from them.

What gets me is that if you allow people to carry weapons into our national treasures, what is to stop the bad guy from doing the same;

As others have noted, this one line makes me think this entire piece might be satire.

Unfortunately, the anti-gun forces are so out-there that a reasonable person can no longer tell the difference between the ones who are serious and satire.

Concealed carry is not a mistake. In every one of the thirty-nine states in which “shall-issue” concealed carry or permitless concealed carry is the law, the worst thing you can say about it is that it might not have been responsible for the decline in violent crime rates there.

CCW permit holders aren’t fearful, we’re aware that the primary responsibility for our protection is ours. The police are wonderful, but when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

It’s people disconnected from that reality – like you – who we just don’t understand. But that’s OK. Feel free to enjoy your heightened safety knowing that a good citizen with a firearm might be the one to come to your rescue – like Due Moore did for Joyce Cordova.

Just for grins-n-giggles, I thought I’d check to see if A) there was anything new, and B) if my comment still existed.

Not only is my comment gone, the entire blog is down the memory hole:

Yup. Looks like more “Reasoned Discourse.”

KevinLeave a comment

More of That “Conservative Language Manipulation” by the “Right-Wing Media”

Via Say Uncle (why do I bother to read anyone else?)

It would seem that AK-47 style rifles are “assault weapons,” but AR-15 rifles are now “police-style rifles.” Yeah, that’s it. My AR-15 can’t be banned, it’s a police-style rifle!

Because, after all, if “assault weapons” are “spray firing bullet hoses” only good for firing from the hip and mowing down large groups of people, well then our police wouldn’t need those, right?

And does anybody have a problem with the fact that a town of 2,000 has a SWAT team?

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

From an excellent post by Joe Huffman. Joe’s formerly hoplophobic friend explains why he felt it necessary to demonize gun owners in his own mind:

Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.

But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)

Read Joe’s whole post. There’s a good comment by Clayton Cramer at the bottom, too.

Here We Go AGAIN!

KevinLeave a comment

Via Gun Law News, meet Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and gun bigot, reincarnation of Bill Ruger, er, Jim Zumbo, um, clueless idiot, ah! “Only One.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE&w=425&h=350]

He’s apparently an ex-Texas Ranger, so that explains the “Only Ones” mentality.

I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – as far as civilian – a five round capacity. If you’re a hunter, if you’re a hunter, if you’re going to go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn’t need only but one round.

This after stating:

I feel like if we lose the Second Amendment, then somebody will take the first, then they’ll take the third, and the fourth and there will be a domino effect….

His statement was made in an interview in 2005, and apparently the YouTube video is a recent post with no date. The NRA is now attempting damage control:

Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as “assault weapons”, and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

Mr. Jackson also attempts to defend himself on that page:

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.

And I suppose you have a “wide stance” as well.

Sorry, Ranger Jackson, that doesn’t fly with me. As a former law enforcement official you were one of “the Only Ones” – and apparently liked it that way. Fully-automatic rifles were not mentioned – hunting was. (A five-round capacity for fully automatic weapons? How stupid do you think we are?) I will not accuse you of supporting a ban – you did not. You stated your personal opinion, and the word “ban” wasn’t mentioned.

But it was implied that you wouldn’t oppose one.

I sincerely hope that since that 2005 interview you’ve changed your mind on the topic, but this shuck-and-jive routine makes me think that you have not.

KevinLeave a comment

I Found Ted Kennedy’s Safe!.

A while back I fisked Sen. Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy‘s Senate testimony on “armor piercing” ammunition. During his oration on the evils of such ammunition, he let loose with this unforgettable utterance:

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

Er, what??

I’ve always wondered where that particular non sequitur came from. Now I think I know. Watch this YouTube video (the sound goes out of time with the image towards the end)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9lMViBr6d8&w=425&h=350]

Pay particular attention starting about 6:45. That’s when they shoot a “600 pound safe.”

