Found out my neighbor is a "Fudd"

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
He considers 3 boxes of ammo "stockpiling"......
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny.



What puts a grin on my face is an accurate firearm. I don't care what it is as long as I can shoot it well and hit what I'm aiming at. What's been really fun to shoot lately is a Browning 92 (a Miroku-made Model 1892 Winchester) in .44 magnum. Shooting that big-bore levergun is a hoot! then again I like .45ACP pistols too.
 
My dad has at least 3 different hunting rifles. I can guarantee he does have 1 complete box of shells for any of them. Come hunting season. , he will take 3 bullets, go out shoot his deer, come home and put 2 bullets back in the box. It has worked for him for 50 years. He doesn't lose sleep over of ammo as long as he has 3 shells. A partial box is a stockpile to him.
 
I guess I'm in the hardcore 25% of gun-owners, shoot thousands of rounds/year, reload a couple thousand rounds/year and shoot on average.....300 rounds every weekend, lol. :D

I've always been curious about AR's, decided to take the plunge, especially before the election year next year. Best decision I ever made....love it!
 
I have some pretty mixed emotions on this whole topic.

Until very recently, I've been pretty anti assault weapon. (I would consider myself a "Fudd" by the definition espoused here.)

I know what the AR was designed to do, and I know what it is capable of, even in untrained hands. I believe they have their place on the battlefield, but not in a civilized society. I also believe that there is nothing legal you can do with an AR that can't be done with a bolt gun. I care about hunting; I don't care about self defense.

That said, very recently I've come to accept that there are very real reasons for those guns to be in civilian hands.

But I'm certainly not going to vote for a candidate who cares nothing about my well being, or who I feel is unfit for public service, simply because he or she promises not to take away assault weapons.

I don't see this as "divide and conquer." I see this as individuals have brains and consciences and should be able to use one according to the other.

So yeah, guess that makes me the enemy.
 
Oh PS: for the OP (ColoradoShooter?)

I've shot AR's endlessly. Countless rounds. M60's too. As well as the M9. Doesn't really make me grin.

Don't think that everyone enjoys, or will enjoy, what you enjoy. Those guns are real turn offs for me.
 
I care about hunting; I don't care about self defense.
Click to expand...
I'm just the opposite - every gun I own has SD as its primary purpose.
Never hunted in my life (other than irritating squirrels with a BB gun in my early teens) and have no desire to.
BUT
I certainly don't denigrate those that do hunt and have only blue and steel guns - more power to 'em.

I just hope they would return the sentiment.

Anywho...the term FUDD seems to be getting thrown around a lot in here lately.

From the Urban Dictionary, which seems to cover it pretty well (emphasis mine):
FUDD
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

"See sonny, all those pistols in that cabinet... all thems is good for is killin people." -Example of ignorant comment from a fudd at a local gun shop. See also: Zumbo.
 
ColoradoShooter77 said:
I guess I'm in the hardcore 25% of gun-owners, shoot thousands of rounds/year, reload a couple thousand rounds/year and shoot on average.....300 rounds every weekend, lol. :D
Click to expand...

I doubt even 5% of gun owners shoot a thousand rounds in a year. Lots and lots of guns are sitting in drawers and closets and never get to come out and play.

My own shooting has ebbed back and forth over the years. I hunted and shot clays in my teens. Then I went about 15 years where I might have shot a total of a 50 rounds. About 3 years ago the public range by my house opened back up and I started shooting again. Shot 300 rounds last Friday.
 
The Alaskan said:
Oh PS: for the OP (ColoradoShooter?)

I've shot AR's endlessly. Countless rounds. M60's too. As well as the M9. Doesn't really make me grin.

Don't think that everyone enjoys, or will enjoy, what you enjoy. Those guns are real turn offs for me.
Click to expand...
Why? They are just rifles, very similar to any other. You pull the trigger, and a projectile comes out then end. It seems you have an emotional issue with them. That's fine, and that is your right.
 
Better a Fudd than an anti.
Click to expand...
That's like saying "Better a Quisling than a Heydrich."

The Fudds not only give cover to the Schumers, they work WITH them to take away YOUR rights through "common sense gun safety measures".
 
Don't think that everyone enjoys, or will enjoy, what you enjoy. Those guns are real turn offs for me.
Click to expand...
What you do or don't enjoy shooting is of no consequence to me as long as you don't try to impose those choices on ME.
 
