Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Evil assault rifles

More anti-“assault rifle” stupidity, from what some might consider an unlikely source. Unless, of course, I told you that this dolt Zumbo writes for Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Warner. You might remember the OL clowns gave Jimmy Carter their Conservation Award a while back. 

 This fratricide is by no means unique; I remember well Bill Ruger’s betrayal of all gun owners back when this “assault rifle” bullshit started. Several of the NJ lawmakers who passed the NJ ban told me personally that if even our own agreed in a need for lower capacity firearms, they couldn’t justify opposing the ban. So I think that self-serving little shit made the NJ ban possible (it passed by one vote), and that’s why I’ll never own a Ruger. It’s also why I left NJ and won’t go back.

I also remember Colt’s cowardly decision made at the same time to stop selling “military” guns to the general public adding more fuel to the anti-gun fire. Unfortunately, I had already purchased a Colt AR-15, but I’ll never buy another Colt firearm. If they don’t trust me with a modern gun, I don’t trust them with my modern money. And then there’s Smith & Wesson’s craven pandering to Clinton’s DOJ, and their agreement to incorporate “smart gun” technology into their firearms, including fer crissakes, revolvers. Only an idiot would buy a revolver with any kind of lock on it – kinda defeats the whole no safety, instant response idea, doesn’t it? I won’t sell my S&W’s, but damn if I’ll ever buy another new one.

Most of the other firearm manufacturers remained mute or said equally stupid things, and left it to their customers to defend the existence of their business. There were plenty of “outdoor” writers/publications telling us no one needed an AK-47 to hunt deer then, too. Selling out their customers/audience is pretty much a way of life for these “pro-gun” idiots. And as much as we all like to bitch about the NRA, they were the only ones providing support for the counter-effort. The other gun orgs were happy to use that fiasco as a fund-raiser, and raked in some big bucks, but provided almost nothing in financial or organizational support to those of us leading the resistance to the bans, with the gun/outdoor mags being the most useless of all.

In short, pretty much the entire US firearms industry has fucked and continues to fuck over gun owners in this fight – why should OL be any different?

 Update! Remington regrets “having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.” I guess this is just as believable as Remington’s claim they’ve “spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights”, but you couldn’t prove it by me. They sure as shit didn’t give us any help against the Jersey ban, so where exactly is Remington spending these millions? And why aren’t my fellow gun rights advocates calling these phonies on these bogus claims? Here’s a news flash for Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO: advertising your rifles in the NRA’s  American Rifleman doesn’t constitute spending in defense of our Second Amendment rights.

Share

15 thoughts on “Evil assault rifles

  1. Maybe you and your pals like to bitch about the NRA. Some of us recognize we’d (CF readers) probably all be gun-owning outlaws by now without their efforts, and dodging state to state as many of us already have wouldn’t be worth jack. As you pointed out there’s nobody else with any real money fighting the fight. Seems to me your bitching could be directed at more worthy targets.

  2. tlb, I’m an NRA Life member and have been for over twenty years. I worked very closely with them against the NJ ban, and I strongly support their efforts on our behalf. As I said above, they were the only national group that supported NJ gun owners when it counted. It seems to me all my bitching IS directed at more worthy targets – the ones who gained real money but didn’t engage in the fight – see my bitchy update re Remington. 😉

  3. Joe, where is the anger vs. Remington coming from? That they didn’t help fight the NJ AW ban? That seems a little petty. The fact that they’ve dissassociated themselves from Zumbo seems like it’s exactly the sort of thing we’d demand from them if they hadn’t already done it, so why do you still have a beef with them?

    Here’s a news flash for Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO: advertising your rifles in the NRA’s American Rifleman doesn’t constitute spending in defense of our Second Amendment rights

    Considering that (1) they are spending money to advertise, which money then goes to fund NRA activities, and considering that (2) advertising in the American Rifleman also puts them on the same side as the NRA as far as anti-gunners are concerned, I would have to say that yes, in fact, advertising in AR DOES constitute spending in defense of our Second Amendment rights.

    Also, Re S&W: You do know that they repudiated the Clinton-compromise right after they were sold to a US company, right?

    And you do know that the likes of Springfield Armory currently ship all of their handguns with locking devices, don’t you? My GI model 1911 came with one and I didn’t even know it until I started looking at the owner’s manual.

