My First Encounter with a "Fudd"


PDA






6_gunner
March 12, 2010, 04:35 PM
I got into a discussion with an acquaintance of mine yesterday; and I thought you folks might be interested to hear about it.

He was talking about how he was critical of Bush for allowing the assault weapons ban to expire. I piped up that I was opposed to the ban, and we got into a discussion about the pros and cons of gun control. He made the typical arguments that “assault weapons” are only useful for killing people and that if the government restricts access to them, then everyone will be safer. I gathered that he was in favor of registering all guns, outlawing calibers that weren’t used for sporting purposes (not sure how he would make the distinction), banning private sales, and imposing a magazine capacity limit. Pretty typical anti- rhetoric, which I countered with the standard pro-gun arguments.

The surprising thing was that this guy is an active hunter and target shooter who was raised around guns! He said that he never really cared either way about “assault weapons” until a friend allowed him to shoot his AR-15. He was so shocked by the rifle’s firepower and accuracy with iron sights (apparently all his rifle shooting had been with scoped guns) that he decided that nobody should be able to own such a terrible thing.

This was my first encounter with a “Fudd.” All the anti-gun people I’d known in the past had been ignorant of guns. I generally hold to the theory that any sane person can be cured of “anti- ism” by a little education and a trip to the range. This guy was the first person I’ve met who was an active gun enthusiast who turned anti- after being exposed to “scary assault weapons.”


I thought I’d see if you folks had any comments, or similar experiences that you’d like to share.

If you enjoyed reading about "My First Encounter with a "Fudd"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
9mm+
March 12, 2010, 04:42 PM
I presume that this acquaintance will not graduate to the "friend" level. I would have a hard time hanging with someone who said that accurate open sights were a bad thing. And what will your friend think of the trend of using AR-15's for hunting? That practice is increasing rapidly in popularity.

jalu
March 12, 2010, 04:43 PM
Have him contact Ted Nugent and explain his views to him. Once Ted is done giving him this >:cuss: maybe he won't have such a naive view of personal sporting rifles.

Vicious-Peanut
March 12, 2010, 04:44 PM
These are the people that hurt us most, gun owners that try to 'segregate' different types of guns. They are more damaging than any full on anti. (although they are really antis)

LeontheProfessional
March 12, 2010, 04:50 PM
I have an uncle who owns both a Glock 22 and a 30-06. He believes that we should not be able to own guns but he won't give up his until they are outlawed(hypocritical I know). I find that when dealing with people like your "Fudd" it is best to explain to them the actual purpose of the 2A along with actual quotations of our Founding Fathers on the issue. Another important thing to point out is just how small a percentage of gun related crime "Assault Weapons" are used in.

Gouranga
March 12, 2010, 04:51 PM
Tell him he is absolutely right. What we need is more weak and completely inaccurate weapons out there. What purpose is there in making a gun that works well?

One that note, I am going to go pull duct tape some pillows around my alarm system horns, half empty every fire extinguisher and see if I can remove the brake pads from the front of my truck.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 12, 2010, 05:16 PM
smooth bore .22 anyone?

zorro45
March 12, 2010, 05:25 PM
I have noticed the same thing about some hunting companions. Of course these are the same people who will spend money on gadgets, shooting sticks, bipods, game finders, etc. but not a penny on ammunition to practice during the off-season.

Carne Frio
March 12, 2010, 05:25 PM
Fudds need to realize that by banning anymore gun types will
soon allow for the banning of hunting. The argument that a
person's freedom could be put in danger by gun bans might
also sink in to them.

Mt Shooter
March 12, 2010, 05:48 PM
A small side step, I find it difficult to understand how PETA etc. who wants to ban hunting. One who do they think pays to manage the wild life? Its all done at least around here with hunting fees. this stocks the fish, transplants the sheep and manages everything so we have the abundance we have.

Two, without checks from hunting harvesting we would be over run with wild life. God only knows where up to our necks in yotes and wolves, prairie dogs.

LeontheProfessional
March 12, 2010, 05:55 PM
Fudds need to realize that by banning anymore gun types will
soon allow for the banning of hunting. The argument that a
person's freedom could be put in danger by gun bans might
also sink in to them.
Another very good point. The problem is Fudds usually buy into the propaganda that this whole idea that gun control is really just to reduce crime and that gun control actually reduces crime. They do not understand that it is just for the purpose of outlawing all guns and placing the people under a tyrannical government. If you try to convince them of such they just think your a crazy right wing loon. You really have to prevent these people with facts.

My boss was always kind of anti-gun and did not think that they were protected under the constitution. He always said that the 2A only applied to a militia and all that. I would usually let it go because he was my boss but finally one day I decided enough was enough. I explained to him that there was a second part to the 2A that most people seem to forget: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He seemed to think that that was not really in there and kept going back to the militia. I finally quoted to him the entire thing punctuation included and a sort of puzzled look came over his face. I then went on to give a few quotes of some of our Founding Fathers on the issue and reminded him of the recent Heller decision. Well this went into a decently long discussion about the whole issue and now almost a year later he is talking about getting a pistol and an SKS.

Shung
March 12, 2010, 05:58 PM
sounds like he is a MORON... I know, it's low road..

6_gunner
March 12, 2010, 05:59 PM
Something that I noticed was that the guy seemed to assume that if somebody doesn't have a clear need for a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed to have it. My reasoning is that people should be allowed to own whatever they want, unless the powers that be can provide a very good reason why they shouldn't.

He placed the burden of proof on gun owners, while I placed the burden of proof on lawmakers. I'm sure everybody has encountered arguments like that.

It seems to me that when two people have such a different manner of thinking, it's difficult for them to even comprehend each other's arguments. Constructive debate seems to be all but impossible.

Shung
March 12, 2010, 06:02 PM
I am pretty sure the guy doesnt really NEED to go hunting..

