Fear

[joeb33050]

I don't know Zumbo or Wray, don't read their stuff, don't hunt, never had an AR15, SKS, or any of those kinds of guns. I like Justice Scalia's take on the second amendment.
I've been reading this business about Zumbo and the second amendment and Democrats and Republicans and the NRA.
To me, it distills down to this.
There is a First amendment to the constitution that gives us the right to free speech.
Mr. Zumbo said some things that others disagreed with. These others, these guys concerned with our freedoms, had the opportunity to debate, to argue, to explain, to attempt to convince Mr. Zumbo that their opinions and not his were correct.
Instead, they wrote enough to his sponsors and employers to end his career.
So it seems that Mr. Zumbo does NOT have the right to speak freely, that if he does then some others can and will and did end his career.
I don't think that went on here is in the spirit of the constitution, I don't think it was the American thing to do, and I don't think the others were right.
This has nothing to do with the second amendment or guns, it has to do with free speech in this country.
I don't like what happened, I don't like what the others did, and mostly I don't like that I have a little fear in the back of my mind about expressing my opinion-speaking freely-here.
The others made me a little afraid. This makes me mad.
joe b.

[VTDW]

Joe B,

Nutin to fear here. Whether I agree with you or not sir, there are consequences to free speech. I think you are correct in your analysis but those that attacked Zumbo felt attacked themselves and had the right to protest the way they did...even his sponsors. They all exercised their freedom. Who are we to say they did it wrong?

On the other hand, I hope and pray I never see someone burning our flag here in America because I would certainly quell their freedom of expression. That would be un-American I suppose. I must be a hypocrite.:confused:

Who is wrong here?:-D

Dave

[tanstafl10]

joe b,

FEAR NOT, for I will stand up for your right to free speech---- whether I agree with you or not. But if I disagree very strongly with you, I will NOT let you use my money to weaken my position.

I have taken my business elsewhere in the past, even when it cost me MORE money. I just have to buy less of whatever it is. That is the price I pay for having strong beliefs. I can live with it!

Take care,

[Lloyd Smale]

every man has the right to free speech but after you say what you want to say you had better be willing to face the consequences if what you say hurts another person. Dad allways said if you put your foot in your mouth dont expect anything other then someone trying to shove it in further to help you!

[SharpsShooter]

Without the 2nd amendment, you would not have the 1st, or any of the others for that matter.


SS

[Bret4207]

If you exercise your right of free speech, you also have to accept the responsibilty of what you said. Zumbo should have thought before he wrote what he did, the Dixie Chicks should have thought too, so should we all. If you use your freedom of speech to say something I disagree with I have the right to disagree. This issue has been a bone of contention here before. Guys want to say what they think and when someone calls them on they scream about freedom of speech. Common sense tells me that a guy in a certain line of business should think before he speaks. I think it was Soupy Sales who KO'd his career by opening his mouth when he didn't know the camera was on. Mel Gibson got caught recently. Guys like Tom Selleck who are pro-gun bear the cross of that stance by getting accosted on talk shows, etc. It works for everyone.

[wills]

There is a First amendment to the constitution that gives us the right to free speech.
Mr. Zumbo said some things that others disagreed with. These others, these guys concerned with our freedoms, had the opportunity to debate, to argue, to explain, to attempt to convince Mr. Zumbo that their opinions and not his were correct.
Instead, they wrote enough to his sponsors and employers to end his career.
joe b.
Your understanding of the First Amendment is incorrect.

What happened to Joe Zumbo is EXACTLY the way the first amendment was and is intended to operate. Mr. Zumbo set forth his opinion in the Marketplace of Ideas (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas ) where those ideas were tested, found wanting and rejected.

The first amendment is a limit on GOVERNMENT action.

The first amendment is NOT a limit on PRIVATE action.

The government did not do anything to Mr. Zumbo.

He has not been fined.

He has not been put in jail.

He has not been enjoined.

He has been permitted to enjoy his constitutional rights, (even to the point of advocating the denial of ours).

Mr. Zumbo is free to publish his own magazine.

Mr. Zumbo is free to write his own blog.

Mr. Zumbo is free to talk on his own radio show.

It is just that right now, he cant find anyone who will pay him money to do it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1toc_user.html

[redneckdan]

there was no violation of his 1st ammendment rights. The government didn't spank him. The consumers did.

[Larry Gibson]

TprBret nailed it. As with the Second Ammendment, the First Ammendment carries a certain responsibility. While you have the right to say what you want you are accountable for what you say. Unless you are black say the N-word and see what hapens. Yell fire in a crowded theater, go into a biker bar and tell "Joker" his mama is fat, ugly and really likes cars, tell your boss he is a work-a-holic and you're taking next week off whether he likes it or not and see if there are not consequenses. Yes, you can say anything you want but be responsible or be prepared to face consequences. Zumbo made public statements with strong incinuations that I (and millions of others in this country) am a terroist because I own certain guns. His apology only made it worse. He admits shooting off his mouth without knowing anything about those weapons. He, with all his experience, should have known better. He has aided and abbetted the enemy (anti-gunners) as evidenced by their recent anti-gun quotations of his statement. Zumbo has been held accountable for his actions as many others are and more should be. That, sir, is the "sprit of the Constitution" (please capitalize it next time) and the "American way". We are a Republic based on the rights of individuals. One must be careful in the exercise of one's Constitutional Rights so that one does not infringe on the rights of others. Zumbo infringed on my right, a host of others rights and in fact infringed on every citizens rights. He has paid the price, a just one in my opinion. It would be nice if we could wield that political power with consistancy and equal effectiveness against other anti-gunners.