    Just a question: Are there any firearm manufacturers that meet your ideological standards?

  4. why do you still have a beef with them?

    Well, let’s see. Didn’t they provide Zumbo with his platform? Have they undone the damage his remarks caused, and gotten the Brady clowns to publicize his retraction with the same energy they promoted it? I guess after personally spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours fighting this gun ban nonsense, it really pisses me off to have the sleazy bastards at Remington a) employ writers who are even capable of spouting Zumbo’s stupidity, and b) make laughable claims of spending “tens of millions” defending gun rights, when they were entirely absent from the biggest fights we’ve had. A better question might be, why don’t you have a beef with them?

    advertising in the American Rifleman also puts them on the same side as the NRA as far as anti-gunners are concerned

    No, manufacturing firearms puts them on the same side as the NRA as far as anti-gunners are concerned. Advertising their product in AR does nothing to benefit pro-gunners; it simply pays for the costs of producing the non-profit magazine. How does an ad for a shotgun in a gun mag change an anti-gunner’s mind, or have any effect on the debate whatsoever?

    Remington, like S&W, Colt, and Ruger before them, have given succor to the anti-gun crowd and caused divisions within the ranks of gun owners. How can you suggest we reward them (with our business) for wiping their own shit off their asses, while leaving us still covered in it?

    You do know that they [S&W] repudiated the Clinton-compromise right after they were sold to a US company, right?

    And of course that makes everything OK; ’cause they really were sorry. They didn’t really mean it at all, and all the legal fees the gutless wonders shuffled onto the backs of the other gun manufacturers have all been refunded, right? And of course all those headlines have long been retracted. No, Martin – some crimes deserve the death penalty, and when a company has fucked over it’s customers as long and as hard as Colt and S&W have, they deserve to die, too. It’s no secret that military and law enforcement sales are the only things keeping them alive. You’re simply allowing them to continue to abuse you and do further damage to your rights by keeping them in business under the guise of “new management”.

    And you do know that the likes of Springfield Armory currently ship all of their handguns with locking devices, don’t you?

    I have no problem with that; I actually support it. But you are aware that S&W’s lock is inside the revolver’s mechanism and actually part of the firearm, aren’t you? How does a built-in, tamper-proof lock to render the firearm inoperable, shoehorned into an existing design, increase it’s reliability or safety? That’s right, it doesn’t.

    Are there any firearm manufacturers that meet your ideological standards?

    Sure, lots. Mossberg (the 590A1 military shotgun is available to civilians), Marlin, Kimber, SA, and pretty much any other manufacturer who isn’t doing such a damn good job of helping the other side. Which leaves out Colt, Ruger, S&W, and to a lesser degree, Remington, mostly because it could have done so much more to help, but has only done harm.

    Some of you, like Martin, may think I’m too harsh on the gun companies, but I’ve been in this fight a long time, and it’s become pretty clear to me that the only explaination for things like this Zumbo stupidity is either intent or indifference. Maybe you ought to stop enabling that indifference.

  5. Sorry, but I’m not buying into the “all or nothing” attitude. Remington is a business, as are Colt and S&W. Expecting them to hew to a straight and narrow political course (especially one that most gun owner’s don’t even subscribe to) is ridiculous. They’re going to do what they need to do to keep the money coming in and to keep the worst of the regulators off their asses, period.

    There’s an old saying that “without temptation, there can be no virtue.” That the likes of Marlin and Mossberg have not been subjected to the kind of legal extortion that have fallen on Colt, Ruger and S&W is primarily because they don’t manufacture the kinds of weapons that the gun grabbers want to outlaw (neither Mossberg nor Marlin manufacture “assault weapons” or handguns, and in fact, to my knowledge Marlin does not manufacture any semi-auto centerfire guns.) As for Kimber and SA – I’m sorry, but that’s laughable. Kimber and SA are such small niche players that the government has no need nor any desire to either curry their favor or try to intimidate them into changing their policies. With Colt, Ruger and S&W, they had both the carrot (the prospect of lucrative contracts with federal, state and local LE agencies) and the stick (the threat of initiating investigations that would blacken their name, and driving them into bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits) which is why they used those tactics against the “big dogs.”

