A word about Fudds

[Raoul Duke]

Here's a particularly salient piece on Fudds by Dave Codrea...



I note some of the gun blogs have picked up on a complaint from the ol' Fuddmaster himself, Bill Schneider, and caution us that use of the term is not productive because it divides gun owners.

I find it curious that the objection is not to his continued use of the term "Gun Nuts." Talk about something that makes us all look bad.

Shneider has no credibility with me--foremost because he has been given incontrovertible proof on the subversive nature of AHSA, yet he continues to portray them as a legitimate alternative for gun owners to support.

Then there's his hysterical judgmentalism over the entirely self-inflicted Cooper fiasco:

Gun Lobby Attack Dogs Strike Again
What kind of people suffer no remorse when intentionally destroying one of their own, his company and his employees to make their point?

There was no organized lobbying effort, and he knows this. There was no First Amendment suppression here, and he knows this.

This was purely an exercise in fed up gun owners deciding who they wish to freely associate with. That's "what kind of people." And notice he called us "dogs."

Note also what he said about Obama:

While in Butte, America, for the Fourth of July, Barack Obama told the press, “There is not a sportsman or hunter who is in legal possession of firearms who has anything to fear from me.”

I happen to believe him. I hope most other hunters do, too, because we can make the difference on November 4.

Now I want to clarify something about the term "Fudd." It is not used by hard-liners like myself to insult anyone who participates in shooting sports or hunting or prefers shotguns over EBRs.

It is used as a reaction to "sporting use"-ONLY gun owners who throw the rest of us under the bus in the belief that their hobby will be protected, that they won't be eaten next.

Seems to me these Fudds deserve a little name-calling. There's nothing to divide--they're not on my side. They're either stupid, detached freeloaders who enjoy the protections of activism while not lifting a finger to help, conscious sell-outs, or outright enemies.

But don't worry, I'm not going to call any AHSAhole who falls in the latter category a "Fudd." In recognition of their special treachery, these wormtongued subversives deserve their own term:

Mudderfudders.

 

[mikem317]

While in Butte, America, for the Fourth of July, Barack Obama told the press, “There is not a sportsman or hunter who is in legal possession of firearms who has anything to fear from me.”

They don't get it. The Second Amendment never was, nor ever will be about "hunters" or "sportsmen" (whatever that means). It's about allowing the populace to keep and bear arms to provide for a means of self-preservation, in a broad sense. An obvious example would be to serve as a check against a tyrannical government.

 

[sig shooter]

this guy is a citizen of the sheeple of America, this guy doesn't seem to know that with out the RTKBA we cant physically defend all the rights he deemed as more "important" than the 2nd. people like this are our worst enemy and should be treated as so.

 

[Bob P]

Idiot. Calling a Fudd a Fudd isn't devisive (as RD points out) because a Fudd has ALREADY created the divide by his or her willingness to toss the rest of us under the bus. You're not a Fudd for being a hunter, you're a Fudd for not giving a crap about non-hunting gun owners.

 

[wahsben]

Idiot. Calling a Fudd a Fudd isn't devisive (as RD points out) because a Fudd has ALREADY created the divide by his or her willingness to toss the rest of us under the bus. You're not a Fudd for being a hunter, you're a Fudd for not giving a crap about non-hunting gun owners.

+1

 

[clinotus]

When you look at the damage done to the shooting sports or self defense communities, you really need to look no further than those 'sportsmen' and 'hunters' who have donned those monikers in order to damn everyone else in the sport.

They think nothing of the silver coin, silver handle of their older antique arms, or the silver inlay on their handed down firearms and rifles.

But when asked about reasonable restrictions, or law changes they see anyone not in their league or anyone who has gone off the path as 'those others', those 'gun nuts'. But they are the people with the voices...that are being heard.

Look no further than Cooper who hedged a bet and got caught.

And in the end, it doesnt matter because they've made their bed and lie comfortably in it with those same politicians who strike your rights down. Because they are the safest arms owners on the proverbial chopping block. Until they come for them, and then it will be too late.

