Gun Lobby Bags Famous Hunter

Bloggers Blast Outdoor Magazine For Firing Jim Zumbo After He Said Assault Rifles Have No Place In Hunting

(CBS)  Blogophile is written by CBSNews.com's Melissa P. McNamara

---

Gun Lobby Zaps Jim Zumbo

A self-described forester and wildlife biologist for 15 years, Jim Zumbo has written over 1,500 articles for all major outdoor magazines. He lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, and stars in cable TV shows about big-game hunting.

But it was his comment on Outdoor Life magazine's blog Feb. 16 that has caused his name to skyrocket across the blogosphere.

It all began when Zumbo wrote a blog post after a day of coyote hunting with officials from Remington, the arms manufacturer. He wrote that guides on the hunt told him hunters increasingly were using assault-style rifles in the field.

According to the Washington Post, Zumbo wrote: "Sorry, folks, but in my humble opinion these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles.'"

The result? Despite apologizing and even saying he would use the assault-style rifle on his own hunt, according to the Washington Post, Zumbo was promptly fired as gun editor by Outdoor Life, for whom he'd written since 1962. His television show on the Outdoor channel was also canceled and long-term ties to a number of industry sponsors were severed. The NRA also suspended professional ties with him, despite his 40-year membership.

Was this justified? Many bloggers are outraged at the vitriolic reaction greeting Zumbo.

KTK at Lean Left called it a "shock-and-awe campaign against one of the best-known pro-gun figures." "Literally within hours and with no discussion, a collective decision was made to completely destroy one of their own most admired figures for a far-from-radical statement that other leaders acknowledge was not unusual or out of the mainstream, and that he himself immediately repudiated," KTK blogs.

Steve of the Black Bear Blog even ran his own survey, and 50 percent of responders said "no way" should he be fired. "With the speed of the Internet, Zumbo's 40-some-year career was shredded and discarded with a scary ring of intolerance," Rich Landers blogs at SpokesmanReview.com.

And Steven, an NRA member, says "As much as I support the right to own a gun, I support the right to free speech...While I may disagree with his statement, I fully believe that he has every right to make it. He should not have to fear for his career because he expresses his opinion."

Some bloggers fault Outdoor Life for caving into the NRA and its sponsors. "Not a First Amendment issue? You bet it was. Instead of standing behind Zumbo, no matter what he said on his blog posting, the magazine fell to its knees in the face of the pressure," Allan Gregory writes at Conservation News.

I suspect this controversy won't be over anytime soon.


Blogger V. Journalist

Who is the longest jailed journalist in this country? Someone you probably never heard of. Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger, has spent more than six months behind bars in California for refusing to turn over a videotape he shot of a violent anarchist demonstration in San Francisco at a Group of Eight summit.

Wolf said he had an agreement with the people in the organization he was covering, but as the Washington Post reports, there are no confidential sources involved, and Wolf already sold part of the tape to local television stations.

Wolf also posted some of the clip on his blog, which has some questioning whether a blogger deserves the same protections as a mainstream journalist.

Will Bunch takes issue with a column by Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which she asserts that Wolf is not a journalist. “Josh Wolf may hold some extreme views, but given the choices, I'd rather see a lot more journalists willing to speak truth to power (and willing to go to jail to protect that right) than journalists who not only are cowed by those in power, but bend over backwards to defend them,” Bunch writes at Attytood.

But some say the whole debate about whether Wolf is a journalist is pointless. “Mark my words: if journalists really want to pick this historical moment to start existential wars amongst themselves, the profession is finished,” Kirkunit blogs.

Howard Owens agrees the debate is an artificial one. "There's no reason this guy should be in jail. There shouldn’t even be a debate over whether he’s a journalist," Ownes blogs. "When the Josh Wolfs of the world can be jailed for exercising his or her constitutional rights, we’re all in trouble, especially those of us who, as paid professionals, believe in the public right to know."

Perhaps it's also a cautionary tale for bloggers. “In the land of the free, blogging can be a hazardous business,” Antony Loewenstein blogs. Indeed.


Justice For Lawyers?

