if by dumbass you mean the nra and the rest of the gun nuts, then yes.

I checked, zumbo.gun is in no way related to zombo.com
zumbo.com doesn't even talk.

Real hunters use dynamite belts and IEDs.

After reading these comments, I skipped the article, and kept my prejudices against gun nuts and the dumbasses that defend assault rifles intact.

iKILL. Paging iKILL to the greenlight thread please.

chester1977: i suggest you do the same

For what reason?

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."

Some fraternity of gun ownership.

Political correctness run amok

If you can't kill a creature with one shot, you shouldn't be out there in the first place.

And for the record, I don't own any register weapons.

"Assault weapons" are not used in crimes as much as cheap/stolen handguns are.

In fact, the ban in the works exempts the ubiquitous and cheap fixed-magazine SKS, which is the carbine that's most likely to be the one referred to in the news as an "assault weapon" or AK-47.

The problem with this guy is that to many people, the 2nd amendment refers to all arms. Also, bans of any type of firearms are seen as stepping-stones to subsequent bans. One can easily foresee a permanent AW ban being the basis of a semi-auto handgun ban.

This upcoming ban bill might get me finally to pay for that life membership in the NRA.

Snarfangel [TotalFark]

Real hunters use dynamite belts and IEDs.

Real hunters kill with their hands.

Chose which applies best in this situation.

A) Live by the gun, die by the gun.

B) Don't shoot the hand that feeds you.

C) Don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash.

D) Zumbo-Wumba.

Long time Supporter of uncontrolled weapons

RocketRod: If you can't kill a creature with one shot, you shouldn't be out there in the first place.

I think that's the real issue. The guy should have skipped the drama-inducing "terrorist" reference and just called people that use those kinds of rifles farking pussies. That's what the hunters in my family call them, at least.

yah, a gun thread where everyone on Fark comes out with uneducated opinions. Soon to be a political thread.

Cue up the NRA fanbois in 3...2....

Oh, hell, may as well go with this one:


Long time Supporters of uncontrolled weapons.

Torrent of Rubbish: That's what the hunters in my family call them, at least.

I wouldn't be too confident that bolt-, pump-, or lever-action firearms aren't next up. A hunting rifle can easily be called a "sniper rifle," just as polarizing as the "assault weapon" misnomer.

I think every person should be allowed to kill one of every animal on earth. Preferably with a high powered rifle.

Chuck Norris kills with a look.

Killing animals for food is unnecessary, killing them for sport is SICK. Hunting them with firearms is GHEY. Bunch wussies with their strap-ons go in to the woods with other MEN (no women around) to kill a creature minding its own business. And they usually kill herbivores that couldn't do much to fight back even if these queefs had the stones to get anywhere near their target.

If you can't kill it with your bare hands you don't deserve to eat it. If you aren't going to eat it, or more specifically, if you aren't STARVING and going to eat it, you're farked in the head. You need professional help or your should do the world a favor and remove your sickness from the gene pool. Hunt yourself, you psychotic sadistic coward.

AnthraxRipple: I wouldn't be too confident that bolt-, pump-, or lever-action firearms aren't next up. A hunting rifle can easily be called a "sniper rifle," just as polarizing as the "assault weapon" misnomer.

Paranoid much?

You anti-gun pussies need to be thankful some of us enjoy guns. Someone has to make sure the Constitution is not overturned without a fight.

Now get the term "Assault Rifle" defined properly. An "Assault Rifle" is a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which is the ability to expend the entire magazine by pulling the trigger only once. All fully automatic rifles were banned without special permission in 1934.

Rifles such as the AR-15 and AKM (known to the uneducated masses as an AK-47) in this country are semi-automatic rifles capable of only one shot per trigger pull. Just because they look "scary" because they are black (you racists) instead of a light walnut color does not make them any more dangerous than a bolt action or lever action rifle. Both bolt action and lever action rifles can have a similar rate of fire as a semi-automatic in the hands of a trained user.

AR-15 ("Terrorist Rifle")


Mini-14 ("Perfectly Acceptable Rife")

Both use the exact same ammo and will fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, but because one looks scarier we shouldn't be allowed to use it and label it a terrist gun.

Does the AR15's menacing looks make it more deadly? If you support the brady bill then your answer should be a ridiculous yes.

By the way nobody hunts with an assault rifle. By definition an assault rifle is selective fire (both semi and full auto)and full auto weapons have been illegal since 1934.

So the gun-grabbers coined the nonsensical term "Assault Weapons" hoping the media and people ignorant about guns would confuse it with assault rifles and think people are running around with full auto rifles which is not the case.

All that separates a legal rifle from an "assault weapon (previously banned)" is scary looks.

Dammit Mr. Nesbitt you beat me to the point.

