NYT article on the Zumbo AR15 affair

[drgrant]

Once again, no evidence, and you are completely missing the point.

I think a lot of people in this thread are "missing the point".

IMO there -ARE- Fuidds out there, hunters and shotgunners who really
don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution in general, that
is pretty much a fact. There are lots of john rosenthals and "sportsmen
for kerry" large type a**h***s out there. (Although john rosenthal, IMO is
below a fudd, he's basically a planted intentional traitor, he's too slick to
be a fudd. )

Am I saying that ALL hunters and shotgunners? Certainly not. I know
and have encountered a LOT of people primarily from those two disciplines that
would defend gun ownership rights. I run into a lot of hunters before
the season up at the ranges I go to, and so far not ONE of them has ever
said anything negative about the guns I brought with me. (usually something
politically incorrect). I've only run into one person saying something
remotely negative, and that person was not a hunter, shotgunner, or a
shooter at all. From personal experience I have not run into that many
fudds in the wild, so to speak... but I know other people who have.

On the other hand, there is no denying that Fudds make up
a contingent of enemies within our own ranks, so to speak. There are
a lot of sundry gun owners that could give a crap less about rights. They
know their O/U and low capacity rifle won't get taken away. (even fully
enabled communist states like NJ allow ownership of them, or even countries
like GB or AU.).

Is it unfair to call THOSE people all Fudds? No... problem
is they are not doing themselves any favors... In between the people that
Scriv is talking about,, and the "shotgun snob" clubs in this state where other
shooting disciplines are considered second or even third class citizens, I think
they have their work cut out for them. Again, are all Hunters/Shotgunners
FUDDS? No.... some percentage, certainly is though. It might not be a
majority, but it is large enough to show up on the radar.

In this particular case, whatever you think of Zumbo's transgression, there
is no denying that "the nuge" is doing a good thing here in trying to bridge
the gap a little bit. So what if they are using a rest.... I look at it this
way... Getting a "fudd" to shoot an AR is a good thing, period. Most
of these people condemn and mock what they don't understand, which
is a large part of the problem. They watch too much television and not
enough reality.


-Mike

 

[Patriot]

Spare us your specious drivel. It is you who is ignoring the evidence (can you even define that term?) to skew the point.

Calls from Fudds to my office asking me questions about a law enacted years earlier is direct evidence. LenS' reports of Fudds at his old club ignoring reality and taking no action beyond shoving their heads up their backsides is direct evidence.

You, by comparison, fail to even provide anecdotal evidence of the depth of commitment to the Second Amendment you claim for hunters. Their own writers, like Dumbo Zumbo and Petzal, in their own publications, prove otherwise. Get a grip and face the facts.

Scriv,

You are full of it. I am direct evidence. I am a hunter and long time firearms
advocate. Now you know you have met one hunter and firearms advocate/
enthusiast in person vs not meeting 'the enemy' except by telephone. Len's
evidence is related to the club recreational use of guns, not hunting. Your
anecdotal evidence wrt 'telephone calls' proves nothing. For a lawyer you're
treading on thin ice counselor. This argument is about the class of gun
owners (hunters) you and others condescendingly refer to as "Fudds'. Your
generalizations would get your case tossed out of court in a heartbeat. Get
your facts straight counselor or I will hold you in contempt.


TBP

 

[Scrivener]

I am direct evidence. I am a hunter and long time firearms
advocate. Now you know you have met one hunter and firearms advocate/ enthusiast in person vs not meeting 'the enemy' except by telephone. Len's
evidence is related to the club recreational use of guns, not hunting.

ONE hunter who "gets it." I yield in the face of such overwhelming evidence......

And LenS' club was full of the willfully ignorant and inert shotgunners of the same ilk. I'll take my direct experience over the expostulations of one internet poster any day.

 

[pipmaster1971]

Hmmm....I think we've all found a raw nerve here, I never knew there was so much animosity over this issue....

 

[Patriot]

ONE hunter who "gets it." I yield in the face of such overwhelming evidence......