TexasRifleman
March 12, 2010, 06:32 PM
omething that I noticed was that the guy seemed to assume that if somebody doesn't have a clear need for a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed to have it.

Tell him to turn in all his hunting weapons. In today's modern world he has no need to hunt, the grocery store shelves are fully stocked with any kind of food he wishes. In fact, you could argue that self defense is MUCH more of a need than "sporting purposes".

He's not a fudd, he's an idiot.

Geneseo1911
March 12, 2010, 06:41 PM
The real problem is that our lousy educational system has taught for so long that the second amendment protects the right to have hunting arms. Every gun debate always contains the phrase "why do you need an AK-47 to go hunting?". You don't, but you sure as heck might want one to defend your family against a genocidal dictator. This is the fact I try to convey when anyone challenges the need for military pattern guns.

sarduy
March 12, 2010, 07:00 PM
The surprising thing was that this guy is an active hunter and target shooter who was raised around guns! He said that he never really cared either way about “assault weapons” until a friend allowed him to shoot his AR-15. He was so shocked by the rifle’s firepower and accuracy with iron sights (apparently all his rifle shooting had been with scoped guns) that he decided that nobody should be able to own such a terrible thing.

maybe he's an active "squirrel" hunter with his 22lr rifle... or a dove hunter with a powerfull .410 single shot gun....


thanks god he didn't call a rifle with a scope a sniper rifle... or he may be want to bann scopes too....

Patriotme
March 12, 2010, 07:01 PM
I'm always suprised when my hunter friends think my AR is full auto.

oldfool
March 12, 2010, 07:01 PM
it's not "just" the Fudds, people (clay/skeet/wingshooters)
some years back, columnist in the local newspaper did an article
entertaining enough, affable sort of fellow, local color, what's happening out on the farm, that sort of thing

then one day he went off on a rant re: the "assault weapons" thing
said he couldn't understand anybody that could tolerate that, oughta' ban 'em, etc.
Seemed a bit confused about the difference between the IRA and the NRA

but just to be sure and present himself as a reasonable and fair minded fellow
said he had no problem owning hunting guns like his, dontchaknow

guess what "his" rifle was ???

30-06 BAR

(yo, I never knew those little south Georgia whitetails were THAT tough, go figure !)

friends, there is just no cure for those who have a desperate need to remain deliberately clueless
me, I don't care if the guy shoots raccoons with his 30-06, instead of a 223 or 22WMR, but if he doesn't even know what he is holding in his own hands, it is futile to attempt a simple explanation of single action vs double action vs semi-auto

Pogo was right... "we have seen the enemy and they R-US"
:(

unspellable
March 12, 2010, 07:11 PM
Enlighten me. What do iron sights vs a scope have to do with the accuracy of the rifle? Silly me, I always thought that had to do with the accuracy of the shooter.

hso
March 12, 2010, 07:16 PM
The term "Fudd" shouldn't be used because these folks are Antis that happen to shoot. Just like the AHSA pretending to be a shooter's organization while actually actively working to destroy our rights as gun owners, these gun owners are regurgitating the poisonous lies told by Antis to divide us into owners of "good" guns and "bad" guns.

The best thing to do is ask them what they base their opinion on. Counter with facts, gun crime down since AWB gone, no change in gun crime while AWB, homicides not committed with rifles of any kind much less "bad" rifles, one man's deer rifle is an Anti's "sniper" rifle.

Send this to him and hope he can see it for the truth it is. http://nssf.org/video/index.cfm?vidID=5

oldfool
March 12, 2010, 07:17 PM
Enlighten me. What do iron sights vs a scope have to do with the accuracy of the rifle? Silly me, I always thought that had to do with the accuracy of the shooter.
it do have a little bit to do with how old and stiff your retinas are

miamiboy
March 12, 2010, 07:42 PM
Great response, hso.

BullfrogKen
March 12, 2010, 07:51 PM
I thought I’d see if you folks had any comments, or similar experiences that you’d like to share.


Plenty of stories like yours. As President of my 1,600 member gun club, I've seen gun owners than span the entire spectrum.


We have problems with the Bullseye shooter league behaving like jerks a few years back. They've always harbored animosity towards the members of the club who use guns for their practical purposes.


As President, I chair all the meetings. Although I don't like to take sides from the chair, one evening the meeting turned into quite the heated argument. I stopped the conversation and announced:

I will not tolerate any anti-gun attitudes within our midst. End of story. If you can't live with that, you have two choices -
Hold a vote right now to impeach me and remove me from office;
or go join another club.


That ended the debate, and within a few years they moved their league shoot to another club.


Oh well. They were jerks in general, and we don't miss them one bit.

oldfool
March 12, 2010, 08:22 PM
well done Bullfrog
I have always believed that every person is a success story waiting to happen
but that some people need to find somewhere else to do their fair share of waiting

BullfrogKen
March 12, 2010, 08:33 PM
oldfool :D


The evening right before I took a very contentious action (that I won't go into in public), my Vice President's wife told me she was worried about what the Bullseye shooters might do if I pissed them off too much. "They have guns, you know," she said.

"Yes, they do," I replied, "but you do understand they're Bullseye shooters. I can get up from my chair and be out the door before they're ready to break the shot."

oneounceload
March 12, 2010, 08:45 PM
My primary focus is shotguns for sporting clays and hunting. Many of the folks I shoot with do not approve of EBR's, handguns, or other similar items. They not only don't own or shoot them, they don't think "regular folks" need those types of guns. One person is an attorney previously from Chicago. While I can understand where they are coming from, I don't agree with them.

That being said, having read some posts from people on various forums and the either naivete or downright stupidity they exhibit, it makes me wonder sometimes whether a basic intelligence requirement might not be a bad idea - and I am VERY pro-gun, so I can see where an anti reading these sites or someone on the fence could be swayed to be against certain types of guns.

With freedom comes responsibility, and many folks fail in that regard and those few seem to give the rest of us a bad name which gets played up very nicely in the press.

