Do you know what a FUDD is?Do we have many


PDA






gym
February 26, 2014, 05:39 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd
I never looked up the proper definition of one before, kind of interesting category.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you know what a FUDD is?Do we have many" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Macchina
February 26, 2014, 06:21 PM
You can identify a Fudd by his laugh...

Sam1911
February 26, 2014, 07:19 PM
Yeah, we've had the "FUDD" talk a number of times here. It is an ugly and divisive word that we ask members not to toss around here lightly. We need to work on bringing our community together, not finding ways to marginalize each other.

Skribs
February 26, 2014, 07:35 PM
Yeah, we've had the "FUDD" talk a number of times here. It is an ugly and divisive word that we ask members not to toss around here lightly. We need to work on bringing our community together, not finding ways to marginalize each other.

The only two definitions on the UD link relating to Fudd are people who agree with the "I support 2A, but" rhetoric and who say, "I'm a gun owner, but I'm fine with giving up these things that have no legitimate sporting purpose." While I will agree with you that we shouldn't use derogatory names, I think the person who says "sure, I'll give up my high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun" is more divisive than someone like you or I.

hso
February 26, 2014, 07:47 PM
Skribs,

Our problem with the term is the two fold. Too many members here were too casual in tossing it around and applied to people who were only "Meh, I'm a blue and wood guy" as opposed to the sort that fit the UD definition. The other was related to that sloppy use splashing mud on the undeserving, people that were 2A supporters, but not "black gun" enthusiasts were tired of being lumped in with true "Flannel Antis". In one sense there was an element here just as bigoted and narrow minded willing to throw the traditional firearms folks out of our house and under the bus as the real FUDDs were willing to throw the black gun guys under the bus.

When our members use trite caricatures sloppily we end up with a divided community.

barnbwt
February 26, 2014, 07:50 PM
I rather think there are fewer Fudds than ever, and more active and informed gunnies, than ever, but we still have a ways to go seeing how often the "I agree, but" line still gets trotted out. At this point, I mostly think it's the anti's posturing to eachother so they feel more legitimate and less tyrannical in their ambitions, and that our biggest threat comes from apathetic or uninformed gun owners staying home at the polls, rather than misguided fools who actively support measures limiting their own freedom.

TCB

oneounceload
February 26, 2014, 08:20 PM
And that term is totally false as many of us who use our guns for fun and sporting purposes are FAR more active in 2A cases than most mall ninja, camo wearing, video commando wannabees...........

Just sayin'.....

Be careful who you try to insult, they may be the ones keeping you out of jail one day

vamo
February 26, 2014, 09:18 PM
And that term is totally false as many of us who use our guns for fun and sporting purposes are FAR more active in 2A cases than most mall ninja, camo wearing, video commando wannabees...........

Just sayin'.....

Be careful who you try to insult, they may be the ones keeping you out of jail one day


If you are truly supportive of the 2nd amendment then you aren't the target of the word Fudd. When I use it I am exclusively referring to "sportsman" who support or are apathetic toward gun control measures that don't affect their interest. I am not just referring to hunters or people who only own sporting firearms for that matter. If you don't own anything that takes a standard magazine, but don't want to limit my ability to own one then you aren't a Fudd in my book.

76shuvlinoff
February 26, 2014, 09:39 PM
I don't hunt. I have a deep deep affinity for levers, I think a reliable shotgun is nearly a perfect firearm. Been known to have a revolver or two. I think a 1911 is the cat's ass. I also have so called "Tupperware" sidearms and a AR15.

I love em all and I don't owe an explanation for any. IMHO anyone who thinks their particular choice has more legitimacy or relevancy over another is just as guilty of Fuddism as anyone that thinks it's somehow ok to round any of them up.



.

medalguy
February 26, 2014, 09:57 PM
Oh I don't really totally agree with that re who is a FUDD. Personally I don't care for Tupperware but if someone else does, go for it. More power to you. I prefer walnut and blued steel but that's just me. HOWEVER, do NOT tell me that your double barrel shotgun is all anyone needs for hunting as well as home defense. To my way of thinking, that constitutes a FUDD.

I have a couple of friends who unfortunately fall into this category, and despite everything I tell them, their opinions have not changed. BTW both are well into their 70's and I don't really expect them to change. Old dogs and all that.....

Both believe that my revolvers, black guns, and military surplus guns are rather unnecessary in this world, and they will just use their shotguns thank you ma'am. I haven't discussed owning any machine guns with them.....yet.

But back to the OP's question, I believe there are quite a few of these fellows out there, and we need to talk to those who will listen, and try to bring them around to the belief that every gun, regardless of type, color, or prior experience, is equally deserving of protection under the Second Amendment.

heycods
February 26, 2014, 10:02 PM
blue steel and walnut guy here, avid 2nd supporter. Realitively new to the forum, Never herd the term Fudd? First thing pops in my mind is Elmer Fudd loved to hunt wascally wabbits. I would love to hear a clear definition.

Tony k
February 26, 2014, 10:04 PM
Vamo Said:
When I use it I am exclusively referring to "sportsman" who support or are apathetic toward gun control measures that don't affect their interest.

That described my attitude right up to the point where wannabe tyrants started using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an excuse for a gun grab. I was disgusted by the ignorant, bombastic rhetoric, which really got me thinking. Prior to that, I really never thought about the real intent of the 2A.

My primary interest in firearms is still their usefulness for getting food. However, I now consider bearing arms for purposes of hunting to be a priveledge, whereas I consider bearing arms for defense against agressors and would-be tyrants as a fundamental human right.

In other words, Sandy Hook took the Fudd out of me. I never really considered how using the word could be divisive. I guess it kind of is...

WestKentucky
February 26, 2014, 10:09 PM
Each gun has a place. This is no different than guitars, sportscars, and baseball cards EXCEPT it has an old piece or parchiament to back it up. Just like with "gear heads" there are ford guys Chevy guys, Harley guys, Japanese bike guys, and plenty others. There are in the gun world hangun guys shotgun guys rifle guys...reloaders and ammo shelf customers....old school new school tactical and tacticool. Let's call this our big gun-loving family. All family's are a bit dysfunctional, let's not make ours more so than it already is. Whether a person is a staunch supporter of 2A or not doesn't give us right to judge. The fact that people are here unites us enough, and I honestly believe that when push comes to shove, a "Fudd" will fall on "our side" of the fence.

HammsBeer
February 26, 2014, 10:13 PM
heycods, the image of Elmer Fudd is exactly where the term 'fudd' came from. The general image of a flannel wearing shotgun toting guy who hunts, and thinks any other type of firearms (especially black polymer types) are impractical and should be rigidly regulated or banned.

There have been some sportsmans groups that have thrown other gun groups under the bus to get exceptions for their sport. "As long as I can keep my shotgun, they can go after the AR15's and Glocks" kind of attitude. Little do they know that after they are done taking the AR15's and Glocks, the shotguns are next.

miner49er
February 26, 2014, 10:22 PM
Never trust anyone who doesn't like firearms...
and I like what WestKentucky said. every gun is cool to someone
I never met a gun I didn't like.

DoubleTapDrew
February 26, 2014, 11:09 PM
I once asked my grandpa (about 90 at the time) on his thoughts about AK-47s and AR-15s and he didn't feel anyone needs that many rounds for anything other than mayhem, so I guess he fit the definition of a Fudd. However he did load up several 5rd mags for his semi-auto deer rifle when we'd go hunt. He was definitely a good shot so it probably wasn't needed often.
Sadly I didn't have enough time with him to try and sway him towards the potential uses of these rifles before he passed. He was a patriot and knew the value of self-defense, having a CCW license and willing to defend himself and his loved ones if the need arises.
Remember these folks are the most likely "fence sitters" that will come to our side if you just talk to them about why you like modern rifles & handguns. Don't ostracize them, educate them. Heck invite them shooting. Even if you don't get them to try an AR or AK at least you get to go shoot! Guns are fun, whether an antique or a super modern blaster, it's something you have in common right away.

Dave P.
February 26, 2014, 11:44 PM
I've been called a fudd because I don't support long gun open carry.
Oh well.....
Dave

AlexanderA
February 27, 2014, 12:23 AM
I think that the vast majority of the blued-steel-and-polished-wood guys, the "sportsmen," have come to realize that if we don't all hang together, we'll hang separately. The antis have made it pretty clear that they'll eventually go after "sniper rifles" AKA scoped hunting rifles. And even pump action shotguns have been banned in places like Australia. No, the ultimate goal of the antis is complete disarmament, and a gun owner (of any stripe) would be blind not to see that.

Skribs, earlier in the thread, defined a Fudd as someone who would say, "sure, I'll give up my high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." It's a bit more complicated than that. First, such a person would more likely say, "I'll give up your high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." And secondly, I wouldn't call such a hypocritical person a "Fudd" so much as I would call him simply an anti-gunner wearing flannel clothing.

glocking26
February 27, 2014, 06:01 AM
Bill Ruger was a fudd.

Sam1911
February 27, 2014, 08:18 AM
It is also, at the most basic level, simply a sloppy, lazy way of vilifying someone or something, as is all name-calling. Like railing against "liberals," it is imprecise, and insulting/offputting without being narrowly targeted toward the thing you actually want to work against.

Our enemy isn't the grandpa, the guy who likes flannel, the guy who loves his Model 70. Heck we kind of love and cherish that guy as part of our community's shared culture. We don't appreciate a certain kind of behavior. And we should be so specific.

This is just like railing against "liberals." Our enemy isn't the gay guy, or the lady who feels that the state should provide more health care, or someone who feels we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, or who doesn't want "intelligent design" taught in the local schools -- or whatever other "liberal" ideas you might pick. Our enemy is the guy who promotes GUN CONTROL. Railing against "liberals" alienates and sweeps up and puts on the defensive a whole lot of folks who have no beef with our cause.

So, be precise and specific -- not lazy.

Ryanxia
February 27, 2014, 08:39 AM
I think with this latest gun control push and the power of information spread online that are far fewer "FUDD's" than previously. I remember in January/February 2013 many hunters or wood-only guys coming into our LGS wanting to get an AR15 'while they still could'.

Whether it's your favorite platform or not doesn't matter, but there are a lot of angry people coming together, finally recognizing that THEIR Rights are in just as much jeopardy as the rest of us. I think the time of thinking that the anti's/government would stop when they got just one more thing is over.

Outlaw Man
February 27, 2014, 08:46 AM
I think the outcome of the policy against black rifles at the Eastern Outdoors and Sports show is proof enough that we should be careful with that term. Everyone came together, including those who often get mislabeled as Fudds. Look at the strictly hunting/conservation-only groups (NWTF, RMEF, etc.) who had ZERO reason to protect black guns other than a common Right. They all pulled their support from the show and stood with the others.

We should never stop educating and trying to reach others, but I see that as one of the most positive moments in gun politics in several decades. I think the average sportsman is starting to realize the true agenda of the antis.

huntsman
February 27, 2014, 09:15 AM
HOWEVER, do NOT tell me that your double barrel shotgun is all anyone needs for hunting as well as home defense. To my way of thinking, that constitutes a FUDD.

Well it's all I need, but what I need or believe someone else needs is irrelevant, what counts is how one votes or the fact they vote at all when it comes to RKBA. The rest is just talk and posturing.

sugerwater
February 27, 2014, 09:44 AM
Anti-gun tactic to split the ranks of gun owners. Reminds me of uncle Joe and his double barrel.

jrdolall
February 27, 2014, 09:52 AM
We live in a society that has very little understanding of the difference between wants and needs. I own well over 100 guns from 22 revolvers up to an AR-10 and a whole bunch in between. I don't own all these guns because I "need" them. I own them because I want them and I live in a country that, today at least, allows me to own them.

