Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 24, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

APOLOGIES....This story here is being taken as evidence of the take-no-prisoners zealotry of the gun rights movement, and I suppose it is. But it's evidence of something else too: the utter futility of the apology in modern day America.

The guy in question, Jim Zumbo, has been a gun advocate for decades. Last week he wrote a single ill-considered blog post, and after a flurry of complaints he followed it up 36 hours later with the most abject apology imaginable. His blog has since been taken down, but trust me on this: he told his readers that it had been late and he was tired; that he had written in ignorance; that what he said was stupid; that he apologized; and that he was going to make an effort to learn more about the subject in question (AR platforms for hunting). He practically got down on his knees and begged forgiveness.

As usual these days, it did no good. The slavering hordes were unappeased and he's now out of a job, has lost his sponsorships and his TV show, and might as well move to a desert island to live out the rest of his years now. He's a pariah.

There are, obviously, some apologies that are meaningless and shouldn't be accepted. But this wasn't one of them. Zumbo was plainly sincere and was plainly apologizing for a hastily written remark that didn't reflect his long history of gun advocacy. All it did was make his critics madder. The moral of this story is: don't ever bother apologizing. It won't do you any good.

I have a feeling Hillary is well aware of this.

Kevin Drum 12:08 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (188)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm beginning to believe that people attack someone for a mistake for one of two reasons:
1. This is their chance to show the world how righteous they are and speak out against perceived injustice. An apology just irritates them because it breaks their flow.
2. They've confused politics and religion and are in search of a savior rather than a mere politician.

Posted by: Ron on February 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Same with the feminist left and Larry Summers, eh?

Posted by: brian on February 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Without knowing more about this case, I can't how analgous the situation with Hillary really is. Though I concur she has little to gain by apologizing, especially at this time, when it would not be accepted as sincere.

I would add that another lesson is "Think Before You Blog."

Posted by: Culture of Truth on February 24, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

He really shot himself in the foot.

Posted by: Roger Ailes on February 24, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Brian - I missed the part where Summers issued a sincere apology and retracted his statements. Also the part where he had been a devoted and sincere supporter of feminist issues for decades and just had a bad day. Also where he was immediately removed from all his affiliations.

But other than that, yeah it's just the same.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on February 24, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Real hunters hunt hunters - where's the fun in not going after something that can shoot back?

Unless of course you're hero-boy Ted Nugent, in which case you only do canned hunts of tame animals that don't even know you're dangerous. And of course most of the "heroes" of the gun nuts do the same thing, since all right wingers are basically cowards (unless they're running in a pack or safe behind the anonymity of their one-handed keyboard kommando activities)

Support your right to arm bears!

Posted by: TCinLA on February 24, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

real men spear hunt.

Posted by: Nads on February 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

But it's evidence of something else too: the utter futility of the apology in modern day America.

Huh? I thought apologies were a key part of the Kabuki dance of politics.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 24, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

I felt bad for this guy, and then I saw the picture in the article of him next to a bear he killed. Now I don't feel so bad.

Posted by: rafaelh on February 24, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Dunno about the "slavering hordes"... that makes you sound all old media - sniffing at us proles. :)

This guys case could also be interpreted as an overreaction by his employers and sponsors. Us comsumers talk back to their media providers more now. Companies shouldn't freak out the first time thousands of responses are generated. And you'd think that kind of interest (positive or negative) would still be a bankable asset.

BUT.....the specific "assault gun" issue has been super controversial between gun-nuts and gun-controllers. NRA-types see it as the beginning of a slippery slope towards more restrictions, especially since the difference between an "assualt rifle" and an ordinary rifles and shotguns are often merely cosmetic (almost all are semi-automatic, the argument comes in ease of conversion to auto.) For gun-controllers, assault rifle restrictions look like an easy political win - which politician will stand up and defend these scary-looking things? What of the children!?

Me, I'm for a complete ban on pistols.

Posted by: luci on February 24, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

I fail to see the connection. Yes, some people think apologies are a sign of weakness. And some view a politician's apology as insincere.

All that proves is there's a lot of assholes around, who vote. But responsible people continue to get elected in spite of them.

Hillary has 43% negative ratings. Which means she can't risk pissing off anyone. Which essentially freezes her into impotency. Rather than overcoming those negative perceptions with positive actions, she's demonstrating an incapacity to lead except by slash & burn GOP tactics.

Bullies: I've had my fill.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on February 24, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I probably own more guns than any liberal here, and I agree wholeheartedly with his original statement. Nobody needs a 50 round street-sweeper to down a deer.

Back last century we took leave during deer season. We walked out of the timber to a friends house and rested a bit. He worked in "the City" and had a bunch of those yahoos up there, armed to the teeth and not a lick of sense among 'em before they started drinking. As we were leaving this guy thy called Satellite Bob (who eventually did federal time for pirating decoders and was thus disarmed) stepped out the door spraying bullets with a knock-off M16. My husband snapped to - "Whoa there! What the hell are you shooting at?" and the idiot replied "Who know?!?!?!"

I took his god-damned gun away from him.

(My father-in-law is a hunters hunter and was a lifetime member of the NRA. He resigned his membership over this issue.)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

What Sen. Clinton is aware of is that she deserves to be President because she is Bill Clinton's wife. She will never feel she has to apologize for anything because she is Bill Clinton's wife. And the logic of each and every one of her critics, right and left, has the same failing: it does not recognize that she is Bill Clinton's wife.

Hillary Clinton is the Washington culture of entitlement personified. It may be that some people who follow politics closely have come to take that culture for granted, even to accept it as a good and permanent feature of American political life, and to incline toward sympathy and support for its principle beneficiaries when they are criticized by their inferiors.

It is a little odd to find Kevin Drum sliding into that role. He has, after all, written often about the alarming rise in income inequality in America, its causes and consequences. He's never given me the impression he thought that the wealthiest Americans, the top tenth of one percent, should feel entitled to have the federal tax code or economic policy generally serve them primarily. He's left the contrary impression, actually, that he thought America could do better.

In politics, things are different. Bushes and Clintons, Clintons and Bushes, as far as the eye can see: that's the best America can do. You might almost say that challenging this is the political equivalent of class warfare. Now, I don't know that Kevin Drum believes this. But I could see where he might question whether he had any right not to. Among other things, he is not Bill Clinton's wife.

Posted by: Zathras on February 24, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Lawrence Summers will be very pleased to be informed that liberals are so tolerant and that only conservatives go after those who stray off the plantation.

Posted by: Thinker on February 24, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

If only it was that easy removing some of the unapologetic liars in the msm this would be okay.
Anti automatic assault rifle? He must be a dirty liberal.

Posted by: Albert on February 24, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody needs a 50 round street-sweeper to down a deer.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen)

Like hell they don't. Have you seen them shoot? Some of those nimrods could down a deer with an M-60 and two boxes of ammo. Even at a cyclical fire rate.

Posted by: cyntax on February 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

What nonsense. Hillary knows very well that apologies work--Bill has demonstrated this to her many times!

Beyond snark, it has obviously worked to some extent for Edwards. And it would work for her as well. The apology is the enabler, but the key is what you do next. Hillary apologizing and changing nothing else won't work. But if she follows up with real leadership on war-related program activities of the Bush administration, it would definitely work.

Posted by: Amit Joshi on February 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Dur-- that was "couldn't"... time for more coffee.

Posted by: cyntax on February 24, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Apologies are bad in politics. You don't see aWol or Darth apologizing for zip, in spite of presiding over a total FUBAR situation that will take years to pay for. You don't see the NYT saying sorry about their years of Whitewater stories.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 24, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

I've read Jim Zumbo's articles for many years. It's a bit sad to see a heavy-handed response like this to a legitimate comment about the potentially negative aspects of associating hunting with images of 'assault rifles'.

I think most American hunters would tend to agree with Jim's statement. Hunting is under continuing pressure from urbanites and animal rights groups. An association of hunting with what the public percieves as negative images of firearms can't help the sport.

From a practical point of view, the direct issue of hunting with assault rifles is really a tempest in a teapot.

Every state I know of bans big game hunting with weapons having over 5 rounds magazine capacity. I've been hunting for over 40 years now and have never met another hunter using what Americans visualize as an 'assault rifle'.

On the other hand, I do understand the rationale behind the response. The gun enthusiast community (which is somewhat different from hunters) is also subject to continual and increasing pressure.

Any give in their rights is seen as 'the nose of the camel in the tent' that will be exploited. [historically this is not an unreasonable position]. For a gun 'enthusiast', gun control is the overriding issue in their relationship to politics... much like the 'pro-life' [sic] groups.

So even a minor issue like an offhand blog comment by an outdoor writer draw a major response, way out of proportion with the nature of the comment itself.

Note that I've put the term 'assault rifle' in quotes... it's something that's mostly defined in the american mind by scary images of 'terrists in ski masks'. Most of the regulations I've seen concerning assault rifles define the weapons by image rather than substance.

As a practical matter, 'assault rifles' are insignifiant in terms of contributing to gun crime. As a nation, there really are more important things to worry about. [Health Care, Climate Change, Foreign Policy etc]

IMHO a 'liberal' should consistently come down on the side of personal freedom. If liberals would shed the gun control issue they would carry the elections with ease. This is something the right wing fears greatly... maybe even more than gay marriage. [scarcasm tag]

Posted by: Buford on February 24, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

these guys aren't using assault rifles to take down deers; they're after a much more terrifying prey — prairie dogs. you miss 'em with your first burst and there's heck to pay!!!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

My brother-in-law is a bigger liberal than I am and he is a lifetime member of the NRA. He bemoans the fact that the NRA was primarily a sportsman’s and marksman’s organization until convicted murderer and thief Harlon Carter took the reins of power during the so-called “Cincinnati revolt” in 1977. This psychopath turned it into the bastion of right-wing gun goonery that it is today. The NRA has become nothing more than a lobbying wing of the Republican party and cares more about electing mindless ideologues than about marksmanship and caring for the outdoors, as they did in the past.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Let me repeat: Is that why Mr. Clinton has failed to apologize for not responding to the USS Cole bombing? And as we've seen before, I'm not alone in the opinion that Clinton should have responded with military action. My comrade in despising the decline of American morality, bin Laden, "complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked" in respone to the Cole incident, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden said that if we didn't respond to the Cole attack militarily, he'd do something bigger. And he did, on 9/11. Read that in the 9/11 Commission Report and weep knowing that Clinton's lack of backbone in responding to the Cole bombing may have provoked Bin Laden to stage a bigger attack.

And let me just rub your liberal faces in this: The cowardly liberal Clinton failed to respond militarily to the Cole bombing in the two and a half months he had in office after that incident, as only a cowardly liberal can do. It was cowardly because during those two and a half months we didn't have clear evidence of al Qaeda's involvement, again according to the 9/11 Commission Report. A bold move would have been to attack first, and figure out why we're attacking later. Bush showed that kind of bold leadership in attacking Iraq.