No where did the OP ever mention that his neighbor wants ARs or any other firearm banned.
Click to expand...
However, my personal experience (and that of a lot of others) is that that's the safe bet. Whenever somebody starts showing their behinds about ARs, or handguns, or whatever, the next thing out of their mouth is USUALLY something about bans, licensing or registration.

Some of us remember the '90s era week long series of segments on NPR about the 2nd Amendment. On the first day their "PRO-gun" spokesman said that he only owned shotguns for trap and skeet, would NEVER own a handgun, and admitted that if "society" REALLY wanted him to give up his shotguns, he'd do it. And it was very clear that it wouldn't just be HIM giving up those shotguns.

Decades of personal interactions have taught me that it's VANISHINGLY rare for a "gun owner" eager to give up his own rights to ONLY want to give up HIS alone.
 
Folks with fuddly inclinations can be funny some times, I have a unkle that looked rather worried when I said I was looking into a rifle in 308 for hunting then stated "that's a sniper rifle" cause you know that 7mm win mag of his is only good for deer? Lol. then in another conversation about him getting a 223 varmint rifle he wanted a ruger m14 ( if i remember right alot of people were buying them so they would have a non "evil" and less likely to be band semi) they had recently skyrocketed in price so I suggested one of the cheaper models of ar he said he didn't want a assault rifle or something like that then said although the m14 could probably be turned full auto with less work than the ar
 
Were you really expecting an unbiased production from them?
Click to expand...
No but then I wouldn't expect to find information on how to really PROTECT children in the NAMBLA newsletter either.

On the other hand, it was an invaluable insight into not just how they wanted to deceive US, but likely the ways in which they deceive THEMSELVES.

If you want to con somebody else, you have to be careful not to lie to YOURSELF.

The anti-gun cult creates an AHSA or NFA, programs it to to lie about representing the "majority" of gun owners, starts believing its own lies, then gets slapped in the face, HARD, by reality.

As a socialist friend once said to a communist friend, "Don't start believing your own propaganda."
 
Folks with fuddly inclinations can be funny some times, I have a unkle that looked rather worried when I said I was looking into a rifle in 308 for hunting then stated "that's a sniper rifle" cause you know that 7mm win mag of his is only good for deer?
Click to expand...
Years ago I was active in an email mailing list for long range rifle shooters.

In a discussion I noted that I had a couple of sniper rifles. A Canadian (who else?) waxed ignorant about how nobody should have "sniper rifles" and that "civilians" shouldn't be allowed to have them. When I asked him what the REAL difference between a Remington 40X and an M40 was, he quite naturally was at a total loss for intelligent, coherent words.

Even more amusingly, after his little tirade, he got into a peeing contest with the Canadian gun registration agency. Apparently that agency was sharing his emails to them with a couple of Canadian cops on another forum with whom he was ALSO having a peeing contest. Being the helpful sort and wanting to put his predicament in the proper context, I quoted Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Socialists...". His response? "What the heck does that mean?" I just smiled.... ;)
 
Reminds me of the time my mother in law came down to out farm for 4th of July fireworks. The next day we had a machinegun shoot and she stopped by and asked "What are those good for?" I told her they were as useful as the $3000 worth of fireworks we burned up the night before but are more fun, last longer and cost less to enjoy.

The "made for killing people" comment is a simple one for me. None of my firearms despite millions of rounds down range have ever killed anyone. Kind of like the old "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my firearms" line.

I don't make it a point to try and change people more than letting them play with some of my toys, if they want to. I leave changing people up to my wife...
 
Deanimator said:
However, my personal experience (and that of a lot of others) is that that's the safe bet. Whenever somebody starts showing their behinds about ARs, or handguns, or whatever, the next thing out of their mouth is USUALLY something about bans, licensing or registration.

Some of us remember the '90s era week long series of segments on NPR about the 2nd Amendment. On the first day their "PRO-gun" spokesman said that he only owned shotguns for trap and skeet, would NEVER own a handgun, and admitted that if "society" REALLY wanted him to give up his shotguns, he'd do it. And it was very clear that it wouldn't just be HIM giving up those shotguns.

Decades of personal interactions have taught me that it's VANISHINGLY rare for a "gun owner" eager to give up his own rights to ONLY want to give up HIS alone.
Click to expand...
People that are typically of this mindset want to project their desires onto others, so want to restrict your rights due to what they believe is for the "public good". It makes them feel morally superior at YOUR expense. It is the same people that want to raise your taxes, but not theirs.
 