I don't know ANY of the guys on this forum personally but I bet the number that actually NEED an AR-15 is about .002%. Let's face it, the old single shot 22 or 20g is enough to do pretty much anything we NEED to do. I deer hunt and all I really need for that is a 50 cal black powder rifle or even a bow. I don't need the 5 rounds that go in my 30-06 or the 30 rounds in my AR.

The problem arises when we think our way is the only way. That stick is sharp on both ends. When a person, or a group of people, start to think that they have the answers and that they know better than the Constitution then I have a problem. I believe it says we have the right to own guns and I exercise that right. It also says YOU have the right to run your mouth about something I disagree with so I have to respect that Right even if I want to bash you in the nose.

I don't use the term. There are ignorant people in every group including gun owners. We can try to change their point of view or we can ostracize them.

200Apples
February 27, 2014, 09:59 AM
.
Heh. Coming directly from the somewhat narrow definitions linked in urban dot dictionary, I qualify as a Fudd in that of 12 firearms, only one is black, and that is a parkerized 1911.

I own no "assault" rifles of any kind; everything I have with the exception noted above consists of blued steel and walnut. That is, for another 4 to 6 weeks when I take possession of a DSA SA58 (the "first" black rifle - the Right Arm of the Free World).

I'll still be a Fudd even then, I suppose. It's my mindset. Hee!


:-)

buck460XVR
February 27, 2014, 10:18 AM
Yeah, we've had the "FUDD" talk a number of times here. It is an ugly and divisive word that we ask members not to toss around here lightly. We need to work on bringing our community together, not finding ways to marginalize each other.

^^^ I gotta agree with Sam. I consider the term "FUDD" similar to the term so popular in the biker community a few years back....."RUB". Same belittling connotation used mostly by folks on internet forums in a vain attempt to display some kind of superiority over others in the sport.

Wasn't that many years ago that the majority of gun owners in America owned guns primarily for hunting and the shooting sports and had little or no worry of their second amendment rights. One reason when bans on fully automatic firearms, sawed off shotguns and buying firearms thru the mail were passed, there was little or no resistance. This whole idea that every person in the country NEEDS at least a dozen firearms for protection and that there is a clandestine government conspiracy to confiscate every firearm owned by private citizens is fairly recent. In my opinion, if you willingly own a firearm, you support the second amendment just like owning a motorcycle supports the right of two wheels on the road. While there may be varying degrees of ownership and use, the mere ownership is a sign that you agree. Casual gun owners and those neutral to gun ownership make up a very big part of the population in this country. These are the folks we need to continue to befriend to help support our cause. To drive them away by third grader actions like name calling and belittling does nuttin' but hurt our cause.

jbrown50
February 27, 2014, 10:30 AM
I think the biggest problem with so called Fudds is that they don't know or care what the the true meaning of compromise is. You don't have to be a double barrel walnut stock blue steel shotgun guy in order to be a Fudd type. You just have to be one of those selfish cowards who thinks that "maybe if I just give them this they'll go away and let me keep what's important to ME".

Our rights have been erroded over the years by incrementalism not compromise. Saying that I'll take this class of firearm but I won't take that class of firearm isn't compromise. It's decrease. Compromise is giving up something but getting something of equal or greater value in return. The anti-gun crowd wants to make it illegal for ordinary citizens to own all firearms, period, so their interpretation of "compromise" will always be piecemeal decreases to our right to possess and own firearms......any firearms.

Tirod
February 27, 2014, 11:07 AM
The irony of "Elmer Fudd" is that he shoots like he's got a military sporting rifle. Have you counted the number of rounds in the tube magazine of that thing he totes? Goes on forever like a Hollywood gun.

Dudes, he's blasting away at everything, seems to be completely ignorant of the Rules of Safety, which is a frequent tag line for a visual joke. Plus he's entirely capable of pellet level control of every shot - if it's part of the plot.

That's where the public who started applying it to traditional gun shooters twisted the blade when they came up with it. It's entirely bass ackward to the legions of traditional shooters and their overall habits. These are the guys who have repeatedly come down on the side of being economical with their shots, and exercising safety. They make up a lot of the age group of NRA instructors who teach us.

Calling them "Fudds" was deliberately demeaning and inaccurate.

Now, the real issue is what should we call firearms users who dislike the efforts needed to protect our rights, and dislike modern military sporting arms? Since "Fudd" is inaccurate and demeaning, what would be accurate?

Of course, it will still characterize their apathetic and narrow minded selfish views.

Confederate? Not by today's interpretation.

Quisling? Vague historical reference most public school attendees won't understand.

Vichy? Same.

Fraternizer? Nope, off base, sounds like a college party head.

Colluder? Again, too vague.

Sympathizer? Nope, they don't, they just make excuses to get along.

Fifth columnist? Too active a role, it implies they know what they are doing.

Traitor? Again, up front choice and it's not where they are coming from.

Double agent? Still misses the point above.

It's not easy - the better ones tend to pick up a reference to a particular individual that represents the behavior in a publicly notorious way. As said, "Fudd" isn't really that - if anything, I'd put him up as a caricature of the MSR owner, not the traditional sporting arms user. :evil: (and yes, I are one.)

So, who do you nominate as the better example of someone who works against the very things that actually protect them? Who ignorantly assumes they just need to get along and it's in our best interest?

Why even bother? Because they need to be confronted about it. They are Loyalists in a time when Patriotism is under attack, and defining who they are makes it obvious to them. At the very least, in the worst case, it chills their free speech. Too bad. If the public castigation of their defenseless views is too much, then maybe they need to rethink it - or even think about it for the first time. Push comes to shove will be too late, the damage is already done, and we can thank the weak useless voters of certain Coastal States for the problems we now face due to their lack of backbone.

Elmer Fudd isn't a spineless wishy washy voter who let his public servants walk all over his rights. Ol' Elmer would be front and center with his shotgun blasting away. Not what we yet need. And not what we should be calling the "collaborateurs" who enable the gun snatchers entry into office.

"Chamberlains" is too much connected to basketball.

"Nevillians" is likely too obscure a reference.

Any connections to a recent senator shot in the head evokes too much sympathy. Bad press, that.

Your suggestions?

hso
February 27, 2014, 12:49 PM
Collaborator would fit nicely. Even the uneducated would be able to look it up.

GoWolfpack
February 27, 2014, 12:52 PM
Sure do, it's anyone who believes in taking away my freedom to make himself feel better.

This place can get thick with them sometimes. But we can find enough common ground to fight off Bloomberg, Pelosi and Cuomo, and for now that's good enough for me.

goon
February 27, 2014, 12:56 PM
Nothing wrong with someone who is into blued steel and fine walnut.

I have to admit that when I look at finely fitted gun I also really appreciate the craftsmanship. If you're into that and just have no personal use for a Glock or AK, but wouldn't want to see others restricted from owning them, I can understand that.

The issue I'd have are with those who'd throw us under the bus as long as they can keep their "hunting" guns. Those people are divisive.

Having said that, the name-calling I've engaged in the past by calling them "Fudds" probably isn't helpful. I'll try to refrain from it from now on.

W.E.G.
February 27, 2014, 01:33 PM
I'm a "tactical Fudd."

Be vewy, vewy, quiet.... I'm hunting zombies.

deadin
February 27, 2014, 03:32 PM
Before you start calling some folks "FUDDS" ask yourself this question....
Would you give up their shotguns and hunting rifles to, say, have the Registry abolished? Think about it....... :evil:

barnbwt
February 27, 2014, 09:54 PM
Gladly, since that would never happen in any conceivable scenario. ;)

TCB

JSH1
February 27, 2014, 10:18 PM
I think the biggest problem with so called Fudds is that they don't know or care what the the true meaning of compromise is. You don't have to be a double barrel walnut stock blue steel shotgun guy in order to be a Fudd type. You just have to be one of those selfish cowards who thinks that "maybe if I just give them this they'll go away and let me keep what's important to ME".

Not understanding the meaning of compromise is a problem on both sides. It is my main issue with the NRA. The current NRA fights everything related to gun laws including things that they supported as sensible not to long ago. Both sides seem to think they can get their way without giving up anything. In fact they won't even sit a the same table anymore. Universal background checks are a good example. I see UBC as sensible and I'm not afraid of them leading to confiscation. UBC could be part of a compromise to win on some other issues such a suppressors, nationwide reciprocal concealed carry , or returning gun rights to felons. You won't get support on this type of compromise from 10-15% on either side but you could make a deal with those in the middle.

Baba Louie
February 27, 2014, 11:33 PM
FUDD never got the wabbit or the duck and was oft-times befuddled, a sorry state of affairs to be the laughing stock of a smart aleck hare and wacky maniacal waterfowl. There's a parallel there somewhere concerning firearms ownership being targeted as less than "normal" perhaps, but I don't want to take the time to flesh out that thought process.

Loved his hat tho. ;)

I have been called a Fudd before as I prefer lever actions, bolt actions, O/U and revolvers to the newer self loading variety of firesticks. Did I cry myself to sleep that night? :rolleyes:

Do you know there are guys (and gals supposedly) that prefer to shoot muzzle loading black powder firesticks?! :eek: :D

Speaking of which, a good friend of mine asked me this morning about borrowing a muzzleloader so he can try to get an elk tag for that season next year...(me to him, "You mean you really don't own at least one?!?!" :p)

vamo
February 27, 2014, 11:43 PM
Before you start calling some folks "FUDDS" ask yourself this question....
Would you give up their shotguns and hunting rifles to, say, have the Registry abolished? Think about it.......

A bit of a pointless question. If everything thats tactical/tacticool is legal then of course all the fudd weapons will be legal too.

goon
February 27, 2014, 11:55 PM
I see UBC as sensible and I'm not afraid of them leading to confiscation. UBC could be part of a compromise to win on some other issues such a suppressors, nationwide reciprocal concealed carry , or returning gun rights to felons. You won't get support on this type of compromise from 10-15% on either side but you could make a deal with those in the middle.

Not sure I'd support UBC on principle, but given how a discussion on here went last week, I'm inclined to think it could be good for CYA reasons. Ain't nobody going to step up for you if you accidentally sell a gun to a criminal in a private sale. I'd expect the opposite - other gun owners will line up with their pitchforks and torches and attack you vehemently for making private sales look bad.

I could almost be convinced that some kind of training or familiarization should be required. There are a lot of new gun owners who are just fine - responsible veterans of recent conflicts who know how to handle a firearm responsibly. But I think there are just as many trying to learn tactile firearms skills from a paper instruction manual. Not so good.


A bit of a pointless question. If everything thats tactical/tacticool is legal then of course all the fudd weapons will be legal too.

You could argue that a human being has the right to hunt and forage for food to sustain his or her own survival. I'd say that's a natural right that doesn't need to be codified to be valid, but I'm not sure the law would see it that way.
The RKBA was written to ensure the People would be able to resist tyranny. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to cover owning weapons in common use for the purpose of self-defense.
But no one's said anything about hunting.

So is your goose gun protected under the Second Amendment?

Skribs
February 28, 2014, 12:17 AM
If you want to run a background check, you should have that prerogative, not mandated.

If all violent criminals were locked up like they should be, background checks wouldn't be needed.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 12:54 AM
Not understanding the meaning of compromise is a problem on both sides. It is my main issue with the NRA. The current NRA fights everything related to gun laws including things that they supported as sensible not to long ago. Both sides seem to think they can get their way without giving up anything. In fact they won't even sit a the same table anymore. Universal background checks are a good example. I see UBC as sensible and I'm not afraid of them leading to confiscation. UBC could be part of a compromise to win on some other issues such a suppressors, nationwide reciprocal concealed carry , or returning gun rights to felons. You won't get support on this type of compromise from 10-15% on either side but you could make a deal with those in the middle.
UBCs by themselves are not a problem, and may even be a useful tool. But they do not exist alone. Once we have them, the next school or mall shooting will bring the cries that UBCs are ineffective and we need more effective measures to make UBCs really work. We need a universal registry of all firearms and owners. And then when the next shooting occurs, they will know where to go to confiscate all the guns.