By the time Bush took office we had solid evidence that al Qaeda was behind the Cole attack. And in response, showing the sort of backbone only a Conservative can show, Bush, in his wisdom, wisely declined to respond militarily to the Cole bombing, frustrating Bin Laden by refusing to give him what he wanted. A weak president would simply have given bin Laden what he wanted, and no doubt Clinton would have done exactly that if, heaven forbid, he had still been in office. No, instead Bush, truly second only to Reagan in the greatness of his leadership, showed bin Laden who was boss by allowing the Yemeni legal system to handle the suspects, treating it as if it were merely a common crime rather than the terrorist action it was. Imagine how frustrated bin Laden must have been, after staging a terrorist attack that took American lives, when Bush boldly refused to take the bait.

And did Bush's plan work? Of course it worked. Those criminals were tried in Yemen, convicted, imprisoned, and not allowed to escape from prison for several years. Read it and weep, all of you libs who can't recognize great leadership:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/05/cole.escape/index.html

Posted by: American Hock on February 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

hillary's best play at this point is to not apologize for her iraq vote as that would publicly crystallize the fact that her judgement was unsound in a crucial nat'l security matter.

this is of course true no matter what she says but the cold mathematics of the election will probably get her more votes if she pulls a dubya and refuses to own up to her mistake.

either way, she--and everyone else who foolishly and cowardly signed the blank check--is unfit to be president...

Posted by: travy on February 24, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

There is a much larger cultural issue on display here-the ascendance of groupthink and big-moneyed interests over individual free speech. From the article:

"...Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962..."

"...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..."

Big money organizations like the NRA (they certainly aren't the only one) are far more concerned with corporate $$$ than they are with an *individual's* rights.

All Zumbo did was voice his opinion. He shouldn't have apologized at all.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 24, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone thought about writing outdoors magazine and demanding he be reinstated? There must be alot of people out there who feel sympathy for the guy and who also don't approve of assault rifles. Why aren't they writing in?

Also, its funny how you can call a gun used by terrorists a "terrorist rifle" and get raked over the coals, but it is okay to call people supporting phased withdrawal from Iraq "terrorist sympathizers" and that is somehow okay.

Posted by: Doug on February 24, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, brian, I agree. Summers should have gone to be early that day.

I'm a liberal who lives in Manhattan with a 50-acre property 85 miles from the city. I don't hunt myself, but allow two people to hunt on my property (as long as they call each other first!). I love venison. Besides the deer eat everything I plant, so I wish the hunters would kill them all. They're rodents on long legs.

On gun control, I don't understand why the Ds can't make it a micro problem instead of a macro problem. Bloomberg seems to be doing a yeoman's job of attacking the sources of guns in NYC, without the aid of national gun control legislation.

Besides W has pissed off hunters by allowing all kinds of mining/logging/etc, activity on government lands where the hunters used to have much more to themselves. If the Ds could get their heads screwed on right on gun control, the hunter community would switch parties--wingnuts at the head of the NRA notwithstanding.

Posted by: eCAHNomics on February 24, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Have you seen them shoot?

See "Satellite Bob" above.:)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

This just demonstrates what has been apparent for more than twenty years -- the NRA has ceased to be a traditional hunter's org and is now run by the gun industry for gun wacko freaks.

Posted by: Disputo on February 24, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

If you're saying Hillary's apology wouldn't be accepted, or wouldn't do her any good, I don't think the cases are comparable at all. We don't want to hear Hillary plead that she's sorry -- but if she says she voted for the war because she was misled, that demonstrates an appalling lack of competence on her part, and she owes it to the voters to explain this lapse.

PS: Marv Albert.

Posted by: Alan in SF on February 24, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why not cut all this liberal crap and allow hunting with Minimis or even Miniguns.

BTW, American Hock, are you related to The General in any way?

Posted by: blowback on February 24, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo - I need a favor...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, no one is demanding an apology from Hillary - only an acknowledgement that she made a mistake. It did wonders for Edwards - I don't know why she can't follow suit.

Second of all, fuck this guy and his empire. If going and killing animals is your idea of "fun," then f*** you.

Posted by: chuck on February 24, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

AHock, you continue to outdo yourself.

Posted by: Disputo on February 24, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Three Cheers For The NRA!
After all, a well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.
BTW, kudos to American Hock @ 1:48pm...that was hillarious!

Posted by: KerouacZac on February 24, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Funny, I don't remember you supporting Jumbo before he made this comment.

But now, when he tries to accuse decent, hardworking Americans of basically being terrorists, you fall in love with him. Why?

I think I know. Because the jig is up on liberalism. Has been for a few years now. You libs are nothing but terrorist lovers. There, I said it. And I won't apologise. And in order to level the playing field, you have to change the terms of the debate, so you try to project onto the other side, trying to label them as terrorists.

So you can take Jumbo and head off to Iran, with all you other terororist lovers. Us real Americans will stay here and try to fight a war, thank you very much.

Posted by: egbert on February 24, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Unless you are a vegan, don't condemn me for shooting a deer each fall. They cause more car accidents than alcohol in the rural area where I go to harvest mine. Deer hunters actually restore balance, since in most rural areas the top predators have been extincted.

Don't be so high and mighty if you are having a burger for lunch that came from a factory-farmed cow and was probably killed and processed by an undocumented immigrant.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

I think one of the great perils of faster communication is the ability to incite a mob with far greater ease and speed.

Blogs, as the most recent example of such accelerated communication, can be a wonderful force to the good. But they are truly frightening when they turn instead to the dark angels of human nature. And any honest person will have to acknowledge that this is true for both sides of the political spectrum. We on this side of the aisle can readily see the insanity of the online mobs that come together on the right. But on the left too, the mobs are no less vicious, no less irrational, no less destructive, when excited to a pitch of fury, often within minutes or hours by means of instant and ubiquitous communication.

This phenomenon is something that sometimes almost scares the wits out of me. The answer would be responsible online leaders -- but where do they exist? Mostly, somewhere other than the blogosphere, it would seem.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 24, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Us real Americans will stay here and try to fight a war, thank you very much.

Rim Shot!!!

I doff my hat to the egbert parodist! That is almost as priceless as how sad it is that politics is being used for a political football!!! you sir, or madam, should be writing for Colbert.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

But on the left too, the mobs are no less vicious, no less irrational, no less destructive, when excited to a pitch of fury, often within minutes or hours by means of instant and ubiquitous communication.

At least on our side there is usually someone saying "Hold on a sec - let's check this out." Not necessarily to any result, but at least we have a couple of grams of common sense among us. I don't see anyone making similar appeals on that side.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

the campaign song is already decided:

Here's a little song I wrote
I'm going to sing it note for note:
Not sorry, not sorry

Posted by: David on February 24, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

As usual, Kevin has it all wrong.

Case (A) This guy made a sensible and considered comment and then because of outrage at that comment succumbed to essentially political pressure to retract. It is ridiculous to think that a person's views on such a hot topic as assault rifle hunting are not well formed when the person in question is a long time hunter and hunting editor. So the "I was tired" defense does not wash. Or, put another way, if the Hunting Editor doesn't have a considered position on this topic then he or she should be fired.

Case (B) HRC votes in a politically calculated way and now that the vote, in retrospect, seems unwise refuses to apologize because it would appear that she was flip-flopping, which she would be. Essentially she is trying to disown the vote without apologizing - i.e., having her cake and eating it too.

The situations are almost diametrically opposite and the only possible connection is that apologizing or not apologizing in both cases is a calculated response to political perceptions. To argue that this case indicates that apologies are useless is ridiculous. The apology doesn't wash because the originally stated position is entirely reasonable and well thought out.


Posted by: df on February 24, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I love this:

A bold move would have been to attack first, and figure out why we're attacking later. Bush showed that kind of bold leadership in attacking Iraq.

Everything I know about foreign policy I learned in bar fights.

Posted by: RSA on February 24, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

If these lazy gun toters would put in the time and effort to raise the deer and make it comfortable with humans, they wouldn't need all this firepower. They could just walk up to the deer and take it down with a .44 to the head!

Posted by: David on February 24, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Everything I know about foreign policy I learned in bar fights.

Ladies and gentlemen - the working title of GWB's memoirs.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with df - I'm pissed at him too. Not for what he originally said, but for apologizing to the nimrods who cranked up the Wurlitzer.

He shoulda stuck to his guns, so to speak.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

They could just walk up to the deer and take it down with a .44 to the head!
Posted by: David

hell ... if it's tame enough, you could try sucker choking it.

Posted by: Nads on February 24, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Let's not kid ourselves. We all know what a gun is for most men (metaphorically speaking). You never see that kind of fierce resistance to regulation of any other piece of equipment (skis, cars, cameras, baseball bats, etc.).

Some time ago, metal lawn darts were banned. I thought it was silly to ban them, as did many others. But it took effect and there was nothing like the outcry you hear from gun nuts. And in this case, it wasn't a move to outlaw ARs, but one guys opinion about their use.

Gun nuts are very "touchy" about their "things", aren't they?

Posted by: Quiddity on February 24, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Lawn darts wouldn't do us a hell of a lot of good if the actions of the government become se egregious that we have to rise up.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who hunts with an assault rifle is a pussy. I use a grenade launcher. It's much more exciting for all involved, although it took me awhile to get used to the recoil. Also, you do have to watch out for bits of shrapnel in what's left of the meat.

Posted by: josef on February 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

"...The apology doesn't wash because the originally stated position is entirely reasonable and well thought out."

Posted by: df on February 24, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Exactly. Whose fault is it, however? Is it the media being so concentrated and oligarchic that it turns individual opinion shapers into weather vanes or is the opportunism of the opinion shapers the root problem? (One can't get published or elected otherwise) This relates back to the Beinart thread in many ways.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Due to the topic of this thread, I think it's time for this:

I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day!
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.

People ask me how I do it,
And I say "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.

--Tom Lehrer

Posted by: grumpy realist on February 24, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

I may be heavily armed, but I have a sense of humor - and that's the type of hunter that gives us all a bad name.:)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

...see "Satellite Bob" above.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with df. Zumbo's excuse that he was tired, etc. is just a lie. He made remarks that I suspect came from long consideration of the issue, then freaked when he saw his livelihood disappearing before his eyes. I'm not saying that this isn't understandable to some extent--most of us don't really relish losing our source of income, and for that reason probably curb some of our opinions in our own workplace--but it was nonetheless a mistake. He should never have apologized.

I have hunted but never particularly enjoyed it, but come from a family of hunters, so I'm not totally unsympathetic to those who do. However, it seems to me that the greater the technology, the less skill is involved. I don't understand the need for assault rifles at all, other than some misguided idea of machismo. It's about as sporting as going fishing by dynamiting a lake.

