In the hunting world, Jim Zumbo used to be somebody. Until a couple weeks ago, the 40-year member of the National Rifle Association had a highly rated weekly television show on the Outdoor Channel and enjoyed corporate sponsorships from the big names in firearms. All of that is gone now.
The cause of his spectacular fall from grace was the remarks he made in a blog entry on the Outdoor Life website. In it, he said that he saw "no place" for military assault weapons in hunting, specifically in gunning for small game like prairie dogs. While I imagine that prairie dogs could grow large enough to necessitate the use of uranium-tipped full metal jacket rounds fired from a M16 with optional grenade launcher attachment, Zumbo's ostracism illustrates the absurdity of the firearms debate in our country.
In the face of mass-boycotts from trigger-happy patrons everywhere, Remington Arms CEO Tommy Millner personally appealed to his customers, saying, "I have no explanation for his perspective. I proudly own [assault rifles] and support everyone's right to do so!"
As a gun owner myself, I find this kind of statement ridiculous. Those like Millner who tout their "right to bear arms" -- defining "arms" however they please -- show their foolishness when they do so without reading the whole amendment. The Second Amendment gives the right to "keep and bear arms" in the context of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State." Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I have not seen too many militias marching around fighting off foreign invasions and tyrannical governments. The National Guard, our closest thing to a militia, is already issued government-owned combat weapons and do not rely on privately owned ones. If the first clause of the Second Amendment is no longer valid, the second may be as well.
I also find it hard to believe that the framers understood "arms" to include the assault weapons mentioned by Zumbo. Madison and others believed that since the weaponry of the public and the Army was similar, and there were many more citizens than soldiers, the citizenry would prevail if the armed forces ever staged a coup. This logic no longer holds true today because half of the military's might is its modern weaponry-- developments unforeseen in the 1790s -- and the other is its intense training.
My interest in guns lies only in target practice, but I understand and respect those who hunt. Assault weapons, however, fill neither need. Submachine guns are too inaccurate for marksmanship and mutilate small game beyond the point of consumption or taxidermy. These weapons have but one purpose: to kill other people.
In the end, the most disturbing aspect of this affair was the unrelenting reaction of the National Rifle Association and its overzealous base. Thousands of letters were received by Zumbo's magazine demanding his resignation. A mass-boycott of his sponsors was organized prompting the suspension of his career, indefinitely.
Speaking officially, NRA spokespeople said that the controversy showed that there is "no chance" that "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could work against them. Apparently the NRA views Zumbo's comments as an attempt to divide the gun world between hunters and assault weapon owners in order crush the whole organization. When single-issue groups like the NRA think in terms of binary competition, they label anyone who questions their beliefs, even those who have proven themselves most loyal, as the enemy. The social backlash against Zumbo shows how even in a society of legally free speech, discussions of important issues are suppressed. I'd like to think that his plight is unique, but I know first-hand that it is not. I hope that one day, the Gestapo tactics of single-issue partisans will die and we, as Americans, can not only enjoy the right to free speech, but the de-facto ability to exercise it.
