NRA Taking Heat Because Of Jim Zumbo

Home > NRA Taking Heat Because Of Jim Zumbo

This debate has lasted long enough that “Zumbo” has now received enough recognition so that his name is being used as a verb. He got “Zumboed” or something to that effect. I read an article this morning where the author used the newly created verb.

Finally there’s outdoors writer Pat Wray, who was himself Zumbo-ed

The article I’m referring to is an op-ed piece about Jim Zumbo……well, almost. More on that in a moment.

In this business it all too often appears that the Bill of Rights has been shortened to just the 1st and 2nd Amendments, both of which are being tested in the Jim Zumbo debate. What is puzzling is that what we are seeing carried out with this issue is that we can only have one of these rights. If you fully support the 2nd Amendment do you not have a full right to practice the 1st?

First, let’s get something straight. No matter what I say, I am going to be wrong and I am going to be right. This is one reason that I have made an effort to steer as far away from this debate as possible. That’s why they say to pick your battles.

I have said before that Zumbo is an American, therefore he is protected under the Constitution the right to own the gun(s) of his choice – well, mostly – and he has the right to an opinion – well, mostly. As adults we should learn and often don’t, that when it comes time to voice an opinion, we need to make sure that while voicing this opinion we better be representing ourselves and only ourselves, so help us God.

As an ambassador for Outdoor Life, Remington Arms, Mossy Oak, Cabela’s, the Outdoor network, the NRA, et. al., Zumbo ran the risk of speaking his mind contrary to what might be the position of those he represented. Did he have a right to do that? You bet! Should he have suffered the consequences he has for doing it? That’s debatable.

The polar opposites in this debate state that on the one side, these gun rights and hunting organizations didn’t act quickly enough to crucify Jim Zumbo. At the other end, we find those who think Zumbo’s opinions are accurate and these groups were wrong to fire him or cut off relations. I have also heard the debate that most, if not all, of these businesses turned chicken and took the easy way out by severing any ties with Zumbo. Some feel that a simple, “The expressions written in this article are those of Jim Zumbo and do not reflect…….” and dealt with the debate in a sane and rational manner.

One interesting observation in following the debate is to see how some choose to fabricate the event by twisting and turning things ever so discreetly or not, in order to point the debate in the direction they would like it to go. One example of this is the article of which I referred to a moment ago by Martha Rosenberg.

Rosenberg takes the Zumbo story and turns it into an NRA story. There was hope at the beginning of the piece that she would present the story in such a way as to show that it doesn’t really matter with whom you choose to align yourself, there will always be divides and disagreements. That doesn’t happen here. What Rosenberg opted to do was to make the Zumbo affair the fault of the NRA. She accomplishes much of this by soliciting anti-NRA comments.

“The NRA is off the deep end, and doesn’t speak for me or a lot of other gun owners,” wrote a retired firefighter on the Billings Gazette web site.

“They have used half-truths and sometimes outright lies to smear and intimidate public servants who don’t share their narrow extremist agenda, which includes making ‘cop-killer’ bullets and machine guns legal to own.”

“The NRA has turned into a weird cult and totally lost sight of reality,” seconded a commentator named MK. They may define “the mayor as anti gun. I’d define them as anti cop.”

To name a few but only lists one comment in support.

“People who think Zumbo is worse than a traitor need to take some Prozac,” wrote a commentator on dailypundit.com. “I think that he represents a strong majority of the shooting community.”

Interesting isn’t it the one “supporting” comment Rosenberg chose to use?

But once again this isn’t the point of my story here. Let’s look at a brief time line. Zumbo was out coyote hunting and upon returning, entered a post on his blog at Outdoor Life. In that post is where he made the remarks about “assault” and “terrorist” weapons, etc. Within moments, the comments began to pour in outraged over his comments.

Outdoor Life decided to post a statement saying that these were Zumbo’s words and not the position of OL. That was soon followed by an unlinking of the blog and in its stead a statement saying that at least temporarily, the blog was off line. It wasn’t until a couple days later that OL “accepted Zumbo’s resignation”.

