I hope it is, anyway.

The thing about this whole Zumbo deal that bothers me the most is the outright hostility between hunters and non-hunting gun owners.  As with many other situations in my life, I find myself standing outside, looking in with amazement and sorrow at a conflict that should have never existed in the first place.

I grew up a hunter.  My dad taught me to shoot--not because he thought I might have to someday use extreme measures against a tyrannical government, but simply for two practical reasons:  to put meat on the table, and to protect livestock from predators.  The fact that one could enjoy, even have fun, hunting was secondary to the primary purpose of acquiring food that didn't have to be paid for.  We had a lot of land that we could hunt on for free.  Many people these days would like to hunt, but can't afford several hundred to a couple thousand dollars for a weekend deer lease that doesn't even guarantee they'll be going home with any venison.  I was lucky.

But somehow, as I grew older and learned about such things, I knew the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting.  I don't know how I knew.  I don't remember my dad or any other member of my family explicitly pronouncing an opinion on it.  It wasn't until as an adult when I got into an argument with another relative on this matter, and suddenly (somewhat to my surprise), I discovered my dad backing me up, quite vehemently.

So he knows, too.  And somehow, without ever saying anything explicit, he must have taught me that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

So I am often offended by the hostile attitude and derisive comments by some non-hunters toward hunters.  I am also offended and worried by the complacent condension displayed by some hunters to non-hunters.

For example, one widely-read blogger recently used the term "bambi-zapper" in reference to a hunting rifle.  Now where do you usually hear references to "shooting bambi?"  I'll tell you where:  gun-grabbers and animal right extremists.  A gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment has absolutely no business ever using this term.  Unless he or she also happens to be an animal rights extremist.  Then I guess it would be okay.

A "hunter" commenter on another blog considers anyone who uses a semi-auto rifle to hunt as a spray-n-prayer, someone who will obviously blast away and destroy all the usable meat of an animal.  This is the other extreme, and is just as stupid.

I might as well take this opportunity to voice another hare-brained opinion:  "hunters" such as Zumbo aren't really hunters.  They're just another version of celebrity, living a cushy life and not being anywhere near humble enough about their extreme good fortune in life.  I'll take someone who wears old fatigues picked up at the Army surplus store because he can't afford fancy camo, someone who makes every shot count because he can't afford to fire hundreds of rounds of ammo in practice every year, someone who freezes his butt off in a tree stand because he knows his family is so strapped for cash that they can't afford to just drive to the supermarket and load up on steak and pork chops.  I'll take a hunter like that over one of Zumbo's ilk any day.

Certain of the "hunting" crowd need to educate themselves about the real meaning of the Second Amendment.  They also need to shed themselves of the anti-gun brainwashing that makes them think anyone with a semi-auto gun is going to just blast the hell out of anything that moves until they run out of ammo.

Certain of the "non-hunting" crowd need to realize that for many, many decades, the biggest--perhaps the only--thriving gun culture in this country was the hunting culture, and it isn't going to vanish overnight.  They also need to realize that every time they call a hunter a "Fudd" they're doing the anti-gunners a favor by increasing dissension where there should be no dissension at all.

The anti-gunners aren't completely stupid.  They will happily use quotes by non-hunters to show that some gun owners think we should get rid of "long-range telescopically sighted high-powered sniper rifles," while simultaneously quoting hunters who think we should get rid of "assault" or "terrorist weapons."  And all the while we are at each other's throats, they will be laughing and high-fiving behind our backs.

Zumbo got what he deserved, in my opinion.  Have no doubt about that.  But it seems to me that some people have used this incident as an excuse to increase their overt hostility toward everyone on the "other side" of whichever side they're on.  This kind of behavior is only going to hurt all of us in the long run.

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna arrives in San Antonio commanding some 5,000 soldiers.

William Barrett Travis sends a messenger to the town of Gonzales with a plea for help:  "To any of the inhabitants of Texas. The enemy in large force is in sight. We want men and provisions. Send them to us. We have 150 men and are determined to defend the Alamo to the last. Give us assistance."

Another messenger is sent to James Fannin in Goliad with the message:  "We have removed all our men into the Alamo, where we will make such resistance as is due to our honour, and that of the country, until we can get assistance from you, which we expect you to forward immediately. In this extremity, we hope you will send us all the men you can spare promptly. We have one hundred and forty-six men, who are determined never to retreat. We have but little provisions, but enough to serve us till you and your men arrive. We deem it unnecessary to repeat to a brave officer, who knows his duty, that we call on him for assistance."

Santa Anna flies the red flag of "no quarter" from the San Fernando cathedral, where it can be easily seen by those inside the Alamo.  Travis fires the defenders' 18-pound cannon as an answer.