This guy is a complete idiot:
This guy is a complete idiot:
Opinion: Hunters and what hunting should really be
By Eric Baerren
I try not to make it a point to tell people they're keeping the wrong company (especially considering the kind of company I've kept from time to time), but I wonder whether it's time for Michigan's sportsmen to divorce themselves from the National Rifle Association.
It's not ever good for a political constituency to become too wed to another, and there came evidence this week that the sporting community's alliance with the nation's gun rights movement is likely to again get their cause lost in the noise.
A prominent Western hunter named Jim Zumbo criticized the use of scoped assault rifles to hunt prairie dogs. The reaction, mostly by the NRA, was swift and horrific. Today, even after he backtracked and apologized, his career lies in ruins. The message - put hunting before guns, and you'll get both barrels.
The backlash for this kind of thing doesn't just tarnish the NRA, however. The organization is well funded, and maintains powerful political connections. But, this kind of extremism, where the mere expression of an opinion is worthy of destroying a man's career, also tarnishes every associated group. In this case, that means hunters, who now appear to be more interested in making sure you can use whatever tool you want to kill anything you wish.
There was certainly some of this at work last November, when the state's voters turned down a dove hunting season by a huge margin. Two years ago, it was the head of the state's NRA chapter and that perpetual juvenile Ted Nugent who stood on the steps of the state Capitol and acted like it was wrong to question whether they should be allowed to use guns to kill whatever they wanted.
Last November, remembering this, I went against every thread of logic in my body and voted against the dove hunt, despite knowing going into the polls that there was no rational argument against it. It's not always bad to pick sentimentality over the rational, but in this case I went to the polls expecting to vote in favor of the thing. Once there, I thought about it again, and remembered Nugent standing on the steps of the Capitol saying something like, "Come September, I'm killing doves," and picked the sentimental over the rational.
Not bloody likely, mate, was the thought that ran through my head.
Ultimately it came down to this - Ted Nugent cost legitimate advocates of the dove hunt my vote. So did the prominent role taken by the NRA. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one.
They changed the nature of the issue. Nugent changed it by raising questions about his maturity. The NRA turned it from a legitimate question about hunting into something about guns. What it had long ceased to be about was whether the hunt itself was sustainable.
This latest escapade pushes the hunting community in with people who think it's swell to hunt prairie dogs with military-style hardware. What kind of person sees the sport in this? I don't think it's sporting, necessary or even - on a very basic level - whether it's hunting. It's more akin to getting drunk and shooting junkyard rats. What's more, I tend to assume that people who think it's OK are driven by extremism and a love of guns.
That's likely to hurt hunters if another hunting-related vote comes around, which is too bad. Hunting deserves better than to get saddled with a bunch of unnecessarily bad baggage. The truth of it is that there is no coordinated campaign to take away anyone's hunting rifles and shotguns. If you think that, you've been duped.
What hunters do need are well managed animal populations and access to huntable land. They also need to make sure that the environment is conducive to supporting healthy populations of animals, which means clean, water and air. The NRA is not concerned with these things; it is more interested in convincing people that a shotgun and an assault rifle are the same thing (If they realized they aren't, they might start asking hard questions about why people are allowed to own assault rifles - as a matter of disclosure, I do not support an assault rifle ban, because I think banning guns does nothing to solve the underlying problems that create crime).
Unfortunately, there are two outcomes to this kind of extremist thinking. Either it corrects itself, or it runs off a cliff. This is an ironclad political truth.
The question for hunters is whether they recognize that the NRA itself is too rigid and inflexible. The evidence for this is in their ironfisted advocacy for hunting prairie dogs with civilian models of military rifles. Once this kind of thing hits the mainstream, regular people are more likely to see people who endorse this kind of thing as bullet-addled yahoos getting their rocks off blasting rodents with high-powered weapons.
You are free to disagree, but then again, this kind of thing cost hunters my vote last November.
Eric Baerren is a Morning Sun columnist. He maintains a Web log at http://www.baerrenblog.blogspot.com and can be reached at ebaerren@gmail.com.
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/030207/loc_baerren001.shtml
Opinion: Hunters and what hunting should really be
By Eric Baerren
I try not to make it a point to tell people they're keeping the wrong company (especially considering the kind of company I've kept from time to time), but I wonder whether it's time for Michigan's sportsmen to divorce themselves from the National Rifle Association.