    Gun manufacturers, like car manufacturers, only make money off the first sale (okay, they make a little money by selling parts and accessories to existing owners, but the real money comes from that first sale of a firearm to a wholesaler.) From a manufacturer’s viewpoint, firearms have one serious flaw: Unlike automobiles or computers, a firearm will generally not wear out in private use, nor will it become obsolete by changes in technology, which is why there is such a thriving business in the selling of “pre-owned” firearms – firearm sales from which the manufacturer nets not a single dime.

    On the other hand, Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies and the military spend millions of dollars each year buying brand new weapons from manufacturers. Are you surprised that they’re more interested in catering to the government than they are to private individuals?

    Demanding rigid standards of ideological purity from a political candidate is one thing, but demanding the same standards from a business that exists to make money is just a tad unrealistic. L. Niel Smith, another well known “all or nothing” Libertarian, called for Smith and Wesson to die back in 2000. How’s that been working out for you guys?

  6. Dammit! My last comment got eaten by the machine, so let me try again:

    Joe, have fun with your crusade against gun manufacturers. Last I heard Ruger and S&W were doing great.

    Marlin and Mossberg don’t make handguns or assault rifles, which is why they haven’t been exposed to the kind of legal extortion that has befallen S&W, Colt and Ruger. As for Kimber and SA, they are tiny niche players, not worth the Feds expending any energy on. “Without temptation there can be no virtue.”

    This is the kind of political absolutism that has gotten the Libertarian party where it is today: Nowehere.

  7. I’m very much with Martin on this.

    There are 20,000 anti-gun laws on the books in the U.S.

    The NRA has a few million members, ranging up to 6 or 8 mil in years when gun rights are particularly threatened. They can’t fight every fight, and a wise NGO picks its fights carefully and strategically, and knows when to back out.

    So too, Remington. The last time they made a Fortune 500 appearance was 1969. They had net sales last year of $410 million, with net profit of $16 million. The lowest ranking Fortune 500 firm had around $4 billion in revenue. This isn’t a big company that is out there to serve as a political lobbying group. It’s a company that is there to make profits, and they have to consider that all it would take to screw them to the wall, is one good Elliot Spitzer lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of NY (with their legally bottomless pockets) to chew up the company really badly. And what government or institutional buyer is going to do business with an arms company under indictment? You see where this is going.

    The one thing that I laugh at Kim du Toit about – and I don’t laugh at him about much, he’s a pretty serious fellow and quite often right – is the anti-NRA absolutism. The NRA can’t be there to fight every local fight to the hilt. It’s a national organization that has to chart out national strategy. Part of “strategy” means you let the enemy get advances in some locations to expose himself; you concede some areas of the battlefield; and you marshall your strength to hit the enemy where he is weak or overextended. I know Kim was upset about how the NRA wouldn’t get involved in Texas politics a couple years ago. How’s that going in Texas today? The gun grabbers having any luck or are local Texans stepping up and doing their duty? Last time I checked, the NRA is having a lot of luck helping get candidates elected and un-elected, and federal gun grabs are just about verboten. This isn’t a bad result, folks.

    Big NGO is a lot like Big Government. if you leave the business of managing local affairs up to them, you receive the representation (or leadership) you deserve. If you leave the big things up to them, usually they can do alright. It’s foolish to expect them to be all things to all people.

  8. Joe, have fun with your crusade against gun manufacturers.

    Crusade? I simply won’t buy the products of three gunmakers. I encourage you not to buy them, either, but since you think their shit sandwich is so tasty, don’t let me stop you.

    That the likes of Marlin and Mossberg have not been subjected to the kind of legal extortion that have fallen on Colt, Ruger and S&W is primarily because they don’t manufacture the kinds of weapons that the gun grabbers want to outlaw (neither Mossberg nor Marlin manufacture “assault weapons” or handguns, and in fact, to my knowledge Marlin does not manufacture any semi-auto centerfire guns.) As for Kimber and SA – I’m sorry, but that’s laughable.

    You’ve got to be kidding. Perhaps you could point me to the sections in NYC/DC/Chicago gun bans/restrictions that exempt “the kinds of weapons that the gun grabbers don’t want to outlaw”? Or even some list from the Brady clowns? And then show that to Clinton’s DOJ, since all those firms were threatened with liability lawsuits and offered protection by accepting the DOJ plan; only S&W did so. Since S&W obviously has much greater resources to battle such suits, do you really want to pretend they showed some kind of greater virtue here? And of course, SA, Kimber, and the other smaller players certainly knew that the DOJ would leave them alone once they had acquiecense from Colt, Ruger, and S&W, right? No way they’d be threatened by ruinous lawsuits like the big dogs – Clinton and his DOJ were just too nice to let something like that happen. The problem with your ‘laughable’ theory, Martin, is that S&W was the only company to cave. How does that square with your “they just gotta survive” contention, since Colt and Ruger refused to play Clinton’s rigged game? If you really want laughable, check out S&W’s (lack of) sales for their lockable revolvers – you know, the ones the gun-grabbers don’t want to ban.