Suffice it to say, they weren’t using a .30-30, and the ammunition they were using wasn’t manufactured by Hi-Vel. Nor can your average civilian purchase Mk 211 Mod 0 .50 BMG rounds.

Not that that made any difference to (hic!) Teddy.

Or the VPC for that matter.

(h/t: Sebastian)

It’s a Baaaad Time for It, But…

KevinLeave a comment

SayUncle points to a new anti-gunblogger, Robyn Ringler, who blogs at the Albany, N.Y. Times-Union newspaper’s website. Apparently they allow outsiders to use their bandwidth if the author’s blog topic is approved by the paper.

Somehow I doubt they’d approve of The Smallest Minority, so it’s probably a good thing I have no plans to move.

Ms. Ringler is both a nurse and a lawyer whose claim to fame is that she nursed Ronald Reagan after he was shot by John Hinkley. She started her blog April 17 – the day after the VA Tech massacre. In her second post she wrote:

Blame it on President George W. Bush–it’s all his fault. It may be considered in poor taste to talk about gun control right now, but he started it.

I first heard about the shooting on Monday while driving in the car. NPR reported that a gunman had killed multiple students at Virginia Tech. In the same broadcast, President Bush’s first reaction was released.

The president is “horrified” at the shootings, said a White House spokesperson, but he is still in favor of a constitutional right to bear arms.

Hearing that while driving a car was far more dangerous than any cell phone. If I could have fallen off the seat, I would have.
Translation of the president’s message: You can kill all the kids you want. I never have and never will do anything to prevent a mentally disturbed, violent person like Cho Seung-Hui from getting all the semiautomatic handguns and ammunition he or she wants.

(*sigh*) Oh, boy. In a later post she wrote:

The question is not, “Who should own a gun?” The question is “Who should NOT have a gun?”

There is no way to know by looking at a person and having a two-minute conversation. Here, in the motel lobby, I think, I NEED MORE INFORMATION.

Has a judge or magistrate ever committed that person to a mental institution because he posed an imminent threat to himself or others? Has he been convicted of a felony? What if he wasn’t convicted, but there were significant complaints against him or what if he plea bargained down from a felony to a misdemeanor? Is he a stalker? An abuser? Someone who doesn’t know how to use a gun safely? Or store it properly?

We need to take the time to ask the important questions. Our LEGISLATORS need to take the time to ask the important questions. They are our leaders. They are who we turn to in a crisis. They are the ones who need to act on our behalf. Where are they?

Ms. Ringler is obviously someone convinced that other people are responsible for her protection.

In the post that SayUncle points to first in his piece, he notes that Ms. Ringler, like essentially all anti-gun activists, is very poorly educated on her topic of passion. It seems that she wants to ban the .50 caliber BMG rifle. Apparently she believed (she has since retracted) that Muhammed and Malvo used a .50 in the D.C. Sniper shootings, among other things.

So, I have invited her to debate.

Let me be up front and state that I am an advocate for individual rights in general, and the right to keep and bear arms in particular. I would ask you to please not dismiss me out of hand because of that, however.

I’ve read several posts here, and have reached the conclusion that you are well-meaning, but misinformed. Obviously as a nurse and a lawyer, you have a good brain between your ears, but you’ve been mislead(sic). I understand what it is that you believe you are advocating, but I don’t believe you’ve thought out the actual implications of those positions.
I would very much like to debate the topic with you, either here or at my blog or even privately via email (though, obviously I’d prefer to have the discussion be public) on the topic of gun control. (Note to self: Proofread, proofread, proofread before hitting “submit.” – Ed.) I believe you would find it enlightening. Though I honestly doubt I would “convert” you to a gun-rights position, I know that you would receive a different perspective that would at least moderate your position.
In a public forum our debate would offer an opportunity for others to see both sides of the argument, discussed rationally and in a civilized manner, backed with facts and links to source information to allow readers to see and decide for themselves.
Thank you for your attention. I await your response.