/but I got pictures

Mr. Nesbitt: You anti-gun pussies need to be thankful some of us enjoy guns. Someone has to make sure the Constitution is not overturned without a fight.

QFT

Do these anti-gun pussies REALLY think we'd all be safer without guns? If they do,then they are sadly deluded, and deserve what they get. And I GUARANTEE all of you that when guns are banned, the government will cease to be a democracy. Hell, it's already haded in that direction now, and we still have the right to bear arms! Can you imagine what they would do if they didn't have to worry about the possibility of an armed uprising? Call me paranoid if you wish, but when Big Brother is watching YOU, don't say I didn't warn you.

They are nice pictures.

"As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

I thought the US military uses assault rifles. In fact, I thought most militaries do.
*shrugs*
I don't think he made his point very well, but the reaction against it was way over the top. Poor ole Zumbo.

staplermofo
*golf clap*
That was exactly what I thought when I saw the guy's name.

And you know who else didn't like guns? HITLER! HITLER AND THE NAZIS!!!

/I've always wanted to do that
//GODWINNED!

Hunting is fine and dandy, if you're into that.

I don't understand the whole feedstand approach. If you're supposedly hunting for the "sport" of it, what exactly is so challenging about shooting an animal you bait into a killzone with corn? Mating calls may sound stupid to me, but atleast that introduces some skill into the equation.

apeiron242
Killing animals for food is unnecessary

Uh, I dunno how you get your steak, but I get mine from an animal that has been killed.

I can think of a lot of places on this Earth with unrestricted gun ownership. It does not produce a polite society or help in that goal.

TofuTheAlmighty: Paranoid much?

Just following the logic. If semi-auto removeable-magazine-fed rifles are banned, they will then look to ban the next-most-dangerous class of rifles. Lever-actions can be fired fairly rapidly. Bolt-action hunting rifles are the most accurate. .50-cal rifles can shoot down planes, according to some folks. They'll figure out that fixed-mag SKS carbines can be reloaded just as fast using stripper clips.

Besides, venison steaks are leaner and healthier than beef. Cooked right, they can be mighty tasty.

I don't come down on vegetarians for not eating meat. Why do they have to freak out every time I eat fried chicken?

apeiron242: Killing animals for food is unnecessary, killing them for sport is SICK. Hunting them with firearms is GHEY. Bunch wussies with their strap-ons go in to the woods with other MEN (no women around) to kill a creature minding its own business. And they usually kill herbivores that couldn't do much to fight back even if these queefs had the stones to get anywhere near their target.

1) If eating meat is so wrong, why is it so darned tasty?

2) Mom almost got decapitated by Bambi. At that point, I supported deer hunting.

If you can't kill it with your bare hands you don't deserve to eat it. If you aren't going to eat it, or more specifically, if you aren't STARVING and going to eat it, you're farked in the head. You need professional help or your should do the world a favor and remove your sickness from the gene pool. Hunt yourself, you psychotic sadistic coward.

Hunting with our hands went out of style before Australopithecus.

We are omnivores, moron.

AnthraxRipple

In fact, the ban in the works exempts the ubiquitous and cheap fixed-magazine SKS, which is the carbine that's most likely to be the one referred to in the news as an "assault weapon" or AK-47.


No, it doesn't. In fact, it expands upon the previous ban (which sunset over 2 years ago - no blood baths yet) by including all semi-auto firearms of military origin, that aren't particularly suited for sporting use. That means that the M-1 Garand, Colt 1911, and SKS would all be banned.

I doubt that it will even make it out of committee, though. The dems aren't that stupid, to throw away their majority that quickly. A bunch of them are going to remember the bloodbath of the 1994 elections (which they lost due in large part to support for the original AWB and Brady Bill), and this bill will quietly die. Hell, it doesn't even have any co-sponsors yet.

If they do manage to pass it in the House, it won't make it out of the Senate. Even then, I doubt GWB would sign it, despite him saying that he would renew the previous one (he knew it wouldn't pass, so he loses nothing with the pro-gun crowd, and perhaps gained a bit with the anti's).

As for the jackass in question, Mr. Zumbo didn't really think about it, or he would have kept his mouth shut. Gun owners, as a group, are a very unforgiving bunch of people. They have a long institutional memory, and if you screw them over once, you are on their shiatlist forever. They also know when you are lying to them, which isn't going to help Rudy, Mitt, or the Hanoi Candidate get elected.

Lou_Natic

Hunting is fine and dandy, if you're into that.

I don't understand the whole feedstand approach. If you're supposedly hunting for the "sport" of it, what exactly is so challenging about shooting an animal you bait into a killzone with corn? Mating calls may sound stupid to me, but atleast that introduces some skill into the equation.