Are those folks FUDDS?....Doubt it - my definition is someone who likes the older style of things and is not impressed with the current equipment out there - whether firearms, electronics, etc.......In many ways, I can fit that description.... ;)

oldfool
March 12, 2010, 09:11 PM
my definition is someone who likes the older style of things and is not impressed with the current equipment out there

that's my flavor, too, but it doesn't mean I sneer at people who prefer "other"
The Walter Mitty's get me a tad more cranked than a gentleman ought to get cranked, but that is is very different thing than how the term "Fudd" got coined

I have my "woobies", and so does everybody else, and that's A-OK
it is a gun forum, it is not a random slice of Americana, and if you enjoy talking firearms, that just goes with it
given the limited demographic, it is remarkably diverse
and no matter how loud my mouth, I never once learned anything from myself

the "my dawg is better-n-your dawg 'cause he eats Ken'll Ration" sure can get real tiresome
but every now and then I find myself trying some of their flavor and it don't always taste all that bad

me, I just can't get that worked up over folks who prefer their own flavor
(even if I do have an allergic reaction to "Rambo & Friends")
old habits get to be old habits (like "old rules") for real good reasons
and "new & improved" is mostly BS.. but not always

being an old guy I know a lot... but the list of things I do not know is infinite
and THAT is what winds my watch too tight with "fudds"
(and Rambo)

hso
March 12, 2010, 09:16 PM
They not only don't own or shoot them, they don't think "regular folks" need those types of guns.

As long as they think that the government should not, nor anyone else, deny me the right to have them they're fine. I have friends that only like 1911s and those that only like FALs and others that only like shotguns and other that only like finely figured wood stocked rifles with brightly polished blued steel. Vive la différence!

I can see where an anti reading these sites or someone on the fence could be swayed to be against certain types of guns. Agreed. Often we're our own worst enemy. The internet allows people that would never act out some behavior talk as if they're eager to.

gunsandreligion
March 12, 2010, 09:58 PM
That sounds like a lot of politicians, "I firmly believe in the 2nd amend Except..."

oneounceload
March 12, 2010, 10:00 PM
that's my flavor, too, but it doesn't mean I sneer at people who prefer "other"
The Walter Mitty's get me a tad more cranked than a gentleman ought to get cranked, but that is is very different thing than how the term "Fudd" got coined


I think we agree more than we don't ;)

I could care less what folks want to shoot, as long as they are responsible, possess a modicum of common sense, and don't do dumb things that get blown out of proportion by the press making us all look bad - but that's just me.

Is there an EBR and a few tupperware guns in the safe? Sure...but when I reach in there, I tend to drag out the walnut and blue.......

We need to make sure we don't lose the types of folks I mentioned above to go against us on certain types - that's what the antis want - divide and conquer....I don't believe that is the definition of a FUDD.

NG VI
March 12, 2010, 11:49 PM
I'm always suprised when my hunter friends think my AR is full auto.

It really blows me away when my Guard and Guard/former Marine friends think my rifle is broken because the safety "doesn't go all the way back". Really? I know I have explained this to you guys more than once, you should understand the difference between the M16A2/M4 and an AR 15, especially given that you have fired this particular one before.

I love it when my buddy says things like "single shot shotguns are retarded, they are completely useless".

Really? Can you understand that some people use guns for non-tactical purposes sometimes? Many people even? Maybe most people?

So I guess I'm neither a fudd nor by any means as one-way about guns as some people I know.

Gunfighter123
March 13, 2010, 12:45 AM
My First Encounter with a "Fudd"

I'd guess you don't post much in Shotgun Forums:neener:

6_gunner
March 13, 2010, 01:25 AM
It sounds like I may have misspoken by labeling that guy a "Fudd." I always thought of a Fudd as somebody who liked their rifle and shotgun for hunting, but who wanted to ban whatever guns they didn't personally have a use for. I'd heard that term used in reference to Jim Zumbo after his EBR rant, and I guess it acquired a more negative connotation for me.

If a "Fudd" is just somebody who prefers old school designs, then I probably qualify. Note my revolver-related name.

It sounds like people such as my friend are unfortunately common in the gun community. I guess all we can do is counter their misinformation and fear with facts and experience. If we can't "convert" all the antis, we can at least try to prevent them from spreading false information.

thorazine
March 13, 2010, 01:39 AM
My First Encounter with a "Fudd"

Aren't there are few lingering around here on THR?

LeontheProfessional
March 13, 2010, 01:47 AM
This is what I think of when I think of a FUDD.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd

Ford
March 13, 2010, 02:05 AM
My response would have been,
No reason at all to have a bolt action rifle to hunt with. Why do you need a weapon that is that accurate and fast to fire.
Everything but a single shot should be outlawed. Scopes should be outlawed. Scopes are for snipers not hunters. Scopes give an unfair advantage to a hunter. I mean you already have a gun. Real hunters should be able to use iron sights.
A civilian that has a high powered accurate bolt action rifle with a scope that is capable of long distance shots is a huge liability to the United States. If Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald didn't have access to such destructive rifles perhaps their crimes would have never been committed.
See what I'm doing here :p

gak
March 13, 2010, 04:40 AM
In Canada we have the same problems. One example was a chap who was looking intently at rifles, but when I approached to help it turned out he was just waiting for someone to vent on:

"My dad had over 40 guns, but when he died I turned them all over to the cops to be melted down because no one needs guns anymore, we have supermarkets."

"People today can't shoot. When I hunted with my dad we could pile a box of bullets into one hole at 300 yards with iron sights. No one should be allowed to own a gun nowadays because they can't hit the side of a barn, they'll just end up shooting themselves or children because they're so dumb."

"Guns should all be single shot. If you ever need more than one bullet to kill any animal all of your guns should be taken away."
:barf:

Shung
March 13, 2010, 08:47 AM
you should understand the difference between the M16A2/M4 and an AR 15,

side note.. an AR-15 can actually be a full-auto...