So OK, we compromise on UBCs. What do the get in return? I want a new amendment to the Constitution that immunizes firearms from commerce regulation and prohibits a firearms registry of any kind. Put that on the table and we can talk about UBCs.

Cee Zee
February 28, 2014, 01:20 AM
I don't think we do ourselves real good by using bombastic characterizations of people. Do I know people that think no one needs a 30 round mag for a rifle? Absolutely. It's sometimes people that should know better. One in particular is the son of the woman who taught me a great deal about the history of this country and the role of the amendments in our governance. His mother was a history teacher where I went to school. But after Sandy Hook him and a buddy "sat on bar stools" for hours one night and came to the conclusion that "assault rifles" were far too destructive for ordinary people. When I pointed out that it was handguns that were the main weapon of choice in mass shootings it didn't sink in whatsoever. When I told him that a WWII rifle was every bit as destructive if not more destructive in the hands of a knowledgeable shooter he couldn't understand that. How anyone doesn't understand that a semi-auto 30.06 that can be reloaded quickly from stripper clips can be very, very destructive just baffles me. This guy grew up a hillbilly like me too. I used to go frogging with his dad 3 times a week and we never once went without at least one handgun among us. This guy is almost my age too.

I think arrogance got the better of him actually. I know him and his brother both became liberal in many ways but I never dreamed he would turn his back on the true American culture considering how he was raised. He was a department store security guy for years. Maybe that affected his views. Some people who think they are part of the law enforcement brigade will get it in their head that only other LEO's need weapons. I think that comes from fear actually.

Our discussion quickly led him to avoid me completely. Apparently he thought his drunken thought process was superior to all else including the entire history of this nation. I tried explaining that guns were actually intended to protect us from an oppressive government. He responded that it would be crazy to stand up against a tank or an attack helicopter with a rifle. When I pointed out how the Battle Of The Bulge was largely won by men with rifles and various small weapons fighting tanks it didn't matter. When I explained that most military types would never fire on our own citizens he didn't believe that. When I explained that even the Russians didn't do that he still dug in his heels.

That guy is a genuine "FUDD". But I don't like using pejorative terms like that. I prefer trying to reason with people but often it just makes them think they're "just as smart as me" even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. I've seen that many times from various people but those who should know better when it comes to guns really gripe my rear. Fear, lack of courage, willingness to become a slave to the government, etc. all drive some people in that category. I'm 99% sure that's what drove his thinking. With citizens like him around this nation doesn't stand a chance IMO. I could go into other areas he is sadly mistaken about but it would be off topic. For example the reasons his labor value is a direct result of a single act by the government but I'd never get him to understand that. Some people are just ok with being slaves I guess. So what if there's always someone willing to work cheaper in this country now. And when our teeth get pulled so we can't bite back things will get worse in a big hurry. Some people, that should know better, just don't know better. Fudd is a mild way to describe them IMO. But that's how gun grabbers operate. I think we reach more people by reasoning with them.

Skribs
February 28, 2014, 01:28 AM
So OK, we compromise on UBCs. What do the get in return? I want a new amendment to the Constitution that immunizes firearms from commerce regulation and prohibits a firearms registry of any kind. Put that on the table and we can talk about UBCs.

How about an amendment to the constitution that prevents the right to bear arms from being infringed at all? Oh wait...

goon
February 28, 2014, 01:51 AM
So OK, we compromise on UBCs. What do the get in return? I want a new amendment to the Constitution that immunizes firearms from commerce regulation and prohibits a firearms registry of any kind. Put that on the table and we can talk about UBCs.

While we're at it, I suggest we also push for the elimination of the NFA or at least pushing to reopen the registry, get suppressors off the list, and either remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns entirely or reset the minimum barrel length to around 10".

Like you, I'm of the opinion that compromise may not always be bad, but it's certainly always bad the way we've been doing it. Instead of just point-blank refusing to talk, we should push for some stuff we want and at least see how it shakes out.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 02:11 AM
While we're at it, I suggest we also push for the elimination of the NFA or at least pushing to reopen the registry, get suppressors off the list, and either remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns entirely or reset the minimum barrel length to around 10".

Take firearms out from under the Commerce clause and a lot of existing regulations will disappear. Probably all at the federal level would go, including the NFA.

JSH1
February 28, 2014, 07:26 AM
The purpose of my comment wasn't to discuss any individual issue. Different people have different ideas on the issues. My point is that too many people seem to think that compromise is getting almost everything they want while the other guy gets nothing he wants. We have WAY too much of this type of thought on both sides in Washington and it leads to gridlock. Instead of working things out they retreat to talking points and concentrate on the next election hoping to take complete control.

oneounceload
February 28, 2014, 07:43 AM
My point is that too many people seem to think that compromise is getting almost everything they want while the other guy gets nothing he wants.

That is called Soviet-style negotiation tactics. They were famous for that. Not only did they HAVE to win, you HAD to lose. There was no win-win scenario. The antis are using that, in conjunction with the MSM with all of their "common sense" regulations where we get nothing, they get everything.

GoWolfpack
February 28, 2014, 08:14 AM
Why should I compromise when the rights you want me to give away are supposed to be completely protected by the constitution?

What sense does it make for me to agree to unconstitutional restrictions on some of my constitutionally-protected rights in order to have unconstitutional restrictions lifted from some of other constititionally-protected rights?


The antis are the ones who are violating the Constitution, not me. I will not condone violations of the Constitution.

HexHead
February 28, 2014, 08:47 AM
My definition of a FUDD is one who doesn't care if the government was to ban certain magazines or semi-automatic rifles as long as they leave his shotgun alone. They deserve derision, even if members here. In their misguided view, the 2nd amendment has something to do with sport shooting or hunting.They are at least as much a threat to us as the antis, as they are akin to collaborators that aid an occupying army.

HexHead
February 28, 2014, 08:52 AM
That is called Soviet-style negotiation tactics. They were famous for that. Not only did they HAVE to win, you HAD to lose. There was no win-win scenario. The antis are using that, in conjunction with the MSM with all of their "common sense" regulations where we get nothing, they get everything.

Of course they do. "Liberals" are just the PC term for socialists at best and closer to being communists.

Tirod
February 28, 2014, 09:22 AM
We keep specifying that Fudds have shotguns. Is that accurate? Or, does it subliminally suggest someone who uses one to hunt, shoot, and tends to be economically ranked above "middle class?"

I've met a lot of fine people who shoot skeet, trap, and who duck hunt, but, no, I wouldn't be invited to their house for supper. We aren't in the same socio-political demographic. They can afford to process a lot of shells weekly, I can afford to sight in yearly for deer hunting. They drive much newer cars, I keep old wrecks on the road past their prime. It's all about cash flow - they have much more than I do. If I put $1,000 into a firearm, it's because I sold off some collectible knives and turned the cash into AR15 parts. They would simply swipe their credit card and then pay it off at the end of the month.

That's another element of the "Fudd" disparagement - it's really an economic us vs. them comparison which attempts to describe them in unflattering terms. Old Elmer was just a guy out hunting, not a yacht boy or sports car racer on tour. He doesn't apparently own rental properties and shoots to take up time in his leisurely work week living off all the rents. Elmer would be horribly out of place visiting Downton Abbey, where shotguns are the only firearm.

But, one element that seems crystal clear to me is that "Fudds" believe they are exempt as part of the privileged class to own firearms of their specific choice, and that other citizens should not until proven worthy. They perpetuate that view by requiring classes for CCW carry, or imposing background checks to prove character and worthiness that YOU or I can own firearms. Contrary to the clear intent of the Constitution, where the common man was part of the militia and he brought his own firearm to practice, or even war.

"Fudds" are bigots of the worst order and are imposing restrictions based on class warfare. Disarming YOU means THEY are safer walking the streets. And you are powerless to refuse anything they require. Makes for a quiet stable society in their view.

The part they miss out on is that by acting as collaborators with the anti gunners, they will be the priority target to dispose of if a totalitarian regime takes over. It's happened over and over and over, the Freedom Fighters are the first to go when the war is over. The reigning new power cannot impose further restrictions on freedom to consolidate their power if they leave a idealistic and somewhat selfless generation to discover their mistake and oppose their power. That's why you don't find the faces in the background of photo ops from the early part of Freedom campaigns.

It's what is happening in Connecticut TODAY. The "Fudds" elected bad representation and now they get to reap the reward of not opposing EVERY attempt to restrict firearms. Blame the NRA that they are too extreme? Are you kidding? There are police Chiefs and Sheriffs being told to organize sweeps in neighborhoods to force collection of firearms that are entirely, morally legal. Others are pleading that LEO's don't attempt to impose an illegal and unConstitutional order.

Where do the "Fudds" stand now? Will renaming them really change anything?

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 09:28 AM
And again, this shows how dumb it is to use a term like this as a sloppy shorthand.

I'd have said who most folks would call "Fudds" would be the lower- or lower middle class, rural types who "live to hunt" but don't care at all about the "gubmin't" and laws and citified types who want their Saturday night specials (i.e.: any handgun), and machine guns (i.e.: any black rifle).

So once more, what one person is vilifying is totally different from what another person -- on the same side of the issue -- thinks they are.

It's a bad practice.

Steel Horse Rider
February 28, 2014, 09:41 AM
I grew up in rural southern Iowa and while I was around a lot of "lower- or lower middle class, rural types who "live to hunt", I don't think I know a single one who is not against "gubmin't" intrusion into any portion of their lives. On the other hand, I have met a lot of middle and upper class types who were happy as long as they weren't intruded on.

I believe that you just called the kettle black with your own mischaracterizations. Maybe instead of worrying about what terminology to use we concentrate on those in elected office who are really selling us out. Elmer doesn't have the power to harm you, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi and their RINO cohorts DO have the power to deny your God given rights of self-defense against tyranny.

anothernewb
February 28, 2014, 09:41 AM
I'm happy to say that I know no "fudd"s personally.

I do, however know a significant number of new gun owners who became fervent pro 2A supporters after the results of the 2008 election... an certain legislative actions taken since then.

A very few of them, sadly, are however people who do not truly respect the "respect" that owning a firearm really requires. They're well enough respectful of the firearm itself - but They're more bandwagon jumpers - but in this case; they did jump on the right wagon...

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 09:50 AM
I grew up in rural southern Iowa and while I was around a lot of "lower- or lower middle class, rural types who "live to hunt", I don't think I know a single one who is not against "gubmin't" intrusion into any portion of their lives. On the other hand, I have met a lot of middle and upper class types who were happy as long as they weren't intruded on. And there you go! Everyone "knows" just who (what segment of society, what culture, what class, what race, what economic status, etc.) isn't doing their part, or doesn't really support the cause -- and most of that "knowledge" is wrong and/or conflicts mightily with others' experiences.

I believe that you just called the kettle black with your own mischaracterizations.No, because I don't hold mischaracterizations like that. I don't expect support from anyone simply because they're "gunny" in some tangential way, nor do I expect harm from folks because they're "upper crust" or whatever you might call them. It is a thoroughly mixed bag all 'round.

Maybe instead of worrying about what terminology to use we concentrate on those in elected office who are really selling us out. Elmer doesn't have the power to harm you, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi and their RINO cohorts DO have the power to deny your God given rights of self-defense against tyranny.Well, the point of the OP's question doesn't have anything to do with the big antis. They're a known quantity. It has to do with a common term thrown out around gun boards and shooting ranges and why or whether it has a place in our discourse. "Elmer" doesn't have the ability to cause you direct harm, but how much support, action, and activism can, should, or must we request, expect, or demand from our brother (and sister) gun-users?

Or is it inappropriate to expect support from other gun owners? Is there really a "fraternity" of gun owners? Are we really all "in this together?" Or is that a projection and fallacy we should not try to count on? Is it appropriate to feel or speak negatively against someone who does not vote, join the NRA, and call their congressvermin to protect the kinds of guns YOU like? It that hypocrisy on their part or inappropriate on yours?