    BTW, I’m not a Libertarian, a Republican, a Democrat, a Crusader, or a member of any other political party. I just don’t like being shit on.

    Oh, and Al:
    You see where this is going.

    I certainly do; you guys I’m not so sure about. So tell me: which gun design will be acceptable to the banners, once they’ve eliminated semi-autos and pumps (you do know they succeeded in banning full auto since 1986, right?) What approved designs will the remaining virtuous gun companies be permitted to make?

  9. To be honest, I don’t care if Remington employed this nimrod or sponsored his column. They’ve severed their relationship with him and that’s good enough for me (apparently it’s not good enough for you, though I can’t figure out why.) S&W has repudiated their “deal” with the DOJ (which, AFAIK, the DOJ isn’t enforcing it anyway.) And Ruger made a decision (a bad one, IMO) regarding the AW ban back in 1994, but if he’d really been in bed with the gun-grabbers, wouldn’t he have just stopped selling the Mini-14 and Mini-30 to private owners? It’s not like he doesn’t make millions off the non-controversial guns he already sells, right?

    Just wondering – do you own any Glocks? Berettas? H&K’s? These foreign manufacturers with large LEO and military contracts are enthusiastic supporters of all kinds of gun control, both here and abroad.

    For that matter, if Marlin, Mossberg, SA, et al, decided one day that it was in their financial interest to support this or that gun control measure, do you doubt for a second that they’d do it? Of course they would – they’re in business to make money, not to live up to someone’s utopian standard of ideological purity.

    Joe, the one thing that is most tiresome about lefties is the way they politicize absolutely everything. The car you drive, the food you eat, the movies you watch, the clothes you wear, etc. I simply refuse to do the same thing with my guns. Life is too short for that.

  10. do you own any Glocks? Berettas? H&K’s?

    One H&K from the 80’s, the unique VP-70Z, first ever polymer pistol frame. No Glocks or Berettas.

    For that matter, if Marlin, Mossberg, SA, et al, decided one day that it was in their financial interest to support this or that gun control measure, do you doubt for a second that they’d do it?

    Nope. And if we stopped buying their products for a year or so after just one of these “stupid” breakouts, then we’d … make it in their financial interest to not support this or that gun control measure. So you apparently agree that without pressure from the market (us), the big manufacturers will take the path of least resistance and accept industry-wide restrictions. Are you two that comfortable with Colt, Ruger, and S&W deciding, along with the DOJ, what guns you will be permitted to own? ‘Cause maybe, in ten years or so, that DOJ-mandated safety chip in your firearm will deactivate your weapon – unless you submit your form, pay your tax, and keep it stored at the range like a good little serf. Y’know, for the safety of the childrenses.

    And you refuse to politicize your guns? It’s the Second Amendment for a reason, Martin – you can’t get any more political than guns.

  11. Nope. And if we stopped buying their products for a year or so after just one of these “stupid” breakouts, then we’d … make it in their financial interest to not support this or that gun control measure. So you apparently agree that without pressure from the market (us), the big manufacturers will take the path of least resistance and accept industry-wide restrictions.

    Ah, so that’s why Smith and Wesson went bankrupt in 2000. And Ruger went bankrupt in 1995. And Remington will go bankrupt….any time now.

    ‘Cause maybe, in ten years or so, that DOJ-mandated safety chip in your firearm will deactivate your weapon – unless you submit your form, pay your tax, and keep it stored at the range like a good little serf. Y’know, for the safety of the childrenses.

    Yeah…Because the DOJ would never do that unless they had the support of Ruger and S&W, is that your argument? So if we simply bankrupt the “collaborating” gun companies, the other ones will fall into line, once confronted with our awesome boycott power?

    Actually, the “DOJ” doesn’t do anything. The DOJ is headed by the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, not some nameless, faceless entity. “The DOJ” does the bidding of its boss, the chief executive.