Kevin Baker – proprietor, The Smallest Minority

I’m going to be busy as hell for the next, oh, eight weeks, so debating will be difficult at best, but to be honest I don’t expect her to respond. She certainly needs more information, but I don’t think she’s really interested in hearing from the other side.

UPDATE, 6/1: I’ll be damned. I left another comment at Ms. Ringler’s site, answering her list of ten questions. At the end of that comment, I left another invitation to debate, (note the “more on this below” in response #5) but it was edited out. It would appear that she is not at all interested in any kind of honest exchange with her opposition. I’m so disappointed.

Unsurprised, but disappointed.

KevinLeave a comment

Express a Politically Incorrect Opinion, Lose Your Right to Arms.

Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes has a very, very important piece posted that everyone concerned with their right to arms needs to read: What is going on inside your head. If you’ve not heard the story of Hamline University student Troy Scheffler, you need to get up to speed quick. And when you look at some of the legislation proposed in the wake of the VATech massacre, you need to do it NOW.

After all, if newspaper editors can consider concealed-carry permit holders the equivalent of sex-offenders, it’s not such a stretch to consider them dangerous paranoids, is it? After all, some people already do.

KevinLeave a comment

None of Your F@&^ing Business!.

I wish I could do the Spock eyebrow thing when I say “Fascinating!”

I was checking the Violence Policy Center website to see if they had any reaction to today’s Parker decision, and came across their latest “analysis,” A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America (a PDF file). The report tells us what the title does, apparently guns just aren’t popular in America any more. So says the General Social Survey, which the Violence Policy Center tells us:

…is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Begun in 1972, the GSS completed its 26th round in 2006. According to NORC, “Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences” and is “the only survey that has tracked the opinions of Americans over an extended period of time.”

So much for the GSS’s bona fides.

Y’all know how much I love the VPC’s graphics. Well, here’s the centerpiece of this report:

Yes, according to the GSS:

During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006.

While at the same time:

In a June 2006 press release, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) President Doug Painter states that “…gun sales and ownership in our country continue to rise.” The NSSF is the self-described “trade association for the shooting, hunting and outdoor industry.” In the release, the NSSF adds without attribution, “The number of American households with at least one firearm is now estimated at nearly 47.8 million.” According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2005 there were an estimated 108,819,000 households in America. Using NSSF’s figures, 43.9 percent of American households have a gun — more than nine percentage points higher than the most recent NORC household gun ownership figure.

I don’t see what the VPC’s problem is, then. Obviously the NSSF is lying and it appears that since gun ownership is declining on its own, there’s no need to pass legislation banning handguns, “semi-automatic assault weapons” etc. The “gun culture” is going away!

Except, it doesn’t seem to be. I mean, President Clinton wouldn’t lie to us, would he? In a February 4, 2000 White House press release he announced:

Handguns Account for Nearly Half of All New Gun Sales – About 2 Million Per Year. Fifty years ago, handguns represented only one out of every 10 new gun sales. Now they account for more than four out of 10.

Um, if two million a year represents, say 45% of all annual gun sales, then that puts the total annual gun sales (carry the one…) at about 4.4 million per year. And that’s just new gun sales. As I’ve noted many times before, guns are durable goods. A gun made 100 years ago can certainly be perfectly functional today, and many are.

Now, I certainly believe that those of us who collect guns are building bigger collections, after all, I’ve got (mumble mumble…) guns myself and my wife insisted that I buy the bigger model gun safe because “You’ll fill it up eventually.” But do I believe that all of those guns each year are going into the collections of a shrinking number of aging geezers like me?

I do not.

According to the General Social Survey FAQ site, about 3,000 people are interviewed for their survey, and about 75% of them respond. It’s not a telephone survey, either. You’ll note, also, that after the 1998 survey the response rate dropped to about 70%, so right off the bat about 30% of the people they go to interview now tell the interviewers (in effect) “F$%# off!”