A very knotty set of social questions.

pockets
February 28, 2014, 09:56 AM
And again, this shows how dumb it is to use a term like this as a sloppy shorthand.
I'd have said who most folks would call "Fudds" would be the lower- or lower middle class, rural types who "live to hunt" but don't care at all about the "gubmin't" and laws and citified types who want their Saturday night specials (i.e.: any handgun), and machine guns (i.e.: any black rifle).

Thank you for that.

Elmer Fudd never struck me as a sporting clays shooter, who drives a Lexus SUV to the club, and shops for those cool caps at Orvis.
If that were true, he'd have had the funds for speech therapy.

Now Ozzy Fudd? That's another matter entirely!

.

eldon519
February 28, 2014, 10:18 AM
I think as gun owners we should stick together, but I sometimes feel like the concept of a "Fudd" begins to tread into the logical fallacy arena via false dichotomy (ie. "you are either with us or against us"). Is there a way to logically reconcile that thinking? It's one of those things that nags in the back of my mind whenever we have "the talk." I feel like comfort with firearms ownership is more of a spectrum than a black and white issue. Granted a lot of us are comfortable with the full spectrum available in our current 2A landscape (me included), but were you able to go to Walmart and get RPGs, howitzers, Stingers, ICBMs, or nuclear devices, obviously lots if not all of us would draw the line somewhere.

oneounceload
February 28, 2014, 10:19 AM
Elmer Fudd never struck me as a sporting clays shooter, who drives a Lexus SUV to the club, and shops for those cool caps at Orvis.

So, are you saying that those who fit your description ARE Fudds?

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 10:20 AM
^^^ LOL! Awesome!

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 11:26 AM
There is a dangerous class of gun owners out there; the ones that own a certain type of gun and are willing to give away other gun rights as long as their gun is unaffected. What is this type of person called? Some may say ‘anti’, others ‘collaborator’, me, I call that a Fudd. But in the end, does it really matter? They exist.

We misuse plenty of labels on this board and in gun discussions all the time. Why is Fudd looked upon with such negativity. My definition of anti might be different than other people, but there isn't such an outcry to ‘ban’ the word. Could it be because Fudd is used against people that own guns and we have a naive belief that criticizing a fellow gun owner is wrong? The fact is, these people are out there and they are a BIG problem for gun rights. Let’s not be afraid to call them out.

There’s a difference between a shotgun owner hating AR-15s or Glocks ,thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one, and a shotgun owner who hates AR-15s and Glocks and believes no one SHOULD own them.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 11:32 AM
The fact is, these people are out there and they are a BIG problem for gun rights. Let’s not be afraid to call them out.

Oh, I thought they couldn't hurt us?

Elmer doesn't have the power to harm you, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi and their RINO cohorts DO have the power to deny your God given rights of self-defense against tyranny.

oneounceload
February 28, 2014, 11:38 AM
There’s a difference between a shotgun owner hating AR-15s or Glocks ,thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one, and a shotgun owner who hates AR-15s and Glocks and believes no one SHOULD own them.

There's a difference between an AR/Glock owner hating over unders or side by sides, thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one and a AR/Glock owner who hates over-unders and side by sides and believes no one SHOULD own them

Just sayin'......... ;)

goon
February 28, 2014, 11:46 AM
No, because I don't hold mischaracterizations like that. I don't expect support from anyone simply because they're "gunny" in some tangential way, nor do I expect harm from folks because they're "upper crust" or whatever you might call them. It is a thoroughly mixed bag all 'round.

This true. There are strong pro-2A people in all walks of life with widely divergent political views.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 11:56 AM
There's a difference between an AR/Glock owner hating over unders or side by sides, thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one and a AR/Glock owner who hates over-unders and side by sides and believes no one SHOULD own them

Just sayin'......... ;)

My definition never specified a type. My example did. Maybe I should have made that clear; the use of shotgun owner in my example was only that, an example. I absolutely agree with you statement above and fits my definition of Fudd as well as:

There’s a difference between a Sig P226 owner hating BB guns ,thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one, and a Sig P226 owner who hates BB guns and believes no one SHOULD own them.

OR

There’s a difference between a M1 Garand owner hating lever guns ,thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one, and a M1 Garand owner who hates lever guns and believes no one SHOULD own them.


OR

There’s a difference between a handgun owner hating rifles ,thinking they are useless and questions why anyone would WANT to own one, and a handgun owner who hates rifles and believes no one SHOULD own them.


Etc…

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 12:03 PM
I remember being a kid in a very rural area where hunting was literally something that EVERY male did, and firearms were leaned behind the back door of every house, and being told plainly by respected family members that I shouldn't even be interested in M-16 type rifles because they were only good for killing people.

I remember about one year ago standing in the pits at a DCM match listening to a couple service rifle shooters, who'd brought their match AR-15s to compete with, railing about the "tacti-clowns" who did IDPA or 3-gun, and talking about trying to vote them out of their club.

Do I have the right to look down on, ridicule, those people for their beliefs? Do I have some right to tell them what to think or do, or who to vote for, or call them names if they don't agree?

Are they my "brother shooters?"

Does it help our cause? Are they hurting us? Are they the enemy?

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 12:07 PM
Oh, I thought they couldn't hurt us?

I never said that or even agreed with it. They are dangerous because they just as ignorant and naive as an anti, but unlike them, they are given standing in the gun rights community. That standing as a ‘representative’ of our community needs to be exposed as dishonest. Someone who wants to limit my rights as a gun owner does not stand with me and should not be represented as such, regardless if they own a gun or not.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 12:08 PM
I know you didn't say that. Steel Horse Rider said that when he contended that other gun owners who aren't politically on the side of your or my gun rights don't present a threat to us.

Who do you feel gives these people "standing" in the "gun community?

After a fashion, the fact that they ARE gun owners does mean that some gun owners believe exactly what they do believe. That's not dishonest.

eldon519
February 28, 2014, 12:18 PM
Do I have the right to look down on, ridicule, those people for their beliefs? Do I have some right to tell them what to think or do, or who to vote for, or call them names if they don't agree?

Are they my "brother shooters?"

Does it help our cause? Are they hurting us? Are they the enemy?

That is kind of what I was driving at Sam. The current interpretation of the 2A basically has been applied to mean the majority of small arms. The way it is flat out written, it doesn't really specify the size or power of arms we should be limited to now. Were it completely unlimited, I think we all would have to personally pick our own limit. That's what I was talking about with my example where we would all have to decide personally what was too much were weapons such as rockets, grenades, artillery, and WMDs available to us. For better or worse, most of us don't find our limit "tested" based on what is currently available. However, there are a lot of people out there that do find their limit tested. I don't think that necessarily makes them enemies. Personally for me, if something like RPGs were available unrestricted at Walmart or the M32 MGL, I guess that would make me a Fudd because I would be saying there is too much social liability having those out there.

In short we're all "calibrated" a little differently on the spectrum. It isn't black or white, hence my reference to false dichotomy.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 12:26 PM
Do I have the right to look down on, ridicule, those people for their beliefs? Do I have some right to tell them what to think or do, or who to vote for, or call them names if they don't agree?

As a matter of fact, you do have the right to look down at or ridicule anybody you want for whatever reason (whether you do so is up to you. I'm not your conscience. :)). You have the right to tell anybody anything you want. They also have the right to ignore you. You don’t have the right to FORCE them to do something you want. And if you tried, I would put you in the same boat as the antis.


Are they my "brother shooters?"

Does it help our cause? Are they hurting us? Are they the enemy?

If they believe in banning M-16 type rifles or IDPA or 3-gun matches, then no, they are not your “brother shooters” and are hurting us. If they simply don’t like it, but are fine with someone else liking it, then that is not the problem.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 12:31 PM
But are they FUDDS??? Isn't that really the important question here? :D

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 12:37 PM
Who do you feel gives these people "standing" in the "gun community?

We give these people standing by falsely believing it is wrong to criticize a fellow gun owner and by not calling them out.


After a fashion, the fact that they ARE gun owners does mean that some gun owners believe exactly what they do believe. That's not dishonest.

True, but don't try to convince me that they're for gun rights. Gun ownership and gun rights do not go hand in hand.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 12:43 PM
But are they FUDDS??? Isn't that really the important question here? :D

So far you have given no indication that they want to infringe on anyone's rights, only that they have strong options against a type of gun or use of a gun. So no.

If they believe in limiting the rights of others as long as they can still do what they want, then yes.

Pizzapinochle
February 28, 2014, 12:44 PM
That is kind of what I was driving at Sam. The current interpretation of the 2A basically has been applied to mean the majority of small arms. The way it is flat out written, it doesn't really specify the size or power of arms we should be limited to now. Were it completely unlimited, I think we all would have to personally pick our own limit. That's what I was talking about with my example where we would all have to decide personally what was too much were weapons such as rockets, grenades, artillery, and WMDs available to us. For better or worse, most of us don't find our limit "tested" based on what is currently available. However, there are a lot of people out there that do find their limit tested. I don't think that necessarily makes them enemies. Personally for me, if something like RPGs were available unrestricted at Walmart or the M32 MGL, I guess that would make me a Fudd because I would be saying there is too much social liability having those out there.

In short we're all "calibrated" a little differently on the spectrum. It isn't black or white, hence my reference to false dichotomy.

This is a very well written description of the spectrum. Thumbs up.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 12:45 PM
We give these people standing by falsely believing it is wrong to criticize a fellow gun owner and by not calling them out.I haven't seen too much evidence of us being terribly hesitant to criticize each other, but I could be missing something.

I was thinking this was mostly an external phenomenon -- with "outsiders" like the news media saying "we interviewed this deer hunter from Iowa and he's ok with this new universal background check law..." or whatever.

And then, of course, there are the AHSA types, for whatever little bit of traction they got.

True, but don't try to convince me that they're for gun rights.Oh, I wouldn't do that.

JSH1
February 28, 2014, 12:54 PM
I feel like comfort with firearms ownership is more of a spectrum than a black and white issue.

Exactly. Like all issues gun rights is a topic with a broad range of opinions. To label anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of the time as the enemy is stupid. To assume that every gun owner is going to be a one issue voter that votes the same as you is unrealistic. In my opinion to be a one issue voter on any issue is stupid. The world is not black and white. When voting one has to weigh the candidate's views on a host of issues and pick based on the total picture.

Expecting 100% purity is recipe for frustration and bitterness.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 01:03 PM
I haven't seen too much evidence of us being terribly hesitant to criticize each other, but I could be missing something.

I was thinking this was mostly an external phenomenon -- with "outsiders" like the news media saying "we interviewed this deer hunter from Iowa and he's ok with this new universal background check law..." or whatever.

I agree that this is mostly external, but it's still up to us within the community to make sure that these people do not represent us. When we fail to do that, their voice gets lumped in with those that truly are for gun rights.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 01:13 PM
Ok. How? Are you talking about trying to keep them quiet, or trying to get the media or society at large to understand that you don't believe what that guy believes? (If they care...)

huntsman
February 28, 2014, 01:31 PM
But, one element that seems crystal clear to me is that "Fudds" believe they are exempt as part of the privileged class to own firearms of their specific choice, and that other citizens should not until proven worthy. They perpetuate that view by requiring classes for CCW carry, or imposing background checks to prove character and worthiness that YOU or I can own firearms. Contrary to the clear intent of the Constitution, where the common man was part of the militia and he brought his own firearm to practice, or even war.

Now that is an interesting take on this, Elitism in the gun community? yep and whether it's because of brand or type of firearm or supporting a mandate for license qualification it's divisive.

FWIW a Fudd can't take anybodies gun rights all they can do is voice an opinion and vote, judging by the anti-gun politicians who keep getting reelected there's more gun owners than just shotgun toting hunters voting against RKBA.

buck460XVR
February 28, 2014, 01:56 PM
And again, this shows how dumb it is to use a term like this as a sloppy shorthand.