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
"My dad had over 40 guns, but when he died I turned them all over to the cops to be melted down because no one needs guns anymore, we have supermarkets."

"People today can't shoot. When I hunted with my dad we could pile a box of bullets into one hole at 300 yards with iron sights. No one should be allowed to own a gun nowadays because they can't hit the side of a barn, they'll just end up shooting themselves or children because they're so dumb."

"Guns should all be single shot. If you ever need more than one bullet to kill any animal all of your guns should be taken away."

Wow that makes me mad.

ol' scratch
March 13, 2010, 02:33 PM
From an earlier post from oneounceload my definition is someone who likes the older style of things and is not impressed with the current equipment out there

The older style of things? The firearms often demonized ARE older style. The AR15-1958, The AKM-1947, The blowback semi auto pistol- 100 years and counting. Machine guns are even over 100-years-old.

I think it is less about 'old' style and a perception that all semi autos are bad. My dad and I had a conversation about this one day in a duck blind. He told me he didn't really care about the AWB and other laws because he doesn't shoot those firearms. His favorite duck/goose gun is an Ithaca Mag 10. I told him the latest push seems to be against ALL semi autos. He said, "Well, if they come for THAT one, I will show them the business end of it." He has a different view of gun control now.

Those people who don't understand the need don't get it. It is the goal of antis to take them ALL away. If you help support some of their arguement, you are helping disarm all of us.

Warhawk83
March 13, 2010, 02:44 PM
Wait JUST a MINUTE, he is a target shooter that got to fire a weapon that he considered to be amazingly accurate. And he was ANGRY, that it was so accurate,so much so that no one should own such a thing so deadly.

If he really is a target shooter he should be trying to put two bullets in the same hole not bitching about a weapon being accurate. :scrutiny:

:banghead:

huntsman
March 13, 2010, 07:36 PM
This is what I think of when I think of a FUDD.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd
Someone who constantly wears brown clothes with a hat that has a red stripe in the middle. This person may also like to hunt rabbits with an elepahnt gun and is not fond of tennis. Also see Elmer.

THAT'S IT :)

W.E.G.
March 13, 2010, 07:55 PM
I've heard that Jim Zumbo is not a fudd anymore.

Not all fools are stupid.

oneounceload
March 13, 2010, 08:27 PM
From an earlier post from oneounceload my definition is someone who likes the older style of things and is not impressed with the current equipment out there

The older style of things? The firearms often demonized ARE older style. The AR15-1958, The AKM-1947, The blowback semi auto pistol- 100 years and counting. Machine guns are even over 100-years-old

Those people who don't understand the need don't get it. It is the goal of antis to take them ALL away. If you help support some of their argument, you are helping disarm all of us

In case you didn't read all I wrote..............I have NO problem with anything folks want to shoot.....it is the younger definition of a FUDD that seems to lump everyone who doesn't own or believe in EBR's as a FUDD that I have a problem with. Having watched many of these new folks at the range - if it wasn't for my deep belief in the 2A, I'd be sending check to the Brady folks, because there are WAY too many folks with deadly weapons who don't have a clue which end to point where

LeontheProfessional
March 13, 2010, 11:33 PM
Someone who constantly wears brown clothes with a hat that has a red stripe in the middle. This person may also like to hunt rabbits with an elepahnt gun and is not fond of tennis. Also see Elmer.

THAT'S IT :)
I was referring to the first definition in there. The other definitions did not really seem to have much to do with what we are talking about.

happygeek
March 14, 2010, 01:11 AM
In case you didn't read all I wrote..............I have NO problem with anything folks want to shoot.....it is the younger definition of a FUDD that seems to lump everyone who doesn't own or believe in EBR's as a FUDD that I have a problem with. Having watched many of these new folks at the range - if it wasn't for my deep belief in the 2A, I'd be sending check to the Brady folks, because there are WAY too many folks with deadly weapons who don't have a clue which end to point where.


Heck, there's a LOT of people out there who shouldn't have access to deadly hunks of metal that weigh thousands of pounds and get hurled at 70 mph plus in all sorts of directions. I witnessed two of those people in an SUV just a couple hours ago. Sadly, mandatory licensing and registration seems to have utterly failed in stopping such negligent and/or malicious behavior while operating said deadly hunks of metal.

Ironically, the worst gun safety violations I've personally witnessed were in the military.

Pretty sure the guy citing Urban Dictionary was referring to this portion:

Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

See sonny, all those pistols in that cabinet... all thems is good for is killin people." -Example of ignorant comment from a fudd at a local gun shop.

arcticap
March 14, 2010, 04:54 AM
IIRC, around the time that the assault weapons import ban was passed, a lot of NRA members quit the NRA because the NRA was fighting it and they didn't agree with the NRA's hard line stand.
And it was about that time that Pres. George Bush Sr. started it when he was said to have burned his NRA card in front of TV cameras.
The resulting decline in NRA membership took many years to recover from because of the "Archie Bunker" mentality and Archie Bunker was no liberal.
These folks just don't trust other people in general or the NRA.
They see the news and how some crazy individuals commit horrendous crimes with their guns.
Who's fault is it that they believe in what they believe?
Surely it's not always about educating them because it's about their outlook and philosphy and who they are.
Maybe it's better to not antagonize them then to try to change their mind.
They're often too well set in their ways.
It can be more productive to reach out and talk to someone who doesn't really have an opinion formed because after all, people are entitled to their opinions.
I certainly don't want anyone pestering me and trying to change my opinion.
It's folly to think that there's going to be 100% agreement on any political issue.
No one can deny that there's a small percentage of nuts that use these guns for crimes.
I don't want to butt heads with them.
I would rather concentrate on whatever we may have in common than on what we'll never have in common.
Then if they get to know you and respect you then something may be stirred in them if it's important that the issue ever becomes personalized and they won't verbally attack you over it just because they know you.
If people are afraid then that's their problem.
Once you get older you realize that there's all kinds of people in this world and some people will argue just for the sake if it.
I try not to call people derogatory names for any reason whether they're bullseye shooters or not because it's just not High Road and doesn't serve any noble purpose.
We have the law on our side for right now so I think that the tent is big enough that we can all live with our differences and make friends while not making waves. Making friends is better than making enemies and going out of one's way to challenge people unnecessarily can just rub some otherwise friendly folks the wrong way.

goon
March 14, 2010, 06:18 AM
OK...
So the AK was designed to put lots of bullets out there pretty quickly.
I agree... it was not designed with a "sporting purpose" in mind.
So what?