Say what you will but be responsible or be held accoutable.

Larry Gibson

[Pat I.]

Joe,

If a national hunting and shooting author who had a television show, sponsored by some of the same shooting related business where I spend my money, came out calling for a ban on cast bullets for hunting or sport because he didn't use them and saw no use for them. And on top of that called the people using cast bullets polluters and despoilers of the environment would you feel the same?

Exchange "polluters" for "terrorist weapons" and this is exactly what Zumbo said about a class of semi automatic rifles that HE doesn't like. This isn't a First or Second Amendment issue, it's a words have consequences issue.

[sundog]

So, it comes down to this, Joe B. You think everyone who objected to Zumbo's comments are wrong, and you are mad. Kinda one sided. Isn't it?

He, and you, can say what you want, but others can't?

btw, you are entitled to your opinion. I spend 26 years in uniform to defend that right, and a few others -- like the WHOLE Constitution. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you, or that I'm even required to. sundog

[omgb]

That tag in my sig line, "James Madison Fellow" was earned by committing myself to a very academic exploration of the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. As a recognized expert on these matters, I can assure you Mr. Zumbo's 1st Amendment rights were not denied nor abridged. He was permitted to say exactly what he wanted to and he did. What happened to him was the natural result of that expression. If one has a paid position that depends on public support and one alienates said public through one's actions or words, one cannot expect the public support to continue. Change the setting from outdoor writer to politician. Have said politician say things that alienate his constituents and he can be sure that he will not be reelected. Pretty simple. In some states, California being one, if an elected official angers the electorate with his actions or words, the official can be recalled from office, that is to say, fired. We did it just a few years ago to Gov. Wilson.

All freedoms are predicated upon the willingness of the individual to assume responsibility for his deeds. Sometimes that responsibility goes beyond the theoretical and enters into the very real realm of physical consequence. Mr. Zumbo just proved that.

Simply put, Mr. Zumbo served at the pleasure of the public. the public was no longer pleased with his service. Thus his service was terminated. Quid Pro Quo

[Dale53]

I must take my hat off to the fellows who have spoken above (except for JoeB with whom I flatly disagree). I consider myself an educated person and it is quite uplifting to see the reasoned response to a particular situation (Zumbo's "foot in the mouth" attack). The public could "go to school" by reading these comments.

What a novel idea, that we should be responsible for our actions:roll:...

Dale53

[R. Dupraz]

Joe:

If your post is only to elicit responses to the subject of your "fear" which I suspect that it is or you really are "afraid", I for one am not buying it in either case!

You missed it!

You cite the first amendment and Zumbo's right to "free speech". I ask you, don't those who oppose, have the same right to express themselves to whom ever they see fit? As has been noted in the posts above, with free speech comes responsibility as well. And one has to consider the consequences before speaking out. That's reality.

Zumbo is the one who ended his career because of what he wrote! Not all the people who responded to it or his employers and sponsers. "Free speech" I think they call it. Where I come from, this is called placing the responsibility where it belongs.

Anyone who has the notariety Of Zumbo, has the power to influence a great many people by what they say, do and write. The is especially true with the shooting and hunting sports. We in the shooting and hunting community are a relative minority when one considers the total population. I believe most of all who remain, are mostly uninformed and probably really don't have an opinion on gun ownership one way or the other except for what they see and read. This becomes particularly important with the gun ownership issue.

The storm that resulted from Zumbo's blog was primarily because the gun owners and shootiers felt betrayed when one of their own called a legally owned firearm an "assult rifle" and inferred that it should be banned from hunting use. Sound familiar? Not only that, but he also added that only terrorists use them. That includes every law abiding citizen who owns one and our military as well!!! How about that?

Quote,
" I'll go so far as to call them"Terrorist Rifles"
Quote,
" We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."

The article by Tom Gresham that was added to a post by "Old Ironsights" on this forum stated it much better than I can. Zumbo crossed the line. This is about our second amendment right and not free speech.

This article was not a mistake! Zumbo thought about what he was writing. He intended to put these words down as they were written. No one was forcing him to do so. The only mistake that he made was revealing himself for what he is. Check and see how long it took the anti-gun crowd to pick up on this tribe. Do you really think that if he believed in the second amendment to our constitution when it says, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, that he would have written what he did? I think not.

So, Joe, this is a gun rights issue as far as I am concerned. And if your fear keeps you from expressing an opinion I guess you will just have to deal with it.


Regards
1st US Infantry
Fort Randall
Dept of Dakota

[Gussy]

We have met the enemy and he is us. We stand together or fall separatly.
Gus

[montana_charlie]

I agree with Joe in saying Zumbo got harsher treatment than he deserved. But he stepped in the cow pie, and it was one of those juicy ones that splatter everywhere. He is sleeping in the bed that he made...
But the question Joe commented on is the matter of First Amendment rights.