A site called AutoAdmit has come under fire for bad-mouthing some female law students. One woman claims the extreme free-speech policy of the message boards is harming her job prospects and those of her colleagues. Some well-qualified women aren't getting top job offers, they say, because of what would-be employers might read about them online.

AutoAdmit is run by a third-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania and an insurance agent. Some of the messages include claims about women’s sexual activity and diseases, as well as a host of racist remarks. Buried amid a message board full of questions about law school admittance are questions about dating and the "hottest" female law student, just to name a few topics, and many are laced with racist comments.

Should these sites be regulated, some bloggers are asking. The issue has generated much debate in the blogosphere.

"It's true that the First Amendment allows negative and offensive speech to be heard, but it is generally limited in how it can hurt and interfere with other people's rights," Cindy Liou blogs at Cairns .

Still, some say blaming the Internet is misguided. "Too hot to be hired? Come on! What rational employer would deny you a job because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?," Ann Althouse blogs.

Ilya Somin agrees. "Even if law firm hiring committees did believe the comments, it seems unlikely that very many of them would reject the student's application for that reason," Ilya blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy. "Most big law firms care very little about associates' personal lives outside the office, so long as those associates are racking up the billable hours."

So, what recourse do would-be employees have? "It seems that a job candidate's only recourse is to 'self-Google' and discover negative comments and bring them to an employer's attention on an interview," Carolyn Elefant recommends at Law.com.

"If a firm accepts anonymous gossip as truth over a first-hand disavowal and rejects a candidate, then quite frankly, that firm isn't a place worth working."

But as Anna Ivey at The Ivey Files reminds us, "It's easy to hide behind free speech, but just because something is legal doesn't make it right."

Blogophile RSS Feed

[gunownerdan]

WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTING IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT????
http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html
"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

[gregshafer1]

I'm not a gun owner, but with the lies told by Bush and his administration, and with their disdain for the rule of law, it might be time to take up arms. The NRA is crazy, however. They don't represent a reasonable American.

[gkc99]

The Second Amendment, and variations thereof found in some state Constitutions (e.g., Oregon), have nothing to do with hunting. States could end all hunting tomorrow simply by refusing to authorize any open seasons for any species. That said, Zumbo did not say that assault rifles should be banned, simply that they are not suitable for hunting. That is a debatable opinion, but his firing was overkill.

[rf35]

While far from being anti-gun, I don't see where assault rifles have a place in the average citizen's gun cabinet.

[bm6005]

While far from being anti-gun, I don't see where assault rifles have a place in the average citizen's gun cabinet.
Posted by rf35

Same here rf35. No one needs an M-1 Abrams or a bazooka either. Hunting should be a test of skills, not a superior firepower issue.

[bildooreilly]

oh now they want to make everyone that owns one out to be a "terrorist" with a "terrorist rifle" what a load of ***.

[random_radar]

So the NRA supports the second ammendment, but not the first? I suppose that is still better than liberals who don't support either one.

[musty2u]

For the same reason a person wants a faster and more powerful computer, a more efficient car, maybe just a faster car, powerful hand mixer, bettter air conditioner; if technology, engineering, machining, etc., can produce what the consumer wants; there is no valid reason faster, lighter, etc., would not apply to guns. I suppose hunting pheasants with an Apache helicopter would be excessive, but I would not limit it.

[afmca]

You need to remember that the NRA is the advocacy arm of the international gun cartel that sells guns to terrorists throughout the world. They only have 2 markets left - the US and terrorists. They pretend to be for the hunter, but just like the pseudo-Christians that pretend to represent God, they are just liars and hypocrites. The NRA's main reason for being is to guarentee enormous profits for gun manuafacturers and continue the carnage of gun related deaths. They would gladly sponsor giving free guns to criminals if it would then lead to increased high-profit sales to freightened citizens. They maintain their no compromise positions because to allow intelligent thinking and discussion would erode their entire argument for arming the world.

