Similar
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Zumbo was challenged by people from the community he was supposed to represent, and as such was removed from within. This was more akin to a change of leadership vote.
Imus was removed by people outside of his constituency. This was more like a coup.
Imus is therefore the much more insidious action, as it represents the removal of freedom of speech rights from an opponent, not a representative.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
No such right has been removed. Unless criminal actions are filed against Imus and/or he’s taken into custody, he hasn’t been deprived of any “right.”
Also, the people who went after Zumbo weren’t “his constituency,” not really. The Zumbo incident underscored the pre-existing hunter vs. shooter divisions that already existed.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
OK – I’ll give you the fact that his rights were not removed in a legal sense – I overspoke.
I do still feel that Zumbo was taken down from within – his sponsors cater to all firearm camps and there is much overlap between hunters and shooters.
Zumbo himself has been quick to acknowledge shooters of all kinds are one brotherhood – and I have much respect for the man now he has started to make ammends.
And as such, I still believe that is one of the main differences between his case and Imus. Imus’ action was never seen as a strike against friends. Just part of his schtick as a shock jock.