 

[jhrosier]

... In recognition of their special treachery, these wormtongued subversives deserve their own term:

Mudderfudders.

+1000

Creaping incrementalism is about to go into overdrive:

1 Disgressionary licensing

2 Purchase limits

3 De-facto registration

Take these in any order.

Jack

 

[MaverickNH]

But remember, without Fudds the voice of gunowners would be inaudible. As long as CCW and Black Rifles remain tied to birdshot and deer rifles, we've got a chance. We split and go separate ways, we're all screwed. Just like the UK.

 

[Bill Nance]

But remember, without Fudds the voice of gunowners would be inaudible. As long as CCW and Black Rifles remain tied to birdshot and deer rifles, we've got a chance. We split and go separate ways, we're all screwed. Just like the UK.

Do you actually KNOW anything about the UK? Like, as in they have NO constitution but only a tradition?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but please, know the difference between the U.S. and other countries before you go all asceereded.

 

[boomerang]

Do you actually KNOW anything about the UK? Like, as in they have NO constitution but only a tradition?

The English bill of rights enumerated the right to bear arms.

 

[Bob P]

The English bill of rights enumerated the right to bear arms.

IIRC, the English Bill of Rights isn't written down and is comprised of, as the prior poster indicated, tradition.

 

[Bill Nance]

Just to clarify:

The English Bill of Rights was an act passed by Parliament in 1689 as part of the deal it made with regard to the crown succession of William of Orange.

As an act, it can be amended, changed or done away with by the same Parliament that passed it. It is a set of general guiding principles, NOT a binding law for the foundation of the government.

The purpose of the act was primarily to assert the rights of PARLIAMENT, not the people, though the people are mentioned a few times. This was not too long after the English civil war, and was passed on the heels of the deposed King James II.

Unlike the British tradition, the U.S. Constitution is the founding and binding document you are no doubt familiar with. It wasn't just a law, it's the set of rules which ALL laws must comply with.

As much as I like Europe and liked living there, the fundamental weaknesses of most countries there remains that the rights of citizens are not set in stone the way they are here. So yes, their legislative bodies can all strip, redefine or modify rights. All over Europe for instance, the right of free speech is limited in all sorts of ways. You're I'm sure already well aware of the firearms in the UK thing.

 

[MaverickNH]

Do you actually KNOW anything about the UK? Like, as in they have NO constitution but only a tradition?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but please, know the difference between the U.S. and other countries before you go all asceereded.

A bit quick to criticize there Bill. Yes - I've read "To Keep and Bear Arms" and "Guns and Violence" by Joyce Lee Malcolm as well as numerous publications on the history of gun control in the UK. I worked for a British company for several years, lived there part-time and have numerous debates over a pint with an Oxford Don about guns and society. He always throught he won...

My point was, that the Fudds, as we call them, vastly out-number those who carry concealed handguns, train with AR/AK rifles and generally support minimal regulation of the use of firearms for self-defense. We need them on our side.

When the UK government first started "cracking down" on use of handguns for self-defense, the bullseye pistol and long-gun hunter/target clubs all threw practical pistol disciplines and CCW under the bus.

Then the UK gov't went after target pistols and the long-gun organizations looked the other way. Soon semi-automatic long guns were in the government's sights and were highly restricted, with the break-action shotgun and single-shot bolt action rifle groups looking down their noses at those who "didn't need such dangerous weapons" for polite hunting and target practice. When the government came after the remaining sport shooters, there was nobody left to raise the hue and cry of support.

The UK had/has no strong umbrella organization like the NRA to tie all firearms activities together - collecting, target shooting, hunting and self-defense. They were divided and conquered. To be effective the NRA balances all the factions and tries to keep them from warring amongst themselves. The loss of practical pistol/rifle disciplines at Nasha Fish & Game under pressure from the trap/skeet and High-Power/CMP disciplines was a graphic example to me of how the firearms community can fragment. In-fighting amongst the Non-Fuud and Fudd firearms communities would be just the leak in the dike that the anti's are looking for - we need to keep them on our side or go the way of the UK.