Gee, I wonder what the gun ownership rate in that demographic is?

Second, the VPC, Brady Center et al. have been striving for decades to convince people that “Guns are bad, mmmkay?” This, despite the fact that since 1986 the number of states with “shall issue” concealed-carry legislation has increased from 6 to 37 (and Alaska has gone from no carry to unrestricted.) People, somebody had to be buying those millions of “pocket rockets” and they weren’t all prior gun owners. Perhaps the best illustration of what I’m talking about here comes from NPR contributor and gun convert Emily Yoffe, the “Human Guinea Pig,” in her Slate piece Guinea Get Your Gun: How I Learned to Love Firearms:

So anathema are guns among my friends that when one learned I was doing this piece, he opened his wallet, silently pulled out an NRA membership card, then (after I recovered from the sight) asked me not to spread it around lest his son be kicked out of nursery school.

Ye gods. As fellow blogger and activist Joe Huffman has noted, in many areas – specifically the “blue states” and metropolitan centers – the gun bigots have made gun owners into “gun niggers.” Hell, newspapers seem to think that concealed-carry permit holders are the equivalent of sex offenders. It happened again just today.

So where are all those guns going? Well for one thing, I think the National Opinion Research Center has its head up its collective posterior when it says:

Some have speculated that the 9/11 terrorist attacks undermined support for the regulation of firearms, arguing that fear of terrorism increased the public desire for firearms for self-defense. However, this was not the case. (E)xcept for a small bulge in handgun applications in September-October, 2001 which had already started to subside by November, there was no increase in firearm purchases in response to the 9/11 attacks.

What about after Katrina? A LOT of people figured out fast that the government wasn’t responsible for their protection – was, in fact inimical to it in some cases. (Just ask Patricia Konie and her attorney Ashton O’Dwyer).

So, given this “decades-long slow motion hate crime” perpetrated against gun owners, is it any surprise that people either decline to answer, or (dare I say it) lie when asked whether their home contains a firearm? I mean, if you fear that your toddler might be evicted from nursery school because daddy owns a pistol…

So go ahead, VPC, Brady Center and all the other Joyce Foundation sponsored gun ban control safety organizations; convince yourselves that the number of gun owners in the U.S. is dropping precipitously. Pat yourselves on the back for the outstanding (*cough*) job you’re doing.

I really enjoy watching you splutter like Sylvester the Cat every time a new piece of gun-control legislation goes down in flames, or gun-rights legislation passes with a veto-proof margin, or, as also happened today, a gun-rights court decision stands.

UPDATE: I swear, I wrote this piece before I ever saw this.

UPDATE II: D’OH! Instapundit link fixed. I need a vacation….

UPDATE III: Woohoo! Instalanch!

Too Bad Jim Zumbo Didn’t Wait a Couple of Weeks

KevinLeave a comment

This will hopefully be my last post for a while on the Zumbo incident, but it is such a striking coincidence, I have to comment.

I’m a subscriber to the bi-monthly magazine Handloader. My April, 2007 issue arrived in today’s mail. Knowing the publishing industry slightly, I’m aware that everything in this magazine was written, edited, prepped and typeset at least a month ago, if not far longer. Starting on page 62 of this issue the author, well-known gunwriter Mike Venturino, examines light .223 caliber bullets in the context of varmint hunting. What’s the gun pictured on the two-page spread? A Rock River A4 varmint rifle.

From the article:

When I quit varmint shooting about 1981, combining the words varmint and autoloader in the same sentence would have been a contradiction. Everybody then knew there was no way a “black rifle” could be accurate enough to hit tiny little ground squirrels at distances of 200 to 300 yards. With what was available then it probably would have been difficult to even mount a suitable varmint scope on a “black rifle.” I honestly don’t remember, because I didn’t pay much attention to autoloaders then – and still don’t for the most part. Maybe that will change some.

