Fudds are dangerous to your rights

[F4GIB]

Stupidity In Tennessee: A Nashville businessman and hunter, who tries to pass himself off as a supporter of the Second Amendment, states. "The ban on assault weapons is legislation all of us who believe in the Second Amendment, all of us who love to hunt, all of us who believe in most of what the NRA believes in — all of us — can and should support."

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/OPINION01/702270343/1008

 

[Fly320s]

Liberal plant.

Token gun owner used to influence other, uneducated gun owners.

 

[xd45gaper]

prolly a minon for the brady bunch. any one can pass themselves off as a "hunter" because im sure if he was a REAL hunter he would notice that about half his weapons are about to become banned and the other half will be banned at a later date

 

[hso]

My long-winded response.

President Clinton directed the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a scientific study of gun-control legislation to demonstrate it’s effectiveness in preventing violent crime. The results of that study were not what President Clinton and gun-control advocates who had put the original Assault Weapons Ban and other more restrictive laws into place. In short the CDC task force determined that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of law reviewed on violent outcomes”. For the layman that means that firearms laws don’t seem to make a difference one way or the other when it comes to violence. Laws requiring training for people who are issued carry permits don’t change crime rates. States where you don’t even need a permit to carry didn’t have any difference. Laws restricting or, in the case of the AWB, banning firearms that look scary for civilian ownership didn’t change crime rates. Laws restricting magazine capacity didn’t change crime rates. And it wasn’t that there weren’t enough laws (hundreds upon hundreds) or enough time to see an effect. The AWB had been in effect since 1994 when the report came out in 2002. The task force spent 2 years and millions of dollars finding out that putting restrictions on law-abiding citizens (criminals don’t pay attention to laws, that’s why we call them criminals) doesn’t affect violence. When the AWB came to an end people like Mr. King claimed that there would be a huge upsurge in crimes committed with guns, blood in the streets. We’re still waiting for that upsurge in gun crimes. We’re still waiting for people like Mr. King and Congresswoman McCarthy of New York to admit that guns do not cause crime any more than forks make us fat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services
Summary
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes

 

[emitt1]

I agree with the others, probably a plant for the Brady Bunch. We've a few of those here on the highroad.

 

[SomeKid]

Probably not a liberal plant, but a liberal for sure. The Tennessean is not exactly the most unbiased rag out there. It takes its marching orders from a bunch of guys in Nashville. Nasville is not bastion of conservatism.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The whole reason these newspapers exist is to sell advertising. The more hits they have on their website, the more ads they sell and the more they can charge for their ads.

What do you think that these various magazines, newspapers, etc. have learned from the Zumbo affair? That the Second Amendment isn't about hunting? That gun owners have a fast and efficient grass roots effort?

I would suggest the only point any of them have learned is that if they post something supporting Zumbo, they will get tens of thousands of hits they wouldn't have gotten otherwise that they can use to sell advertising. Further that they will be able to do this without any other work on their part. I'll go even further and suggest that being in the business of selling ad space and aware of the Zumbo affair, they have probably considered the potential risk of losing existing advertisers before they published their latest attention grabbing piece.

Now maybe I am wrong on this and they aren't making this analysis and we can make a difference by cutting off support from their advertisers. However, if I am right on this, then all we are doing by online swarming of these websites is rewarding them for printing anti-2A propaganda. Of course, we also keep this issue alive longer - which I am really beginning to doubt is helpful for our cause.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I think a lot of people here need a conspiracy to make sense of anything. Guess what: There are a lot of gun owners who agree with this guy. They don't all work for the Brady Campaign. You've probably even met a few. I know I have.

They need to be educated, not vilified.

 

[BigG]

"I hunt ducks and other birds with my rifle." You mean that kind of hunter? With 2008 approaching, watch for Ms Hillry's hunting photo op.

 

[Pilgrim]

I wonder what kind of business he is in? Is he as vulnerable as Zumbo was to economic shunning?

Pilgrim

 

[cbsbyte]

No doubt Fudds are confused about the 2nd Ad but that does not make them part of a conspircay. Not every gunowner believes strongly in the RKBA. There are about 80 million gun owners, but only about 4 million belong to the NRA. This does not make them a brady supporter but just someone who developed a different beliefs about the use of firearms.

 

[cheygriz]

Print media equivalent of a troll??

Actually, I know several NRA members who are avid hunters and own a dozen or more rifles and shotguns, who believe that :

"All semi-autos, both rifles and shotguns should be banned, and ALL HANDGUNS should be totally banned.

I've tried to discuss this with them, but how the heck do you argue with a "head in the clouds" Pollyanna?

 

[Neo-Luddite]

'spray fired from the hip'


OK--if anyone had any doubt about this pathetic shill--there is the pudding.

Pure HCI

 

[vynx]

There are also a lot of gun owners that just do not believe the true aim of gun control is total gun confiscation and outlawing of ALL firearms.

As in any other area there are uninformed or just disbelieving people who won't believe that this is not an assault weapons (forget the ignorance of whats an assualt weapon?) ban it is step one of a total ban & confiscation.

Plus they don't think logically and understand that ignorant laws like this do no good. But thats what the deceiveing liberals always count on ignorance.