Posted by: dogofthesouth on February 24, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, that's a desparate reach.

Posted by: derek on February 24, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Quoth Global Citizen:
"Lawn darts wouldn't do us a hell of a lot of good if the actions of the government become se egregious that we have to rise up."

Umm....IF?????!!!! IF!!!!!!!!!!!

The time for that was a while ago. Like pre-PATRIOT, pre-9/11, approximately right after the Bush family rigged the 2000 election. There should have been a hail of patriotic 2nd ammendment gunfire, directed squarely at the Supreme Court.
Or, some would argue we should go back to just after WWII, when the MI Complex figured out that perpetual war was good for profits, and together with the brand new CIA (freshly reconstituted, with new-and-improved Nazi agents!) figured out how to make war the status quo. Ah, the beginning of the deception.
No, the time to "rise up" was back when it would have made a difference. Rising up starts with a voice, a demonstration, a vote, a conviction, and ends in the admitted failure of needing to raise your weapon.
Americans: never forget your four boxes.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order.

But, on topic, it's nice to see the NRA and its associated corporate interests paint themselves into a corner. When they've alienated every last reasonable gun owner, they really will be the last bastion of screwballs that they strive to become.

Posted by: Govt Skeptic on February 24, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney is even more aware of it. No matter what boorish or illegal act he performs, he never apologizes.

Posted by: Scorpio on February 24, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

I phrased it that way in a futile attempt to keept he FBI away from my front door...

I think we are well into that terriroty, but I haven't seen any armored hummers rolling through Westport (not Connecticut) so I'm holding my fire.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for reminding me of the four boxes.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

NP, just doin my part.
Also, I post through some local joker's open wifi. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, FBI.

Posted by: Govt Skeptic on February 24, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

No, no, no.. assault rifles aren't for hunting. They're for storming the White House and taking down the government when the government no longer serves the interests of the people, as Jefferson said.

Posted by: Andy on February 24, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

This shows that an apology can't stop a flood. Sen. Clinton is in a slightly different place. My guess is that there are quite a few Democrats out there who genuinely want to like her--perhaps because of fondness for her husband or the time of his presidency, perhaps because she's a woman, or perhaps just because they don't particularly like Obama or Edwards. But I also bet that some of these individuals are turned off by the war vote. This is just the kind of situation in which apologies do help.

Apologizing to someone you've wronged who has no stake in liking you is likely to be futile, but apologizing to someone who wants to like you for something that is getting in the way is likely to be a useful first step to reconciliation.

Posted by: Greg on February 24, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

i wonder if John Edwards can produce his Hunter Safety Certificate from fifth grade?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think this story needs to be kept in mind the next time some wingnut accuses the left of not wanting free speech. This guy said one stupid thing, and not really even that stupid, and they drove him out of his work. Makes a LOT of their accusations ring hollow, but then I've long thought most conservatives are hypocrites anyway.

Posted by: Mike B. on February 24, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

For a rather similar tale of woe consider the case of the Dixie Chicks, almost universally rejected overnight by their once rabid fans for 15 politically incorrect words spoken by their lead singer at a concert in London in 2003. I mean, instantly and totally rejected at the prompting of a right wing blog, unable to get air play on any southern country station, subject to death threats when they appeared in their home state of Texas; their careers over, finished, kaput.

There's just one difference - they didn't apologize. Not only didn't apologize but in 2005 they released a hit single letting everyone know they damn well weren't going to apologize. And the result...?

If you don't know by now, see Barbara Koppel's Academy Award nominated documentary "Shut Up & Sing" and find out. Too bad gun nuts don't know how to stand up and be men like these three women.

Sorry if this sounds like a commercial; I'm still high from watching the DVD.

Posted by: fyreflye on February 24, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I think Hancock (Civil War hero who founded the NRA) would happily shoot most of its current leadership.

The reason the NRA was chartered by Congress is, oddly enough, precisely the subject of Ted Nugent's latest column. (If you didn't know Ted has a newspaper column, well...) Ted explains to his Waco readers that learning how to be calm and disciplined and SAFE with a firearm is a very good thing for kids.

But as several posters have pointed out, the NRA has been completely taken over by corporate shills and political aparatchiks, to be run as a money machine and a lever for blunt political action.

They have had several mild scares recently, e.g., over Teflon bullets, where even their membership wasn't so stupid as to buy what they were selling.

And that's the real issue under Zumbo's trouble. What he said was a DIRECT threat to what the NRA as become, which is not what it was charted to be.

The future of hunting in America, of sport shooting and the like, is progressive: environmental protection, and the original chartered purpose of the NRA, firearms competence and safety.

If the NRA was big enough to accept a guy like Zumbo pointing out a fully automatic Kalishnikov is NOT a hunting weapon, but only (as Samuel L. Jackson said in a movie recently) "When you absolutely, podsitively have to kill every motherfucker in the room", then it would no longer be the tool it is.

If progressives were as smart as conservatives have occasionally been over the past generation or two, we'd TAKE OVER the National Rifle Association -- not to ban handguns, but to promote REAL firearms competence and gun safety.

Hell, we could use Hancock as our symbol.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 24, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Paul: Agree.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Bottom Line: Zumbo is still right about the AR's.

AR's should not be allowed for hunting.

People who are lousy shots want to use AR's.

Posted by: James on February 24, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

As others have said, John Edwards' apology worked for him. But I think it's because he made it soon enough (back in 2005); Hillary won't get out of the hole she's in by apologizing.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 24, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

1. This was a grassroots response to Zimbo?s post. Thousands of posts per day we posted on Jim?s blog before that blog was pulled off line. Then Jim resigned his position. That all went down before the NRA issued their first press release.

2. The groundswell of people that voiced their opinion about Jim to his ex-sponsors care deeply about their right to keep and bear arms, and don?t take kindly to the thought that the only legitimate purpose to keep their ?Liberty?s Teeth? is so they can go hunting.

3. The second amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting

4. Jim Zumbo totaly blew his apology. He basicly said "Oh, so people really use these things for hunting? Well I suppose then in that case they are OK."

?On Friday evening, a gunwriter who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.? -Tam

Posted by: standard mischief on February 24, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: This story here is being taken as evidence of the take-no-prisoners zealotry of the gun rights movement, and I suppose it is. But it's evidence of something else too: the utter futility of the apology in modern day America.

You only "suppose" it's evidence of the gun rights movement's zealotry, which is yet another example of the right's insidious power; but regarding the much less significant issue surrounding the effects of apologizing, you assert that it's evidence of the "utter futility" of the apology.

Well, I assert that it's evidence of the utter transparency of an apology whenever it comes on the heels of a moneyed group's condemnation. Rather than being outraged over this branch of the right-wing wielding its power in a manner that affects millions, you seem to lament the fallen status fate of one of that branch's proponents, as if his cowardly retreat from a sensible statement should entitle him to retain his entitlement of elitism.

The focus you chose to give this story, Kevin, exposes your own elitist leanings.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

These folks who are lousy shots and want to use AR's as a result, perhaps they should practice at a shooting range until they're no longer lousy.

Or do they feel they should be able to pick up an AR at Wal-Mart, immediately drive down to the local forest preserve and go Rambo at the wildlife with absolutely no training?

The Dixie Chicks got lemons and made lemonade. This guy oughta do the same and pander to us lefties now . . . he'd made a pretty penny going on Oprah with his new book about being betrayed by the NRA.

Posted by: Librul on February 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Assault rifles to hunt prairie dogs?? These guys are creeps. I bet not many real soldiers who have been in combat enjoy crap like that.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 24, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, the Clinton's attacked the USS Cole?

Posted by: Dave In Texas on February 24, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Political correctness gone amuck.

This is why I hate right-wingers: they whine about "political correctness" as if it's a lefty thing but if you step off the ideological boat for even a second- HELL TO PAY.

Again, the term for this is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on February 24, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

The ONLY difference between weapons that look like assault weapons and standard hunting rifles is cosmetic.

Either you're a lying dipshit, or you have never actually touched a rifle in your life.

Wait, I'm wrong. It's most certainly both.

Posted by: Disputo on February 24, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Whaddaya need, BGRS?

Posted by: Disputo on February 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Help with Illinois. You game?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the email I wrote Josh Marshall for allowing David Kurtz to make an ignorant, misinformed blog post on the subject:

Your blurb at this link:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012622.php

reflects an ignorant misunderstanding of the issues involved here.

Firstly, what exactly is an "NRA crazy?"

I'm an NRA member; I also support the ACLU, gay rights, abortion rights,
drug decriminalization, the EPA and efforts to stem global warming, and
equal pay for equal work for women.

In short, by nearly any definition I'm as liberal as they come. My
liberalism also includes the belief that I should get to defend myself and
enjoy target shooting. What's wrong with that?

Secondly, your "vaporize prarie dogs" comment reinforces the stereotype of
the liberal who is appallingly ignorant about the gun issue. To be
precise, the AR15 rifles that Zumbo was griping about fire a .223
cartridge.

That's the weakest centerfire cartridge on the market; the bolt action
.270 hunting rifle I own is several times more powerful and more likely to
"vaporize" a prarie dog. It fires a cartridge many fold more powerful
than a so called "assault rifle". In fact, the rifles Zumbo was talking
about are actually far less powerful than even the most common hunting
rifles in use today by millions of sporting shooters, target shooters, and
hunters. The AR15 is the most popular and commonly enjoyed competitive
shooting (read: not vaporizing or killing anything other than a paper
target) rifle in use today. The idea that people who enjoy these rifles
lawfully and responsibly are "crazies" is a bigoted, ignorant notion no
better than any other negative stereotype.

Military weapons are fully automatic. AR15s are SEMI automatic. There's
a world of difference. Email me if you're not actually aware of the
difference.

Finally, Zumbo implied that people who own AR15s are "terrorists". That's
the sort of bigoted stereotyping that we expect to read you bemoaning when
you hear it from Republicans. I'd think someone like Mr. Kurtz would know
better. Need I add that I own an AR15? I can ASSURE you I'm not a
terrorist.

I suggest you consider the issue a bit more carefully before you
regurgitate the knee-jerk, anti-freedom, anti-gun garbage the VPC and the
Brady Bunch spew constantly. It's baseless, divorced from reality
nonsense that costs Democrats votes.

If you'd like to become more knowledgable about the issue, my website is a
good place to start from a progressive, non-GOP point of view.

Regards,
Sebastian
The Pro Gun Progressive

In short, the AR15s Zumbo was misinformedly griping about are NOT bullet hoses or particularly powerful weapons compared to common hunting arms.

Second, fully auto weapons are NOT available to the general public under the NFA of 1934. Only certain people who've paid for tax stamps that cost upwards of $20,000 can buy them, and only those produced before 1986.