Anyway, on hand now is a Rock River A4 Varmint, which is that company’s adaptation of the basic AR type of autoloading rifle known the world over as either AR-15, or in its selective fire military version as the M-16. However, the A4 Varmint is a long way from a military-style rifle. First, instead of the distinctive carrying handle of an AR-15, it comes with a rail atop the receiver that can be fitted with Weaver-type scope mounts. The A4 Varmint can be had with barels 16, 18, 20 and 24 inches long with rifles weighing from 7.9 to 9.7 pounts at each end of the spectrum. These barrels taper from 1.05 inches under the aluminum tube handguard to .920 inch ahead of the gas block. They are stainless steel, air gauged and made by Wilson, all with one-in-8-inch twist rates, except that an option can be a one-in-12-inch twist in the 24-inch barrel only. The trigger is a standard military two-stage type, but when the actual pull begins, this one released at 3 pounds.

The A4 Varmint sent to me by Rock River came with a 20 inch barrel, atop which was soon mounted a Leupold 10x scope. The catalog states that Rock River guarantees accuracy of .75 minute of angle at 100 yards. My thought was “An autoloading .223 outshooting most bolt-action .223s? We’ll see about that.” The facts turned out to be that this A4 Varmint often will group under .75 inch for five shots at 100 yards.

The article goes on for several pages discussing different bullets, powders, and loads (it is a magazine dedicated to handloaders after all), and compares the A4 to a Savage Model 11F bolt-action, but the piece concludes:

Also gained from this project is some deep respect for the accuracy potential of a modern-day autoloading rifle. Twenty-five years back when I gave up varmint shooting, I honestly never thought they could be viable long-range varminters. They are, although I still don’t like the way they spread my empty brass hither and yon. Last year in Oregon there were often opportunities for quick repeat shots, since the ground squirrels often clustered together. This coming spring with the Rock River A4 Varmint rifle, I’ll find out if indeed a fast second shot is an asset.

Looks like Venturino was “living in a vacuum” as well. But at least he didn’t let the vacuum reside between his ears when he sat down in front of his word processor.

And too bad Jim Zumbo didn’t get a chance to read Venturino’s article before he went after coyote in Wyoming. He might have taken an AR, and saved himself a boatload of grief.

Apology Accepted, Mr. Zumbo

KevinLeave a comment

May I call you Jim?

The High Road has a copy of the letter Jim Zumbo sent to Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’m going to reproduce it here (without permission.)

February 28, 2007

Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts an unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.

I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.

I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.

The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.

Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”

I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.

I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.

I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.

Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo

And another post that cinched the deal for me:

I want to confess something.

I’m a gun owner. In fact, I probably own more than most. I pride myself on the quality of my firearms and my skills using them. I spend every weekend, rain or shine, at the range. Defensive pistol, shotgun games, hunting, long range rifle, gun skool…you name it and I do it.

While I’m an NRA member, I don’t do activism. I don’t write letters. I don’t contribute money. I don’t call my congressman…in fact, I don’t even know how all that stuff works.

I just want to be left alone with my hobby. I don’t worry about what bills are proposed. I don’t keep track of what’s going on. Hell, I barely vote.

I don’t tell people what to do and I don’t expect to be told what to do. I just want to shoot.

I’ve been following this Zumbo mess since the beginning. I haven’t commented on it because I felt that everything that needed saying was already said. I also didn’t want to be quick to judge. Initially, I was mad just like everyone else. I’m a fairly forgiving person though, and I thought that if anyone could help him, it would be Ted.

Reading this letter, it’s obvious that Zumbo’s eyes have been opened. I forgive the guy. While what he did was blatantly wrong, I believe he has come around. I would share a campfire with him.

I can also appreciate people that act rather than talk. My donation to CCRKBA has been sent in.

Ed

This guy has over 1,100 posts on THR, but was in no way an activist. Regardless of what the Brady Bunch et al. does with this incident, the net result will be positive for the gun-rights side, I believe.