Waiting for the Other Shoe to Fall
There is lots of praise among the shooting fraternity for Remington’s quick response to the Zumbo Blog. Remington acted swiftly and decisively as it responded to the demands from the throngs of Second Amendment Defenders for action in response to Mr. Zumbo’s blog post referring to Assault Weapons as “Terrorist Weapons”. Some of his other sponsors have reacted in the same manner but others have the appearance of being slow to react. Outdoor Life has suspended his blog and Cabela’s is in conversations with lawyers about severing contracts if my fellow bloggers are to be believed. Once again I agree that the blog post was ill conceived and poorly thought out. I’m just not convinced that what has happened since then is right but as a friend told me today “that’s business”.
Well that has got me thinking and I’ve got some questions that I’d love to know the answers to and I hope others do too. Maybe Remington Arms will be quick to respond to these questions.
To refresh your memories incase you missed it here is an excerpt from the post.
As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
What I find interesting is who he identifies as being on the hunt with him two of the big dogs from Remington Arms. Does anyone truly believe this blog post was formed in a vacuum? I don’t. I’d go as far to say that by this now infamous post it sounds like it was an item of discussion while on this hunt. For some reason I find it hard to believe that Mr. Zumbo kept his “anti second amendment views” to just himself. I’ve got to believe and I think it’s only reasonable to assume that he stated his views while on this hunt. Why then didn’t the PR Manager for Remington Arms say anything at that point? Where was Eddie Stevenson and Greg Dennison and did they stand up to Mr Zumbo’s “Anti Second Amendment views”? I can’t believe that if they had said anything to Mr. Zumbo that he would have posted what he did and risk his sponsorship with Remington.
Like I said in an earlier post what does this say about these companies and sponsors that have far more access to these celebrities to let someone with views that are so far off the reservation have such a long career in the shooting sports? I also can’t help but wonder how one of Remington Arms PR people is present on the hunt and a debacle like this can emerge and only Mr. Zumbo has the light of scrutiny shined on him. To my fellow firearm enthusiasts I’d be careful about singing the praises of Remington Arms for taken such swift action cause I got a feeling there are other rats on this ship.
Cool story brotha. Wish you could have got one, after all the head ache. T.
I think you have hit the nail on the head! I think there were conversations on that very same topic during the hunt and Mr. Zumbo took it to his blog. Once it hit the World Wide Web and the fire storm started the big dogs at Remington went into damage control and used Zumbo and the scape goat.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with his statement, but I think he should have used some common sense before posting that blog.
Comment by chesson — February 22, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Goes to show how fast thing “get around” once they hit the web.
Comment by bfnc2003 — February 22, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Sponsorship is all about the financial bottom line for big companies. Other than that sponsors do not care a dime about their Pro-Staff, they are like a commodity.
Did the Remington bosses know Jim Zumbo’s stance? I do not know. And if so they might have respected his opinion. The way I see it Jim Zumbo might be a traditionalist. Just like traditional bowhunters don’t like compound bows and crossbows, he might not like AR and AK rifles. I have not read his original post, but see that in your quote the words assault and terrorist are but in quotes, this could suggest that Zumbo meant is sarcastic not literal. Even so with the recent hoopla about terrorism it is not a wise thing to do. But then again in the past I have heard and read of professional bowhunters referring to crossbows in the very same manner and nobody raised an eyebrow. All in all I do not think for a minute that Jim voiced any second Amendment views, it was made into a anti second Amendment case by others.
I do think that Jim Zumbo came out wrong and if he had left the words “assault” and “terrorist” out nobody would have bothered. As it is this case has been blown well out of all proportions and made into something that I just cannot see knowing Jim’s long standing support of hunting and firearm ownership.
-Othmar Vohringer-
Comment by Othmar Vohringer — February 24, 2007 @ 4:18 am
I know when I’m out hunting with the guys lots of things get discussed. My reading of his post, which by the way is completely gone including google cache which I’ve never seen disappear before, it was a topic on the hunt that a PR man from Remington was on. I guess I’m one of the few that finds this point a bit odd. If it was a “second amendment issue” ( which I don’t think it is) why wouldn’t the PR man set Jim straight? I believe that until the dust got stirred in cyber space Remington didn’t see it as a big deal either. Speculation on my part but I think it’s a more reasonable then to think Jim just wrote this blog post without talking to anyone.
Comment by Moose — February 24, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Othmar,
I agree that if Zumbo had phrased it differently, it would have been a difference of opinion, rather than an outrage.
Is there *anyone* in the firearms community who watched the idiotic 1994 passage of the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban who is not sensitive to slinging terms like “assault rifle” around ? You have to have a major cranial vapor-lock to not recognize the mine-field in using that term casually (and incorrectly, by the by).
Or you have to be one of the elitist “my brown rifle is good but your black rifle is evil” elitists at heart. In which case, take a hike! As much fun as you may find hunting, the 2nd amendment ain’t about shooting ducks.
And as you point out, using the word “terrorist” in almost any connection to firearms is grabbing the jar of nitroglycerin and shaking it violently. You can do it, but don’t be surprised at the results.
I give high marks to Remington, however, in severing ties with the PR disaster quickly. Whatever their private opinions might be, their public stance is well in keeping with a defense of the 2nd amendment. Absent a “smoking gun” memo proving it’s only CYA after the fact, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. They heard it, did a double-take, and say “oh, my God! Let’s get out of here!”
Comment by jim — February 26, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
[...] is there and every year more and more blogs spring up about hunting and fishing. I think after the Zumbo mess last year( Outdoor Life Writer & Spokesman for a number of outdoor companies including [...]
Pingback by Moose Droppings » Welcome to the World of Blogging — May 19, 2008 @ 7:10 am