Disputo, you're the only lying dipshit here buddy.

The only differences between an AR15 and any other semi auto rifle that hunters commonly use are cosmetic. If YOU had ever actually touched a rifle, you might actually know this.

Why the FUCK should you even think the NRA is supposed to be a "hunter's" organization? That's not why it was formed originally. It's not why it exists today. 80% of gun owners do NOT hunt.

Hunting is an irrelevant red herring to this issue.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Fat White Guy:

When you fit 30 rounds into the magazine of your Model 750, I will believe that the difference is just cosmetic.

I guess folks who hunt with ARs must believe that a good hunter should always have the third through thirtieth shots ready to fire, because who can hit a target in just two tries?

Posted by: Sean on February 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Sean--
The magazine capacity issue is irrelevant. As someone else pointed out, most states limit mag capacity while hunting. Hunters who hunt with AR15s do so without the military 30 round mags.

The point of the AR15 is that it's a reliable, lightweight platform that many women and smaller hunters can handle, and it lacks the excessive power that larger rifles that fire .270 or .308 or .30-06 rounds. The recoil is negligle.

In terms of functionality, an AR15 with a five round mag is no different than a semi auto hunting rifle with a five round mag--except it fires a weaker round most likely!

Besides, hunting isn't the only reason to own a rifle. Extra mag capacity is nice to have at the range, and useful in home defense scenarios.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

"The differences are just cosmetic" my ass. Just google "AR15, automatic conversion" and get over 43,000 hits.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

And for Christ freakin sake, can we please expunge this talk about what I "need" or "don't need" when hunting from our lexicon?

I don't "need" a car, a big screen TV, or a cruise vacation to live either.

It's about rights, not needs. No other right suffers such a means test, the right to own property such an AR15 shouldn't either.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Home defense? Buy a shotgun. The "Ch-Chunk" will stop any intruder in their tracks and the discharge won't go through your wall and into your next door neighbor.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS--

Fully auto conversions are ILLEGAL.

Sure the differences aren't cosmetic anymore, but if you do that you've FUNDAMENTALLY altered the basic function of the weapon.

It's like saying that the difference between two men are fundamentally cosmetic...until one of them has a sex change. Sure, after the sex change the differences are a bit more than cosmetic, but damn, you've undergone some major surgery.

I could make a semiauto Remington into a full auto weapon. Dick Winters of Band of Brothers Easy Company fame figured out how to make an 8-shot M1 Garand fully auto, fer chrissakes.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

So I might not be the most heavily armed person here any longer. Still disagree on the assault-type weapons, tho. If I can't tote a .270 or draw back a compound bow, I don't need to eat venison.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS--

Shotguns are good for HD scenarios, I own those too. But a crazed, drug addled invader isn't necessarily detered by the pump action noise (which you don't have if your shotgun isn't pump action), and the AR15's larger mag capacity is going to appeal to some.

.223 rounds won't go through a brick wall.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS--

The essence of freedom (and liberalism, for that matter) is letting others make choices for themselves you wouldn't make for yourself.

A .223 is much more useful round for varmint hunting. It costs less to shoot and isn't ridiculously powerful like .270. Some people just prefer it.

The AR15 platform is customizable, easy to port and maintain, and has a lot of market support. It's cheap to train on, easy to learn to shoot safely and accurately with, and is great for competition and target shooting.

If you don't want one, don't buy or own one. But don't deny me the ability to choose one for myself.

Hell, I'm a damn vegetarian. I could actually care less about hunting. But I do like target shooting.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

My view of the damn things is tainted - too many years on trauma teams and life flights, and trying to fight a usually-losing battle in the wake of the damned things. I was a paramedic at the height of the crack epidemic. Never was shot at when I reported for beer-drinking duty, but damned if crackheads didn't throw shots my way a couple of times.

Too many of the people who want them do convert them. For too many, thats why they want them.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Let's get some facts straight.

Much of the uproar over Zumbo was due to the fact that he compared AR/AK owners to terrorists. The fact is that "assault weapons" are almost never used by criminals. Rifles of all kinds account for about 3% of homicides annually, and many of those incidents are hunters shooting each other. Cheap handguns are the weapon of choice for almost all criminals.

An ARs are no less challenging to shoot accurately than a traditional bolt-action hunting rifle with the same scope/sights. Indeed, semi-automatic rifles are inherently less accurate than high-grade bolt action rifles. AR-15s and AK-47s also shoot smaller, weaker bullets than hunting rifles. If someone wanted to pull a "sniper reign of terror," a bolt-action hunting rifle would be a better choice than a semiauto. Military snipers mostly use bolt-actions as well.

AR-15s, AK-47s and the like cannot legally be converted to full-auto. Converting an AR requires you to install a new sear, which can't be made without a fully-equipped machine shop and considerable skill. A machine shop owner who illegally converts semiauto weapons to full auto is in for a long vacation at Club Fed.

Most semiauto rifles are only used to shoot cans, bottles and paper targets. They are not a danger to society by any reasonable standard, and there is no reason to alienate the thousands of law-abiding owners of such weapons by threatening to ban them.

Posted by: QuestionEverything on February 24, 2007 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly I don't know what percentage of the people who own them or purchase them do so to convert them, but I suspect you don't either.

The reality is that rifles of all kinds--the so called "assault weapons" included--make up a TINY fraction of guns used in crimes. About 1% according to the BATF and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

Taking them away from the 99% of folks who use them lawfully and responsibly because of the 1% who fuck up is patently un-democratic, and un-Democratic.

In any event, making your semiauto AR15 a full-auto weapon is extremely ILLEGAL, and will net you a long prison sentence. So from a public policy point of view, it's already dilemma solved.

The M1 Garand you can legally own fires something a lot more deadly than an AR15. So does the M1A.

But the AR15 "looks" dangerous, so it gets a lot of bad attention from hoplophobes. It's about emotion over substance for gun grabbers.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Correction: rifles account for less than 3% of _gun_ homicides, not all homicides.

Posted by: QuestionEverything on February 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah - handguns are the biggest problem on the streets. No argument. And honestly, I haven't seen the aftereffects of automatic weapons fire since the early 90's. But it's the kind of thing you only need to see once, you know? I admit my prejudice openly and point out it's etiology. They were unique to the inner-city crack-war era, and I'm glad the white-trash tweekers didn't follow suit.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

And I fully realize that anyone who will do the illegal conversion is already a threat. The kind of person who should probably need a permit for a baseball bat.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Indeed...there are some sick fuckers out there BGRS, and I don't doubt you've seen some of their handiwork. The thing that got Zumbo in trouble is that he suggested that people like ME (who are liberal as all get-out, pay their taxes, enjoy sport shooting at paper targets, and defend their homes) are actually TERRORISTS because we own AR15s. That's a problem, and he got slapped for it. He made a bigoted, uninformed, derogatory statement about a wide, diverse group of people. Mel Gibson and Michael Richards did so, and they got slapped for it. No reason Zumbo should be excused from being bitch slapped in similar fashion.

The solution to crime and violence is certainly to build a better, more progressive, less crime-inducing society. Disarming people like you and me isn't going to help, it'll just make life easier for the bad guys.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

If it all goes to shit, I'm in the top of a tree on the highest hill in the county, with a .270 and a night-scope. Nobody is getting within a half-mile of me and my family.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

I like it. :)

You've got the right strategy--the rifle for stopping 'em from far away, the shotgun for the guys who make it past that to kick in your door, and the pistol as your sidearm for SHTF scenarios.

Nuttin wrong with that, and always nice to talk to a fellow .270 shooter.

Actually, I like my Savage .270, but it's the rifle that made me want to build up an AR15. Expensive to shoot, and after sighting it in with 15 or 20 rounds at the range, my shoulder is shot to hell hurtin and bruised.

And I'm no wussy, I'm 6', 200lbs, and pretty muscular, and that gun beats the daylights out of me. I just like the idea of shooting .223 cheaply and without pain, and having a 20 round mag for the range sounds about right.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Mom informed Dad he had to be involved in extra-curricular activities after he retired from the Navy, so he taught a Gunsmithing class in 4-H. i build a .50 caliber reproduction Sharp's black-powder buffalo rifle. First time I fired it, it bruised me from my neck to my hip-bones on my right side.

Can you imagine a group of parents allowing their children to build black-powder weapons these days?

He taught us to cast lead to. If it goes to hell, I get to keep on living.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

I have homework to do. Keep your powder dry.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS, any chance you're single? :)

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Married 24 years to a retired USAF officer.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Can't blame a guy for asking.

In other news, David Kurtz over at TPM wrote me back to answer my questions posed in my post above. I wrote him back, I'll update later on our conversation.

His basic position isn't so much that AR15s are evil, but rather that we gunnies are overreacting to Zumbo.

I'm arguing that no, we're not--he suggested that we're terrorists. I think that's a bit over the line. Mel Gibson, the Greaseman, Michael Richards, etc. also made grossly bigoted statements and paid for it. He's no different.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with your thesis is that in the gun rights community, the notion that what a firearm looks like (since this is the root of the issue, after all, and of "assault weapon" legislation) is important is a heretical position. Zumbo's apology did not retract the heresy, he simply apologized for allowing a little candor into his blog (he was "tired").

He basically said, "I agree with Fienstein and all the others who want to take your guns, and by the way you guys are terrorists." That got up a few people's noses.

Posted by: simonov on February 24, 2007 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

I only read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs before losing it. Dammit, the man is right. The issue is not the right to own AK 47s, but using them to hunt prairie dogs.

Get real! If you can't kill a prairie dog with a .22 or at most a 20 gauge shotgun, you shouldn't be allowed to have a hunting license, period. My theory about gun control is hitting what you aim at.This whole backlash thing is a travesty.

Posted by: bob in fl on February 25, 2007 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Once again, it has nothing to do w/ AK-47's. Only semi-auto's that look like AK-47's or M-16's. AR-15's are the primary firearm used in competitive target matches. Why? Because they're accurate.

You did know that the older Marlin 60's are considered "Assault Weapons" in New Jersey, right?

That's why people got upset, because Zumbo made comparisons and renamed things giving fodder to every anti-firearm group and hoplophobe out there.

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Evidently it has been a long day for me also. Somehow I missed the point that he was talking about bigger game & his terrorism quote.

His terrorist comments were very ill advised. But the reaction proved his point. It is a take no prisoners attitude. And their comments to gun control advocates in Congress is no0thing short of blackmail. It is a very poor way to gain converts to their cause, even among hunters.

Posted by: bob in fl on February 25, 2007 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

This poor guy got treated the same way the Democrats have treated Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on February 25, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

The moral of this story is: don't ever bother apologizing. It won't do you any good.
.
I have a feeling Hillary is well aware of this.

