… to believe the government ought to respect the Bill of Rights? That’s what I’d really like to know from all the people tossing around accusations that we ruined Jim Zumbo because he deviated from the NRA orthodoxy.
And as someone who could be regarded as “liberal” on more than a few issues, and who’s vote is generally up for grabs for either party, how do the Democrat types expect me to identify with them when they like to argue that it’s extreme to shout down those who would disparage the Constitution, or give ammunition to those intent on doing so?
Again, the Zumbo thing wasn’t because he argued that “assault weapons” were a bad choice for hunting. I think most of us would have been happy to debate him on that point without trying to shout him down. The issue was that he said things the anti-gunners would happily latch onto and make sure policy makers knew that “even the top outdoor writer thinks these guns have no sporting use and should be banned”.
On a personal level, I feel bad for what happened to Jim. I do hope that Jim will work with us in the future, and that we can welcome him back into the community of shooters. But I don’t apologize for what happened to him. What he said was so potentially damaging to our community that we had to react, and react strongly. I don’t mess around when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and I would have hoped that was something we all could agree on. Maybe not.
He describes the shooting public’s response to Z as, “heresy,” of “orthodox dogma,” and “high priests” – but that’s looking-in through a blue-tinted and smudged window, and not a stained-glass window either but one that’s evidently scornful of religion.
Also his assertion in terms of the “coordination and vehemence of the pro-gun lobby to Zumbo’s comments” is quite offbase, it was much more of a grassroots wildfire than that, and the NRA was criticized as coming late to the event. Knowing of them what I do, the NRA’s hardly so well organized on the local level.