While this was happening at OL, Remington Arms announced they would pull sponsorship and sever ties, followed by Mossy Oak, then came the disappearance of any reference to his television shows, leading us to presume he got fired there too. Cabela’s, after consulting with lawyers and examining contracts, canned Zumbo as well.

Now several days have passed and the debate hasn’t waned. As a matter of fact it may have become more inflamed when Ted Nugent, at his “Nuge Board” forums website, provided Zumbo a platform for which he could come and answer questions. We cannot fault Nugent for his good will and his efforts to begin a re-educating of Zumbo and a repairing of the damage. As it turned out there was exponentially more questions than answers.

Nearly one week after the original post, the NRA decides to split the relationship they have with Zumbo.

Rosenberg is not the only one to point a finger at the NRA in hopes to weaken its defenses. She and others have a right to voice opinions about the NRA, gun rights issues etc. but it should be pointed out that what Jim Zumbo said had nothing to do with the NRA other than the fact that his position is not in line with that of the NRA. If you want to fault the NRA in this issue, then fault them on how and when they chose to deal with it.

I see many at fault here but what we should do is examine what happened and all of us use it as a great learning tool. The one thing is we need to get our ducks in a row. All of these organizations should have had in place a plan of action for such occurrences. How things were handled, including the time line in accomplishing those things, leaves many unanswered questions and a lot of suspicion. Had each group reacted confidently and quickly, there would have been far less fallout.

Now comes the real test. The stage is set – it was when the democrats regained control of the House and Senate – to test once again the fabric of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. On one side you have those wanting to control and limit guns. That side is divided. On the other end are supporters of the 2nd Amendment and that side is divided. The test is going to be which side can get their act together with truth and facts to support their cause.

What will you do?

*Previous Posts*
Name Calling Does Nothing To Protect Hunting Heritage Or The Second Amendment
Jim Zumbo Apolgizes – Again!
The Tail Spin For Jim Zumbo
Jim Zumbo Apologizes

Tom Remington

http://www.huntingsense.com Cliff

Tom,

Excellent post. I think you cut to the very heart of the matter.

Right now, the ‘gun activists’ feel they are invincible by ‘Zumboing’ Zumbo. In doing so, and the fighting that resulted amongst them afterwards, they have exposed a weakness to the ‘anti-crowd’. It’s time to set petty differences aside and pull together before the anti’s have a chance to use it in their favor.

Cliff
Mike Glaser

To those who choose the unfortunate comments of Jim Zumbo as a platform from which to criticize the NRA, I would like to direct a few comments. I joined the NRA while still a police officer, because I saw the agenda of the Anti-gun Lobby that was afforded advertising space in certain publications geared toward police officers, and because I recognize that the dignity that is inherent to police work comes from a group of men and women who assume a calculated risk to enforce the Law of the Land within the boundaries of the Constitution. A lot of gun owners who bash the NRA do so, not out of a sense of responsibility to the community, as they would have you believe, but simply because rather than standing up to the Anti-Gun Lobby, it is easier to pander to those considerable forces in politics and the media who despise the Second Amendment by somehow implying that the other guy is an extremist but you are “reasonable.” The Anti-gun Lobby looks upon any capitulation to its ill-advised and malignant agenda as weakness, pure and simple. It also seeks to ultimately ban private ownership of all firearms, down to and including muskets, as its “final solution.” I have stated before that I do not choose to hunt, but I will support your right to hunt to the bitter end. For you to denigrate the NRA because you think that it somehow makes you look better to the gun-banners is nothing less than cowardice and folly. Believe it or not, we are currently involved in a civil war in this Nation being waged between people who believe that freedom marks the difference between living and merely existing, and between those who despise freedom as being too dangerous, too dirty, too selfish, too expensive and simply too unfair to be enjoyed by this and future generations. If choosing to live in freedom makes me an extremist, than I will wear the label proudly. There have been a multitude of “extremists” who have gone before me who sacrificed their lives so that you and I and our families might live in liberty. If you in all of your “restraint and reason” feel otherwise, make no mistake about it that, unwittingly or otherwise, you are tyranny’s best friend.
G. MOCK