I'd have said who most folks would call "Fudds" would be the lower- or lower middle class, rural types who "live to hunt" but don't care at all about the "gubmin't" and laws and citified types who want their Saturday night specials (i.e.: any handgun), and machine guns (i.e.: any black rifle).

So once more, what one person is vilifying is totally different from what another person -- on the same side of the issue -- thinks they are.

It's a bad practice.


Again....Sam has it figured out. Many of those that folks are eager to call "FUDDS" don't see or feel a need for high capacity mags, or EBRs or lasers on their handgun grips. But that doesn't mean they don't support the right of others to. The majority of folks that own firearms strictly for hunting would not sell out the rights of other gun owners, no more than any one here. They too are concerned about loosing their weapons and most are members of the NRA. I think the number of folks that really fall into the "FUDD" category are much fewer than most here tend to want to believe.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 01:57 PM
judging by the anti-gun politicians who keep getting reelected there's more gun owners than just shotgun toting hunters voting against RKBA.

Or they are basing their vote on other issues that are more important to them than RKBA, which is IMO, far more likely.

goon
February 28, 2014, 02:24 PM
Again....Sam has it figured out. Many of those that folks are eager to call "FUDDS" don't see or feel a need for high capacity mags, or EBRs or lasers on their handgun grips. But that doesn't mean they don't support the right of others to. The majority of folks that own firearms strictly for hunting would not sell out the rights of other gun owners, no more than any one here. They too are concerned about loosing their weapons and most are members of the NRA. I think the number of folks that really fall into the "FUDD" category are much fewer than most here tend to want to believe.

Maybe, and maybe not.

I think there is a touch of elitism among the shooting community. You see it when people argue in favor of permits that they can afford to obtain, but that less financially well-off people may not be able to.

There are definitely some who fall into the "you can't hunt with it so it should be banned" crowd. And you really can't identify them until they start talking. A wealthy gentleman wearing a suit and a Rolex may fully support the population generally being as well armed as possible and a Korean War Marine veteran may think banning AR-15's makes perfect sense as long as S&W revolvers and his Winchester are left alone.

I have no quarrel with the people who personally have no use for a certain type of gun but who wouldn't ever want to make that decision for for the rest of us.

FWIW, we run into this with PA in hunting season too.
In this state, one cannot hunt with a semi-automatic handgun or rifle at all. So we go round and round arguing about the stupidity or necessity of a law like that. The argument against it is that legalizing semi-auto rifles for hunting will result in lunatics filling the woods with poorly aimed rapid rifle fire. Nevermind that plenty of people have no trouble doing that with Remington 760's and Marlin lever actions...

And again, I often point out that there is no mention of hunting in any court ruling that I'm aware of, but "security of a free state" is mentioned in the 2A and Heller has ruled in favor of a right to own firearms in "common use" for self-defense.

So from that point of view, is there a right to own "hunting guns" at all?
One could argue that an AR-15 or a Glock is more protected than a Remington 760.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 02:35 PM
I think the number of folks that really fall into the "FUDD" category are much fewer than most here tend to want to believe.

I think I believe that, myself, but it is muddy water we stare into.

How many gun owners REALLY would actively work to have your AR-15 banned?

How many gun owners really would vote for someone who would agree to outlaw your carry gun?

How many gun owners would hold their noses and vote for a Pelosi type who promised other things they really wanted?

How many just don't even think about it?

How many care some?

How many care a lot?

How many are willing to vote a hard line on gun rights?

How many are willing to do more than that?

Arizona_Mike
February 28, 2014, 02:43 PM
Yeah, we've had the "FUDD" talk a number of times here. It is an ugly and divisive word that we ask members not to toss around here lightly. We need to work on bringing our community together, not finding ways to marginalize each other.
I've been a bolt action guy for decades and only recently caught Black Rifle Disease in my 40s. Gum rubber, Turkish walnut, and flame bluing still makes me feel all funny inside like the first time I saw my 5th grade homeroom teacher, a De Tomaso Pantera at age 17, and Jaguar XKSS just a few years ago.

When I was a FUDD, I never ever thought to disparage the tastes of other gun owners. I always considered their rights to be mine as well. This is the only aspect of FUDDery that I criticize today now that I straddle the line between Gun Culture 1.0 and 2.0.

My interest in the topic is not to divide but to criticize those who do. We now have a strong pro-gun majority in this country and the antis only make gains in alliances with FUDDs.

Mike

goon
February 28, 2014, 02:53 PM
When I was a FUDD, I never ever thought to disparage the tastes of other gun owners. I always considered their rights to be mine as well.

Then I don't think you met the criteria to be considered a Fudd.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 03:05 PM
Ok. How? Are you talking about trying to keep them quiet, or trying to get the media or society at large to understand that you don't believe what that guy believes? (If they care...)

The best example that comes to mind is the Dick Metcalf incident. The community at large called him out and now his opinion holds no power in the gun rights debate.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 03:17 PM
The best example that comes to mind is the Dick Metcalf incident. The community at large called him out and now his opinion holds no power in the gun rights debate.
Even though what Metcalf actually said is confirmed by SCOTUS in Heller and MacDonald.

NoVA Shooter
February 28, 2014, 04:00 PM
Even though what Metcalf actually said is confirmed by SCOTUS in Heller and MacDonald.

I'm not debating the validity of what Metcalf said, but the fact that the gun community made it known that he did not speak for the community at large. Metcalf was portrayed as a ‘poster boy’ for the mainstream gun community (by the fact that he was a gun owner, gun writer, appeared on many gun related shows, etc). Because of this, his opinions were looked upon as having the weight of most gun owners. Once his true position and views were made clear, the gun community spoke up and let it be known that he was in fact, not a spokesman for us and that his opinions do not reflect those of the people he was associated with. One of the worst things for gun rights is when the antis parade around someone like this who the general public believes is one of us.

JSH1
February 28, 2014, 04:09 PM
Even though what Metcalf actually said is confirmed by SCOTUS in Heller and MacDonald.

There are a lot of people that believe that only their personal interpretation of the Constitution is valid. They don't believe the US Supreme Court has a say in the matter. These folks also see no place for a realist like Metcalf.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 04:09 PM
but the fact that the gun community made it known that he did not speak for the community at large. And I completely agree with that. Metcalf, Zumbo, the PA Sports Show kerfuffle, and a few other noteworthy events have made it clear that a sea change has happened and we present a much more determined and hard-line front now than we did in decades past.

These folks also see no place for a realist like Metcalf.Maybe a better way to say that, or to view it, is that these people don't LIKE what Metcalf said or intimated was acceptable, and don't feel that the baby steps taken by the SCOTUS to date reflect what the laws of our land should say about gun ownership.

Remember, the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only defines how far government can go AGAINST gun rights. Not how "liberal" the laws can be in allowing unfettered gun rights. Just because the SCOTUS may decide that some state's UBC doesn't, for now, violate the Constitution doesn't mean we could, should, or would ACCEPT that law and agree with it.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 04:09 PM
I'm not debating the validity of what Metcalf said, but the fact that the gun community made it known that he did not speak for the community at large. Metcalf was portrayed as a ‘poster boy’ for the mainstream gun community (by the fact that he was a gun owner, gun writer, appeared on many gun related shows, etc). Because of this, his opinions were looked upon as having the weight of most gun owners. Once his true position and views were made clear, the gun community spoke up and let it be known that he was in fact, not a spokesman for us and that his opinions do not reflect those of the people he was associated with. One of the worst things for gun rights is when the antis parade around someone like this who the general public believes is one of us.
That is pretty much the point of this thread. He IS one of us. He just made a statement of fact that some perhaps most of us wish were not so. For that, he has been called a "Fudd". I just don't see it. The fact is that opinions differ from person to person and no one of us can fully represent the different views of all of us. And if wekeep insisting that everyone see things only one way, there will be no "us".

Sol
February 28, 2014, 04:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0yL26ptIAA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

^ Fudd, I don't know how to link I'm technologically inferior, sorry.

gym
February 28, 2014, 05:29 PM
I think guns and politics started being more of a issue, along with the internet. Prior to that you really didn't know what the rest of the country was thinking much about anything, unless you were campaigning for office and had some type of statistics.
Most of us were localized in our activities. People didn't really pay much attention out of their small group of friends and relatives to what politician thought about much either. They voted either Republican or Democrat, and that was pretty much it.
Now it's different, you get to debate everything and are constantly bombarded with information, "half of which is true", and you have a limitless, "it seems" amount of decisions to make regarding every little thing. I don't know which way is really better, many folks can't or don't want to know things that they are being make aware of.
All I know is that if someone is against guns, and wants to take them away, I am against them. If that makes me a 1 issue voter, than that's the way it is. , I am not going to vote for anyone who wants to take away any of my rights.
The great majority of people with opinions, "weather I agree with them or not" still have a right to express them. The "people" usually win in the end, weather it's knocking down the AWB, or getting Pierce Morgan removed, the majority will win if they make their presence known, and let their elected officials know what they want.
It's a different world know, and being isolated and uninformed is a dangerous thing. We have real problems on the Horizon, and being aware of issues that are looming over us is more important now than they were way back when we didn't have this Global economy. I see tough times ahead for the USA, and we should stick together more now than ever. At any time anything could happen and we need to stay on top of who is representing us.
I don't think what color gun you like is really an issue, just don't try to mandate that I have to like what you do.

Skribs
February 28, 2014, 06:52 PM
Sam, when the Obama scare started and people started tripling the prices of ARs, there were plenty of threads on this forum saying "what should we give up so we can keep the rest?" I dont think many gun owners want me to lose my rights, but there are plenty who would prefer to control what gets controlled, and keep their stuff intact, than risk a law that actually affects them.

JSH1
February 28, 2014, 09:19 PM
GYM: All I know is that if someone is against guns, and wants to take them away, I am against them. If that makes me a 1 issue voter, than that's the way it is. , I am not going to vote for anyone who wants to take away any of my rights.

That is fine. The problem is there is no agreement within the gun community what it means to be against guns. Does that mean:


Wants to ban all guns,
Wants to ban all handguns
Wants to ban assault rifles
Wants to limit magazine capacity
Wants to require training for concealed carry
Wants universal background checks
Wants to keep the status quo
Won't promise to fight to overturn the major gun regulations 1986, 1968, 1934 or all of the above.
Won't promise to fight to overturn any regulation of any weapon.


(Note: I've not asking for your opinion on the above. I'm just pointing out the range of opinions that exist on what seems to be a simple question.)

There are people that we call anyone that does get to the bottom of that list an anti, conspirator, gun grabber, FUDD, etc. In my mind that is foolish. It can also be counterproductive. By holding out for purity you end up electing someone on the other end of the spectrum. The NRA turned against Bush Sr. after he banned the importation of assault rifles even after he vetoed the Brady Bill. So instead of Bush we got Clinton and the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban. Moderation and compromise doesn't fire up the true believers but it can move the cause forward.

Steel Horse Rider
February 28, 2014, 10:03 PM
Sam: You strike me as a person who prides himself in always being correct, which is a large part of the problem we face politically. I did not say that "those who are not on our side are not a threat to us" but spinning what I said to bolster your side (whatever that is) makes you feel superior. I said (if you want to go back and read) that the real threat was from those people who actually hold the reins of power that can make us felons with the power they hold. Most of the "Fudds" are mindless moderates who, like yourself in my opinion, always want to be on the "popular" side of issues and will sway with what they perceive to be the popular sentiment. Concentrate on divisions among us if you prefer but those in the legislatures, Governor's Mansions, and the White House are your real enemies. The stooges who vote for them because they are not "extreme" are threats but in reality they are too stupid to have a rational conversation with or they are plants whose intention is to disrupt the opposition. We have a lot of the latter on this site.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 10:27 PM
or they are plants whose intention is to disrupt the opposition. We have a lot of the latter on this site.

