"Vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals"--that's what Wray calls owners of homeland security rifles (or so-called "assault weapons," to the media). Come to think of it, he could have made the alliteration even better if he had called us "vicious, vengeful, vitriolic vipers," but who am I to complain?
Once again, Wray attributes the impressive power of the outraged reaction over Zumbo's gaffe to "paranoia" cultivated by the NRA. He has apparently found a theme he likes, and is sticking to it--its inaccuracy notwithstanding.
But we need to look beyond the Internet, into the genesis of the anger and fear that fueled the Internet attacks. If we look closely, we will find the National Rifle Association, or NRA. For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense. Nowhere has that message taken root as strongly as within the owners of the military style rifles, and it was they who came after Zumbo in their thousands.What Wray has chosen to ignore is that powerful forces are out to take our guns (such as a powerful United States Senator saying, "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.") To deny that private ownership of firearms is under attack is either grossly wishful thinking, or a deliberate attempt to lull gun owners into potentially disastrous complacency. Either way, it serves the forces of civilian disarmament, and their goal of a government monopoly on the use of force.
I have pointed out before that another aspect Wray is utterly clueless about (as are others) is that the NRA brought up the rear in the campaign against Zumbo (forgive the shouting, but some folks seem to be having trouble getting that point). They publicly cut ties with him several days after the most intense part of the storm of anger. Even that was a rather tame couple paragraphs--certainly not the extremist ranting that Wray would have us believe was involved. The widespread rage was due, not to the NRA, but to the fact that what Zumbo did was outrageous--namely, helping to accomplish the gun ban lobby's sacred mission of driving a wedge between different categories of law-abiding gun owners.
If Wray's shooting is no more accurate than his writing, I imagine the chukars he hunts are pretty safe. By the way, is calling us "terrorists" in a clumsy, foolish use of words much worse than calling us "vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals," deliberately?
Stumble it!
9 comments:
He should have said "vigilantes" instead of "jackals." Then it would have been perfect, as well using the appropriate MSM-approved scary buzzwords.
Hey--there you go. He could have thrown in "venomous, vindictive," too.
A verbatim email exchange with Mr Wray
His response is first- Jack
Re: You might want to clarify your remarks
Thanks for taking the time to write. You were one of many gun owners to write to me regarding my recent statements in the Washington Post. I understand your concern. I was not complimentary about the actions of people involved in the Internet destruction of Jim Zumbo’s career.
My feelings about those actions will not change. Those of you who took part in the assault on Zumbo lost an opportunity to turn him around, to educate him and to change him into an outstanding spokesman for your beliefs. He offered, in his initial apology, to do exactly that. Instead, you went for the jugular and completed his fall. Your action was fast, furious and, like so many other internet-based actions, without the benefit of deliberation or serious discussion. It was, very simply, a high tech lynching conducted by an enraged mob. If being described as part of a lynch mob bothers you, perhaps you should consider the description next time you are tempted to go on the attack.
Speaking of attack, a number of you told me in no uncertain terms to expect treatment ‘like Zumbo got.’ My response is this; I’m going to do what I think is right. You should do the same. Let the chips fall where they may.
If we’re going to have a serious disagreement, you should know who I am. I have been a member of the NRA for nearly 25 years, and believe strongly in their 2nd Amendment mission. I need them to help me protect the semi-automatic firearms in my safe. Several of them are ‘assault rifles’ beginning with my 1873 Springfield .45-70 and going forward to World War II weapons. I also own several other semi-automatic firearms and will fight any attempt to outlaw them. I don’t own an AR 15, not because I don’t believe in our right to own them, but because I’m not impressed with the caliber. I use a .22-250 for varmints.
I spent 20 years in the United States Marine Corps and doubt that any one of you is more dedicated to our country or the Constitution than I am. I oppose gun registration because I don’t want the government to be able to take my firearms. I recognize the need for an armed citizenry and intend to be a part of it.
In short, I don’t have a problem with your firearms or your right to own them. I own them myself. I will not be a part of a divide-and-conquer strategy aimed at gun owners. I do have a major problem with the mob psychology some of you exhibited over the past week. It was despicable. Period.
If you want a more complete view of my feelings on the Zumbo situation I invite you to visit the following website. http://gtconnect.com/articles/2007/02/25/sports/venture/1ven01_wray.txt
It is a column that came out today in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.
Sincerely,
Pat Wray
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Anderson
To: patwray@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:07 AM
Subject: You might want to clarify your remarks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709_2.html
'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy
Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
"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."
Mr Zumbo compared certain gun owners to terrorists. I had dinner at Windows on the World in the World Trade Center a week before 9-11.
My nephew is in FDNY. I am in the metals import export business and I knew 4 people who perished in the Towers.
I was back in NYC a few weeks later and saw ground zero. While I was there , an Honor Guard carried out a fireman's remains.
There a lot of things you may call me without much reaction.
Terrorist is not one of them. I suggest you think long and hard in suggesting gun owners are fools and NRA members are like Pavlov's dogs.
It was not "these people" ( a bit pejorative, no? ) who turned on him. It was he who demeaned them and they reacted, long before there was any comment from NRA.
Thanks for posting that, Jack. I have to disagree with Mr. Wray's statement here:
Those of you who took part in the assault on Zumbo lost an opportunity to turn him around, to educate him and to change him into an outstanding spokesman for your beliefs.
It's my understanding that the opportunity he refers to has not been lost--that Zumbo will be taking a tactical rifle training course from Pat Rogers, and will undoubtedly sing the praises of both "black rifles" and tactical shooting. I take no pleasure in the fact that Zumbo destroyed himself, but when he called tens of thousands of law-abiding Americans "terrorists," we had to react swiftly and harshly. He did the Brady's work of driving a wedge between different categories of lawful gun owners, and for that, there are consequences--as he now knows (as do many others).
Just because he's a writer I don't see why they assume he'd be such an "outstanding spokesman" - Oh right, the bully-pulpit and megaphone of noisy publishing that the hold so dear and is provided coverage by the 1st Amendment - and that they'll gladly hug while they throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus.
Below is the text of my message to Mr. Wray.:
I have read several of your remarks defending Zumbo and castigating his critics. I saw you bemoan the fact that we missed a chance to "turn him around", and then blame the NRA for the destruction of his career.
First let me say, I do not belong to the NRA, they betrayed me too many times and I cancelled my membership. However, the NRA didn't hurt Zumbo, they didn't even get on board until they decided it was safe, so no. This was not a Pavlovian reflex of NRA dogs. Shame on you for spreading that misinformation. I will assume you didn't know better at the time of writing, else I must assume you a liar. Now, you know better. You have had time to see that charge you leveled was not true. I don't care if you exonerate the NRA or not, but personal honor would require you expose and correct your mistake. Marines don't lie.
As to the destruction of Zumbo's career, Zumbo did it himself. For years Second Amendments advocates have fought for the rights of all gun owners, mostly without the help of "hunters". I don't know where we hunters got the idea we were especially endowed and above the melee regarding our rights under the constitution, but if we want proof it isn't true, let the fight be lost by the gun rights advocates who don't hunt. Soon after, none of us will enjoy any but the most dearly bought "privileges" and have no rights at all.
I identified myself as a hunter above, and that is no longer exactly accurate. I started hunting when I was nine. I hunted for a lot of years. I no longer eat wild game and in the last few years have gotten to where I couldn't drag a deer home to save my life. So I don't hunt any more. Hunting to kill only, is just killing. I don't trophy hunt either, never have. I owe my grandfather for my outlook. He was half Cherokee and Chickasaw and had very definite ideas about respecting the animals we hunt. To waste a life disrespected the dead animal and ourselves. My personal outlook, I don't push it on others, but you can see I am not opposed to hunting or hunters. Even though I don't hunt anymore, I stilll shoot.
I wanted you to know where I stand. I believe as do you that Zumbo had a right to express his opinion. He doesn't have a right to expect others to respect it or him after exposing himself for the elitist and arrogant person he is. He especially doesn't have the right to support from those whose rights he would deny, nor does he have a right to keep a career requiring their support.
I seem to have more respect for Zumbo than those that would forgive him. I refuse to believe he is so stupid that after 42 years in the business he was still ignorant.
I still believe he thought he could get away with throwing me under the bus and gain popularity in his crowd for it, plus be acceptable enough to the gun grabbers that he would be their last target.
Unless he can prove to me that he really is stupid, I am not prepared to believe he was just ignorant and now sees the light.
The only light he sees is his career going up in flames. He is trying to piss it out. Ok, but I ain't helping him.
Respectfully,
(signed with my real name)
One more thought on Zumbo. This dog and pony show he is putting on now about shooting and learning about "evil black rifles" is nothing more than the shooters' version of Betty Ford.
All publicity to avoid consequences.
Once again, Wray attributes the impressive power of the outraged reaction over Zumbo's gaffe to "paranoia" cultivated by the NRA. He has apparently found a theme he likes, and is sticking to it--its inaccuracy notwithstanding.
A complicated place, Zumbo is one of the most dangerous today,if this place needs the intervention of an army , the army needs some special and powerful weapons
Post a Comment