People that are typically of this mindset want to project their desires onto others, so want to restrict your rights due to what they believe is for the "public good". It makes them feel morally superior at YOUR expense. It is the same people that want to raise your taxes, but not theirs.
Click to expand...
And the hilarious thing is that almost always:
  1. They don't know what laws are actually in place NOW, frequently demanding laws... that were passed in 1968 or before.
  2. They know WAY less about firearms technology than they claim or think they do.
 
I believe they have their place on the battlefield, but not in a civilized society. I also believe that there is nothing legal you can do with an AR that can't be done with a bolt gun. I care about hunting; I don't care about self defense.
Click to expand...
You do realize the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with self defense from a government that would seek to otherwise subjugate our society right? The entire premise of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for the common people to defend themselves with whatever weapons they deem necessary.

I also believe that there is nothing legal you can do with an AR that can't be done with a bolt gun.
Click to expand...
Mag changes, hunting, target shooting, home defense (oh wait, that is not a valid reason...). In fact an AR can do pretty much everything a bolt gun can do. I am fine with your not liking or wanting one. To each their own, but to believe that because you see no use for them in the hands of responsible gun owners only aids those that seek to disarm us. If you think for one second that those parties would not come for your bolt action hunting rifles once they have my AR15 then you are sadly mistaken.

I've been pretty anti assault weapon.
Click to expand...
What did the STG44 ever do to you? You mention being anti assault weapon but an AR15 is decidedly not an assault weapon. A true assault weapon is select fire and uses an intermediate cartridge.

As a hunter, avid outdoorsman and all around gun lover I do not think one style of firearm is any "better" than another. I love my bolt actions, of which I have many. I love my AR15 and am currently building an AR10 style rifle and have another AR15 lower sitting on the work bench. Truth be told the ARs have lost some of their shine to me so I think the next rifle I get will be a long range precision rifle, maybe a nice Sharps.

After all, a firearm is an inanimate object that has no will of its own and is not good or evil. It is merely a tool that can be used for tremendous good or astounding evil. It can only be as good or evil as the person using it.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about hunting. Not one bit and never have.

But I like to shoot. A lot. So the hunting "justification" of any particular gun holds no water for me.

But when I get into a conversation with a Fudd and they ask what I'm supposed to "hunt" with an AR or a pistol, I have to explain that there's alot more to guns than just shooting bambi. Their look of quizzical shock and abhorrence that I would use a gun to shoot anyone hell bent on harming me or my family tells me they have never even considered such reality is possible.
 
You will never encounter a society where everyone wants or agrees with what you do.
Thank god for small favors and be happy that he is a pro gun guy. You have no problem.
 
I know what the AR was designed to do, and I know what it is capable of, even in untrained hands. I believe they have their place on the battlefield, but not in a civilized society. I also believe that there is nothing legal you can do with an AR that can't be done with a bolt gun. I care about hunting; I don't care about self defense.
Click to expand...
What was the bolt action rifle designed to do? What is the bolt action rifle capable of, even in untrained hands? What was it capable of at Plevna, and Adowa and San Juan Hill, and Mafeking, and Tientsin, and Mons, and the Somme, and Tannenberg, and Verdun, and Ypres, and Belleau Wood, and Chateau Thierry, and Shanghai, and Nanking, and Sedan, and Warsaw, and Lvov, and Kiev, and Leningrad and Stalingrad, and Kursk, and Berlin, and Corregidor, and Wake Island, and Saipan, and Guam, and Guadalcanal, and Tarawa, and Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and Nomonhan, and Harbin, and Mukden, and Incheon and Chipyong Ni, and the Chosin Reservoir?

Do they not ALSO have a "place on the battlefield, but not in civilized society"? Isn't it ALSO true that there's nothing legal that you can do with a Remington 700 that you can't do with a Remington Rolling Block?

Which has killed more civilians, AR15s in the United States or Mauser 98s east of the Molotov-Ribbontrop Line?

Let me suggest that your knowledge of history AND firearms is... lacking.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

6
  • Locked
My First Encounter with a "Fudd"
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
7K
MD_Willington
M
L
  • Locked
Help - I'm a "Fudd"
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
Y
  • Locked
The Fudd
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Justin
Justin
I
  • Locked
Found stolen goods?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Al Thompson
A
C
  • Locked
Took my anti-gun brother shooting today!
Replies
19
Views
2K
Shootshellz
S
Back
Top