And they are easy to identity. They are the one who disagree with you. (BTW, that is a rhetorical "you" not you personally unless you think the shoe fits) And in that we may have found the real definition of Fudd.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 10:38 PM
Sam: You strike me as a person who prides himself in always being correct, which is a large part of the problem we face politically.Uh, well, I do prefer being right to being wrong. But I tend to eat my share of crow with a smile when my mind gets changed.

I did not say that "those who are not on our side are not a threat to us" but spinning what I said to bolster your side (whatever that is) makes you feel superior. I said (if you want to go back and read) that the real threat was from those people who actually hold the reins of power that can make us felons with the power they hold. Actually, you said "Elmer doesn't have the power to harm you." And that's quite to the contrary of what many here fervently believe. That "Elmer" as you put it DOES harm us by various means.

I'm unsure, as I think I pointed out above. I don't even know that I believe real "Fudds" are much of an element in our society. There are some deliberate false flag operations like AHSA, but I don't know how many real down home, grass roots, (or high brow, Orvis-hat-wearing...whichever) gun owners there really are who would actually sell us out. Used to be, I think, but I really believe we're much more connected and informed these days. More cohesive.

Most of the "Fudds" are mindless moderates who, like yourself in my opinion, always want to be on the "popular" side of issues and will sway with what they perceive to be the popular sentiment. Well, thanks for the compliment! I always wanted to be popular in my sentiments. :) But I think I accidentally made this point for you a few posts back. That most of the "Fudds" are just out of touch with gun rights, and/or don't care so much about that as they do about their other personal favorite issues.

Concentrate on divisions among us if you prefer I think you've got my posts confused with someone else's.

or they are plants whose intention is to disrupt the opposition. We have a lot of the latter on this site.If you could make a list, I'm sure the Staff would appreciate getting the low-down.

oneounceload
February 28, 2014, 10:40 PM
How many gun owners would hold their noses and vote for a Pelosi type who promised other things they really wanted?

Or who vote for their union-backed candidates? Many would feel their job/livelihood to come before anything else

gym
February 28, 2014, 11:32 PM
Florida Alert! TWO (2) Pro-Gun Bills Up in Committee on Monday 3/3/14

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/2/florida-alert!-two-(2)-pro-gun-bills-up-in-committee-on-monday-3314.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
This is what we need to stay on top of please send your legislators an email with your support of these bills.

buck460XVR
March 1, 2014, 09:49 AM
Half the question asked in the OP is "Do we have many?". As I said in my previous post I don't think there are near as many as some folks want others to believe. IMHO, the amount of true "FUDDS" is probably such a miniscule number that it is insignificant, and the whole idea that "FUDDS" are a major threat to gun ownership is as legitimate as the idea the ammo shortage is a government conspiracy to get us to quit using our firearms. That idea, altho proven wrong by facts and responses from ammo companies, is still a major issue to many folks in the gun world. Probably the same folks that fear the "FUDDS".

I live in a small mid-western town and belong to a small local sportsman club. After a round of Trap, we retire to the clubhouse and more often as not the talk turns to guns. There are definitely two schools of firearm ownership there. Those that shoot league with a SxS or O/U and those with their Beretta Autos and the like. The same line forms with handguns with the traditional shot-gunners owning mostly revolvers and steel framed autos, while the other half shoots modern Hi-Cap double stacks and the likes. Across the tables there are a lot of jokingly jabs about "Tupperware" vs "Dinosaur" guns. To some, their High Cap rifle is a lever action that holds 7 rounds in the tube, while others won't go in the woods without a 20 round mag. There are even heated discussions about what one truly needs to get the job at hand done. But at the end of the night, there's not one person there that would ask either to give up anything they have, even tho they themselves don't own one or have any intention of ever owning one. While we don't agree on personal firearms, we do agree on personal freedom.

ApacheCoTodd
March 1, 2014, 10:22 AM
FUDDS are the very reason that I stopped going to what was otherwise my favorite public/governmentally run shooting range in the entire country - Ben Avery here in Arizona.

With the notable exception of one single staff member, they were completely and more often than not, aggressively FUDDISH to the point of my refusing to ever go there anymore. The overt disdain for any firearm that they deemed "unnecessary" (start with black in short or long guns) bordered on religious zeal.

But then, it is just another example of a common human failing which I have run across repeatedly.

"I don't appreciate your ******* so...."

So rather than passively following one's own choices, some take on an active campaign against other's choices.

Having lived long term in Minnesota, California and Massachusetts, I am acutely sensitive to aggressive FUDDITUDES. I have often felt the heat of FUDDS both politically and socially in the following areas and if you have, you'll note the similar campaign tactics for attacking these as well.

No one needs - why do you need/have - I don't see why you need:

A rottweiller... from other dog owners.
A motor cycle over a certain CC or capable of a certain speed... from other bike owners.
A two stroke... from other dirt bike owners.
A CJ, Scout, Land Rover or any of my other 4Xs... from other "nature lovers"/AWD dorks.
A firearm capable of extreme range.. from other firearm owners.

The list goes on and it's just an extension of being told your hair's too long, music too loud, house too garish or simply that your opinion should be shouted down and into conformity.


In a sentence: If I don't need/want or appreciate it - you shouldn't have it!

Tirod
March 1, 2014, 10:32 AM
In this state, one cannot hunt with a semi-automatic handgun or rifle at all. So we go round and round arguing about the stupidity or necessity of a law like that. The argument against it is that legalizing semi-auto rifles for hunting will result in lunatics filling the woods with poorly aimed rapid rifle fire. Nevermind that plenty of people have no trouble doing that with Remington 760's and Marlin lever actions...

Plenty of threads in hunting forums trend into what is an appropriate firearm to use, and consistently, the manual action proponents insist that those using semi-auto rifles "spray the woods with bullets and beer cans!"

In my area I have observed, and take the time to carefully point out, that the exact opposite is true. It's not hard to figure out a manual action shooter emptying the gun at a running target - or difficult to triangulate their position when you stumble across the trash they left behind. It's not a "pack it in, pack it out" crowd the way former military members are taught (the ones who chose semi autos.)

I've been hunting for 40 years and started with a MSR. Got a lot of looks in the first years, nobody, but nobody was doing it. Now, dirt common and nobody much looks twice. That's the reality of the situation, the guns were first feared by the civilian hunting community because they were an unknown - they look exactly like a full auto assault rifle as constantly misidentified in the media. Then, it was the new thing, and that broke tradition, another negative in their eyes. And probably most importantly, it offered a superior second shot - something the manual action shooters constantly reinforce when they claim 'One shot one kill." The reality I hear and see in the woods is much different - plenty are jacking the action back and forth in a lame attempt to put down the animal. They missed on the first shot and they have even less success on the remaining.

Something about their beer can getting knocked over seems to distract them. :evil:

Another strike against the MSR shooter is that he's likely paid more money than a manual action owner. Quite arguable in many cases, but include all the surplus military shooters and the overall average price plummets. Like it or not, the early AR15's weren't cheap compared to traditional guns, and when you look at the gun rack prices, the race to be expensive hasn't diminished. They can't tell in the field if you are toting a $550 S&W or a $1,500 Noveske. All they know is that it might be more expensive than their Savage including the scope, and that is when the locker room measuring contest pops up in their brain. They are coming up short.

Manual action shooters aren't cool anymore, and the loss of status hurts. They are no longer the Great White Hunters with standing in the gun community. Some guy with one of those "assault rifles" is the predominant ad copy now, and worst yet, there are a lot more companies with neat accessories to offer crowding out their old favorites. It's all about sales, and the tables are turning.

So, it's no wonder they line up in front of the media to trash talk MSR owners. No real intent to limit gun ownership, they are reacting to their loss of status and can't wait to get even. They get a lot more exposure because the media isn't going to air our point of view, they are just interested in using someone else's that they can twist to fit their agenda.

Fudds are becoming an disenfranchised minority and losing their social status, which means they react by trying to get even against the faction they perceive is hurting their image. So - they vote to take away our guns and make us lose status.

No clue they are assisting the real gun grabbers and will lose theirs, too.

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 11:16 AM
But at the end of the night, there's not one person there that would ask either to give up anything they have, even tho they themselves don't own one or have any intention of ever owning one. While we don't agree on personal firearms, we do agree on personal freedom.

I've been in clubs like that. And yes, the committment to personal freedom is strongly shared. At the same time, there always seems to be a few who, while strongly committed to personal freedom just don't understand why anyone would object to background checks, or registration to make sure the wrong people don't have guns. They just don't say it out loud. There are some who if pressed, will admit that while 20 or 30 round mags may be nice, no one really needs them and 10 is more than enough in either a rifle or pistol. They will say this while carrying a Glock 17. And none of them will see any contradiction with their commitment to personal freedom.

I do hope your club is different. I really do. But I doubt it.

Cee Zee
March 1, 2014, 11:58 AM
The problem with Fudds, as I see it, is that they think there is no place in the world for a powerful self defense weapon. My mother held off a potential rapist with dad's shotgun while dad was at work. The guy came to the back door and twisted the handle when mom said, "I have a shotgun and if you come through that door I'm going to use it." The next thing that happened is the handle turned back and the potential rapist turned into a scared little rabbit.

So what would have happened if that had been a gang of creeps coming to the back door? Let's not kid ourselves that it never happens. Heck women get gang raped in bars and people stand around and cheer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Araujo)

The Fudd's take the word of the media that the mass shootings are done with assault rifles when in fact the vast majority of them are done with handguns. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm) But the Fudds think they are doing their part to save the world by banning the evil black rifle.

Well I hope to heavens they have access to an effective battle carbine if a gang comes to their house. Yes it is possible to hold off a gang with a shotgun but it isn't easy. My grandfather did it to a gang of bank robbers in the 1930's. And those guys had true machine guns. All it took was the threat of one or more of them dying if they came in the house and they backed away. That's how you deal with life when you live way off the beaten path like we did. There are no cops to save you. And my friend I mentioned earlier should remember that but apparently life in the city has affected his thinking. I hope his mother is still smarter than he is because she still lives off the beaten path too. I still do too. I want to be able to protect my family effectively. And IMO the Fudds contribute to taking away that ability.

Sure there are people along the entire spectrum of gun views. But there is something about people who should know better that really gripes me. No they aren't the ones taking my guns but they do their part to help.

I'm not here to bash other citizens. I've never used the word Fudd to describe these people until this thread. But they do exist. I don't dwell on them. I don't worry about them. But they do irritate me because they should know better. They only care about their own interests too which IMO is the way this country will fail.

buck460XVR
March 1, 2014, 02:13 PM
At the same time, there always seems to be a few who, while strongly committed to personal freedom just don't understand why anyone would object to background checks, or registration to make sure the wrong people don't have guns. They just don't say it out loud. There are some who if pressed, will admit that while 20 or 30 round mags may be nice, no one really needs them and 10 is more than enough in either a rifle or pistol. They will say this while carrying a Glock 17. And none of them will see any contradiction with their commitment to personal freedom.




Oh, for sure. Many freely admit that they see absolutely no reason for anything more than a ten round capacity in a civilian firearm. Still they don't want to deny anyone that does, the opportunity, nor would they willingly sell those folks out. Many also openly support UBCs for firearm purchases. Basically because they buy the majority of their firearms from a dealer, they already submit to one every time they buy a firearm and it has become a normal part of the buying process. For the young guys at the club, this has been the norm all their life when buying from a dealer, and again seems perfectly normal and they don't see it as a threat or a compromise. This may not be my POV, but I respect and understand where they are coming from. Certainly don't make them a "FUDD" because they comply with the law.