As Dave Kopel said, winning court cases is nice but winning elections is essential. We are a bit behind the Eight Ball now, 2nd Amendment or not.

 

[Bill Nance]

A bit quick to criticize there Bill.

Yes you are right. it was an over-reaction to your post, and honestly not one you deserved. I apologize.

 

[FunYun]

You really don't have any idea what your talking about.

A bit quick to criticize there Bill. Yes - I've read "To Keep and Bear Arms" and "Guns and Violence" by Joyce Lee Malcolm as well as numerous publications on the history of gun control in the UK. I worked for a British company for several years, lived there part-time and have numerous debates over a pint with an Oxford Don about guns and society. He always throught he won...

My point was, that the Fudds, as we call them, vastly out-number those who carry concealed handguns, train with AR/AK rifles and generally support minimal regulation of the use of firearms for self-defense. We need them on our side.

A 'Fudd' is not someone who just owns 'non-evil firearms', but someone who believes the RTKBA ends with EBR's and the like.

When the UK government first started "cracking down" on use of handguns for self-defense, the bullseye pistol and long-gun hunter/target clubs all threw practical pistol disciplines and CCW under the bus.

Then the UK gov't went after target pistols and the long-gun organizations looked the other way. Soon semi-automatic long guns were in the government's sights and were highly restricted, with the break-action shotgun and single-shot bolt action rifle groups looking down their noses at those who "didn't need such dangerous weapons" for polite hunting and target practice. When the government came after the remaining sport shooters, there was nobody left to raise the hue and cry of support.

The UK had/has no strong umbrella organization like the NRA to tie all firearms activities together - collecting, target shooting, hunting and self-defense. They were divided and conquered. To be effective the NRA balances all the factions and tries to keep them from warring amongst themselves. The loss of practical pistol/rifle disciplines at Nasha Fish & Game under pressure from the trap/skeet and High-Power/CMP disciplines was a graphic example to me of how the firearms community can fragment. In-fighting amongst the Non-Fuud and Fudd firearms communities would be just the leak in the dike that the anti's are looking for - we need to keep them on our side or go the way of the UK.

As Dave Kopel said, winning court cases is nice but winning elections is essential. We are a bit behind the Eight Ball now, 2nd Amendment or not.

They are not on our side now and will likely never be. They are ANTI-GUN, its no different then liking only some free speech.

Remember, we are not the ones who want their guns banned, its they who think ours should be. You are preeching to the wrong crowd.

As to courts and politics? USSC decisions don't change every time theres an election, but we also need the right Justices on the court. So they are both important, but the courts are where we make our recoures when there are bad laws, which are everywhere.

 

[Bob P]

I believe what he's trying to say is let's not go out of our way to antagonize them as we need them. Sure, some are a lost cause - the 'true' Fudds - however widespread name-calling might alienate some of the non-Fuddian hunters causing additional divisions in the gun-owning community. You may not like the NRA but we'd be in a MUCH worse place without it.

 

[massnee]

But remember, without Fudds the voice of gunowners would be inaudible. As long as CCW and Black Rifles remain tied to birdshot and deer rifles, we've got a chance. We split and go separate ways, we're all screwed. Just like the UK.

This is a despicable statement...unfortunately, it is most likely very true.

 

[Martlet]

In my humble opinion, most of what you say is correct. However, too often we fail to attack their message and/or educate rather than attacking them, even if it's terms like "Fudd". That serves nothing but to further the divide and close minds to possibilities.

 

[Mass-diver]

Fudds are a big part of the problem. It's not just that they don't support RTKBA; the main problem is that many of them go out of their way to speak out against pro 2A people.