It's not ever good for a political constituency to become too wed to another, and there came evidence this week that the sporting community's alliance with the nation's gun rights movement is likely to again get their cause lost in the noise.
A prominent Western hunter named Jim Zumbo criticized the use of scoped assault rifles to hunt prairie dogs. The reaction, mostly by the NRA, was swift and horrific. Today, even after he backtracked and apologized, his career lies in ruins. The message - put hunting before guns, and you'll get both barrels.
The backlash for this kind of thing doesn't just tarnish the NRA, however. The organization is well funded, and maintains powerful political connections. But, this kind of extremism, where the mere expression of an opinion is worthy of destroying a man's career, also tarnishes every associated group. In this case, that means hunters, who now appear to be more interested in making sure you can use whatever tool you want to kill anything you wish.
There was certainly some of this at work last November, when the state's voters turned down a dove hunting season by a huge margin. Two years ago, it was the head of the state's NRA chapter and that perpetual juvenile Ted Nugent who stood on the steps of the state Capitol and acted like it was wrong to question whether they should be allowed to use guns to kill whatever they wanted.
Last November, remembering this, I went against every thread of logic in my body and voted against the dove hunt, despite knowing going into the polls that there was no rational argument against it. It's not always bad to pick sentimentality over the rational, but in this case I went to the polls expecting to vote in favor of the thing. Once there, I thought about it again, and remembered Nugent standing on the steps of the Capitol saying something like, "Come September, I'm killing doves," and picked the sentimental over the rational.
Not bloody likely, mate, was the thought that ran through my head.
Ultimately it came down to this - Ted Nugent cost legitimate advocates of the dove hunt my vote. So did the prominent role taken by the NRA. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one.
They changed the nature of the issue. Nugent changed it by raising questions about his maturity. The NRA turned it from a legitimate question about hunting into something about guns. What it had long ceased to be about was whether the hunt itself was sustainable.
This latest escapade pushes the hunting community in with people who think it's swell to hunt prairie dogs with military-style hardware. What kind of person sees the sport in this? I don't think it's sporting, necessary or even - on a very basic level - whether it's hunting. It's more akin to getting drunk and shooting junkyard rats. What's more, I tend to assume that people who think it's OK are driven by extremism and a love of guns.
That's likely to hurt hunters if another hunting-related vote comes around, which is too bad. Hunting deserves better than to get saddled with a bunch of unnecessarily bad baggage. The truth of it is that there is no coordinated campaign to take away anyone's hunting rifles and shotguns. If you think that, you've been duped.
What hunters do need are well managed animal populations and access to huntable land. They also need to make sure that the environment is conducive to supporting healthy populations of animals, which means clean, water and air. The NRA is not concerned with these things; it is more interested in convincing people that a shotgun and an assault rifle are the same thing (If they realized they aren't, they might start asking hard questions about why people are allowed to own assault rifles - as a matter of disclosure, I do not support an assault rifle ban, because I think banning guns does nothing to solve the underlying problems that create crime).
Unfortunately, there are two outcomes to this kind of extremist thinking. Either it corrects itself, or it runs off a cliff. This is an ironclad political truth.
The question for hunters is whether they recognize that the NRA itself is too rigid and inflexible. The evidence for this is in their ironfisted advocacy for hunting prairie dogs with civilian models of military rifles. Once this kind of thing hits the mainstream, regular people are more likely to see people who endorse this kind of thing as bullet-addled yahoos getting their rocks off blasting rodents with high-powered weapons.
You are free to disagree, but then again, this kind of thing cost hunters my vote last November.
Eric Baerren is a Morning Sun columnist. He maintains a Web log at http://www.baerrenblog.blogspot.com and can be reached at ebaerren@gmail.com.
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/030207/loc_baerren001.shtml
0
-
How has this been read 35 times and only 1 comment? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HeavyBarrel
How has this been read 35 times and only 1 comment?
How is that you yourself read it and didn't make a comment?0 -
just trying to get the ball rollling............
I guess a "bump" or "btt" would have worked.
I was buzy e-mailing the DB that wrote the article.0 -
dang! you're right, that guy is a complete idiot. 0 -
I just sent this to the writer. Don't ya just love email!
Eric,
What you and Zumbo share in common is that neither of you realize the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.
The anti's will try to divide and conquer us and seem to be doing a fair job of it. If you can ban one semi-auto repeater (Remington 7400, Browning Automatic Rifle), you can ban them all (AR15, FAL).