If it would ever really come down to stepping on someone else's rights to keep our own, I don't think anyone can say for sure what they would do. Just as I'm sure many folks say one thing and feel another, whether it's peer pressure, fear of reprisal or ridicule that makes them do so. But I for one will not alienate other gun owners just because their feelings and opinions do not exactly mirror my own. If they are making uniformed decisions, I will try to inform and educate with hopes they see the light. I think this is what has been working very well in the firearm community in the last few years. Many of those folks that were unintentionally "FUDDS" in the past because they thought their firearm rights were not threatened have had their eyes opened to the real threats that are out there....just as there have been folks that no longer listen to the cries for help because they feel they have heard the cry "wolf" too many times already.

goon
March 1, 2014, 02:26 PM
In my area I have observed, and take the time to carefully point out, that the exact opposite is true. It's not hard to figure out a manual action shooter emptying the gun at a running target - or difficult to triangulate their position when you stumble across the trash they left behind. It's not a "pack it in, pack it out" crowd the way former military members are taught (the ones who chose semi autos.)

Another observation - many people who own semi-autos are into firearms and make it point to get out and practice. But I really have seen many hunters who only practice once a year, three shots on the weekend before deer season.

Understand, my dad was one of those hunters (unless I coaxed him into going out and burning up some .22LR with me) so I have no issue with that. Some people know their hunting rifle, they've used it for years, and maybe three shots of practice a year is enough to reliably put a deer down from 75 yards.

But practice makes perfect, and the guys who are into black rifles practice. Just from that, I'd be inclined to think that someone hunting with a black rifle may be more likely to make a quick, humane kill.

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 04:21 PM
Oh, for sure. Many freely admit that they see absolutely no reason for anything more than a ten round capacity in a civilian firearm. Still they don't want to deny anyone that does, the opportunity, nor would they willingly sell those folks out. Many also openly support UBCs for firearm purchases. Basically because they buy the majority of their firearms from a dealer, they already submit to one every time they buy a firearm and it has become a normal part of the buying process. For the young guys at the club, this has been the norm all their life when buying from a dealer, and again seems perfectly normal and they don't see it as a threat or a compromise. This may not be my POV, but I respect and understand where they are coming from. Certainly don't make them a "FUDD" because they comply with the law.

No, complying with the law doesn't make them a "FUDD". And a difference of opinion doesn't necessarily do it either. But opinions can be a matter of conscience, and when one votes ones conscience... My vote won't threaten their rights to do less than I think best. But their vote may very well threaten my right to do more than they think best. That may not make them a "FUDD" either, but it does make them "the opposition"

Thermactor
March 1, 2014, 11:04 PM
I've had my hand slapped here for using the term Fudd to describe a neckbearded Zumbo-type individual obsessed with killing deer with his single-shot rifle, and is against the 2nd amendment for any other purpose.

JohnBT
March 2, 2014, 06:31 AM
Name calling is so childish. And lazy. If you have a specific beef with a man, spell it out for him in plain English.

huntsman
March 2, 2014, 08:48 AM
I've had my hand slapped here for using the term Fudd to describe a neckbearded Zumbo-type individual obsessed with killing deer with his single-shot rifle, and is against the 2nd amendment for any other purpose.
Rural folk hunt and rural LEO's are few and far between so it's understandable someone who lives isolated may feel less threatened in RKBA. When I was growing up I had 3 sources of info for firearms and hunting, my dad, my friends and a few outdoor magazines.

For the most part we form our opinions by our influences and experiences, if all one did was hunt deer with a single shot and was successful then I can understand in his mind not needing anything else, could it be when someone makes the statement you don't need that it has less to do with infringement and more to do with practicality?

There can be a big difference between what's legal and what's beneficial for me.

Thermactor
March 2, 2014, 10:23 AM
Good point huntsman, well stated. Wish I had more to add but you nailed it.

barnbwt
March 2, 2014, 10:36 AM
"Name calling is so childish. And lazy. If you have a specific beef with a man, spell it out for him in plain English."

FWIW, childish, lazy, and English are names, too ;). Stereotypes exist for a reason, because it's a heck of a lot more efficient way to convey information between understanding parties than spelling out exactly what a Fudd is every time you refer to a group or action backed by them. That said, relying too heavily on assumptions about a group is also stupid, since the more complex the stereotype, the more likely it is to be wrong. I try to keep them simple so they have more universal applicability.

Fudd = Gunowning Anti, often justify their conflicted position with hunting uses

Anti = tolerant or supportive of additional infringements on the RKBA

Seems simple enough to me. All the 'country boy,' ' flannel wearing' stuff is merely history for why the name "Fudd" was chosen, but has little to do with why they are harmful. The primary reason Elmer Fudd is the symbol of short sighted gun owners, is because he was a gun owner who was an utter fool.

Pretty sure Elmer's boom stick would be classified as an SBR or DD in any case (it's like a 150cal and 16" long :D)

TCB

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 10:55 AM
For the most part we form our opinions by our influences and experiences, if all one did was hunt deer with a single shot and was successful then I can understand in his mind not needing anything else, could it be when someone makes the statement you don't need that it has less to do with infringement and more to do with practicality?

Very true. There is a huge difference been "you don't need" and "you should not be allowed to have". One could hunt every species of game in North America with a single shot shotgun. That doesn't mean that there are not better tools for a specific task. It also doesn't mean others should not be allowed to make other choices.

buck460XVR
March 2, 2014, 11:10 AM
Stereotypes exist for a reason, because it's a heck of a lot more efficient way to convey information between understanding parties than spelling out exactly what a Fudd is every time you refer to a group or action backed by them. That said, relying too heavily on assumptions about a group is also stupid, since the more complex the stereotype, the more likely it is to be wrong. I try to keep them simple so they have more universal applicability.




TCB


Stereotypes exist because of prejudice and discrimination. Can be either latent or overt. Consciously or subconsciously. Are there folks that the term "FUDD" truly applies to their thoughts and feelings on gun control? Sure there are, but again, I believe that number is a lot lower than most folk like to think. I believe we are seeing the development of a new personality disorder.....Fuddphobia.

Cee Zee
March 2, 2014, 11:37 AM
For the most part we form our opinions by our influences and experiences, if all one did was hunt deer with a single shot and was successful then I can understand in his mind not needing anything else...

Being from a "very" rural area myself I can assure you there are far more needs for guns in the country than just killing deer. You are the only protection for your family and if it got around that you were without protection, as things always do in areas where gossip is a way of life, then you become a target. It doesn't happen often because people know to expect others to be ready for self defense but it does happen. My father's family faced a big time crisis from a gang of bank robbers back in the Depression. Grandpa managed to hold them off with a shotgun but a single shot rifle isn't likely going to get that job done.

Then there was the time a bunch of idiots put a still on past our house which was a very remote location. Suddenly the place I played was a highway for people drunk out of their minds. And there was our neighbors who would just as soon cut your throat as look at you. In fact one of them did cut someone's throat. He told my cousin that he killed a man and dumped him an abandoned well too. That was many years later but it was also right at the time he filed a lawsuit against us. If he thought we weren't armed and prepared it's hard telling what he might have done. He also happens to be the best shooter I've ever seen too. I saw him shoot a pop can in the air 8 times before it hit the ground.

Firearms are a requirement for living off the beaten path IMO. It isn't just the 2 legged skunks you have to worry about either. The first time you see a rabid animal at your door you will get the picture. Also I grew up in a place called Wildcat Holler. They gave it that name for a reason. It was overrun with feral cats and they were very aggressive. A friend got attacked by one while he was fishing beside the road I lived on. He got over 150 stitches in his back as a result of that attack. It took my father years to get rid of all those cats. They breed like rabbits for one thing and it just wasn't easy to get them all. And a single shot rifle just won't do the job when you are dealing with a feral cat colony. A semi-auto shotgun or at least a pump shotgun is best. I remember the day dad finally killed the last one. I remember because it was the first time we were allowed to go into the woods. I was only about 6 but seeing my brothers carry it in tied to a pole by it's feet like we saw on Tarzan made a big impression on me. And getting to go into the woods was a new thing for us smaller kids.

Then there was feral dogs and sometime they were in packs. There were bobcats too but not very many. And there were mountain lions once in a while. I never actually saw one but I sure heard them plain enough. And I've seen their tracks. There was the occasional bear but that was very rare at the time and they aren't really that much of a threat unless they are sick or old and a slow moving target like a young kid makes for a temptation. There are lots of bears there now. Their population is exploding in fact.

Those people have a right to their opinion. But unless you've lived the extremely rural life you just won't know how much guns are needed. I listed a few of the reasons. There are more.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 11:39 AM
Too many members here were too casual in tossing it around and applied to people who were only "Meh, I'm a blue and wood guy" as opposed to the sort that fit the UD definition.
It's not hard to spot a real Fudd.

He's not the guy who doesn't want to own an AR-15.

He's the guy who doesn't want YOU to own one either, and is eager to see men with AR-15s come to take YOURS away.

Of course when you do even a trivial amount of prodding, they want to get rid of most of what has blue steel and wood (my preference in rifles AND handguns) as well. They're like NPR's "pro-gun" spokesman during their '90s era week long series on the 2nd Amendment. He was a shotgunner, would NEVER own a handgun, and stated that if pressured sufficiently, would give up his SHOTGUNS.

I prefer to refer to them as "AHSA types", since that's exactly what they are. They're fifth columnists sent here and to other firearms forums, armed with talking points intentionally crafted to deceive and divide. They've come HERE repeatedly to lie about the current administration's gun control plans.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 11:47 AM
Collaborator would fit nicely.
"Quisling", "Judenrat" (a favorite of a Jewish friend), they all describe the same thing.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 11:51 AM
Fifth columnist? Too active a role, it implies they know what they are doing.
Some of them take a VERY active role.

From the old National Firearms Association, to the more recent AHSA, to the active fifth columnists who've regularly appeared here, the anti-gun movement THRIVES on disinformation and lies. Truth is to them like sunlight to a vampire.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 12:00 PM
For the most part we form our opinions by our influences and experiences, if all one did was hunt deer with a single shot and was successful then I can understand in his mind not needing anything else, could it be when someone makes the statement you don't need that it has less to do with infringement and more to do with practicality?

"could it be when someone makes the statement ***I*** don't need that it has less to do with infringement and more to do with practicality?"

THAT is an argument of "practicality".

"YOU don't need <insert item/liberty/etc.>" is a statement of CONTROL.

There are a lot of things I don't own or do because they're of no interest, utility, or PERSONAL acceptability to me, from watching sports, to religion, to adult consensual sexual behaviors. I choose for MYSELF not to have or do these things. I don't make that choice for OTHERS. I certainly don't want to send people with room temperature IQs to their homes to SHOOT them if don't stop possessing or doing these things.

That's the what the Fudd/AHSA types want. They want their choices to be YOUR choices, by FORCE if necessary. And they're tickled pink if you (and your family) get killed if you don't play along.

Rail
March 2, 2014, 12:36 PM
I think that thinking of others as members of an "anti-gun crowd" does what those who are radically opposed to ownership do. 1911 was saying just that. There is a scale from 0-100 and if we apply the same approach all the way along it until we come to us we are simply adopting the George Carlin approach of 'all drivers who drive slower than me are idiots and those who drive faster are maniacs' (not verbatim ;)) FUDD is a term that has no distinct definition and that can exclude virtually everyone who doesn't think the same as you or me and so should be avoided since it can only alienate by lack of definition. As he said - be specific.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 12:58 PM
"could it be when someone makes the statement ***I*** don't need that it has less to do with infringement and more to do with practicality?"

THAT is an argument of "practicality".

"YOU don't need <insert item/liberty/etc.>" is a statement of CONTROL.

No, it is a statement of fact. You don't need a AR-15 to hunt deer. You don't need a gun to hunt deer. You don't even need a bow and arrow to hunt deer. Deer have been hunted long before guns and bows were invented. Again, a statement of fact. Also completely different than whether one should or should not be allowed to hunt deer with a spear / bow / gun, etc.