Not all hunting is directly about sport. Some of it is also culling for herd management, and to produce trophy-sized bucks for those who want to hunt them. Some of it is also almost a free-range farming kind of thing, where you are shooting for food. In both of those cases, having a herd show up at a predictable place and time allows you to pick and choose the animal you want to shoot.

It isn't for me, personally (I have neither the land, nor the resources, nor the disposition for it). I hunt free range, depending on luck and skill. To make it a bit harder, I use a flintlock during the gun seasons (making shots with a scoped .30'06 got to be too easy). I just started bowhunting last season with a 'block and tackle' bow with all the trimmin's, but I expect to move to a traditional longbow in the next 5 years or so, as I gain more experience.

Having said that, I'm not particularly against feeders. They have their purpose, they just aren't my style.

I find it really amusing that the Garand, M1A, and M1 Carbine would be banned. Anyone who can afford one of those now isn't going to be the criminal type.

Generation_D [TotalFark]

Some fraternity of gun ownership.

Yeah because I'm sure all the committed lefties who are bending over backwards to kiss Obama's ass would still be doing the same if he suddenly said, Hey this Iraq war is a good thing and we should send more troops or George W Bush is a great president and a brilliant man.

AnthraxRipple

I find it really amusing that the Garand, M1A, and M1 Carbine would be banned. Anyone who can afford one of those now isn't going to be the criminal type.

Well, I've bought two Garands in my life, one for me, and one as a birthday present for one of my brothers. I think I paid around $300 for them individually, back around 1989 or 1990. I had to sell mine a couple years later for college book money, and my brother ended up selling his.

We both regret that decision. I still have a few en-bloc clips laying around, including a couple that were cut down to hold 5 rounds, to be legal for hunting.

Long time Supporter of uncontrolled weapons

I used to be really anti-gun, until this Administration. Now I'm all for guns, and think everyone should have one.

Combustion

I used to be really anti-gun, until this Administration. Now I'm all for guns, and think everyone should have one.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you aren't joking, don't you think that is a really short-sighted viewpoint? After all, a right is only a right if you can exercise it no matter who is in charge.

Personally, whenever a new law of any kind is proposed, I have a test to see if I think it is a good idea or not: I imagine that law being wielded by my worst nightmare of a government. If I can't see any way it could be used against me or my family to deny me my rights as a citizen, then I will look more closely to see if I think it is good public policy or not. If it passes those tests, it will get my tentative approval, subject to new information.

MOE SYZLAK-

Hey, I already Godwinned this thread, but the picture was a nice touch :)

VARoyalty

Hey, I already Godwinned this thread, but the picture was a nice touch :)

Just taking a page out of Reyito's play book.

LOL, yeah he went a bit overboard huh? And might I add, Hitler looks quite fetching in that picture. I like the purposeful expression on his face, it looks like he means business! The clenched fist and heavenly light shining down are also nice touches. Oh Hitler, Hitler, whatever will we DO with you?

Hunting game with a military weapon like an AR-15 is silly, but the ownership of such weapons has nothing to do with hunting. It is perfectly reasonable to own an anti-personnel weapon like a semi-automatic rifle in the event that someday, in some situation, it might be necessary for an ethical person to use it to kill someone. The second amendment makes no mention of the use of firearms for hunting.

Facist governments don't want its citizens to be armed.

Some of you people are ignorant.

First off - NO ONE is suggesting hunting with a full-automatic rifle. That is illegal in every state AFAIK.

Second - an AR15 is LESS powerful than MOST of the bolt action rifles some hunters prefer. But they are FINE for prairie dogs, coyotes, rabbits, and other small game. There is NO Difference between the AR15 and say a Ruger Mini 14 other than looks. The only real difference between an AR15 and a bolt action rifle both chambered in .223 is looks and that the AR holds 5-25 more rounds - depending on the magazine size (which may be limited by what state you live in). Lever action rifles, while not often chambered in rifle calibers, can hold a lot of rounds and fire nearly as quickly as an AR15.

So why wouldnt you use an AR15 to hunt varmints? They are pests to begin with. When Prairie dog hunting, you shoot once and a lot of time the rest hide, so you only get one shot off anyway. So the extra ammo point is moot. But the AR15 is an accurate, reliable platform. There is no reason to not hunt with it.

Liberals and Fuds are just being pussies because it looks 'scary'.

Zumbo was an idiot to make that statement. That said, one's career should not implode due to a single stupid statement.

But the second amendment is too simple to be misunderstood, unless you just WANT to disagree with it. The men who wrote it had just thrown off a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that such could be done again in the future - this was their 'doomsday clause', you might say.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say "shall not be infringed, except for those evil-looking black rifles and those inexpensive handguns". It says "shall not be infringed". That's pretty simple.

But what's the militia? According to federal law, the militia includes all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.ht ml