[bjr361]

Assault weapons should not be on the open market for anyone and they certainly are not needed for hunting. These guns should be restricted to the military and law enforcement. As long as the NRA promotes the sale of this type weapon to the general public, they will continue to wind up in the hands of criminals and street gangs. If the NRA had its way, we would all be walking around with guns strapped to our hips a la OK Corral days.

[rafterman1]

"So the NRA supports the second ammendment, but not the first? I suppose that is still better than liberals who don't support either one."

It's hilarious that you righties continue to float the balloon over about how you poor righties are so free-speach opressed by liberals. For six Republican-controlled years, the right told liberals to sit down and shut up, they have no say in government. And if a liberal did speak up, they were labelled anti-American, America-haters etc.

It's the liberals and liberal groups like the ACLU that fight for free speech. It's the right who fight for censorship and banning anything that they don't like.

[jimfinster]

I agree with Zumbo 100%. I own guns and have hunted all my life. Assault-type weapons should have no place in hunting. The mentality of some people these days is depressing.

[phil-in-fin]

"I suppose hunting pheasants with an Apache helicopter would be excessive, but I would not limit it."
Posted by Musty2U

And you would still call this hunting?

Not slaughter?

I have been hunting on my own since I was sixteen, and have seen plenty of moronic things by hunters who believed that it was okay to blow away birds and small rodents with rifles designed to bring down moose.

And laugh!

I have never witnessed such sickness as I watched a hunter I met on a woods-trail howl with laugter as he blew a squirrel away with a World War I Lee-Enfield. Once he delivered the shot, he went up to it and began "to play" with the pieces.

My father taught me to treat the animals I hunted with honor and respect.

[gunownerdan]

I know several people who hunt with "assault rifles". They are more than capable of downing a deer. But hunting isn't what our second amendment is about. It's about citizens having arms to be able to provide for their own safety and security. Not to mention the fact that "assault weapons" are really fun to shoot!
For more information, please visit:
http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html


"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
-- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

[rafterman1]

"However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

I agree that the 2nd amendment still has a place - especially in light of the Bush antics the last six years. But it was written at a time when the most devastating weapon of the day was a cannon. Now, you have tanks, attack helcopters, jets and even nuclear weapons. If the government decided to go rogue, could a gun and rifle-armed populace really stop them now? An interesting discussion.

[reel-crazy]

There are a lot of guns that are used in hunting and I will use deer as the primary prey in what I am writing. I know people who use 45 caliber ammunition and I know people who use 22 caliber ammo. What possible difference is there in what type of means that the projectile has been fired? The AK fires a 30 caliber bullet that is the choice of most hunters anyway. The prettiest Remington or Browning semiautomatic rifles are just as deadly, come in multiple caliber choices, and are as rapid-firing as the AK, or the 22 caliber AR-15. What's the difference to the deer? Nothing. You anti-gun folks know absolutely nothing about sporting firearms anyway. Your distorted thinking stems from the emotionally violent psychos you see on TV that have no business breathing our air anyway....

People KILL people

Guns DON'T, no matter their shape or form....

[aardvark99]

Now we know what the NRA looks like when its dressed in fear.

[gunownerdan]

A large number of our armed forces and our law enforcement are NRA members and proud of it.
Most know better than to enforce an unconstitutional ban on guns because they have taken an oath to protect and defend our CONSTITUTION. The main problem comes from those who have also taken that oath, but do not take it seriously.

[taddles-2009]

"So the NRA supports the second ammendment, but not the first? I suppose that is still better than liberals who don't support either one.
Posted by random_radar at 10:48 AM : Mar 14, 2007"

It's us Liberals who are outraged that he got fired for expressing his 1st amendment right about his 2nd amendment right. It wasn't Liberals who called for his head, it wasn't Liberals who fired him for speaking his mind.

Zumbo expressed his opinion about using military weapons for hunting, it should have ended there. Those conservatives who vilified him might want to read the REST of the Constitution they so adamantly claim to support.

[gkc99]

The Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well with assault rifles and homemade explosives in holding off "the world's most powerful military" which is unfettered by Congressional restraint in any way. No whining about "can't mine Haiphong harbor" here! The Bushits are doing what they please in Iraq, but some "ignorant savages" seem to holding their own. The fact is, no army can hold a country indefinitely against the will of its people. Atom bombs are basically unusable weapons. This would be even more true if the Second Amendment were called into play in the US--i.e., a fascist or other totalitarian takeover of the US government in defiance of the Constitution would give US citizens the legal right to use armed force to reestablish Constitutional supremacy--example: Bush declares himself president for life. Citizens throw him out on his a$$ and he has to retire to his million acre ranch in Paraguay.

[trumpthumper]

Interesting that the NRA wants to pick and choose which guarantees of the Constitution IT wants for the our citizens. The Constitution should be embraced as a singular document, in a sense it's "all for one, one for all". Amendments bring about changes, not threats and intimidation. A social organization in Germany once vilified those that didn't march lock-step with their selective interpretation of their country's written freedoms. NRA's Right to Bear Arms - OK! Citizens' Right to Free Speech - Not so much! In fact, that party in Germany also ruined lives in their quest to silence any free speech they didn't agree with. Hmmm...does NRA stand for New Reich Association? "Those who agree with us get on the bus to D.C...those who don't, get under the bus! FYI - The line for the mandatory goose-stepping lesson forms to the right...the FAR right!

[phil-in-fin]

"The AK fires a 30 caliber bullet that is the choice of most hunters anyway. The prettiest Remington or Browning semiautomatic rifles are just as deadly, come in multiple caliber choices, and are as rapid-firing as the AK, or the 22 caliber AR-15. What's the difference to the deer?"
Posted by Reel-Crazy

Of course it makes no difference to the deer, fool, however, you can judge the mental condition and skill of the hunter if he of she uses a rifle that gives a sporting chance to the animal hunted.

By sporting chance, I mean that the animal, once spotted, has a chance to get away because the shot, if taken, would either miss or only wound.

Do you want to empty all the animals from the woods because you want to kill everything that moves, crawls, or flies?

Would you also like to fish with dynamite?

[tank88]

If I worked at Chateau De USA for 40 years and said that "In my humble opinion, our Bordeaux is disgusting, We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who drink Ripple and it has no place in an American home. I'll go so far as to call it a wino's wine." Don't you think they would have the right to fire me? Or is the employer required to continue employment for someone who does not have any reguard for his employer and his business. If your employer went around (blogged) that you were the lousyist worker they had very seen. That no one should every hire you. You'd sue them and win for defamation.

[gunownerdan]

TrumpThumper, that's funny that you compare the NRA to Nazis. Sure, at times the NRA can be a little hardheaded in their ways, but if Germany had the NRA in the 1930's, millions of lives would have been saved.

"Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew%u2019s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions...will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."
-- NAZI WEAPONS LAW OF 1938 (Regulations Against Jews%u2019 Possession of Weapons, 11 November 1938, German Minister of the Interior
Frick)
http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawGerman.htm

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered races to have arms; history teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolf Hitler, at a dinner talk given on April 11th, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk, 1941 - 44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), pp. 425 - 426

[bm6005]

you anti-gun folks know absolutely nothing about sporting firearms anyway. Your distorted thinking stems from the emotionally violent psychos you see on TV that have no business breathing our air anyway....
People KILL people
Guns DON'T, no matter their shape or form....

Posted by Reel-Crazy

The issue has nothing to do with caliber, it has to do with the ability to convert them to automatic fire. I wouldn't take on an automated M16 (.22 Cal) with a lever action Remington (30 Cal).

[jimfinster]

GunOwnerDan:

You are WAY out on the edge with your posts.

The question is whether military-style weapons are appropriate or necessary for hunting. I say NO.

[reel-crazy]

You seem not of the intellectual type, phil-in Fin, so let me put this in words that even you might be able to understand.

Both beautifully handcrafted firearms and the ones that exude a tough-guy image are both capable of one shot kills and semiautomatic firings. Neither make the hunter shoot accurately at their target, however.

Still with me, little brain? Rational hunters are astute in their aim and obeying conservation laws. A pretty firearm is far more likely to be deadlier at greater distances than the intimidating looking copies of military firearms. It is the person who is responsible for using a firearm wisely.