Shung
March 14, 2010, 07:42 AM
I think that the founding fathers never meant the 2nd amendment in a "sporting purpose" perspective... unless scaring wanabee tyrants is considered a sport..

Hokkmike
March 14, 2010, 07:51 AM
So he wants to stab his stomach because his leg hurts?

duns
March 14, 2010, 09:14 AM
He made the typical arguments that “assault weapons” are only useful for killing people ...
I wonder what he means by that. Does he mean they are not useful for self defense? If so, I don't get it. Deadliness and effectiveness for self defense go hand in hand. You can't really have one without the other.

NG VI
March 14, 2010, 11:47 AM
Quote:
you should understand the difference between the M16A2/M4 and an AR 15,

side note.. an AR-15 can actually be a full-auto...

Yes, but the vast majority of ARs in the US are not full auto, and mine was one of those. And I explained it to them more than once, because they didn't seem to get that my 16" M4gery (a CMMG Bargain Bin rifle, great rifle by the way. It was perfect, wish I still had it.) wasn't the same as a 14.5" M4.

I think that the founding fathers never meant the 2nd amendment in a "sporting purpose" perspective... unless scaring wanabee tyrants is considered a sport..

Sounds like a ball to me.



I've heard that Jim Zumbo is not a fudd anymore.

Not all fools are stupid.

Yeah he took the time to educate himself on the issue after the uproar and had a complete change of heart. His misstep was fleeting and he has done what he can to mitigate it, so he's completely OK in my book, maybe even better than that.

huntsman
March 14, 2010, 01:03 PM
I was referring to the first definition in there. The other definitions did not really seem to have much to do with what we are talking about.
Yes but the first definition isn't what Elmer really was (regardless of what tac-guys think) he is or was a city slicker(trying to hunt) what we used to call a nimrod, just like everything else it (the definition) got corrupted.

I guess you had to be a country boy/hunter to understand who the cartoon was lampooning.

ol' scratch
March 14, 2010, 01:39 PM
In case you didn't read all I wrote..............I have NO problem with anything folks want to shoot.....it is the younger definition of a FUDD that seems to lump everyone who doesn't own or believe in EBR's as a FUDD that I have a problem with. Having watched many of these new folks at the range - if it wasn't for my deep belief in the 2A, I'd be sending check to the Brady folks, because there are WAY too many folks with deadly weapons who don't have a clue which end to point where
You know, I went back and read my post and it sounded like I was being snotty toward you. I do apologize. I was basically trying to make the point that people who think the semi autos are a new invention don't really understand how old they are. It is sometimes difficult to convey tone in a post.

unspellable
March 14, 2010, 02:49 PM
Why do the anti definitions never work the other way around? If an AK47 is an assault rifle meant only for killing people and totally unsuitable for home defense or hunting, then my Officer's Match is a paper punch and totally unsuitable for any use as a weapon. Yet I still have to do the NICS thing and maybe registration (depending on local) and have permit to carry it. How come? It's only a paper punch!

Mr.Davis
March 14, 2010, 03:38 PM
Why do the anti definitions never work the other way around? If an AK47 is an assault rifle meant only for killing people and totally unsuitable for home defense or hunting, then my Officer's Match is a paper punch and totally unsuitable for any use as a weapon. Yet I still have to do the NICS thing and maybe registration (depending on local) and have permit to carry it. How come? It's only a paper punch!
It's because they project intentional falsehoods onto an object. A good analogy is guns vs. gasoline.

Guns aren't designed to kill, they're designed to launch a projectile. That projectile can be used to kill, but that's not what the gun was "built for", really. Never relent on this point with an Anti. Guns launch projectiles. People use that projectile to kill.

Gasoline is designed to explode. But many people will tell you that gas was designed to power cars, or somesuch. Well, it's not, it's made to explode. If it didn't explode, it wouldn't have much of a practical purpose. That explosion can be used for good (powering a car) or evil (burning down a house). But at it's core, gas is not "for" anything but creating explosions.

The user determines the character of the gasoline, just like the user determines the character of a gun.

Deanimator
March 14, 2010, 04:04 PM
Why do the anti definitions never work the other way around?
If it's so easy for a criminal to "take your gun away", why can't you just take it BACK?

If they ONLY count defensive gun uses in which somebody is shot and DIES, does that mean that you've only defended yourself with the martial arts if you've beaten or choked someone to DEATH? Does that mean that the only effective chemical defense spray is sarin or mustard gas?

Most anti-gun "thought" doesn't rise to that of a fifth grader.

Zoogster
March 14, 2010, 04:21 PM
Guns aren't designed to kill, they're designed to launch a projectile. That projectile can be used to kill, but that's not what the gun was "built for", really. Never relent on this point with an Anti. Guns launch projectiles. People use that projectile to kill.

Playing such games seems childish to me.
Guns were invented to shoot other people. The technology improved to better shoot other people. The technology was applied towards harvesting game, with some technological improvements. But the majority of firearm technology since the invention of firearms has been directed towards the better shooting of humans.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment has to do with possession of firearms to shoot humans. It is a protected right specifically for that purpose: shooting other human beings.
Not to hunt. Not to shoot paper. To shoot other people under certain circumstances, and to deter because of that.


What you are saying is like arguing a sword is just for cutting. Sure there is fencing and games, but a sword was designed to be a weapon, for the purpose of disabling and killing other human beings. Arguing it is just a cutting device and not a weapon would be stupid. Sure you could use it as a cutting device, for ceremony, or for sport, but the sword was meant to be a weapon.

Instead focus on why the founders thought the ability to kill other human beings was important for all citizens to possess.
Sometimes rights and their origins are not pretty, but there they are.
Playing games instead of facing facts and stating it like the founding fathers just leads to silliness like "sporting purposes" in legislation.

In fact an anti-gun argument could be better made that pure sporting weapons are not what was protected. Deadly arms for resisting conquest and killing human beings was protected, not sporting weapons. PETA could argue hunting is not protected under the 2nd Amendment, because arms for killing people was protected. Not their use to hurt animals.
What nobody who has ever read the thoughts and statements of the founders could state though is that weapons meant for killing other people are not what was meant to protected by the 2nd.
Or that any type of sporting argument or logic is not contrary of the intended purpose and protection meant by the 2nd Amendment.
That you can just so happen to also use those firearms or other firearms for recreational activities has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Coronach
March 14, 2010, 04:29 PM
I always find that the most compelling argument to a "sportsman" is this one:

"That's a nice deer rifle. Is it accurate?"

"Yep, it sure is. It'll shoot the wings off a fly at 500 yds"

"Bet you can kill a deer with it a long ways away"

"Sure can."

"Bet you could kill a person with it about the same distance away, too."

"...uh. Well, uh, yeah."

"And after they get done taking away all the assault weapons, do you really think they'll let you keep your sniper rifle?"

"It's not a sniper rifle! It's a deer rifle!"

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."

This is usually followed by some inept attempt to explain why a .308 Remington 700 with a wooden stock and a Leupold scope is significantly different from a .308 Remington 700 with a black tactical stock and a Leupold scope. Sometimes the conversation ends with an uneasy look on the sportsman's face because he knows I'm right, and sometimes it ends with the dismissive, "they'll never do that", which we all know is the functional equivalent of "lalalalalalalalalICAN'THEARYOUlalalalalala"

It's just as easy to do with shotguns, those close quarters dealers of death. :rolleyes:

Mike

Walkalong
March 14, 2010, 04:30 PM
Guns are designed launch a projectile to kill. For food, for protection...etc. Target shooting was a natural by product.

People use or misuse guns. By themselves guns are totally harmless, just like knives, bats, hammers, swords, cars, rocks, and all kinds of other items used by people to kill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti's are generally either people with their head in some unrealistic world where everyone is good and pure, a phobia of inanimate objects called guns, or people (often politicians) who would control us.

Some are just good hearted people with no grasp of reality. They just don't understand that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will only make things worse for those who obey the law, and will do nothing to stop those who don't.

People are the problem, not guns. Lets start prosecuting criminals, especially those who use guns to commit crime, and stop coddling them.

Deanimator
March 14, 2010, 04:33 PM
"It's not a sniper rifle! It's a deer rifle."

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."
I had that "discussion" with a retired Canadian cop in the Fullbore mailing list.

He lost.

Mr.Davis
March 14, 2010, 04:39 PM
Playing games instead of facing facts and stating it like the founding fathers just leads to silliness like "sporting purposes" in legislation.
Disagree. My comments above weren't "playing games", it's addressing the inherent fallacy of the Anti refrain: "Guns are only made to kill!". Guns are a tool that does a specialized task, and killing is a potential byproduct.

I agree with the value of explaining the stance of the Founding Fathers, but any strong argument must make use of diverse, sometimes unrelated, premises. No argument can be effective unless the two arguing agree on a similar premise, so try many.

For example, many people think the Constitution is outdated, and that the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated the type of weapons we now have. Build an entire argument on that premise, and a Constitution hater will just shrug and say "so what?".

6_gunner
March 14, 2010, 05:01 PM
I wonder what he means by that. Does he mean they are not useful for self defense? If so, I don't get it. Deadliness and effectiveness for self defense go hand in hand. You can't really have one without the other.

Good point. I suppose somebody could believe in self-defence, but argue that a rifle with a 30 round magazine is "overkill," but that seems like a silly distinction to me. If you're justified in shooting an attacker, then I don't see why you're evil just because you have more cartridges left in the magazine when it's all over.

"And after they get done taking away all the assault weapons, do you really think they'll let you keep your sniper rifle?"

"It's not a sniper rifle! It's a deer rifle!"

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."

Another excellent point! If the subject comes up again, I'll see what he has to say to that.

NG VI
March 14, 2010, 05:06 PM
Deanimator and Coronach you guys are killing me.

Also, Deanimator, thanks for your long-term dedication to wading into these neccessary but tiresome arguments and debates with people, you've been doing it for over twenty years now haven't you (electronically)?

Deanimator
March 14, 2010, 05:28 PM
Also, Deanimator, thanks for your long-term dedication to wading into these neccessary but tiresome arguments and debates with people, you've been doing it for over twenty years now haven't you (electronically)?
Yep. I started on local BBSes, then FidoNet, then usenet, and now on the various message boards. Vern Humphrey was there from the start too.

You'll never win over the AHSA shills any more than you'll talk Ayman al Zawahiri into being a live and let live agnostic. What you CAN do is both refute their specious (and repetitive) "arguments" and point out their outright lies. It's possible to win over fence sitters and lurkers and it happens all the time. I've been seeing it for more than twenty years. Most people don't like being lied to or having their intelligence insulted with puerile garbage. What I ESPECIALLY love is when the AHSA types try to appeal to the imaginary racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia with they suppose permeate the pro-gun side. They actually seem astonished when they get backhanded for it. It's even more fun to rub individuals' noses in their various bigoted comments time after time. I use to put exact quotes of them in my signatures in usenet. It made blood spurt from their eyes, but there was literally nothing they could do about it. And that stuff REALLY makes an impression on the lurkers.