Whats the old saying "you can't go broke underestimating the American populace".

 

[SteveS]

No doubt Fudds are confused about the 2nd Ad but that does not make them part of a conspircay. Not every gunowner believes strongly in the RKBA.

Before the AWB, I saw more than one FFL on TV that thought the AWB was a good thing and supported it's renewal. I certainly wouldn't go as far to say that FFL's are dangerous to your rights. You'll have to provide more evidence than this. IIRC, there have been polls that show many gun owners support "reasonable gun control."

 

[cheygriz]

The really sad part of this whole problem is that most of these people are decent, patriotic, tax paying, hard working, caring folks that just want what they truly believe is best for the people and the nation. Of course, they're far too trusting and naive to realize what the Democrats are actually up to.

It would be much easier and less frustrating to really hate them if they were real arse-wholes, but most of 'em aren't.:banghead:

 

[Zero_DgZ]

1. The second amendment has nothing to do with f'ing hunting.
2. This divisiveness between "us" and the "fudds" is really starting to get on my nerves. This is exactly the kind of division the prohibitionists want to generate within us because smaller chunks of gun owners have a harder time putting up a fight and generating majority opinions.

Like it or not, fudds are gun owners too. And while they might not agree with all of us, they are still gun owners, and if not brothers they're at least cousins. The difference between us and them is that responsible gun owners may fight for the rights of "fudds," too.

Let's not build any walls we don't have to.

 

[cbsbyte]

They're far too trusting and naive to realize what the Democrats are actually up to

I hate to break it to you but the Republicans, as a party, are not any better than Democrats on the RKBA.

 

[SteveS]

The difference between us and them is that responsible gun owners may fight for the rights of "fudds," too.

Are you saying that hunters don't fight to protect gun rights? While some may not, many do, IMO.

 

[arthurcw]

Are you saying that hunters don't fight to protect gun rights? While some may not, many do, IMO.

Please remember that "Fudd" (a term I'm increasingly coming to dislike) stands for ONLY those hunters / "sporting arm" owners who do not believe the 2nd Amendment protects all guns and would gladly sell other gun owners out in order to keep their guns for a few extra decades.

I really think we should strongly discourage the use of Fudd. I’ve used it, but I think its cuteness has run its course. It’s now a term that is not helping the cause.

 

[Sig245]

I have never been a big fan of "black rifles" with 20-30 round clips. I am not even much of a hunter. I am a target shooter, and have been since the 1960's and love punching holes in paper.

That said I will defend all other gun owners, collectors and hunters rights. I know that incremental gun control will eventually come after my target pistols also. There are a lot of folks out there who want to stop hunting, they don't do it, have never been trained by a father or grandfather and fail to understand the lure of the woods. A majority of the population is now urban based and have no need for guns, until they face a criminal and are mugged or worse.

What I fail to understand is why out of 80 million gun owners only a tiny portion belong to the NRA or GOA or other hunting organizations. Not even 10% of gun owners are supporting the groups that are attempting to hold back the onslaught of current anti-gun legislation.

But of course, all the non-members are the first to point the finger at the NRA or GOA as being weak willed in their battle with government. Its sad, either step up to the plate and join the protest or don't enter the conversation. This is just my personal humble opinion.

I watched a lot of forum members make it a personal misson to go after Mr. Zumbo, the writer who made the mistake of putting his personal bias in the media, which of course gave a lot of power to the anti-gun folks. They will jump on any weakness within the ranks of gunowners.

But......why don't they go after the anti-gun members of Congress or the state legislators with the same zeal?? Why don't they want to become members of a large protest group like the NRA or GOA?

If the NRA or GOA had 80 million members would they have to compromise?? Would Congress ignore a growth of membership in the NRA or GOA from the current 4 or 5 million to 50-80 million members?? That is one fourth of the population of the US folks, there would be no further gun control and the past laws would conform to what the group choose them to say.

Think about how to make that happen with your friends and neighbors! Thats the big picture! The solution! Again in my humble opinion.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

Are you saying that hunters don't fight to protect gun rights? While some may not, many do, IMO.

Absolutely not. I'm saying we should not treat this as an "us versus them" situation. We stand up for our rights and we stand up for theirs, even while "they" are unlikely to stand up for our right to own non-sporting arms.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I hate to break it to you but the Republicans, as a party, are not any better than Democrats on the RKBA.

I guess you haven't compared gun legislation passed during the Clinton Administration with gun legislation passed during GW Bush's term then.

Hell, you can compare Clinton with GHW Bush's term and still the Republicans look significantly better.

To say that Republicans are not any better than Democrats is to ignore reality. They might not be much better than Democrats, particularly if you hold the belief that all gun rights should immediately be restored to their pre-1934 state; but they are unquestionably better at a national level and usually better at a state level.

 

[stevelyn]

An American Hunters and Shooters mole.

 

[carterbeauford]

The ban on assault weapons is legislation all of us who believe in the Second Amendment, all of us who love to hunt, all of us who believe in most of what the NRA believes in — all of us — can and should support."

generalize much?

you cannot support gun rights, kinda, sorta, well most gun rights.

if the black rifles go, yer wood rifles are next.