    So, if you want to keep the Feddle Gummint from getting it’s hands on your hardware, you boycott private companies?

    Yeah, I guess you could do that, but wouldn’t it, y’know, make more sense to, oh, I don’t know, maybe elect politicians who were opposed to gun control instead? I mean, since we’re being political and all, why not get to the root of the problem, which is the politicians who make and enforce the laws, and not to one of the tertiary issues which involves the private companies that manufacture firearms.

  12. Sorry, but I have to make one more minor correction:

    Joe wrote:

    which gun design will be acceptable to the banners, once they’ve eliminated semi-autos and pumps (you do know they succeeded in banning full auto since 1986, right?)

    The Federal Government did not “ban” full autos in 1986. What they banned was the registration of new machine guns made after that date. Guns made prior to 1986, and guns that are made as dealer samples, or to be sold to LE agencies, are not affected.

    But, really, is this such a big deal? Class III weapons are owned by, what, a fraction of a percent of the 80 million gun owners in the US? Yeah, yeah, I know, ‘insert slippery slope argument here.’ Somehow I fail to see that the Dark Night of Fascism has descended on the US because I can’t buy a MAC-10 made in 1992.

  13. What they banned was the registration of new machine guns made after that date

    No, the Hughes amendment to the FOPA prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto or selective fire firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Which is what we’re talking about. Manufacturers.

    Guns made prior to 1986, and guns that are made as dealer samples, or to be sold to LE agencies, are not affected.

    Sort of correct. These registered Class III firearms existing in 1986 may be transferred but must still be registered, and requires payment of a $200 tax. Like I said, submit your form, pay your tax. That the gun registration procedure is already in place is not a comforting thought.

    Of course , registered new manufacture sales to US and foreign (approved) military are still legal as well.

    I mean, since we’re being political and all, why not get to the root of the problem, which is the politicians who make and enforce the laws, and not to one of the tertiary issues which involves the private companies that manufacture firearms.

    I must have missed the memo that decided we can’t bitch-slap both manufacturers and politicians for screwing with our right to bear arms, so I guess I don’t consider it an either/or proposition. But nice dodge of my question.

    And your DOJ civics lesson, while delightfully snarky, is a bit silly. Clinton’s “negotiations” with the firearms industry was done through the DOJ, or as I specifically called it, “Clinton’s DOJ”. Not some nameless, faceless entity, but rather the Clenis himself. 😉

  14. Sort of correct. These registered Class III firearms existing in 1986 may be transferred but must still be registered, and requires payment of a $200 tax. Like I said, submit your form, pay your tax. That the gun registration procedure is already in

    place is not a comforting thought.

    …Which is the same procedure that was in place before the 1986 act, meaning that the only difference is that I now can’t buy a machine gun manufactured after the 1986 date. I can still buy one manufactured before that date. I’m sorry that thought of such “gun registration” is not “comforting” to you, but maybe the fact that the NFA registration system for machine guns has been in place since 1934, and yet somehow we gun owners haven’t been hauled off to the gas chambers yet could give you at least a little “comfort.”

    I must have missed the memo that decided we can’t bitch-slap both manufacturers and politicians for screwing with our right to bear arms, so I guess I don’t consider it an either/or proposition. But nice dodge of my question.

    I’m sorry, was there a question in there somewhere? Something about the DOJ putting a chip in my gun? Hey, if I were you I’d be more worried that they’re going to put a chip in my brain that, with the mere flip of a switch, will make me a docile and obedient slave of the New World Order.

    Guns and ammo? Maybe it’s time to start stocking up on aluminum foil… 🙂

  15. but maybe the fact that the NFA registration system for machine guns has been in place since 1934, and yet somehow we gun owners haven’t been hauled off to the gas chambers yet could give you at least a little “comfort.”

    It does. But not much, because history is replete with registration, then confiscation scenarios. Tell me, has the Justice Dept. (faceless, generic Clinton/Dubya era DOJ we’re talikin’ here) complied with all those court orders to destroy the Brady act background check records as the law required?

    Yeah, those good-faith acts showing us gun-owners how harmless a little registration can be is what keeps me warm at night. Comfy? With the new and improved National Identity Card, I’ll be downright toasty.

    Must be all that freakin’ tinfoil.

Comments are closed.

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix