My First Encounter with a "Fudd"

So he wants to stab his stomach because his leg hurts?

6_gunner said:

He made the typical arguments that “assault weapons” are only useful for killing people ...

Click to expand...

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

Quote:
you should understand the difference between the M16A2/M4 and an AR 15,

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Sounds like a ball to me.

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

Not all fools are stupid.

Click to expand...

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

LeontheProfessional said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes but the first definition isn't what Elmer really was (regardless of what tac-guys think) he is or was a city slicker(trying to hunt) what we used to call a nimrod, just like everything else it (the definition) got corrupted.

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

oneounceload said:

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

Click to expand...

You know, I went back and read my post and it sounded like I was being snotty toward you. I do apologize. I was basically trying to make the point that people who think the semi autos are a new invention don't really understand how old they are. It is sometimes difficult to convey tone in a post.

Anti definitons

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

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

Click to expand...

It's because they project intentional falsehoods onto an object. A good analogy is guns vs. gasoline.

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

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

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

Why do the anti definitions never work the other way around?

Click to expand...

If it's so easy for a criminal to "take your gun away", why can't you just take it BACK?

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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


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

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

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

I always find that the most compelling argument to a "sportsman" is this one:

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

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

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

"Sure can."

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

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

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

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

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."

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

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

Mike

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

"Sure it is. Explain the difference."

Click to expand...

I had that "discussion" with a retired Canadian cop in the Fullbore mailing list.

He lost.

Playing games instead of facing facts and stating it like the founding fathers just leads to silliness like "sporting purposes" in legislation.

Click to expand...

Disagree. My comments above weren't "playing games", it's addressing the inherent fallacy of the Anti refrain: "Guns are only made to kill!". Guns are a tool that does a specialized task, and killing is a potential byproduct.

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

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

Deanimator and Coronach you guys are killing me.

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

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

Click to expand...

Yep. I started on local BBSes, then FidoNet, then usenet, and now on the various message boards. Vern Humphrey was there from the start too.

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

Yes it does, thanks to Vern Humphrey as well then, I've seen you talk (write, whatever) about it before and it stuck with me.

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

He was so shocked by the rifle’s firepower and accuracy with iron sights (apparently all his rifle shooting had been with scoped guns) that he decided that nobody should be able to own such a terrible thing.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

thorn

The next time I meet a FUDD i'm gonna turn his name in to PETA so they can mail him a free vegetarian starter kit.

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



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

They not only don't own or shoot them, they don't think "regular folks" need those types of guns.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

I guess that's where I fit in.

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


Sooooooooooo, what does that make me?

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

Click to expand...

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

buck460XVR said:

I guess that's where I fit in.

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


Sooooooooooo, what does that make me?

Click to expand...

spot on. And in the majority of gun owners.

SwampWolf said:

I sure hope you don't think all Bullseye shooters are jerks.

Click to expand...

No, there were one or two gentlemen among them.


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

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

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



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

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