Fellow outdoor blogger Jim Zumbo, of significant more fame then I, has set the outdoor blogging world a blaze this weekend with his views on assault weapons. Now in case you’ve been in a cave or out all weekend shooting prairie dogs here is what he said in a nutshell.
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.
I certainly do not support Jim’s view on these weapons but I’m also not willing to throw him under a bus like it seems many hunters and gun owners seem all quick to do. Jim has now posted an apology for his blog post and has backtracked on many of these words.
I guess my question is that in situations where a person doesn’t fully agree with a principle but over all supports it does that make them the enemy? I think not. If we need 100% support in all our views will alienate and divide us even quicker. Our world of hunting is littered with countless debates that well never all agree on; Crossbows, baiting, high fence hunting, what is a true muzzleloader, Sunday hunting, and dog hunting to name a few. I’m glad Jim has changed his mind on this issue but even if he hadn’t I still would consider him a friend and supporter to hunters and gun owners.