Congress made no law abridging Zumbo's free speech. Therefore the amendment was not violated.

You see...the amendment doesn't say that anybody can actually DO anything.
It doesn't make ANYTHING legal.
It only declares what Congress CANNOT do.

People today have a distorted view of 'freedom of speech'.
The 'free speech' portion of the First Amendment does not mean that you CAN say anything you want.
It says that Congress CAN'T MAKE A LAW that tells you what you can (or can't) say.

The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a 'form of expression', and therefore is considered 'speech'.
The First Amendment does not say that flag burning is legal. It only says that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting it.

If Zumbo (or a flag burner) 'expresses' something that angers you, it is your right to respond. If your response is an illegal act, then you will be held responsible for that action, just as you held the writer (or burner) responsible for his 'expression'.

In the Zumbo case, no laws were broken.
CM

[NVcurmudgeon]

Wills, great explanation of what the first Amendment is, and isn't.

joeb, I have the right to walk into a crowded biker bar and shout, "bleep you and the Harleys you rode in on." Government is not obligated to defend my idiocy.

[n]

Mr. Zumbo made his livelyhood by writing about his experiences and the products he used to accomplish these experiences. Today most of the gun rags and outdoor television shows are really a giant commercial directed at a special interest audience. This audience is " US " . How many people watch on TV or read magazines dedicated to something that doesn't interest them? Not too many I would bet. As a sponsered host or author Mr. Zumbo knew who would hear or read his comments. With the amount of years of experience Mr. Zumbo had under his belt he should have known that he was treading onto awfully thin ice when he offered the statements that ended his career. Mr. Zumbo's salary was paid by the same people that he insulted. In essence, every time we purchase a product that the manufacurers were sponsors of Mr. Zumbo a little tiny bit is added to the cost of the product to pay Mr. Zumbo to tell us how great it is is how it improved his chances in the field or blah blah blah !!!
I personally do not think that the punishment was too severe. The sponsors of Mr. Zumbo apparently thought the same thing.
Insult your employer and see how long it is before you are standing outside looking in.
Nighthunter

[Scrounger]

Here's an amusing letter CarpetMan sent me:

JOHN CLEESE'S LETTER TO AMERICA

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of
the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the
revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all
States, commonwealths and other territories (excepting Kansas, which
she does not fancy).



Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a Governor
for America without the need for further elections. Congress and
the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated
next year to determine whether any of you noticed.



To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, The
following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English
Dictionary.

Then look up "aluminium," and check the pronunciation guide.
You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour',
'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell
'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix "ize" will be
replaced by the suffix "ise."



You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced
'burra'; you may elect to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you find you
simply can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you will
be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up
"vocabulary").

Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler
noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient
form of communication.

2. There is no such thing as " U.S. English." We will let
Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be
adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the
elimination of "-ize."

3. You will relearn your original national anthem, "God Save
The Queen", but only after fully carrying out Task #1 (see
above).

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in
England.

It will be called "Come-Uppance Day."



5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using
guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many
lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be
independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult
enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a
therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.



6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry
anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be
required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.



7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and
this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will
understand* what we mean.

All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same
time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of
conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you
understand the British sense of humour.

8. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you
have been calling "gasoline") -roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

9. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call
French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on
calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are
thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with mayonnaise but
with vinegar.

10. Waiters and waitresses will be trained to be more
aggressive with customers.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is
not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter
will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and
accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." American brands
will be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," so that all can
be sold without risk of further confusion.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English
actors as Good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English
actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt
English dialogue in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was an experience
akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American "football." There is
only one kind of proper football; you call it "soccer." Those of you brave
enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not

reasonable to host an event called the "World Series" for a
game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are
aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is
understandable.

14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us
mad.

15. An internal revenue agent ( i.e. tax collector) from Her
Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the
acquisition of all monies due backdated to 1776.



Thank you for your co-operation.



John Cleese

[Lloyd Smale]

Scronger i borrowed your post for an email i hope you dont mind

[Scrounger]

Scronger i borrowed your post for an email i hope you dont mind

Not at all. I figure anything any idiot (like me) posts on the Internet is up for grabs.

[VTDW]

montana_charlie,

Yours was a most excellent post sir.

Dave :drinks:

[9.3X62AL]

Joe B--

We don't bite, and even if we did--we've had all our shots.

Freedom of speech as per the 1st Amendment has been pretty well covered above, and HAS IT EVER been addressed within the board in the past. I think the rules are posted somewhere, and common sense/common decency is pretty much the rubric hereabouts. Egregious profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, threats of injury/harm--those kinda things will get sprayed over in a hurry, and gentle reminder sent to desist in such actions in the future. A thick skin helps some, too--especially if a poorly targeted comment is sent to an audience that might object to its content.

[Nrut]

Thanks JoeB for starting this thread....the replies to your question/statement is why this is my favorite website!....wish that I was half as articulate as the above posters...

[arkypete]

What it boils down to is you can say and do most anything as long as you are willing to accept the consequences.
Jim

[waksupi]

Anyone is free to express an opinion here. And, anyone is free to respond to the stated opinon. That's what happens when you say something without thinking. If only politicians would crawl in a hole, when they screw up. Of course, the hole would be pretty full.

[Chargar]

Joe... Others have given a full and correct expositiion of the 1st. Ammendment and Mr. Zumbo did not have his rights trampled. Like others, I think the reaction of some were over the top, but that was their right also.

You/Me/We all run the risk of incurring the wrath of others when we say something they don't like. It has happend to me on many occasions, but still I speak on. Unpopular speech is not necessarily incorrect speech.

I am something of an Iconoclast and folks that do this should be prepared for the results. It is just the way of things.

So..Joe..speak on!! Some will agree, Some will disagree, some will exhault you and some will damn you. This the way of such things.

[hivoltfl]

Good discussion, lots of people expressing their freedom of speech, I did not dee anything that I disagreed with.

Rick

[ihmsa70]

Some folks are whining about what happened to Zumbo, and assert his 1st amendment rights were trampled on. What about my rights to criticize his ideas? Do I not have rights also?

[7br]

And now to take the thread on a radically different direction. Zumbo, who I have read and mostly like because he is a friend of Patrick McManus, excercised his freedom of speech. The people who responded also used their freedom of speech to express their disagreement.

However, it was not entirely the speech that got Mr. Zumbo in hot water, it was the threat of economic reprisals from an upset customer base. As government takes a little more of our money and makes decisions for us, it takes away a little more of our economic influence. I am not an anti-tax radical and I do see the value of a well run government. Just observing.

[omgb]

OK, from the First Amendment Freedom Foundation calendar for March 3, 2007, a quote from Mahmood Mamdani, Professor of Government at Columbia University, 2006: "The exercise of free speech has never come free of consequence."

[redbear705]

One of the things that I learned early in life is that..........


"Most people dont remember the Good things you do in life or how many times you helped them......They only remember the bad things you done!"

JR

[9.3X62AL]

The Marketplace Of Ideas differs from the NYSE or NASDAQ in one respect--all three entities may have length and breadth of capital investment, but the MOI has a third dimension of depth--more succinctly, the INTRINSIC MERIT an idea holds in the minds of co-investors. In short, Zumbo (figuratively speaking) tried to invest ill-gotten gain, and got his capital excluded from investment--and largely seized, both figuratively and literally. Moral of the story......don't trade junk bonds.

[felix]

THAT is perfect, Al. Sounds as if you too do have experience in these matters, and without doubt at that. ... felix

[joeb33050]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. Imagine a person who posts on this and other forums who writes things I don't like. He's free to do that. For some reason I know where he works, that he posts hundreds of messages a year during working hours, and I have a record of these posts. Imagine that I am free to write whatever I want. Imagine that I write to the employer of the imaginary poster, listing the posts he has posted during working hours, and imagine that the poster is fired. I have the right to say what I did to the employer, no?
The I poster was free to post?
I was free to dislike his posts?
I was free to write to his employer?
I was free to punish him?
We are free to punish others for what they say or write?
Or think?
??
joe b.

[arkypete]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. Imagine a person who posts on this and other forums who writes things I don't like. He's free to do that. For some reason I know where he works, that he posts hundreds of messages a year during working hours, and I have a record of these posts. Imagine that I am free to write whatever I want. Imagine that I write to the employer of the imaginary poster, listing the posts he has posted during working hours, and imagine that the poster is fired. I have the right to say what I did to the employer, no?
The I poster was free to post?
I was free to dislike his posts?
I was free to write to his employer?
I was free to punish him?
We are free to punish others for what they say or write?
Or think?
??
joe b.

I think you are a bit off course.If the individual you mentioned posted anti christian things here and it turned out he's a preacher!
If the individual was a cop on the sex crime unit and he's posting the web addresses of kiddie porn!

Zumbo was flying under false colors and made the mistake of revealing himself.

A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Jim

[Nrut]

Now image that poster is working for you JoeB and that he is posting on your $......It almost always comes down to taking responsibly for your own actions.....There are alot of people who don't want to do that.....reflects poorly on their chacter...or lack of it.....

[1Shirt]

Gussy's Pogo Quote from back in the 60's when we had more gun rights than we have now hit it right on the head. We have to stick together, when the anti gun yo-yo's use the divide and win tactic. Remember when you could order a nice mauser through the mail without an FFL being involved. If not, you should talk with some of us older guys who do. We have lost a lot of our rights becauce we gave in to what we thought were little things, that collectivly have now become a big part of our gun freedoms.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[omgb]

If said guy was posting on company time using a company computer and the company had a policy against such postings, well, you are free to turn him in and if he gets fired, that's his own damn fault. But, this is an entirely different issue from Zumbo. Zumbo represented an idea and and ideology and was paid for entertaining like-minded folks. His blog was a direct assault on the basis of that ideology he purported to represent. The people he was entertaining were no longer entertained and said so. The folks who were paying him to attract paying customers through the medium of entertainment severed their relationship with him when he lost his audience. There was nothing illegal or immoral going on here. Zumbo was not cheating his employer or misusing company resources. He was a spokesman for a cause. When he abandoned that cause, he was replaced pure and simple.

Now, was the reaction harsh? You bet. Was it pleasant or even merciful? Hardly. Was it just? Absolutely. If you are paid to do something and you don't do it you don't deserve to be paid.

I'm a protestant teacher at a Catholic school. If I speak against the Catholic church either publicly or privately, I risk being canned depending on what I say and under what conditions. I still have the right to say whatever I want at any time and under any circumstances but when I took up the mantle of teacher I suspended some of those rights willingly as a condition of employment. Zumbo did the same. Every man and woman in the armed forces does likewise. Most businesses have some sort of clause that states that if you fail to protect the company image you will be terminated. You still have the right to say what you want but it's gonna cost you to exercise that right.

Zumbo knew that. You can't be a public figure and not know that. Your life blood is your audience and if you alienate them, you die. Zumbo was free then as he is now to say whatever he wants. The difference is that today, few are willing to pay to hear what he has to say. That's he fault, he has to live with it.

[sundog]

JoeB, your analogy is NOT. Besides, my boss knows what I do at work, including this board and reading the news. But all my work gets done, and very well at that. In fact, I go above and beyond. I have a feeling that most of the folks on this board are the same way.

So, was your hypothetical just that, or could it have been a threat? It sorta read like a threat. I'm about as tired of your drivelling as I am this whole Zumbo affair. That's not a personal attack either. I'm just saying I am tired of having all this crap in my face. First amendment right, doncha know. sundog

btw, don't forget that with a right comes responsibility and obligation. If anyone were to get someone else fired, the firee may hold the rabble rouser responsible.

[sundog]

One more thing, the firee's friends may hold the rabble rouser responsible.

Why did you even bring this up? sundog

[R. Dupraz]

Joeb:


Zumbo Quote:

"I'll go so far as to call them terrorist rifles."

" We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."


My quote;

A legally owned firearm, used by--

1. law abiding citizens
2. police
3. our military, at present protecting us from the ''terrorists''

..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


R. Dupraz

[Pat I.]

Joe, Why am I not surprised that you took a contrary position to what the majority of the posters wrote.

[Nrut]

Joe, Why am I not surprised that you took a contrary position to what the majority of the posters wrote.
Pat I... I'm glad Joe posts what he posts...helps me think and I learn alot from the other fellows here who are posting their thoughts....sometimes I wonder if that is the real reason behind Joes threads and posts....either way it works for me...:)

[eka]

I'm getting to this post late and the thoughts expressed here already pretty much cover both sides of the issue. This is how I see the whole mess. Obviously, Zumbo exercised his right to free speech without government sanction. However, Zumbo made his living by marketing his image, words, and thoughts regarding the outdoors to the public. He depended on the public to support him and his sponsers to continue his endeavors. The reason he was treated so harshly by gunowners and firearms enthusiests, in my opinion, was due to this groups frustration with constantly having to fight day in and day out to hang onto the rights granted to us by the Second Amendment. He was viewed as a traitor that had stabbed his supporters in the back by speaking out to legitimize the position of those wishing to ban certain firearms, if not all firearms. He was considered a wolf in sheeps clothing and treated as such. I'm not sure if he was truely a wolf in sheeps clothing, or just a journalist who was out of touch with his audience and the battle to save the Second Amendment. I believe the later to probably be true. It really all boils down to this: If he was an employee of a company and he acted in a way that damaged his employer and strengthened their competitors, he would have been fired. That is what basically happened. Now, he either needs to retire or find another job. People find themselves in this position every day and Zumbo is no different.

[sundog]

Eka, No problem with what you said except one thing.

The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, AFFIRMS our rights. That is, those rights preexisted. Short of getting into a religious discussion, at the time of the Founding, those rights were recognized as be granted by God. That is the context. These two Founding documents affirm, not grant, those rights. To some this is nit picking. If you study the Founding, and truely understand the sentiment, it is not.

Yea, Joe should continue to post. Just because I disagree with something he said, he still has the right to say it. After all, we're in this together and varying viewpoints spur lively discussion. Heck, maybe something I just said y'all disagree with. That's not conciliatory, just recognition. sundog

[joeb33050]

I guess my hypothetical question was poorly chosen.
My real question is: "What is YOUR opinion about my question?"
Here's my question: "If a beer brewer or candle maker or carpenter expresses an opinion with which you do not agree, about gun control for example-either side: then, is it "right" for you to attempt to economically punish the brewer or candle maker or carpenter?
You can certainly withhold your trade, I think.
Can you attempt to get others to withhold trade?
Can you organize protests at selling points to withhold trade?
Can you "punish" the brewer for holding opinions about, for example, gun control when gun control has nothing to do with brewing?
This isn't the Zumbo case, I know.
Pat, my object is to learn; and I do that here and in similar places by asking questions that I either don't know the answer to or that I may be wrong on. (These are the only two types of question that there are.) This makes some folks uncomfortable. That's a by-product, not WHY I do it.
joe b.

[rvpilot76]

If someone punched you in the nose, would you do something about it? Would you let him do it again? American gun owners have been getting punched in the nose since 1934. A person can only take so much before they start to fight back. It's pretty hard to fight back against a government, at least physically. We try to get things accomplished through the officials that we elect, but somehow it always ends up they have their own interests in mind. The Zumbo incident showed us all that we still have some fighting spirit left in all of us. Now, the only problem that I see is this: how do we do the same thing to the anti's? I mean, the real anti's here. How do we cut off the head, financially, of Hillary, Feinstein, Brady, Schumer, etc.? This country is motivated by money. Money talks. It would seem that finances are the Achilles heel to being successful here in America. Want further proof? Here's one for you: Mel Gibson. Made "Passion of the Christ", the largest grossing movie in the world, and shortly thereafter, made comments disrespectful towards the people in the industry he works in. Guess what happened? Pretty much a ban on his work. People were publicly vocal about hanging him out to dry. Remember, he was one of their own. He was their Zumbo, if you will. We've got to get smarter about how we fight. Zumbo was but the first step in this direction. Zumbo's First Amendment rights were not violated. His comments, whether he believes it or not, were an attack on his very own Second Amendment rights. People today don't think things through enough.

Kevin :coffee:

[felix]

Joe, you have mentioned several times you are a person who treats data as facts. I really don't think we have that raw data to offer you, except what is publically printed. By this notion, I do think we have obtained the saturation point for theoretical points of view offered already. Now, if we want to do something concrete, like bombard someone with emails, then that would be an entirely different matter. But, we won't have the genuine facts to interject into the email content. ... felix

[KYCaster]

You can certainly withhold your trade, I think.
Can you attempt to get others to withhold trade?
Can you organize protests at selling points to withhold trade?
Can you "punish" the brewer for holding opinions about, for example, gun control when gun control has nothing to do with brewing?


Joe: Can I withhold my trade?.....Of course! Nobody has the right to tell me how to spend my money.

Can I ATTEMPT to get others to withhold trade?....Of course! That right is acknowledged by the First Ammendment.

Can I organize protests at selling points to withhold trade? That's also covered by the First Ammendment....the right to peaceably assemble.

Can I punish the brewer for holding opinions contrary to mine? Wellll.....yes. If I can convince enough other like-minded people to cooperate, I may generate enough clout to punish him economically.

The only question unanswered by this whole Zumbo thing is, Why would anybody alienate ninety percent of the people who provide his livelyhood? It's not hard to get a lot of cooperation in that situation.

Ignorance is only skin deep.....stupid goes clean to the bone.

Jerry

[rhead]

What Zumbo did is closer to the brewer campaigning to reinstate proabition.

[qajaq59]

Mr. Zumbo had his say and we had ours. What exactly is your problem with that?

Oh, I forgot, we are only supposed to have free speech if we agree with you.

Sorry about that. but this is America and we're still used to being free to say what we want.

[woody1]

You can certainly withhold your trade, I think.
Can you attempt to get others to withhold trade?
Can you organize protests at selling points to withhold trade?
Can you "punish" the brewer for holding opinions about, for example, gun control when gun control has nothing to do with brewing?


Joe: Can I withhold my trade?.....Of course! Nobody has the right to tell me how to spend my money.

Can I ATTEMPT to get others to withhold trade?....Of course! That right is acknowledged by the First Ammendment.

Can I organize protests at selling points to withhold trade? That's also covered by the First Ammendment....the right to peaceably assemble.

Can I punish the brewer for holding opinions contrary to mine? Wellll.....yes. If I can convince enough other like-minded people to cooperate, I may generate enough clout to punish him economically.

The only question unanswered by this whole Zumbo thing is, Why would anybody alienate ninety percent of the people who provide his livelyhood? It's not hard to get a lot of cooperation in that situation.

Ignorance is only skin deep.....stupid goes clean to the bone.

Jerry
By golly, there IS something here worth reading and perhaps discussing!!! I've ignored this Fear post since the beginning because I thought it was just more drivel and the first half dozen or so responses were right on regarding rights to say AND take responsibility for that said. Yes, Joe, you can say and do most all of those things in your post immediately above AND YOU SHOULD if you really care about your 2nd Amendment rights. This is what I've been trying to get across in some of my other posts here and on other boards. If you/we would actively get interested in who is funding our 2nd Amendment foes and get an active campaign going to (Zumbo) those entities/companys/individuals/and yes brewers mebe we could get this thing turned around. YES Joe, it would be legal also. Oh boy, Joe, I'm on a roll here...I don't think I'd go so far as to say they pi$$ed in their beer (responsibility doncha know) unless I could prove it. BUT I could say..."These people are Pi$$in on your gun rights by funding Sara and crew and such and such politicians who are attempting to pass H.R 1022 and mayhaps y'all should drink something else. YUP, legal, moral, responsible and totally correct response. OK, soapbox off. Regards, Woody

[montana_charlie]

A slightly different slant, Joe...

If the brewer mentioned, over a beer, that he didn't like guns and had none in his home, I would say it's his right to feel that way. I would also tell him that he can teach his kids anything he believes, but would hope that he allows them to make up their own minds as they grow.

If the candlemaker, while delivering candles, noticed my guncase and started making it clear that he felt I was a danger to society, I would mention his intransigience to my friends, but would not actively try to cause him trouble.
I might start to explore the value of electric lighting.