Many of the Fudds I know love spouting off about how they are a hunter, but they don't belive in military weapons or "everyone" carrying a pistol. Antis LOVE these people. We have a guy at work that is a hunter. All the liberals love him because it's cool to support hunters (like Obama does). This guys loves to mix the 2A issues with hunter's rights and never misses a chance to point out that he only hunts with a bow or a single shot rifle beacause it's more "fair and humane." We'll never win these people over, it's best to call them and make it clear that the right to carry a rifle to shoot a deer has very little to do with the right to self defense.

For me, I dislike them even more than traditional anti-gunners.

 

[News Shooter]

Can you spell Z-U-M-B-O???

 

[Mass-diver]

Can you spell Z-U-M-B-O???

I think of him (and that article) everytime this issue comes up......

 

[Bob P]

I think of him (and that article) everytime this issue comes up......

Tie in the Nuge coming to his rescue and 'rehabbing' him and that actually presents a pretty good model for dealing with Fuddom. Of course if Zumbo hadn't been anathamized by the gun community I doubt he would have been open to being rehabbed.

 

[Mass-diver]

. Of course if Zumbo hadn't been anathamized by the gun community I doubt he would have been open to being rehabbed.

Didn't he lose his job as well.....

 

[Bob P]

Didn't he lose his job as well.....

A few of them IIRC, but I've heard he's got his TV show back.

 

[drgrant]

My point was, that the Fudds, as we call them, vastly out-number those who carry concealed handguns, train with AR/AK rifles and generally support minimal regulation of the use of firearms for self-defense. We need them on our side.

You missed the bus on this one. Fudds, by definition, were never on our side. I think when most of us use the term, we don't mean "joe random hunter with a couple of duck guns and a deer rifle". Not every person who hunts is a fudd, even if that person is not a "gun enthusiast" by definition. A fudd is a person who actively demeans anyone who owns some class of firearm that they don't approve of.

Fudds are basically no different than the john rosenthals of the world- they are basically antis who hunt game with firearms once in awhile, or shoot skeet/trap once in awhile. They will be the first to feed us to the wolves, and also the first to bend over when the government comes along. When the feds come for their duck gun, they'll whine for 10 seconds and then accept the government mandated buyout with glee.

Fudds are not part of the "gun owner vote" whether you want to believe it or not. If anything, they probably vote for antis. Pandering for their vote is a waste of time- especially when we have a metric ton of other gun owners that are more in the middle of the spectrum. There are tons of people, gun owners and not, that have not taken ANY position on RKBA, and even ignore it when voting.

-Mike

 

[Raoul Duke]

A fudd is a person who actively demeans anyone who owns some class of firearm that they don't approve of.
-Mike

+1


That's the crux of it. One cannot be a Fudd without actively working to undermine the larger firearms community. In other words, just being an occasional hunter only doesn't make a you a fudd. You have to go out of your way to speak poorly of the EBR crowd...er...us.

 

[MagnumAl]

Fudd

I have never heard the term Fudd, or knew there were such people that bash RKBA owners.

'Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee'.

We cannot give anything, because we certainly will never get anything back.

I just hope railguns go mainstream soon. Interesting loophole around 'firearm'.

 

[vellnueve]

They are not on our side now and will likely never be.

Have you tried converting them?

A few weeks back I was at the range and there were a couple of guys with their single shot hunting rifles, etc, sighting in. Typical "Fudds." When they saw my AR, one of them asked to take a look at and I let him try it out, while the other guy also tried it on for size. They both loved the EOTech, among other aspects.

You might find that if you try, you can convert some of these people.

 

[Jose]

Have you tried converting them?

A few weeks back I was at the range and there were a couple of guys with their single shot hunting rifles, etc, sighting in. Typical "Fudds." When they saw my AR, one of them asked to take a look at and I let him try it out, while the other guy also tried it on for size. They both loved the EOTech, among other aspects.

You might find that if you try, you can convert some of these people.

Those were not Fudds. You must go back and re-read the definition.

 

[JRyan]

Those were not Fudds. You must go back and re-read the definition.

Exactly. Fudds would have told you you don't "need" and AR and looked at you like you were some type of lowlife.