VERY GOOD COMMENT “MIKE GLASER” .
Tom Remington

G. Mock,

I agree!
http://www.git-a-gunslinger.com Kristine Shreve

What saddens me about this whole thing is that it seems the pro-hunting community is missing a huge opportunity for education. Hunting stories are appearing in the mainstream media, and no one from the pro-hunting community seems to be steering the spin. The story shouldn’t be Jim Zumbo, it should be why his post was mistaken and what the facts really are.

I’ve had this discussion several times, on my blog and on forums to which I belong. In my opinion, pro-hunting organizations need to do more to educate non-hunters, even those who may never hunt. I think we’re missing a great opportunity here, and I’m a bit disappointed about it.
http://www.blackbearblog.com Tom Remington

I agree with you Kristine!
jim

I don’t feel ‘invincible,’ merely sad. Not that Zumbo lost his gigs, but that so many people like to cite the 1st amendment in this debate. Get. Over. It.

Not ONE of the “activisits’ sought to call down the government or the law on Mr. Zumbo. That would, indeed, have been a first amendment issue. Instead, they called for a boycott.

Whatever else you might think about a boycott, it is not and never will be a 1st Amendment issue. Got that ? The 1st Amendment thing is a red herring, and I wish it would stop. If folks want to call those who threatened a boycott some names, feel free. But don’t invoke the Constitution — such misdirection cheapens the debate.

There may well have been a SECOND Amendment issue — Zumbo did call for legal restrictions, after all. If so, that was the only amendment in jeopardy in this whole affar.

Ultimately, this is about the consequences of opinions. If someone used a loaded racial epithet, and there were calls for a boycott, would we even be having this debate ? I think not. Because we — rightly — would say “he brought it on himself, and his sponsors torpedoed him.”

News flash — for those of us firearms owners who (a) don’t hunt, and (b) have been deeply involved in and committed to the preservation of the 2nd Amendment, this sort of “my gun is good but yours is BAD” elitist crap is offensive. I don’t have to even OWN an “evil black rifle” to become angry at that sort of an attitude.

As a student of history, I know that the EBRs are far closer to the intent of the 2nd Amendment than is my Weatherby. And as an engineer, I know that a gas-operated semiautomatic is a gas-operated semiautomatic no matter the color or material the stock is made of.

So when a “good friend of firearms owners” takes that “good gun / bad gun” attitude, it deeply upsets me. And I’ll contact sponsors — like Remington — and ask “exactly what kind of bozos are you hring ?”

If you get rotten customer service, then you should complain. If your vendor supports folk who express opinions that deeply offend you, letting them know you’re taking your business elsewhere is simply the customer’s choice. If enouigh people do that because of the opinions expressed publicly by one of your employees hired for his supposed knowledge in that particular field, would you keep him on ? If a member of a prestigious NY City law firm supported the goals of the KKK in his own blog, would he keep his job ? It’s his consitutional right, to be sure, but it’s also sufficienly embarrassing to his employers to make him a liability.

Maybe I should resign from the NRA and start my own organization that supports banning hunting arms as not suitable for militia use, but supports the ownership of EBR’s. I wonder how hunters might feel about that ?

Ponder that long and hard, and then consider if Zumbo was mistreated .

There’s only one fault here — the guy who engaged his mouth before his brain. When I do that — oh, and I have — I expect to pay the price. What Zumbo was stupid enough, egregious enough, and public enough that he has paid the price.

No, I’m not gloating — as I sad the entire affair saddens me as it does whenever someone does something bad enough to end his/her career. But let’s not make it about the 1st Amendment.

NRA Taking Heat Because Of Jim Zumbo

Related Posts

Tom Remington

Related Sites

Archives
Categories