If the carpenter, considered to be a good craftsman providing a valuable service to the community, was found to be funding a local chapter of Handguns Inc. with profits from his business...I would take action to reduce that business.

A person has a right to believe differently than me. It's even his right to dislike me because of my beliefs. But, if he takes action to outlaw my beliefs, denying me rights which he doesn't care to enjoy, I will respond actively.

CM

[dakotashooter2]

Mr Zumbo has the right and freedom to express his ideas any way he can. Since it is through the gunowners support he has been allowed his venues to speak publicly and at no fiancial cost to himself, and we are now disilusioned by his ideas, we are now denying his venue to speak publicly. We are not denying his freedom of speech itself we are just refusing to sponsor it in the media and he is now on the same playing field as the majority of us are. If he wants to pay to have his thoughts published he is free to do so just as you and I are. If he doesn't care for assault weapons that is his choice and I can respect that. Just don't expect me to support/ pay for an idea I don't support.

:castmine:

[TDB9901]

I've heard it put this way..., "You have the absolute right to speak. You do not necessarily have the right to be HEARD". (Especially on someone else's nickel.)

That's what happened here, he still has the right to say whatever he wishes, but those who were paying for his venue to be heard, decided to pull that support.
They had every right to do so.

[Blackwater]

I'm coming to this thread late. 'Puter's been down, etc. I'd like to chip in my own 2 cents' worth on it anyway.

I think it was Einstein (?) who said the biggest challenge was always to find the proper question to ask in any given problematic question. If you can find the proper question to ask, the answer's usually readily apparent. Well, in this Zumbo matter, questions such as whether it's in the spirit of the Constitution or not to register our complaints as was done in the Zumbo affair seem to me to be a red herring - a question that leads us off into the etherous nebula from which no illumination can escape or be attained.

Rather, the relevant question seems to me to be the same one that's always revolved around our collective heads - whether and how we may hold onto our God-given human rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Now it's a given that a man has a right to make a living. I don't think anyone would deny that. However, HOW and WHERE he makes that living often depends on that man's willingness and ability to use his wits, discretion and circumspection. That's always a given, TOO. Zumbo didn't do that, and in saying what he did, he THREATENED in a real and substantial way, ALL our rights to own and use ALL firearms. Those who don't perceive the reality of this just aren't looking down the road to the inevitable eventual destination where Zumbo's attitude and ideas would head us.

In his position, he threatened his OWN mode of making a living more than anyone who protested ever would or could. For those who DO perceive that words lead to deeds, and deeds eventually to their inevitable destiny then, it was our DUTY, not only to ourselves, but to our children and our children's children, to register our protest. The preservation of the Second Amendment, a right perceived by the Founders to be second only to free speech, etc. of the First, will ALWAYS be worth protecting, and neither Zumbo's nor any other's occupation takes precedent over that simple and immutable principle.

Zumbo knew, either consciously or unconsciously, what the potential results of such inane statements as his might possibly be. He chose not to heed those inner warnings, and nobody but Zumbo himself is responsible for what happened as to his job. Life's like that sometimes. There ARE consequences for our behavior. He's lucky. Back in the stone age, when you didn't listen to your better instincts, you got et by a sabre tooth tiger. Zumbo will survive this, but hopefully, it'll make him think a bit more about his own mistakes, and about the principles upon which the protests were founded. Personally, I doubt it'll do anything but make him mad. That seems to be the way folks like him, who just don't "get it," behave these days.

The question of whether or not Zumbo should have lost his employment is not the question that merits serious intellectual discussion here. That was only a result that, if he'd but thought about it a minute, could have and probably should have been avoided. The REAL issue, the one which impacts us ALL, is the one about whether or not this nation can, and will, stand, and whether our rights, coming from God and GUARANTEED (in writing at least) by the Constitution, will endure. THAT is the question that those who protested Zumbo's statements followed. What followed was simply what inevitably MUST follow whenever a man shoots off his mouth without thinking about what he says. I got a fat lip once for the same sort of thing, but I was drunk (college days), and in no condition to recover at that time enough to provide much opposition for the assailant. Those things are just a part of nature. We shoot off our mouths, and consequences follow. Maybe Zumbo didn't think it'd be so heavy. Maybe he SHOULD have?

Zumbo hasn't been banned to another planet, and though chastened (if he can deal with that), he'll survive. I don't look to see him pandering on the street, washing windshields with a dirty rag for quarters. For him to assume the soap box he owned at the time, and so loudly and forcefully renounce a principle that so many still hold dear was .... well, it was just dumb, and nearly criminally so.

Yeah, he had the right to speak, and WE had the RIGHT to act as we did. Not only did we have the right, it was our duty. He knew the published word is scrutinized, and he knew the passion with which many of us still hold ALL of the Constitution. He just simply didn't HEED what he knew. This is called hubris, among other things. That's when one becomes excessively proud of his own ideas or importance that he thinks he can force his will on others.

Wanna' see a good demonstration of REAL hubris? Go to Iran and say something bad about the Iatollah!!!! Now THAT would bring totally uncalled for results! Let's keep some perspective here, OK? Zumbo was "eating his own" when he said what he did. Is it so surprising, or so unjust, that the consequences should be what they were???? I think not, and it's not OUR fault, it's HIS.