NG VI
March 14, 2010, 05:50 PM
Yes it does, thanks to Vern Humphrey as well then, I've seen you talk (write, whatever) about it before and it stuck with me.

kyfarmer58
March 16, 2010, 11:51 AM
For me i don't need a full spitter could't afford the ammo, but if my neighbor want's one with several case's of ammo. Now that would be ok by me. :D Then we could shoot together more often. ;) The ban was nothing but a power play to make the left happy. Banning feature's on gun's show's how uninformed and just plain stewpid! they are. Goal is and has always been total confiscation. Nothing else short of that would make them happy. :mad: O and howdy.

Officers'Wife
March 16, 2010, 12:12 PM
He was so shocked by the rifle’s firepower and accuracy with iron sights (apparently all his rifle shooting had been with scoped guns) that he decided that nobody should be able to own such a terrible thing.

It's a good thing he never saw my Grandfather shoot his old Winchester

thorn-
March 16, 2010, 12:26 PM
There is little to be gained in arguing that the 2A was written to protect one's right to launch a projectile. If you cede to that debate, you're merely opening yourself up to this line of counterpoint:

"So you're saying that you need a projectile launcher?"

"Yes, I need a 'tool' that does that".

"Well, then we won't outlaw slingshots."

Some arguments are just inherently wrong. A 90lb woman facing a 300lb knife-wielding attacker DOES need a means by which to potentially kill someone. There are many antis that will try to argue that is never the case - and they're just wrong. There's no need to try and sway them with a "projectile tool" argument. They're simply wrong, and semantics isn't going to be very effective... and on the rare occasion it IS effective, you're dealing with a fool whose support won't be worth much to you anyway.

thorn

jbrown50
March 16, 2010, 12:53 PM
The next time I meet a FUDD i'm gonna turn his name in to PETA so they can mail him a free vegetarian starter kit.

http://www.goveg.com/order.asp?c=pfvskvp09



PS: I'm still mad at them for converting Natalie Portman!!!!

buck460XVR
March 16, 2010, 01:47 PM
They not only don't own or shoot them, they don't think "regular folks" need those types of guns.


As long as they think that the government should not, nor anyone else, deny me the right to have them they're fine. I have friends that only like 1911s and those that only like FALs and others that only like shotguns and other that only like finely figured wood stocked rifles with brightly polished blued steel. Vive la différence!


I guess that's where I fit in.

I am not a LEO and I'm way too old for the military. I have no desire or no need for Tupperware guns, EBRs and high capacity mags. I shoot enough rounds with my revolvers, levers, bolt actions and 1911s. I hunt regularly, and target shoot approximately 500 rounds of centerfire ammo a month. I shoot sporting clays once a week. Altho I see no reason in 'ell that any civilian needs a 30 round mag(oh, before some start to whine, I know all about Armageddon and the masses of unstoppable zombies in the aftermath) or a doublestack handgun with a 19 + 1 capacity......I have no problem with those that feel that need, and I will support their right to own those types of weapons with a passion.


Sooooooooooo, what does that make me?

SwampWolf
March 16, 2010, 02:21 PM
Oh well. They were jerks in general, and we don't miss them one bit.

I sure hope you don't think all Bullseye shooters are jerks. ;) I've shot Bullseye competitively for most of the past four decades and can honestly say that some of the most fervent pro-gun people I've ever known were serious Bullseye shooters. If what you meant is that some people who participate in organized shooting events that aren't related to combat/self-defense type affairs have a distorted, parochial viewpoint as to which guns are okay and which guns are not, I couldn't agree more.
I used to shoot in a trap league where a few of the shooters would be just fine with a law that banned all firearms-except for bonafide trap guns. I've hunted with a couple of guys who believed that the Second Amendment only applies to them having the right to hunt the lower forty. And during my le career, I've known a few cops who think there's a difference between the firearm rights afforded the police and that of the "public".
Thankfully, the "Fudds" I've met have generally been the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, though, the exceptions are like bad apples-they tend to ruin it for the rest of us. I have no use whatsoever for a shooter/hunter who has this pick-and-choose mindset and I make it my business to call them out on it whenever I encounter it.
The shooting/hunting community needs to prioritize the things that unite us and purge the issues that (supposedly) divide us. We need to remember that we're all in the same boat and when it takes on water, you don't shoot holes in the boat to get rid of the water. You bail in unison.

huntsman
March 16, 2010, 03:15 PM
I guess that's where I fit in.

I am not a LEO and I'm way too old for the military. I have no desire or no need for Tupperware guns, EBRs and high capacity mags. I shoot enough rounds with my revolvers, levers, bolt actions and 1911s. I hunt regularly, and target shoot approximately 500 rounds of centerfire ammo a month. I shoot sporting clays once a week. Altho I see no reason in 'ell that any civilian needs a 30 round mag(oh, before some start to whine, I know all about Armageddon and the masses of unstoppable zombies in the aftermath) or a doublestack handgun with a 19 + 1 capacity......I have no problem with those that feel that need, and I will support their right to own those types of weapons with a passion.


Sooooooooooo, what does that make me?
spot on. And in the majority of gun owners.

BullfrogKen
March 16, 2010, 05:38 PM
I sure hope you don't think all Bullseye shooters are jerks.

No, there were one or two gentlemen among them. ;)


The problem just wasn't with our club's chapter; it extended to the entire league. I can tell you some real horror stories. A disagreement during one match ended in an actual fistfight. But all those stories are beside the point.

They had allowed jerks within their midst. I think that it forced decent guys to simply find something else to do, and encouraged other jerks to join them.

Let's face it, we spend time around people who think link us. The concept that the mother of a murder has abour her little boy as an angel who was corrupted by his friends into becoming a bad person isn't true. He sought out those sort of people to hang around with, because he wanted to be around them.



These folks were not nice people. They weren't nice to each other, and they certainly had no respect at all for the rest of our members. In fact, they held many of them in contempt. These weren't one or two bad apples. The problem was endemic in their league, and the President of the league knew it.