And G.W.Bush also.

However, I don't think this is new.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on February 25, 2007 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Kind of a dumb post. But it's true there are times when "sorry" isn't good enough. But I'd be happy just to know that Hillary has learned something and recognizes that her vote was wrong.

Posted by: tom on February 25, 2007 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

The moral of this story is: don't ever bother apologizing. It won't do you any good.

I hope you're joking because this is about as ignorant a statement as could be made.

Posted by: Jimm on February 25, 2007 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK

Get real! If you can't kill a prairie dog with a .22 or at most a 20 gauge shotgun, you shouldn't be allowed to have a hunting license, period.

Bob, you're not paying attention. Nobody's hunting prarie dogs with AK47s. The AR15 Zumbo was bitching about shoots a wimply little 55 grain .223. It's actually expressly designed as a varmint round, and was marketed as such before the military started using it in the mid 1960s.

In short...you apparently are just as misinformed as Zumbo was. The .223 is EXPLICITLY designed and marketed as a varmint round.

I love all these non-shooters spouting off about who should or shouldn't be allowed to hunt, and what weapons they should or shouldn't get to use. It's all irrelevant window dressing anyway. If somebody wants to hunt termites with a .50BMG out in the middle of nowhere...so fuckin what?


But the reaction proved his point. It is a take no prisoners attitude.

How does it "prove his point"? What point is being proved by people like, for instance, me objecting to being called terrorists?

Yeah, I do actually have a "take no prisoners" attitude about being wrongfully called a terrorist.

Please engage brain before keyboard. Thanks!

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a liberal who is for no restrictions on guns.

What we need is guns everywhere, because that will result in a huge increase in atrocities.

Eventually, people will notice that MORE GUNS=MORE ATROCITIES and they will restore sensible gun laws.

But it will take some pretty horrifying outcomes, and that's what I am hoping for - some really amazingly horrible atrocities, like when that Bosnian kid killed 7 in a random slaughter scenario.

We need one of those a day.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, my position is get all the guns you want, because eventually one of your kids will take the guns and shoot you, solving 3 problems with one bullet.

Darwin would have embraced guns as furthering evolutionary ideas, because houses with guns are about 150 % more dangerous to the children in that house than houses without.

I'm for that. Get all the guns you want, and soon your children will exercize their Darwinian future. I'm for that happening right away.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Me, I'm for guns on airlines, guns in the schools, guns in legislatures.

Let's get guns everywhere.

Remember, the NRA Motto is: Ready, Fire, Aim, Make Excuses.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

What we need is guns everywhere, because that will result in a huge increase in atrocities.

You must have missed the recent Trolley Square shooting in Utah, the bad guy was stopped by a private citizen carrying a gun. Had it not been for that armed private citizen, the madman would have racked up a much larger body count.

More guns = fewer atrocities.

Define "sensible" gun laws. This ought to be rich.

because houses with guns are about 150 % more dangerous to the children in that house than houses without.

Bullshit. This sort of stat has been bandied about and changed and debunked so many times it's meaningless. Used to be 43 times more dangerous, then 22, then 15...now it's just 1.5 times more dangerous?

Gimme a break. Americans use guns legitimately and defensively way more than they use them to murder.

Fuck off, trollbait.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and as for the airlines thing...an armed citizen or two on the 9/11 hijacked planes, and the terrorists could have been stopped before they commandeered the cockpits. 3000 people would still be alive.

So go fuck yourself once more.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just hoping that in your house, gunsel, your children find your guns after you have taken away their car keys. That'll be fun.

Yep, we need more guns in the houses of NRA members, because there will be more domestic atrocities, and the gunsels and their kids will eliminate each other.

Can't happen soon enough for me. I want more dead NRA members.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK


SEBASTIAN: Yeah, I do actually have a "take no prisoners" attitude about being wrongfully called a terrorist.

What Zumbo said was, "I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles." You know, I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles, too. Now, you apparently believe that I've just called you a terrorist. But it would be plain to anyone who is not stupid that I have not. Yes, that means I've just called you stupid. You see, that's how it's done. If you want to call someone something, you call him it. If I wanted to call you a terrorist, I would do so. I don't think you're a terrorist. But I do think you're stupid. Let me show you again how you call someone something: You are stupid! Whaddya gonna do about? Shoot me?

By the way, are you still driving that homely looking Buick? I'll go so far as to say it's an 'ugly' car! No, I didn't just call you ugly--but you're still stupid!


Posted by: jayarbee on February 25, 2007 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and sensible gun laws right now are "Guns everywhere." That's because we need atrocities, and the sooner the better.

The vast American public is being assaulted by the NRA (Nuts, Racists and Assholes) and is being convinced that guns make us safer. So, let's go with that argument for a couple years.

No gun restrictions anywhere. Heavily arm everyone. That'll be fun.

Because the NRA members will then shoot their kids and the kids will shoot the parents, improving the IQ of the society on both ends.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

In St Louis the son of a responsible NRA member, who had 80 guns lying around his house, brought the gun to his 1st grade class. Doubtless this smart little future NRA member thought that everyone has 80 guns lying around.

Too bad the little weasel didn't squeeze off a few rounds to make his dad proud, and exercize his 2nd Amendment rights to reduce his homework load.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, look. A baby troll who figured out how to bang his head against the keyboard and hit send.

Anything original baby troll? Any more inane ad hominems and insults you'ld like to throw around?

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Donald Westlake described a character with these words: "He used to have a hobby. Now the hobby had HIM."
Examples above.
The gun enthusiast hobby is indeed under seige, but the main enemy is age. Younger people are not hunting. It's a graying pastime, despite efforts to bring kids into the sport. With the hunting demo going down, they're left with the shooting demo for numbers, which includes the kind of people heavily into the self-defense ethos.
Now, outside of the "Road Warrior"--"Living Dead" scenarios, all you need a pump. The sound of that getting racked should clean a house of strangers in seconds, and, if it doesn't, they'll leave another way.
Trouble is, a trip to the market will put you in front of a magazine rack, usually fronted by Maxim, with the glossies of glittering Glocks on the covers, and self-defense tips for those people hoping to God that they have to use them: street-fighting tips (without the tips for dealing with the messy aftermath) and anecdotes about the guy who went out to his car, saw a stranger lurking nearby, pulled his piece and made the stranger run away, thus saving his own life. Anecdotes from said stranger, looking for his own car and threatened by a man with a gun, do not appear with equal frequency.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on February 25, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Jayarbee,
You're missing the point--by calling them terrorist rifles, he's implying that they're what TERRORISTS use.

He said they have no legitimate use and are the tools of terrorists. Ergo, if you're using one, you're a terrorist and not a legit sportsman.

That's a bigoted and misinformed statement that lumps me in with terrorists. Yeah, that's gonna ruffle some feathers.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

I think the key pargraph in the story was:

"Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash."

When it comes to hunters, all the NRA really cares abou is their money.

Posted by: david1234 on February 25, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

The NRA (Never Responsible for Anything) is desperate to control their sheep-like unthinking followers by conflating hunting, self-defense and every other issue involving guns.

The NRA is actually just a big front for the gun stores. They want to be able to furnish guns to felons. They want gun runners to buy in SC and run the guns to NYC to sell out of the trunk. There is no restriction acceptable to the NRA.

I agree. More guns for everyone. More atrocities will soon follow.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

You're missing the point--by calling them terrorist rifles, he's implying that they're what TERRORISTS use.

Sebastian, you're a thin-skinned twerp in love with guns on account of a severe deficit of confidence.

At least you've got some cold steel to sleep next to. What a life, eh, Kid?

Posted by: Alfred E. Newman on February 25, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Sebastian is just another testosterone-deficient bozo unable to get it up, so he gets something permanently hard to fondle.

Guns - always attractive to the very repressed faggots amongst us.

I went through the gun phase in high school. I had my grandpa's crappy old 22, and I was in rifle club. Once a week, we brought our firearms to high school - hah, there's a thought - and went to the police station firing range.

After that, I had no interest in firearms. Not interesting, but I had other uses for my time.

The gunsels appear to be fixed in time at that point in their life. Too bad.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, gimme a break you dimwit. We liberals gripe all the time about how the GOP calls us terrorist sympathizers and America haters.

Why should this Zumbo guy get to do it? Because he doesn't like Evil Black Rifles?

What are you, Pscyhologists R Us? I can assure you my enjoyment of the shooting hobby has nothing to do with confidence.

Your irrational fear of guns, however, seems to be exactly that.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

You can usually tell when gun controllers and their troll buddies are out of ideas.

When you start reading a bunch of ad hominem trollbait nonsense about penis extensions, homophobic phallic references, and that we like guns because we're unconfident/insecure/paranoid/our weenies don't work, that's the sure fire sign of a troll without a real argument to make.

And it's so damn boring.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK


SEBASTIAN: He said they have no legitimate use and are the tools of terrorists. Ergo, if you're using one, you're a terrorist and not a legit sportsman.
He voiced his opinion that they have no legitimate use. You may disagree and you have every right to speak up. But that speaking up shouldn't include demanding that his career be ruined. As for them being the tools of terrorist, that is a fact, not opinion. And regarding your "ergo," it belongs to you, not Zumbo.
That's a bigoted and misinformed statement that lumps me in with terrorists. Yeah, that's gonna ruffle some feathers.
Again, those who believe he's misinformed should certainly endeavor to inform him of their opinions in order to persuade him to think as they do. But that's not what happened. More importantly, though, saying that he ruffled feathers is one thing, but it's quite another to simply state as fact that he called you or any sportsman a terrorist. If you have a good argument, you do not have to resort to dishonest assertions.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 25, 2007 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

I'll say it again.

I'm not a Hillary fan. Read what Hillary Clinton said to condition her vote. She has nothing to apologize for. She is owed one by Bush et al.

It would be nice to know exactly what Zumbo said. Boy, are those gun nuts sensitive. Not to say intolerant of debate. It's really time that this country had a debate about gun use and licensing. Not going to happen though.

Before you start, I am a gun owner.

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Nice to see the reasonable discourse between Sebastian and Blue Girl, saddly it's uncommon. The gun rights issue seems to bring out a frothing, hyperventilating irrationality on the left ususally reserved for members of the right to life movement (see dataguy).

While I'm not a "black rifle" guy and never will be, I'm also not stupid and recognize the thin end of the wedge. The ultimate goal of most anti-gun groups is the elimation of private ownership of firearms. It's unfortunate, but the alignment of the Democrats with these groups has caused me to vote Democrat less frequently and support organizations that give most of their money to Republicans.

Posted by: SPROCKET on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

"...Every state I know of bans big game hunting with weapons having over 5 rounds magazine capacity...." -- Buford

Whatever the law says doesn't really matter. Chai Vang mean anything? CA National Guard trained. Supposedly 20 rounds 7.62 x 39 fired. Six dead, 2 wounded. Hunting rifle or assault gun?