Being from a "very" rural area myself I can assure you there are far more needs for guns in the country than just killing deer.

Yes there are. However, that is not what huntsman said. What he said was that we our shaped by our own experiences. There are plenty of people that have never needed a gun for anything other than hunting. My grandmother lived in a rural area, had guns in the house, and never used one period. She was widowed before I was born and lived by herself, the last 15 years or so blind.

goon
March 2, 2014, 01:14 PM
No, it is a statement of fact. You don't need a AR-15 to hunt deer. You don't need a gun to hunt deer. You don't even need a bow and arrow to hunt deer. Deer have been hunted long before guns and bows were invented. Again, a statement of fact. Also completely different than whether one should or should not be allowed to hunt deer with a spear / bow / gun, etc.


For that matter, you don't need to hunt deer at all. Lots of people in L.A., New York, and Chicago have lived their entire lives without ever tasting venison.
I generally get around to throwing that point out at those who pull the "you don't need that for hunting" argument on me. I then suggest that the state should be trusted with the responsibility of managing animal populations in much the same way that the state can be trusted in determining which firearms a person "needs" and that they need them for. If that took place, society wouldn't need hunters at all.

Sometimes that gets wheels in someone's mind turning, but just as often it irritates them greatly and they storm off.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 02:42 PM
What is with all the argument about need? Individual rights are not determined by what another needs or wants. :banghead:

A couple of possible names:

Tories: prefer the King and the King's Law over the rights of the people or persons.

Elitists: They know better than anyone else so what they need or want should be good enough for anyone.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 02:51 PM
What is with all the argument about need? Individual rights are not determined by what another needs or wants.

No they aren't. The discussion of need comes up because the statement "you don't need that XYZ to hunt deer comes up a lot. That statement doesn't necessarily mean they don't want you to have the items. Example;

Joe shows up at hunting camp with his AR-15 and Bob says: What you got that thing for? Now one needs an AR-15 to hunter deer. I've killed one every year with a single shot. That statement has nothing to do with gun control, it is simply people doing what they do at hunting camp, BS about what gun is best for what.

Now if Bob said: What you got that thing for? Now one needs an AR-15 to hunter deer. AR-15's should be illegal. Now that statement is about gun control

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 03:03 PM
Either way, it's none of Bob's business, is it? Joe has a right to use whatever he wants to use to kill his deer. (I used to hunt with a .30 Carbine. Not because it had 15 rounds, but because it was the only center fire rifle I had at the time.)

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 03:24 PM
Either way, it's none of Bob's business, is it? Joe has a right to use whatever he wants to use to kill his deer.

Nope, but that doesn't mean he won't state his opinion. Lots of things that aren't anyone's business get discussed at deer camp and in daily life.

goon
March 2, 2014, 03:32 PM
What is with all the argument about need? Individual rights are not determined by what another needs or wants.

When I pull out arguments about not "needing" to hunt, I only do it with the elitists who are so hellbent on telling me what I need. Basically, it's a way to show them how it feels to be thrown to the wolves by someone who they thought would support them (in my case, a bearded guy in jeans and a Carhartt who's probably buying two boxes of ammo).

Sometimes that makes people think. Sometimes it just makes them angry. Either way, it shuts them up and gets them out of my face. And by the time we get to that point in the conversation, that's about all I want from them.

Skribs
March 2, 2014, 03:49 PM
Goon, that's a good point. However, there is a difference between "what do I need to hunt" and "what should I be allowed to have to hunt." There is a difference between "I carry a revolver because I don't need more than 6 shots" and "I'll give up high capacity magazines because I don't think you need more than 10 shots."

Whether the discussion is technical or political makes a big difference. If someone makes a post saying "which 1911 do you prefer", and the two options are an original mil-spec pistol or a double-stack pistol with ambidextrous controls and a light rail, people will be divided. I would say one thing, 1911 purists would say another. Most people state their opinion and leave, some people get into a heated argument, but at the end of the day you see the pros and cons of some of these features.

However, when you ask those 1911 purists whether or not we should ban light rails and ban double-stack magazines, most of them will say "no". Some will jokingly say they should be banned for the sake of 1911 purity. And then there are some that will say "yes, we should put forth our own bill banning these features so we can pass some sort of compromise so I can keep my purist 1911!"

The first type of discussion is a lot of fun, even if it usually results in locked threads. You learn a lot about how people think, marketing, and tactics. The second discussion is evidence that the anti-gun crowd is successfully pitting us against each other.

I'm fine if you're a purist. Some of my favorite posters on this site I completely disagree with their choices of hardware, and they do mine. However, what I'm not fine with is the idea that because you don't think you need something, that I don't need it either.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 04:21 PM
An elitist bellieves he knows what is best and that everyone should conform to his views.

Saying "I don't need..." is often a statement of personal preference, but if used as an example of why the object is gnerally unnecessary, it is elitist.

Saying "you don't need" can be a statement of technical merit if the "you" is rhetorical. If it is not rhetorical, then the statement becomes elitist.

Saying "No one needs..." is a political statement and is definitely elitist.

Quite often, a person will say "No one…" when they mean "I…" or will say "I…" when their true belief is "No one…" The latter is dangerous because they pretend to be supporters of individual rights when they are really elitists and only care about their own. The former is dangerous because they play into the hands of the latter, voicing the "No one…" belief for them and taking the heat for it. These are the people I think most people think of when they hear the term "Fudd". What they really are is clueless pawns of the elitists.

Elitists are not Fudds, they are Zumbos. Zumbos have an opinion, think it is superior to that of others and should be heeded above all others.

Skribs
March 2, 2014, 04:27 PM
JRH, if there was a like button on this site, I would like that post.

goon
March 2, 2014, 04:30 PM
I'm fine if you're a purist. Some of my favorite posters on this site I completely disagree with their choices of hardware, and they do mine. However, what I'm not fine with is the idea that because you don't think you need something, that I don't need it either.

Agreed.
Really, to me hunting is not a priority. I mostly own guns for other reasons, so whether any of them are preferable for hunting or not doesn't matter to me in the least.

I'd never really deny anyone their ability to hunt, but in a discussion like that, I'll throw that out just to make the point that if they don't support me, why should I support them? Let those people see how it feels to end up under the bus for a few minutes as they contemplate what points I'd use to argue that their "right" to hunt (again, I'm not aware of any court rulings in favor of any such right) shouldn't exist.

Maybe it'll teach them to think outside their own narrow little box.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 04:30 PM
For that matter, you don't need to hunt deer at all. Lots of people in L.A., New York, and Chicago have lived their entire lives without ever tasting venison.
I generally get around to throwing that point out at those who pull the "you don't need that for hunting" argument on me.
You couldn't be more correct.

"You don't need" is almost invariably code for "I don't want you to be ABLE to".

This is NEVER about somebody making choices for HIMSELF. It is ALWAYS about making those choices for OTHERS, usually at GUNPOINT.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 04:33 PM
That statement doesn't necessarily mean they don't want you to have the items.
But it USUALLY does, DOESN'T it?

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 05:30 PM
That statement doesn't necessarily mean they don't want you to have the items.
But it USUALLY does, DOESN'T it?

No it doesn't. "You don't need" is a common phase used to describe many different topics.

You don't need that 200 hp motor on your bass boat.
You don't need that doe urine.
You don't need that $300 putter / driver.
You don't need a $6000 bicycle to go on club rides.
You don't need to join a gym to lose weight.

The list goes on and on. No one would look at any of those phrases above and assume the person talking wanted the government to ban that item.

huntsman
March 2, 2014, 05:30 PM
Elitists are not Fudds, they are Zumbos. Zumbos have an opinion, think it is superior to that of others and should be heeded above all others.

yeah as is Metcalf as is the guys who push for more complicated regulations as a way to highlight their superiority over fellow gun owners, IF Fudds are a threat to RKBA (I doubt they are) then the self serving Alphas who drive their agenda regardless of collateral damage are every bit as much a danger also.

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 05:36 PM
No it doesn't. "You don't need" is a common phase used to describe many different topics.
But it only means ONE thing when the subject is guns: "YOU don't need that, and I think it should be taken away, if necessary by KILLING you (and probably your family too)."

larryh1108
March 2, 2014, 05:54 PM
What do you call the people who live in the city, get fed up with government over-control like limiting where you can smoke, the size of your soft drinks, associations that tell you that you can't own a dog larger than 35# or own more than 2 and can't run a home based business and they move to "the country" and in a short period of time they don't like seeing guns at Walmart or the local hardware store and their new friend's kids all hunt? These people then become vocal and try to turn their new neighborhood into what they just left. The controls they wish to impose may be different than the ones they left but they try to do it anyways. These people are the worst, IMO, and should be given a one-way ticket back to the big city.

PistolPete45
March 2, 2014, 06:06 PM
Fudds I like the term Fits several people I know .. The worst Fudds I ever had anything to do with was the NRA .. Being a bit closed minded I told them to go away and never send me anything again Joined the GOA .. in the 90's .. I see a lot of you on THR like the NRA ..have things changed .

goon
March 2, 2014, 06:29 PM
No it doesn't. "You don't need" is a common phase used to describe many different topics.

You don't need that 200 hp motor on your bass boat.
You don't need that doe urine.
You don't need that $300 putter / driver.
You don't need a $6000 bicycle to go on club rides.
You don't need to join a gym to lose weight.

The list goes on and on. No one would look at any of those phrases above and assume the person talking wanted the government to ban that item.


In the case of guns, the statement that you don't "need a 30 round magazine for hunting" is almost always accompanied by the attitude that they should also be banned, or at least that the people talking about need would be supportive of a ban.

I think you're in denial if you don't see that.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 06:58 PM
But it only means ONE thing when the subject is guns: "YOU don't need that, and I think it should be taken away, if necessary by KILLING you (and probably your family too)."

Nice hyperbole but again no.

Let me tell you a story. We are at deer camp. My cousin arrives and pulls out his new 7mm mag. My uncle (his father) immediately says: "Why did you get that thing. You don't need a 7mm mag to hunt deer!" This was followed by a hearty and heartfelt discussion on what cartridge is the best for deer hunting. No one in that room thought that my uncle was saying my cousin shouldn't be allowed to hunt with a 7mm mag or that the 7mm magnum should be banned.

In the case of guns, the statement that you don't "need a 30 round magazine for hunting" is almost always accompanied by the attitude that they should also be banned,

If that statement is made by a politician, yes. If it is said at deer camp, most likely not. I know many people that don't like the use of sem-autos for hunting because they believe it encourages people to take risky shots. The idea is that if you only have one shot you will make it count. Also due to the fact that the person making the statement hunts with a bolt action and has never seen the need for a semi-auto. Nothing to do with banning anything.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 07:00 PM
I think you're in denial if you don't see that.

Or perhaps more accurately, in denial that it is there to be seen even when others clearly see it. :uhoh:

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 07:05 PM
In the case of guns, the statement that you don't "need a 30 round magazine for hunting" is almost always accompanied by the attitude that they should also be banned,

If that statement is made by a politician, yes. If it is said at deer camp, most likely not.

And what if the statement is made often enough by hunters that it is quoted by politicians as proof that even hunters say "No one needs _____________"?

Deanimator
March 2, 2014, 08:06 PM
Nice hyperbole but again no.
"Hyperbole" = observed reality.

My PERSONAL experience is that whenever somebody says, "You don't need x" in connection with firearms, it's a prelude to endorsement of bans, confiscations and unlimited violence in enforcing them.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 10:53 PM
My PERSONAL experience is that whenever somebody says, "You don't need x" in connection with firearms, it's a prelude to endorsement of bans, confiscations and unlimited violence in enforcing them.

You obvious know different people than I do.

Al Thompson
March 3, 2014, 06:31 AM
At 144 posts, looks like we're going in circles. I'm calling this one done. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you know what a FUDD is?Do we have many" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!