It's almost time for the short bus to pick you up now, phil-in-Fin, so I will stop here....

[jscribe58]

Yes, the NRA might be crazy, but in a special way. It's obvious they fear if they give on one point, it will make way for all guns to be taken away from citizens. Already, a clearly defined constitution is being challenged where a citizen's rights are challenged by a few who want guns to only be in the hands of the crooks. Twisting the words is not going to change them. Eventually, this has to be put on the ballot, and will be rectified. Then the people who don't want the right to defend themselves can just not buy guns.

[rafterman1]

"The Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well with assault rifles and homemade explosives in holding off "the world's most powerful military" which is unfettered by Congressional restraint in any way."

Good point. But to be fair, the insurgents haven't driven off the "world's most powerful military", they have only been a thorn in the side. The Americans/American supported Iraqis are still in control. This could go on for decades in this current state. So, in the end, it only matters who has control. The insurgents have not won - at least not in the strategic sense. Would Americans be fighting each other in a civil war for decades to come if it ever came to that? And if the government was in control still, despite the "war", could you say the 2nd amendment is working/has worked?

[gunownerdan]

jimfinster, who are you to tell people what kind of rifles they can or can not use for hunting? If it works, people will use it. There are plenty of semi-automatic guns that are regularly used for hunting. The SKS rifle is a good example. There are even some handguns made specifically for hunting purposes! But like I said before, the second amendment isn't about game hunting anyways, it's about preventing thugs from hunting your family. And modern military-style rifles are more than capable of being used for this purpose.

[phil-in-fin]

"It's almost time for the short bus to pick you up now, phil-in-Fin, so I will stop here...."
Posted by Reel-Crazy

Funny?

You are a fool ...

If you had been thinking, you would see that I was calling for hunters to get away from assualt rifles and go to those "beautifully handcrafted firearms and the ones that exude a tough-guy image are both capable of one shot kills and semiautomatic firings."

Why I called you a fool in first place was obvious: you were asking if the DEER knew the difference.

When I was in the army, it was quite simple to change my semi-automatic assualt rifle into full-automatic assult rifle with just a small little tiny piece of tin-foil.

Do you think that hunting with a full-automatic (but called semi-automatic) assault rifle is okay?

Oh ... what a second ... do you hear that? ... you mommy is calling .. you had better go now before you get into trouble :-)

[trumpthumper]

Gun Owner Dan...or do you prefer to be addressed as G O D ? You share a not-so-subtle self image with someone you are able to quote - word for word. (Que the theme from the Twilight Zone )

Adolph and the Boys In Brown started by eliminating free speech (just like the NRA vs Zumbo) and moved on from there. Another scary similarity, huh? How's that moustache coming along?

[prcdr]

Sorry folks, but the real reason that Jim Zumbo got in trouble was the he lumped all owners of "assault rifles" in with terrorists. That was the reason he got into the trouble he did.

Just in case you missed it, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the type of weapon that can be owned by citizens or that it refers only to guns that can be used for hunting.

Those groups that have an anti-gun agenda immediately used Jim Zumbo's statements against law abiding gun owners, that's the other reason that his gun sponsors and the NRA dumped him.

[gunownerdan]

Here are some fine websites that are worthy of my support:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org

Black Man With A Gun
http://www.blackmanwithagun.com

Pink Pistols
http://www.pinkpistols.org

Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/

Women To Arms
http://womentoarms.net/

Pro Gun Progressive
http://www.progunprogressive.com/

[prcdr]

Sorry Phil,

Your anti-gun buddies have determined that your fancy single shot rifle with scope is a SNIPER RIFLE. You have to turn it in at your local police department. Have a nice day!

[gunownerdan]

Since terrorists and other homicidal thugs prefer unarmed victims, I will be keeping my firearms. "ASSAULT RIFLES" included!
http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

[prcdr]

phil-in-Fin said, "When I was in the army, it was quite simple to change my semi-automatic assualt rifle into full-automatic assult rifle with just a small little tiny piece of tin-foil."