OK, that's my 2 cent's worth .... and change. FWIW.

[Buckshot]

..............Joe, Joe, Joe, ............Joe! Sheesh have you READ what people have taken the time to post to your ORIGINAL question? Then to your SECOND question?

Obviously you think people were wrong to have done what they did. Maybe you think it was a question of morality?

Let me say in front of everyone, I feel very very sorry for Mr Zumbo. I will hazard a guess that his life and livelyhood are pretty much a shambles. I also feel sorry for someone on the freeway who accelerates and then rapidly, and at an unsafe speed cuts in front of someone else. Perhaps they clip a fender, loose control and rollover 3 or 4 times before smashing into some solid inatimate object.

Yes I feel badly for the dumb ignorant moron who does such a thing. But on the other hand if asked, I'd say they accepted the possibility consciencely or not, of the aftermath, so I guess it follows they got what was coming to them. Mr Zumbo is reaping the aftermath.

After all the years Mr Zumbo has spent hunting, using firearms, being around firearms, reading about firearms, writting about firearms, researching firearms, sitting around the campfire BSing about firearms, being a member of the NRA, receiveing the same mail we all get from the NRA, and the fact that his entire means of livelihood was tied in a major way with firearms that he was IGNORANT of just one of the ways that an M15 is used? And that he was IGNORANT of the fact they're shot by civilians at Camp Perry, and are used in highpower matches around the country?

It was a betrayal, pure and simple. The man played right into the hands of the people that cost us money, time, and effort to fight, for a right we shouldn't have to defend. We got a knife in the back and Mr Zumbo not only committed adultary but was guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by his remarks.

I cannot beleive an adult male could be so naive.

If nothing had been said, do you think that Mr Zumbo would have made a retraction like he did............. whenever he decided to get around to it? Where would the impetus for that have come from? Nope, what happend is Mr Zumbo made an unsafe lane change and got his bumper clipped. He's now upsidedown against an immoveable object.

Tell me Joe, I am achingly interested in hearing what you feel would have been the politically correct response to Mr Zumbo's actions?

.................Buckshot

PS: I'm sorry if I sound a bit peevish but I'm getting a bit impatient with this.

[Chargar]

Joe... I really can't get into your brewers hypothetical question.

People CAN do any say anything they want, as long as they stay within the limits of the social compact (i.e. Da Law)

If you question is what SHOULD people say and do? Now you are into the area of values, ethics and morals. There will never be agreement on this area only opinion. Some will try and pass off opinion as fact, but that dog won't hunt. Opinion is opinion.

I hold some pretty strong opinions on what folks SHOULD do under various circumstances. My opinions stem from my concern for the welfare of those involved. However, at the end of the day, they are just my opinons.

I am convinced that given enough time and exposure, truth and rot will seperate and the truth rise to the surface where all can see it. Often this only happens after the emotions quiet down.

Zumbo? Well he said what he said, and other said and did what they did. It was all lawful. Opinions will vary on the "should" part of the equation. Right now it doesn't make any difference.

Probably time to let go of poor ol Zumbo and the issue.

[wills]

I guess my hypothetical question was poorly chosen.
My real question is: "What is YOUR opinion about my question?"
Here's my question: "If a beer brewer or candle maker or carpenter expresses an opinion with which you do not agree, about gun control for example-either side: then, is it "right" for you to attempt to economically punish the brewer or candle maker or carpenter?
You can certainly withhold your trade, I think.
Can you attempt to get others to withhold trade?
Can you organize protests at selling points to withhold trade?
Can you "punish" the brewer for holding opinions about, for example, gun control when gun control has nothing to do with brewing?

joe b.

Look up the word "boycott"

[dakotashooter2]

I've always understood the original intention of freedom of speech is to protect us from imprisonment or other violation of our rights for speaking out against the government or other factions of power. An action that was very common when our constitution was written and still common in communist and socialist countries.

Had Mr. Zmbo simply stated that "black rifles" did not meet his personal preferances as a hunting rifle I doubt anyone would have blinked an eye. But when he outright condemned their use by everyone else he stepped on all our toes. I "choose " not to us them either but I'm not going to condemn those that do unless the cartridge itself is unsuitable for the game being hunted, eg., using a gun chambered for the 223 to hunt moose. I use handguns and single shots almost exclusively and don't condemn others for using repeating rifles and claim they are unnecessary.

Given the response to Mr. Zumbo's statements I tend to thing the antis will shy away from using them against us. In doing so they would also expose the power we actually have. They are probably going to keep quiet on this issue hoping we don't gain momentum from it. It is our opportunity to point this event out to each and every one of our congressment and show them we really are a force to be reconed with.

Speaking of the antis, ever notice how they are taking efforts to restrict the NRA's lobbying ability but don't feel they should have to give up that same ability?

:castmine:

[R. Dupraz]

dakotashooter:

"Speaking of the antis, ever notice how they are taking efforts to restrict the NRA's lobbying ability but don't feel they should have to give up that same ability"?

Spose maybe that's cuze they understand what kind of political influence the ''NRA'' ie MEMBER'S have?

We can be heard!!!

R. Dupraz
1st US Infantry
Fort Randall
Dept of Dakota