This last season some white guy shot and stabbed a Hmong, maybe in retaliation.

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

It would be nice to know exactly what Zumbo said. Boy, are those gun nuts sensitive. Not to say intolerant of debate. It's really time that this country had a debate about gun use and licensing. Not going to happen though.

I have yet to find a bona-fide gunsel who is willing to accept the responsibility for owning his weapon. So, I'm fer atrocities, the sooner the better.


Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

...recognize the thin end of the wedge. The ultimate goal of most anti-gun groups is the elimation (sic) of private ownership of firearms....

Posted by: SPROCKET on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Not actually going to happen in the US. It's a spurious arguement that prevents reasonable debate. Why would any responsible gun owner object to a system of licensing.

Why do NRA types partially read Article II and why does that preclude licensing?

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Boy dataguy, you're so original. I've never heard those comments about the NRA before. Nobody's ever thought to make remarks about gun owners not being "manly" before. Do you have any more new material?

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Why oppose licensing? Chicago, DC, California, New York, New Jersey, UK, Australia, Canada.

All places that had licensing then stopped licensing, prevented ownership, and (in many instances) started confiscations.

That's why.

When anti-firearm groups/politicians OPENLY ADMIT that one law/restriction is just a stepping stone to more.

That's why.

When spokespersons for these groups state that all firearm owners should be in jail (Rosie Odonnel MMM), that they want "them all turned in" (Feinstein), and consistently refer to firearm owners/dealers/manufactureres as part of the criminal element (Helmke HCI).

That's why.

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Why have a driving licence then, RK?

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

This last season some white guy shot and stabbed a Hmong, maybe in retaliation.

This is great. I fully support the Hmong and the white guys getting out there and exercizing their 2nd Amendment rights on each other.

Let's authorize the use of hand grenades.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Me, I'm not for banning guns. I am, however, fully supportive of responsibility. Your gun gets stolen, you are responsible. Your kid takes your gun to school and shoots a teacher, you the owner get sent to prison, or more hopefully, get the Death Penalty if someone else gets killed.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Like last year, when the two wackos went hunting people in DC, they bought that gun at a well-known gun-running supply store in which no responsiblity is ever taken for supplying guns for criminals. Bullseye Shooting Sports should be out of business and the owner should be in jail. However, in today's NRA, the owner who is responsible for supplying hundreds of guns to criminals is considered a hero.

Until the NRA shuts this guy down, it is clear that they are only in it to sell the max number of guns to the most irresponsible criminals in society. I think that they are all scum.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Not actually going to happen in the US. It's a spurious arguement that prevents reasonable debate. Why would any responsible gun owner object to a system of licensing.
Why do NRA types partially read Article II and why does that preclude licensing?
Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Absolutely not spurious. Do you truthfully believe there is not a large segment of the anti-gun lobby that sees no legitamate reason for private citizens to own firearms? In my reading of anti-gun websites that is certainly the impresson I have. Ok, maybe some would let us keep muskets and .22 target rifles. But frankly, I'll trust anti-gun folks with my second amendment rights in the same manner I trust Alberto Gonzales with my right of habeas corpus.

Speaking of spurious, here's the "responsible gun owner" question. The answer is because he has observed that it has led to confiscation in a number of other countrys including Canada and Australia. I would definately be all for a strong licensing system if I did not believe it would be used to screw me later. However, living in California, I know that when anti-gun folks can't outright make it illegal to own firearms they will attempt to regulate it out of existance.

Posted by: SPROCKET on February 25, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK


"Your kid takes your gun to school and shoots a teacher, you the owner get sent to prison, or more hopefully, get the Death Penalty if someone else gets killed."

So let me get this straight.You support the death penalty and support excessive gun control????

Go back under your bridge.

Posted by: vbrans on February 25, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Show me a place that confiscated your cars when the authorities decided they no longer liked the model you owned.

A drivers license is only required for using public roads, not on private property nor is it required for purchase.

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

And look, baby troll (aka dataguy) continues to make the pointless ad hominems against an organization he obviously knows nothing about. Typical of the anti-gunners. His post contains one glaring untruth. He obviously doesn't think.

Posted by: RK on February 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

RK-"A drivers license is only required for using public roads, not on private property nor is it required for purchase"

REAL ID Act of 2005

What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

Posted by: vbrans on February 25, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

'Course, the patriotic way to deal with any threat to liberties is NOT what happened to Zumbo, now is it?

I've spent a considerable chunk of my lifetime arguing with fools (like Josh Sugarman) who want to ban handguns, which after all are the very broad class of firearm most used in crime. I used to think the ban on handguns idea was almost incredibly stupid (then I got to know more political people)for a wide variety of reasons.

But the NRA deserves that level of stupidity, frankly.

It's just that We, the People deserve BETTER.

Somebody wants unrestricted access to firearms? Fair enough - convince me.

Don't try tell me the Second Amendment means something that it does not. I know better. So (unless you think I'm as dumb as you are) come up with a better argument.

Don't try to tell me that firearms are good for home protection. I've had family murdered by weapons stolen out of homes.

Don't try to tell me that cuz I know what I'm talking about, I gotta want to confiscate hunting weapons, or that I don't know automatic from semi-automatic -- or black powder from bullshit.

Those arguments tell me you don't know what you're talking about: and what's more, don't care.

And, puh-leeze, let's spare everybody the phallus/supressed gay guy thing.

Zumbo's example is DAMNING: many firearms are simply not compatible with the purpose of the Second Amendment OR with the founding charter of the NRA. What happened to him is precisely opposite to the interests of civil gun owners and hunters alike.

So why were folks so easily led to ruin him?

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 25, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

You must have missed the recent Trolley Square shooting in Utah, the bad guy was stopped by a private citizen carrying a gun. Had it not been for that armed private citizen, the madman would have racked up a much larger body count.

1-The "private citizen" happened to be an off-duty police officer (i.e. someone with extensive training and experience and knowledge of the consequences of using a gun). And while he engaged the shooter, the Salt Lake police were ultimate the ones who stopped him.

2-The killer purchased his gun legally over-the-counter.

Posted by: C.L. on February 25, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

The Trolley Square shooter was stopped by an off-duty police officer with adequate training, not a private citizen.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 25, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, hell. Never mind. C.L. got there first and was more precise.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 25, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

1-The "private citizen" happened to be an off-duty police officer (i.e. someone with extensive training and experience and knowledge of the consequences of using a gun). And while he engaged the shooter, the Salt Lake police were ultimate the ones who stopped him.

Bullshit. Utter, complete bullshit.

What is this "training" you think cops get?

Why is it that you folks think cops have magic Jedi gun powers that private citizens can't possibly have?

The same laws apply to private citizens re: deadly force. You're made quite aware of them when you get your CCW permit.

Cops are busy working overtime. They don't have time for extensive training; my brother's a cop, and I work with cops on a weekly basis--I can ASSURE you that you're barking up the wrong tree here. My brother got two weeks range time before he went on duty, and that's IT. I work with cops in a major American city, and they freely admit that they send less practice lead downrange than I do.

What training do you think would be required to respond to the Trolley Square shooter? The basic law is the same everywhere--you can only shoot if it's to protect the life of yourself or another from immediate lethal danger. Duh. Like you need training to understand that and how it applies to the Utah shooter.

When that PRIVATE CITIZEN (who happened to be an off duty cop, but was not in uniform or in his jurisdiction) responded, he did the same thing that countless other private citizens have done--save the lives of other private citizens.

If he hadn't responded, the shooter would have racked up a much larger body count before the actual police arrived. That's not convenient to your hoplophobic point of view, so you ignore it.

As for where he purchased his gun, what's your point? He also ignored the "no weapons" sign.

Haven't you seen the footage of the narcotics agent cop giving a firearms demo to a class full of kids? He brags about how talented he is and that only he can handle a Glock...which he then shoots himself in the leg with. Hilarious.

The idea that only cops can safely handle guns and know when to shoot when a maniac is on the loose is laughable, risible bullshit. Private citizens with carry permits SAVE LIVES.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

The Trolley Square shooter was stopped by an off-duty police officer with adequate training, not a private citizen.

Same question to you: what's this "training" you think he got?

What training do you need to know that, geepers, a maniac with a shotgun is shooting up a mall, and it's a justifiable shoot?

Do you not realize that private citizens with carry permits use guns legally and defensively all the time?

You don't recall the COP who's life was saved last year by somebody with a carry permit? The cop was getting the crap beaten out of him by a maniac, and a private citizen with a .45 stopped the maniac.

You don't recall the guy who stopped a rifle wielding maniac who shot his wife and kids on the courthouse steps? The police said his intervention, which ultimately cost him his life, saved the lives of countless bystanders.

The whole "training" thing is such bullshit. And yes, I would know--cops don't send nearly as much range lead downrange as you want to think.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

He voiced his opinion that they have no legitimate use.

Which is a misinformed and dangerously incorrect position. It's a position that someone with his pedigree should know better than to espouse.

If a doctor started suggesting you take shots of arsenic for your headaches...he'd lose his job. Zumbo committed intellectual malpractice, he should lose his job too.

As for them being the tools of terrorist, that is a fact, not opinion.

Terrorists use cars and the Internet too. Are you typing on that terrorist computer right now?

Quit pissing down my neck and calling it rain. He CLEARLY implied, as you admit, that the guns in question don't have a legit use, and thus are the realm of jihadists and maniacs.

That's demonstrably NOT true, and a bigoted, misinformed opinion. The market has spoken.

There's nothing misleading in my assertion. His position as stated was that A) AR15's have no legit role in hunting (demonstrably incorrect) and that they thus are B) terrorist rifles--the CLEAR implication being that if you're using them, you're doing something that terrorists do.

Give it a rest, he's clearly equating my use of an AR15 with something terrorists do, and I'm justly annoyed by such a comparison.


Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian,

Don't you think it's a wee bit deceptive to describe an off-duty police officer as a "private citizen"?

Posted by: RickD on February 25, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

No.

He was acting as a private citizen. He was not acting under the authority of any LEO agency or standing behind a badge. He was in plainclothes. He was NOT acting as a police officer when he confronted the suspect.

Putting that particular event aside, you do realize that I could list countless similar incidents where private citizens (who don't work as police officers) have done similar things, don't you?

Private citizens with CCW permits save lives. Often.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

RickD,
Look at it another way--

How does the story change if he didn't work as a cop?

If there hadn't been a law abiding citizen with a gun there, the tragedy would have been even worse. What do you hope to accomplish by pointing out that he was a cop?

That he had some sort of ability that is beyond the average armed citizen?

Hogwash--he had to make a decision, shoot or do not shoot. Not much training required to make the call in this case.