I'm glad you have good people in yours. They didn't.

SwampWolf
March 16, 2010, 05:59 PM
I guess all I'm saying is that having jerks in the midst is not a problem unique to Bullseye shooters (and I still don't think you were saying that). I've seen plenty of jerks in other shooting endeavors and I suppose it's possible that the bad apples can outnumber the good apples, as was the case in your situation.

Werewolf
March 16, 2010, 06:04 PM
I am not a LEO and I'm way too old for the military. I have no desire or no need for Tupperware guns, EBRs and high capacity mags. I shoot enough rounds with my revolvers, levers, bolt actions and 1911s. I hunt regularly, and target shoot approximately 500 rounds of centerfire ammo a month. I shoot sporting clays once a week. Altho I see no reason in 'ell that any civilian needs a 30 round mag(oh, before some start to whine, I know all about Armageddon and the masses of unstoppable zombies in the aftermath) or a doublestack handgun with a 19 + 1 capacity......I have no problem with those that feel that need, and I will support their right to own those types of weapons with a passion.


Sooooooooooo, what does that make me? Ummmm....

A libertarian anti??? ;)

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 16, 2010, 06:04 PM
there needs to be a new term for either people that think that all new "tactical" guns should be banned and those who just don't like them.

SwampWolf
March 16, 2010, 06:39 PM
Fudd and Fudd's evil twin, Fuddenstein. :evil:

benEzra
March 16, 2010, 07:05 PM
side note.. an AR-15 can actually be a full-auto...
Honda Civics can be 200-mph race cars, too. The vast, overwhelming majority aren't, though.

So the AK was designed to put lots of bullets out there pretty quickly.
I agree... it was not designed with a "sporting purpose" in mind.
Bolt-action rifles weren't designed with sporting purposes in mind, either. Neither was the .30-06 cartridge.

"And after they get done taking away all the assault weapons, do you really think they'll let you keep your sniper rifle?"

"It's not a sniper rifle! It's a deer rifle!"

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."
Exactly. Top photo, Winchester Model 70 in .30-06; bottom photo, Remington Model 700 in 7.62x51mm NATO/.308.

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/usweapons/sniperrifletmacsmall.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/M24_SWS.jpg

NG VI
March 16, 2010, 07:07 PM
I am not a LEO and I'm way too old for the military. I have no desire or no need for Tupperware guns, EBRs and high capacity mags. I shoot enough rounds with my revolvers, levers, bolt actions and 1911s.
doublestack handgun with a 19 + 1 capacity......I have no problem with those that feel that need, and I will support their right to own those types of weapons with a passion.


Careful, your 1911s are machine guns according to anti-gun people, regardless of what it actually is. A "hair-triggered death machine known for its ability to quickly and accurately deliver a bullet into a target" or something.

And most guns aren't designed around a capacity, they are designed and the capacity is whatever works with the geometry the designer has in the grip.

Hatterasguy
March 16, 2010, 07:42 PM
A couple of the guys than hang out in our group are very liberal anti gun types. They are cool and over the years have started to come around. Now they want to go shooting, and one told me to call him if I find a good deal on a Garand.

Most liberals can be turned to pro gun after listening to Pat Buchanan or his ilk for a bit.:D

Deanimator
March 16, 2010, 07:56 PM
Most liberals can be turned to pro gun after listening to Pat Buchanan or his ilk for a bit.
Warren Zevon works faster.

Hatterasguy
March 16, 2010, 08:02 PM
True, he works even better.:D

huntsman
March 16, 2010, 11:22 PM
They weren't nice to each other, and they certainly had no respect at all for the rest of our members. In fact, they held many of them in contempt.

Did they call others Fudds?

shotgunjoel
March 16, 2010, 11:27 PM
Sadly here in Central Illinois farm country Fudds are about half of the gun owners. It's not hard to find guys opposed to handguns around here that shoot skeet every weekend. They see their discipline of shooting to be the only legitimate reason for gun ownership. Sad.

BullfrogKen
March 17, 2010, 12:20 AM
Did they call others Fudds?

No, they were a spite more mean-spirited than that.


And I wouldn't exactly call those fellows fudds, either. What they were the language filter won't allow me to type.

berettaprofessor
March 17, 2010, 08:47 AM
A small side step, I find it difficult to understand how PETA etc. who wants to ban hunting. One who do they think pays to manage the wild life? Its all done at least around here with hunting fees

This statement by Mt. Shooter is from the first page, and I'm late to the game, but (sorry Mt. Shooter) it's a great example of not understanding the other side's argument.

PETA, FYI, doesn't really want anybody to manage the wildlife...they don't even want humans on the planet. We're the scourge of nature.

Now do you get it?

oneounceload
March 17, 2010, 10:17 AM
PETA, FYI, doesn't really want anybody to manage the wildlife

To PETA, a rat is a dog is a child - all one and the same. Interesting how they were busted last year (IIRC) euthanizing a large number of dogs entrusted to their care and dumping the bodies in the dumpster.

The anti's scheme has always been to "divide and conquer". If they can get a small portion to go along with outlawing one type, then they'll go after the next.

The old poem:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Substitute a different type of gun owner in each stanza

PershingRiflesC-7
March 17, 2010, 12:04 PM
I've heard that Jim Zumbo is not a fudd anymore.

Not all fools are stupid.
Zumbo required the equivalent of a slap upside of his head in the form of being fired from his column in order to recover his senses about EBRs. Nothing quite gets a man's attention like reaching for his wallet.

MD_Willington
March 18, 2010, 01:58 AM
A scoped hunting rifle in trained hands is better suited to long range killing than my podunk AK...

Remind your buddy that when all the "Assault Rifles" are gone, that his scoped hunting rifles are next simply because those will be called "Sniper Rifles" & that the rounds they fire can likely defeat body armor.

If you enjoyed reading about "My First Encounter with a "Fudd"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!