BULLSH*T, The army does not use "semi-automatic assault rifles" all of their rifles are full automatics that can be fired as semi-automatics.

In addition semi-automatic rifles cannot be converted easily to fire full automatic using tinfoil as you suggested. If you were really in the army you would have know that. You are a liar.

Anyone that knows what they are talking about also knows that it is a FELONY to convert semi-automatics to full automatic.

Rafterman, the guns used by Iraqi insurgents are not the same as the ones referred to by Zumbo. Yes they do look similar, fire the same ammunition, but operate totally differently! Insurgents are using fully automatic weapons, not semi-automatics like the ones in Zumbo's article.

[reel-crazy]

It's a shame you missed your bus, phil-in-Fin, as it could have helped you considerably.

Responsible hunters do not hunt with fully automatic firearms, as it is against the law, idiot.

It's surprising you even made it through boot camp with your level of intelligence, but hopefully you will pay attention to the details more in the future.... one last time for you, little brain....

The shape and styling of the firearm is NOT responsible for the kill. It is the person behind the sight. Hopefully, you are not one of them.

My apologies to the balance of the readers for having to try to educate someone who doesn't have the capacity of logical thinking...

Good day, everyone

[jimfinster]

GunOwnerDan:

"jimfinster, who are you to tell people what kind of rifles they can or can not use for hunting?"

I am not telling anyone to do anything. I am presenting my opinion only. But I see guys like you in the woods all the time, pretending to be Rambo with military weapons. You give hunting a very bad name indeed.

[bm6005]

Hey guys lighten up on Phil-in-Fin. I believe that's for Phil in Finland where they do use assault rifles as opposed to our M-16.

[bm6005]

Also gun enthusiasts;

You guys still believe that the size of your gun reflects on the size of your Johnson? This is my rifle, this is my gun. This one's for fighting, this ones for fun!!

[closethippy]

People who own guns are terrorists, period. Most guns are used in this manner, to scare and terrorize people.
Like the guy who wave his gun at me after he thought I cut him off in traffic. Or how about the guy who took out his gun after my brother refused to give him a ride in his car and demanded an answer from my brother as to why he didn't want to give him a ride.
People who own guns, the "good" and the "bad" ones, all of you are a bunch of Neanderthals who can only function in society if you have the upper firepower.
You hide from the rest of the world and all you do is look out your window hating every living thing that walks by your property.
And when you get out of your s--thole the entire world including people become your property and god forbid anyone of us lesser beings get you upset.
All you have to do is wipe your gun out so you can get your way every time.
You guys need to evolve from your caveman phase. Look how you end up treating one of your own, like a bunch of sharks eating a wounded shark.
I mean, how savage can you get, huh?

[phil-in-fin]

To prcdr

***?

The army, and the year that I was in that army, did not have full-automatic rifles.

Perhaps you should educate yourself.

[prcdr]

My apologies Phil, I assumed that you were speaking of the U.S. Army. My mistake.

However, the weapons that Mr. Zumbo was speaking of cannot be converted to fire fully automatic in the manner you described. Your comparison was not an accurate one and gives people who do not know any better the wrong impression.

[phil-in-fin]

To Reel-Crazy,

Another example of "cut and run."

When I was in the army, I was a machine gunner:

7.62mm (something you might call a G-pig, after GPMG)

12.7mm (something you mught call a fifty-cal)

I am hardly anti-gun, just anti-stupidity, and I see that some of guys just THINK you know everything.

[neenga]

My, my. If you folks put half as much energy into intellectual pursuits as you do into gun "education," perhaps this world could truly become a better place.

[phil-in-fin]

"Your comparison was not an accurate one and gives people who do not know any better the wrong impression."
Posted by prcdr

YOU made the comparison in your zeal to laugh at me, a**hole.

Apology accepted, though.

[prcdr]

ClosetHippy,

You don't by any chance live in New Orleans do you????

[phil-in-fin]

To ClosetHippy,

You scare me ...

Please go away ... I have three children ...

[jimfinster]

ClosetHippy:

Nice rant. You really don't have a clue, do you?