Then, he had to shoot straight and true, and stop the badguy without hurting innocents.

Again, not something you need to be a cop to do, or even have a better chance of doing. Cops are not necessarily expert marksmen. My buddy Dave, a Balto. PD officer, has seen me shoot, and agrees that my skills surpass all but a handful of his 3200 coworkers. The reality is that cops are NOT expert shots for the most part.

Studies have shown that cops involved in shootings hit their targets about 15% of the time.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian --

seems like you are a little excitable. Not a good combination with firearms.

However, I don't know where you are but here in MN, although we have carry laws, the carrier has to be licensed. Although I personally disagree with carry laws, the minimum safeguard is a knowledge, proficiency, and sanity check along with licensing.

If that's OK, what is wrong with licensing all guns?

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

seems like you are a little excitable. Not a good combination with firearms.
I'm excitable? With all the trollbait and juvenile flaming going on in this thread...you think my tone is objectionable? Puuuuhhhhlease.

I've shot fewer people than Dick Cheney, and killed fewer than Ted Kennedy. That said, what strikes you as "excitable?" I'm just an informed shooter who happens to be pretty damn liberal.

However, I don't know where you are
Maryland...we have carry laws, but they're very restrictive. Basically unless you're a wealthy white guy like me...fuggediboutit.

but here in MN, although we have carry laws, the carrier has to be licensed. Although I personally disagree with carry laws,

No real strenuous objection to the Shall Issue permits you guys have. But you shouldn't disagree with carry laws...someday it might be YOU who's saved by a private citizen legally carrying. The people who should NOT be carrying are going to carry whether you allow permits or not (see Trolley Square).

the minimum safeguard is a knowledge, proficiency, and sanity check along with licensing.

No real objection here. Real hardcore types point out that you shouldn't need a license for self defense, but hey, that's a tough sell in most places. Then again....VT and AK both have no permit process or restrictions on carry...and those places are hardly hotbeds of gun violence. Just depends on where you live.

If that's OK, what is wrong with licensing all guns?

A bunch of stuff. For starters, pretty much everywhere that's tried that, it's been a precursor to confiscation efforts (UK, NZ, Australia, Canada, etc).

Secondly, the bad guys aren't going to show up at the police station and register their guns...so it's not going to accomplish anything.

Regulatory and prohibitionist efforts like that haven't stopped prescription drug abuse, drug trafficking, alcohol trafficking in the Prohibition era, underage drinking, etc. No reason to think licensing would make anymore sense.

But I'll make you a deal--if we do a licensing scheme, it should work like driver's licenses. I'll register and license my Glock, but just as my MD drivers license works in DC, my gun license should too.

Deal?

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

...That he had some sort of ability that is beyond the average armed citizen?

Hogwash--he had to make a decision, shoot or do not shoot....

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Actually it's you that is full of hogwash or whatever.

Of course the police officer is better trained than the "average armed citizen". Why would you presume that all citizens would conscientiously train themselves when it's not required? He has been professionally coached and has been on a practice range. He has been taught the legal rules of engagement to the degree that misuse may not only lose him his job and pension but put him in court. The "average armed citizen" has done none of these.

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian --

shorter version would be:

Gunlaws DO work in Canada, Australia and UK, but DON'T work in the US although we've never tried them.

You'd rather have unrestricted sales and then point out that the bad guys have guns so we need them too.

=====
In your "benefits" of gun ownership statement you sort of forgot the debit side of how many people are shot by friends and relations, or by complete strangers, etc. so I think it's worth remembering there is a down side. After all, noone would be shooting up the mall if they didn't have a gun, now would they?

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the police officer is better trained than the "average armed citizen".

And you know this how? You've met the cop my brother worked with who checked her loaded gun for barrel obstructions by pointing it at her own eye? Or the cop who accidentally discharged his gun into a suspect a couple years ago in VA and killed him while he was in custody?

Because you know the average cop sends about 100 rounds downrange a year?

Why would you presume that all citizens would conscientiously train themselves when it's not required

I didn't say all citizens do--I said the ones who bother to go get CCW permits and carry for defensive purposes do.

We train because we want to better prepared than the thugs who'd do us harm. It's the strongest market force going--the desire to be able to protect your own life.

I've been professionally coached on a practice range. Anyone who's received a carry permit in the State of Virginia (where I'm also licensed to carry) has as well. As someone from MN pointed out, you have to demonstrate proficiency to get a CCW permit. It's not something that cops have a corner on the market. Your insistence to the contrary shows that you're full of it.

I've been taught the legal rules of engagement, as has anyone who's been permitted in VA or MD or just about anywhere else that issues CCW permits. Sure, people in VT or AK haven't been forced to do any of this...but that's the exception.

Again, can you not understand a simple question? In the case of the Trolley Square shooter, what difficult ROE decision had to be made? What training could you need to see that it was a justifiable shoot?

Your suggestion that cops get extensive training that private citizens don't get shows your ignorance of the issue. I'm not a cop, but I've had to get extensive training to get my permits.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that only cops can safely handle guns and know when to shoot when a maniac is on the loose is laughable, risible bullshit. Private citizens with carry permits SAVE LIVES.

What utter and absolute crap. It's the Lone Ranger fantasy. I just love the gunsels and their little fantasies of saving people's lives.

What we have in this country is an out-of-control gun culture.

What I want is more atrocities, more school shootings, more random killings in shopping centers. Only when we get a WHOLE bunch will Americans wake UP and realize that these testosterone-deficient morons in the NRA are running things to maximize revenues for gun shops.

That's what the NRA is all about - selling more guns to more criminals as fast as possible.


Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

shorter version would be:

Gunlaws DO work in Canada, Australia and UK, but DON'T work in the US although we've never tried them.

Notthere, you should change your name to "really out there".

Where do you get the idea that they work? The UK has seen gun crime climb every year since they banned all guns.

If by "work" you mean "gun laws allow confiscation" in those countries...yeah, they work, which is why we don't want registration here, as it inevitably would lead to a similar confiscatory effort.

Gun crime has gone up in every country that's tried confiscation and registration (the Aussies have had the same problem). Why? Crooks don't turn their guns in, only us nice folk bother to.

Keep pushing that confiscation line--it's done wonders for Dems at the ballot box. Crikey.

As for the benefits question, the point stands--there's more lawful defensive gun use than criminal. Even the liberal (and formerly antigun until he studied the issue) criminologist Gary Kleck will tell you that. It's unfortunate that people misuse guns, but taking them all away means only criminals will have them...and we'll be worse off, not better.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

The AMAZING fantasies that Sebastian is tossing around suggests that he got his gun permit at a Marvel Comics shop. Next, he is gonna tell us that his magical super powers, obtained when he is holding his gun, enable him to determine when someone running at him is just an excited person and when they are an actual threat.

And all of this UTTER MAGICAL BULLSHIT ABOUT DRUG dealers invading your house - please, please stop - it's just toooooo fucking funny - it's like a Ronald Reagan speech come to life.

Here's a FACT: People in houses with guns are 150 % more likely to be killed than people in comparable houses without guns. FACTS.

Posted by: dataguy on February 25, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

If you don't like our gun culture...move to Mexico. No private gun ownership allowed...and what a safe place it is! Er...no.

Or try Canada...gun ownership rates comparable to ours...but a lot less violent. Maybe Finland, gun ownership rates comparable to ours as well and way, way safer.

Comparing our country to other countries is futile, guys--we have a unique culture, but gun ownership is part of it.

If you want to live where private citizens are lawfully prevented from having guns...Washington DC comes to mind. Boy, that's a really safe place!

Duh.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Dataguy...

After suggesting you hoped I get shot by my children and referring to me as a "faggot", you really think anyone thinks you're in a position to be discussing "FACTS"?

Get lost.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

...It's not something that cops have a corner on the market. Your insistence to the contrary shows that you're full of it...

I've been taught the legal rules of engagement, as has anyone who's been permitted in VA or MD...Sure, people in VT or AK haven't been forced to do any of this....

Your suggestion that cops get extensive training that private citizens don't get shows your ignorance of the issue....

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Actually I have had extensive contact with cops in both Minneapolis and St.Paul. One of the problems they have had the last few years is use of deadky force with mentally deranged (usually knife-weilding) people.

You said "average armed citizen". You didn't say "licensed to carry" citizen. You are most assuredly wrong.

You know, believe me, and I'll admit that you are more knowledgeable than the average gun nut, I know about the UK and you are right. But the reason that guns are coming into the UK is because the borders are now porous and guns freely available elsewhere. Before 1970 they were never a feature except in very rare occurences. I would also claim that it is an indicator of wider social breakdown.

"Keep pushing the confiscation line."

Where did I even mention this?

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Nope. The moral of this story is the same as the moral of the Edwards bloggers story:

Professional blogging and real-world day jobs don't mix.

Trying to do both never - ever - works.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on February 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

You said "average armed citizen". You didn't say "licensed to carry" citizen. You are most assuredly wrong.

I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify: "armed citizen" is gun rights activist speak for "permitted, armed, trained, and willing CCW holder".

But the reason that guns are coming into the UK is because the borders are now porous and guns freely available elsewhere.

Like the old joke says, make guns illegal and they'll just hide them in bales of marijuana and heroin. :)

Seriously, this is a point I recently discussed on my blog, actually:

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=310

Look, the UK is an island. If they can't keep guns from coming ashore there, how would we ever do it here? If they can't do it, why should we think anyone else can? The reality is that making something illegal doesn't mean that crooks won't be able to find it.

In short, the "but they come in from elsewhere" excuse doesn't cut it. It actually reinforces my point--gun control is futile, the bad guys will find ways around the law and only law abiding folk will be disarmed.

I would also claim that it is an indicator of wider social breakdown.

I would tend to agree!

If you want less violence, you can get there by building a better, more progressive, more egalitarian society, but you can't get there by disarming people like me.

I only assumed you were in favor of confiscation because you seemed to be speaking favorably of gun laws (and necessarily the confiscatory laws they've tried) in the places I've mentioned.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a Democrat, undecided on a 2008 candidate, who hopes we can nip Swift Boating in the bud this campaign. Can I ask the Democrats among Hilary critics, even those who support another candidate, to please stop perpetuating RNC spin points and performing a job properly left to right-wing media whores? For which they are paid and you are not? What is not clear about the following statement? (on the war authorization vote):

"I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it...I have taken responsibility for my vote. "
HRC, 2/10/07

Does that really need to be followed up by an abject self-abasing mea culpa? Which the pundits will dismiss as "phony," "scripted," and "insincere" even as they discuss her "humiliating" climbdown and lambaste her for not doing it earlier?

