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.

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.

I agree!

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