Would you agree to let the government take away the rights to publish the National Enquirer just because it's a tabloid? How about just the right for your paper to publish an op/ed page?
They are inflammatory right?
You need to rethink your logic.0 -
Once again, class, all together..
Anti-gun gun owners are a deadlier threat to freedom in America then ALL the honest "We hate guns" types put together...
These people are shooting you in the back..and their voice is powerful. they APPEAR to be speaking from the 'gun camp'..and weaken the Second Amendment every time this bilge and sewage spews forth from their lips.0 -
Contact the Journalregister
http://www.journalregister.com/about_contact.html
quote:Please tell me what credentials Mr. Baerren has to advise me what tool I can hunt with?
because like with Jim Zumbo, I will be contacting any advertisers you papers have and letting them know I will not purchase their products as long as he is published by your paper.
Good day.0 -
Yep, what a bozo. The hunting only crowd needs to take a deep breath and then take a cyanide capsule 0 -
I thought git_r_done already had it summed up pretty well. The man is an idiot. I suspect he is also lying. I don't believe he was prepared to vote for dove hunting and changed his mind because we are such a bunch of a**holes. 0 -
Changing his vote on the dove hunt because he thinks Nugent is an immature jackass....that's what I call strength of character. Somebody should remind this guy that Nugent prefers a mix of about 21% oxygen in the air he breathes.
And then there was this paragraph:
quote:This latest escapade pushes the hunting community in with people who think it's swell to hunt prairie dogs with military-style hardware. What kind of person sees the sport in this? I don't think it's sporting, necessary or even - on a very basic level - whether it's hunting. It's more akin to getting drunk and shooting junkyard rats. What's more, I tend to assume that people who think it's OK are driven by extremism and a love of guns.
I had to laugh at that one. First, I think many varminters would fail to appreciate any substantial difference between a prairie dog and a junkyard rat. Second, I'd like to this guy get drunk and hit a junkyard rat at the ranges typically experienced by PD hunters....and then say in the same snotty tone that it's not 'sporting.' And finally, he gives his position up with the last sentence: "people who think it's ok are driven by...a love of guns."
Well, that never was a dirty little secret for me.0 -
i read the whole thing and all i can say,without getting "poofed"..[:D]
is that i agree with what every one has said about him being an idiot.[:(!]0 -
quote:
This latest escapade pushes the hunting community in with people who think it's swell to hunt prairie dogs with military-style hardware. What kind of person sees the sport in this? I don't think it's sporting, necessary or even - on a very basic level - whether it's hunting. It's more akin to getting drunk and shooting junkyard rats. What's more, I tend to assume that people who think it's OK are driven by extremism and a love of guns.
Actually, I prefer to get drunk and use Bunker buster missles on the ground rats. [:D] [:D] [:D]0 -
lmao, but that can get expensive sarge....just try bout 5 gallons of gas and a m80......[}:)][:D][:0] 0 -
Mr. Baerren,
#1 The NRA had little or nothing to do with the groundswell of condemnation heaped upon Jim Zumbo. I am at a loss as to why the media keep saying this.
#2 If you can't see that the liberal mindset is to eliminate all firearms everywhere, you haven't been paying attention to England, Australia, and Canada.
Henry J. O'Reilly0 -
I think I need to drive over and kick that guy's tail...Mt. Pleasant is about 15 miles away. Unfortunately, that's probably exactly what he'd expect from a gun-owning neanderthal like me. 0 -
There is more then just a few hunting gun writers out there, that agree with Zumbo. The writers are dividing the house, so that it will not be able to stand.Some of the writers started to defend Zumbo then backed off.They backed off only because of not being able to make a living, not because of the second ammendment. 0 -
An idiot? If you read some of his other stuff... you would come to the same conclusion.... 0 -
It seems Zumbo has been a hunter and pro-gun guy his whole life. He apologized and stated he was wrong. I know I have sometimes said things I would not have said if I had it to do over again. Being a human being that happens. In fact the other day I went to the range and a group of young guys showed up with AKs and SKSs. They did not even set up targets, they started shooting their weapons as fast they could into the hillside. Box after box of ammo. I was shooting for accuracy, and I think I may have muttered something those guys and "those guns". If Zumbo makes a habit of making similar statements, then he will get what he deserves. But I bet he learned his lesson. I still think he is really one of us. 0 -
Seems that some folks have "freedom of speech" confused with "held accountable for what you say". Ladies and gentlemen, the Captain has turned on the No Whining sign. I am free to tell my boss I think he is one U G L Y $0B- and I know what the results of doing that are likely to be. This bozo (Bozo and Zumbo?) have not made that connection. Yet. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by capgun
It seems Zumbo has been ... I still think he is really one of us.
suuuuuuure. how about posting some more before deciding you're really "one of us".0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
The truth of it is that there is no coordinated campaign to take away anyone's hunting rifles and shotguns. If you think that, you've been duped.