I read above that apologizing has "done wonders" for Edwards. (followed by a dig at Clinton.) Nothing against Edwards, but Clinton has been far ahead of him on repudiating the vote. In August 2004, (13 months before Edwards acknowledged that his war authorization vote was wrong), she was on Meet the Press:

RUSSERT (8/29/04): Jay Rockefeller, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was on this program a few weeks ago and this is what he said: "There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation...We in Congress would not have authorized that war—we would not have authorized that war—with 75 votes if we knew what we know now." Do you agree with him?

CLINTON: There would not have been a vote, Tim. There would never have been a vote to the Congress presented by the administration. There would have been no basis for it...We wouldn't have even had a vote if all the facts had been available.

Again, is this not clear enough?

Posted by: jedweber on February 25, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

People not only get shot more in the US; outsiders also expect to go to the US and get shot.

Anyway, Zumbo was right: hunting prairie dogs with an assault rifle is for people who have no gun skills and small penises.

Posted by: ahem on February 25, 2007 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Eh, that wasn't what Zumbo said numbnuts.

1) the "assault rifle" in question actually is fired semi auto. It requires the same level of skill as any other rifle--one shot, one kill. You're thinking "spraying down the range with bullets like an M60"...and you're wrong. I wouldn't be annoyed but if you'd bother to read any of the other 180 comments in this thread, you'd fuckin know that already.

2) What is it with you idiots and penises? Why do you think that suggesting that my gun has anything to do with my penis represents some kind of compelling argument? Is that supposed to make me so bashful I turn in my guns at the police station? Is it supposed to just be annoying troll bait?

I don't get it.

If nothing else, it ignores the fact that lots of people who own these rifles are women. If you're thinking they're worried bout their penises...there's no helping you.

as I said...sure fire sign of a hoplophobe with nothing intelligent to say--he's insulting the penis of a person he's never seen naked.

Real sophisticated stuff, that.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK


SEBASTIAN: He CLEARLY implied, as you admit, that the guns in question don't have a legit use, and thus are the realm of jihadists and maniacs.
That's demonstrably NOT true, and a bigoted, misinformed opinion. The market has spoken.
The market? That's rich. Zumbo has spoken his opinion and it is shared by millions more citizens than share yours--citizens who vote for representatives who make laws which very often make illegal certain activities which would otherwise flourish in the "market." I dare say there is a market at least as large for marijuana or even child porn as there is for assault rifles. Now, since our system is corrupt, lobbies for gun manufacturers (and their front, the NRA) very often hold sway over the will of the people. But that fact only serves to negate the market's germaneness, not validate it.

Together with your false accusation that Zumbo called you a terrorist, this irrelevant argument regarding the market shows your position to be so weak that you desperately grasp at the most misleading points to bolster it.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 25, 2007 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

The market? That's rich.

Yes. The market for Remington's products and Outdoor Life magazine decidely did NOT like Zumbo's post. If it didn't the hordes of emails would have defended instead of crucified him.

What planet are you living on? You think the firearms and outdoors industries are populated with people that LIKE what he said?

Zumbo has spoken his opinion and it is shared by millions more citizens than share yours-

Oh yeah? Bill Clinton himself said his biggest regret was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, because so many people opposed it, and the outcry against it did more than anything else to empower the GOP.

If his opinion is shared by so many people who buy Remington products and read OL, why didn't those silent millions speak up in support of him?

If so many Americans agree with him and you and not me, why is it all but universally understood that gun control is a political loser for Dems? Why then have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made it clear gun control bills won't make it out of committee? Why is that the Senate's new Democrats--Tester, Webb, etc.--are pro gun guys with carry permits and a desire to protect the 2A? Why is it that gun control has all but disappeared as a plank of the Democratic party? Why is it that McCarthy's new AWB has NO cosponsors? Why is it that Sarah Brady held a press conference last year in very un-gun friendly Maryland, and the ONLY person who showed up was ME?

A great majority of Americans have been consistently shown to NOT support new gun control laws. You're just wrong.

dare say there is a market at least as large for marijuana or even child porn as there is for assault rifles

I might almost agree on the pot, but not on kiddie porn. There are 80mil gun owners in the US by even conservative estimates, a great majority of whom own or support the ownership of semiauto rifles. If nothing else, there are 4mil+ NRA members. I really doubt there are that many kiddie porn consumers.

In any event, comparing people who think pot should be legal (like me) or that you should be allowed to own a gun (like me) to kiddie porn consumers shows what little intellectual honesty you actually have. Nice!

Now, since our system is corrupt, lobbies for gun manufacturers (and their front, the NRA) very often hold sway over the will of the people. But that fact only serves to negate the market's germaneness, not validate it.

Hardly. There are a LOT more gun owners than NRA members. People aren't gun owners simply because the NRA subliminally convinced them to spend thousands of dollars on an expensive hobby.

Together with your false accusation that Zumbo called you a terrorist, this irrelevant argument regarding the market shows your position to be so weak that you desperately grasp at the most misleading points to bolster it.

Continually repeating the same nonsensical bullshit over and over won't make it true. As I've already explained, Zumbo said that A) these weapons have no legit use and B) they're terrorist weapons. If A) is the case, and I can't be using them legitimately, I must then be using them for some illegitimate purpose, which he notably suggested would be terrorism.

The only desparation I see is your insistence on trying to suggest my umbrage at Zumbo's comments is misplaced. He CLEARLY said that my AR15 had no legit purpose and thus I must be doing something wrong.


Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK


Hey, Sebastian? Polls consistently show that more than 70% of the American people are in favor of banning assault rifles, no matter your lengthy and irrelevant obfuscations. My first impression was that you are stupid and I've learned since then that you are also dishonest. So fuck off.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 25, 2007 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Also, you have to further which market you're speaking of--the market to own AR's is certainly smaller than the market to allow people to choose whether others can buy them.

Face it, the market for more gun control laws isn't there. If it was, the Dems would be using their newfound political power on it, and they're not. The silence should tell you something...but it probably won't. You'll probably resort to blaming it on the boogieman, er...the NRA. Yawn...

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

It depends on how you ask the question. The polls you're speaking of ask the question in a leading fashion that's all but certain to give the polled individual the impression that a "no" means you favor giving everyday people M60s and M16s, which is false. Look at how the questions are asked before you tout such polls.

Americans consistenly have also shown that they simply do not favor enacting new gun control laws, both in polls and at the ballot box. Your denial on this point is approaching the point of ludicrousness.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Americans consistenly have also shown that they simply do not favor enacting new gun control laws, both in polls and at the ballot box. Your denial on this point is approaching the point of ludicrousness.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Then as now --

Nothing believable. nothing true.

Posted by: notthere on February 25, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

I have a niche to fill as a pro-gun progressive/flaming homosexual AR owner so just agree to what I say or shut the fuck up. I need hits from the righty gun "entusiasts" on my blog or I won't be able to buy any more ammo. By destroying my arguments are not only denying me my god given right to be taken seriously but you are also undermining the Constitution. Also, I will pop a cap in your ass dataguy and I ain't frontin'.

Posted by: Sebasstian on February 26, 2007 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

The polls are accurate but the ballot box isn't? Really? Guess that's why Daschle got tanked after supporting anti-gun legislation he promised he wouldn't. Guess that's why the R party took over right after Clinton signed the Brady Bill. Guess that's why Gore lost. Etc. Etc.

If "70%" really beleive that, I guess that's why semi-auto's are some of the biggest selling firearms , there are more and more matches being set up using them, etc.

And as usual, nodataguy has nothing but insults and as hominems w/o any evidence whatsoever. Keep it up, it really shows your intelligence.

Posted by: RK on February 26, 2007 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

The American people have consistently supported limits on the priviledges of gunsels, gunwackos, and other mentally deranged losers to own as much ordinance as possible. They cannot own fully automatic guns (and fuck you if you correct me - I don't give a shit). They cannot own military hardware. They cannot own whole classes of guns.

The NRA has proven that they can mobilize the morons, and this has cowed the politicians.

So, I say: More massacres, right now, right here.

For all the NRA members: When your teenagers shoot you or their friends, I myself will raise a glass in salute.

Posted by: POed Lib on February 26, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Good to see the levels of tolerance from so called liberals here.

Posted by: RK on February 26, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

RK--

Since they're all too happy to share their pet theories that we gunnies are impotent or have short penises, I'll be happy to share my guess about their hoplophobia, and why they resort to feces flinging, telling you to fuck off, and generally seem so threatened by someone willing to defend themselves.

It's pretty simple: if you're a weenie who's afraid of loud noises and lacks the spin to protect your own life...an alpha male like me is pretty intimidating. Hence all the nonsensical blather about penises.

As for nothing believeable...well sorry if you don't believe it, but gun control is widely accepted as the new political third rail in this country for a reason by analysts and experts on both sides...whatever the polls say, the people who own guns tend to be politically active. We have jobs, and we have money, and we vote. When it comes down to it, our interests ARE more powerful. We're motivated people protecting a right we consider sacred...and by way of contrast, gun control just doesn't blow much wind up people's skirts anymore.

Even well meaning liberals who are otherwise in agreement with me on non-gun issues recognize that it's window dressing, a silly, ineffective pipe dream no more likely to work than prohibition, drug prohibition, building a border fence, making prostitution illegal, etc.

Liberals and progressives usually have the good sense to drop policies that simply don't work...but some spineless cowards fear strong willed alpha males and females who don't rely on the police for protection.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 26, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

"dataguy" should be renamed "fraudguy."

The BS about "150%" is, well, BS.

This statement is only true if you lump in all the homes will illegal guns, violent wifebeaters, drug & alcohol abusers, etc. with the normal people. Homes with none of those issues have no difference in risk of homicide, no matter how you try to slice it.

fraudguy's claim is the equivalent to saying "homes with cars have more at-fault drag racing and drunk driving deaths than homes without cars, so all AAA members should FOAD." LOL, what a great Monday morning laugh!

So-called liberals like Fraudguy should STFU and stop giving the rest of us a bad name.

Posted by: k-romulus on February 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

What a joke. An alpha male is not one who needs a tool to demonstrate his alpha nature. A weenie needs a big gun.

It always reminds me of the old mob movies. The mob bosses, the alpha males, set up things. The gunsels, who are very low on the totem poll, carry guns and use them. That's what NRA members are - gunsels, minor males who need help in asserting their manhood. THey are not beta males, they are either epsilon or lower than that.

I am an alpha male. My manhood needs no help from tools. I can wear a pink tie and still look more manly and have a more imposing presence than any gunsel.

Posted by: POed Lib on February 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

One more thing:

fraudguy's "150%" makes no sense when you realize that he is claiming there is more than a 100% chance of an event occurring.

Posted by: k-romulus on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

We should start a drinking game:

One knocked back whenever some clueless wonder asserts that:

1) guns are "compensating" instruments

or

2) their "manhood" needs no compensating

I'll leave now to get the booze . . . .

Posted by: k-romulus on February 26, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly