A 'gun article' author, published in hunting and shooting articles has responsibilities that go above and beyond mine or yours. They're provided a pulpit to preach from, and there are responsibilities inherent with those positions of employment. Which is why they can lose their jobs for publishing 'their opinions' when viewed as harmful or alienating by a sufficiently large percentage of their readership and supporting advertisers.
That's the difference between me spouting my opinion and them spouting theirs. Same with authors of articles published in the press, or newscasters on the evening television news. Same with preachers from their pulpits. They compromise the respectability of themselves, their employers, their supporters, and they will pay the penalty. There's been any number of these firings over the years, and there will be more to come. That seems exactly how it should work under a democracy and free enterprise economy.
Ask Mr. Zumbo how the system works. I think he probably was truly sorry for publishing his opinions, after he realized how many ethical hunters were using their 'black' rifles for hunting. People that shared the love of hunting and shooting. That simply had the preference to go about it a little bit differently, with a different weapon. We all need to practice 'live and let live', provided the means and methods are legal. Our society does a fairly decent job of outlawing methods which an overwhelming majority deem to be 'improper'. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most. Gun writers shouldn't up the ante on matters pertaining to means and methods to suit their personal preferences when their preferences needlessly harm others' enjoyment of legal shooting and hunting activities. That's the gripe being expressed in this Thread, as I understand it.