Let me quote Diane Feinstein who told 60 Minutes television: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
The NRA had NOTHING to do with this.
It was a DONE DEAL by the time they even made a statement.
An idiot? In my opinion, he would have to clime stairs for DAYS to come UP to that level. [:(!]0 -
..These twits are a lost cause. First Gumba Zumbo, then the condescending Baerren. "I WAS going to vote for a Dove season, but now I am not", yeah right. More anti-gun, anti-hunting lefty spuge.
Susposed grown man pulling the "neener-neener" BS. The 'ol cut off my nose to spite my face syndrom.[xx(]
Reminds of the thread yeaterday (?) where there were people who would vote (waste a vote) for ANYONE rather than vote for McCain IF he were to be the Conservitive nominee, DUH! Now THAT makes a LOT of sense doesn't it? NOT!
Who in the hell agrees, walks in "lock-step" even with their canidate of choice??? Their is one bitter old fart on here that ALWAYS throws out their vitriolic opinion (we all know about "opinions", everybody has one just like an azz....e)
This "neener-neener" attitude to not vote, or vote for an obvious looser because you dissagree with one, or several ideas of a viable canidate, is kid crap. A vote cast with THAT attitude is pathetic.
That mindset is what puts the lefties, beholding to their FAR left putz's in office; only to further push anti-gun agenda's, higher tax's on us all, neener-neener. As one member here that ALWAYS picks at least ONE issue ANY politician stands for that they (member) disslike, and beats it like a dead horse; as if anyone is listening or really cares...[xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Once again, class, all together..
Anti-gun gun owners are a deadlier threat to freedom in America then ALL the honest "We hate guns" types put together...
These people are shooting you in the back..and their voice is powerful. they APPEAR to be speaking from the 'gun camp'..and weaken the Second Amendment every time this bilge and sewage spews forth from their lips.
Spot on.[;)]0 -
...and an end to the unjust economic machine-gun prohibition tax. 0 -
Gentlemen --- what was written by Zumbo or by Baerren will not influence any of your thinking. It does stimulate your ire. Then, IMHO, too many "blast-off" into a tirade without thinking clearly about the possible outcome of the venting that they are doing. I like to vent and probably do too much of it. However, I believe that it is not about what you think or what I think. It is about what the others who read Zumbo or Baerren (or who hear about it from someonelse) thinks. The vast majority of gun owners in this country are not members of the NRA or any other "gun-related" organization. They are not on this forum. They are reasonable people who lack our enthusiasm for the "defense" of the 2nd. However, we need them. We need them badly. We do ourselves no good when we get branded as "extremists." Right or wrong, the Zumbo thing that we did will be turned against us. It already has. We, IMHO, do not want the identity as "a bunch of radicals." It is too easy for the "main stream" to blow us off if someone can hang that tag around our necks. Hopefully, food for thought. 0 -
quote:They are not on this forum. They are reasonable people who lack our enthusiasm for the "defense" of the 2nd. However, we need them. We need them badly. We do ourselves no good when we get branded as "extremists." Right or wrong, the Zumbo thing that we did will be turned against us. It already has. We, IMHO, do not want the identity as "a bunch of radicals."
"Reasonable people..we need them"..what the hell for ? 20,000++++ gunlaws already...and more purposed every day.
Those people sit on their fat behinds and leach off their betters...people that actually KNOW what the Constitution says..actally believe in it..and yet those lazy bas+++ s get the benefits thereof of a few people trying real hard to slow the juggernaut of gun control...I tell you..it is time for the decent people of America to BOW OUT...LET the ban take place...and then right the wrongs of a couple hundred years...
As for the guy that intends voting 'for the lessor of two evils"..continue right on doing so. The criminals running thing depend upon insanity to keep their kind in office...0 -
Golly I just like to shoot without having to reload all the time! 0 -
We are extremists. We want to live under the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is an "extreme" position, to the liberals.
D.0 -
"Trust me, [:D]I work for the Government! I'll take care of it!"[}:)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
29 comments