And LenS' club was full of the willfully ignorant and inert shotgunners of the same ilk. I'll take my direct experience over the expostulations of one internet poster any day.

And your anecdotal evidence was so overwhelming too, I might add. After
all it is on your shoulders to produce the evidence which you so mightily
pronounced as gospel. The Emperor has no clothes Scriv, give it up.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The club that Scriv refers to wrt me was one very near my home, that I belonged to for 24 years, was a BOD member for 14 years as their legislative chairman. I used to take a lot of criticism there when members saw me carrying openly on the club property. They were 99% gallery pistol and skeet/trap shooters (many of whom also hunted). Good people, but only looked at the gun issues wrt THEIR PERSONAL INTEREST! Of the 350 members (in the early days), there weren't more than 5 that cared about "carrying handguns" or the Second Amendment!

Another club (that shall remain nameless) where I served for a few years as legislative chairman had an average of 50-60 people/meeting (total membership was ~400). When I gave legislative reports, there were 10-15 people there who were really concerned about 2A issues. Regrettably, there were a handful of officers/BOD members who felt GOAL was a waste of time and numerous attempts were made to drop the 100% GOAL status (one was successful for a year or more).

At BR&P, with a membership of 3000 (75% are "paper members" just to get a notarized letter for Boston PD and other anal departments that "require" membership to keep your restricted LTC), we typically get 35-50 members/meeting. Of those that attend meetings, I'd guess that ~1/2 are truly concerned about the Second Amendment. BR&P is extremely supportive of GOAL, Second Amendment Sisters, NRA, etc. Many that I know there may be pistol or rifle shooters (target or hunters) but seem to have their heads on straight wrt gun rights.

At Mansfield F&G, with a membership of ~300 I see 30-40 people/meeting. I'd say that maybe 1/2-2/3 are very concerned about Second Amendment issues. Many cowboy shooters, rifle shooters and hunters. Again, a club that seems to have their priorities in order.

 

[KMaurer]

You might want to consider a variation of what Gary Kleck calls "The Police Chief's Fallacy." A lot of police chiefs honestly believe that guns in the hands of the public are essentially useless for self-defense, because of the number of times they've seen or heard of armed people ending up as victims. The problem is that there's not much reason for an armed person who successfully scares off an assailant to report it to the police, or if they do, for the report to make it to the chief's desk. Perhaps the hunters or "sport" shooters who call your office when they encounter problems due to their abysmal ignorance of laws enacted almost a decade ago are no more representative of the entire population than are those people who have their guns taken away and used against them representative of gun owners.

Ken

 

[dixidawg]

You might want to consider a variation of what Gary Kleck calls "The Police Chief's Fallacy." A lot of police chiefs honestly believe that guns in the hands of the public are essentially useless for self-defense, because of the number of times they've seen or heard of armed people ending up as victims. The problem is that there's not much reason for an armed person who successfully scares off an assailant to report it to the police, or if they do, for the report to make it to the chief's desk. Perhaps the hunters or "sport" shooters who call your office when they encounter problems due to their abysmal ignorance of laws enacted almost a decade ago are no more representative of the entire population than are those people who have their guns taken away and used against them representative of gun owners.

Ken

Eggzackary

 

[Patriot]

I'll take my direct experience over the expostulations of one internet poster any day.

It seems we agree on one point..

 

[Scrivener]

THIRD attempt!

Perhaps the hunters or "sport" shooters who call your office when they encounter problems due to their abysmal ignorance of laws enacted almost a decade ago are no more representative of the entire population than are those people who have their guns taken away and used against them representative of gun owners.

This is the THIRD time I've posted a response and had it disappear into the ether. Either this forum is fouled up, or some mod is messing with my posts - again. Now, where was I?

Ken's point about those one hears about NOT being a representative sample of the general population is valid as far as it goes. In this particular case, however, it does not go that far because that is not the only sample tested.

Let's review: My call sample is based upon over 10 years practice; the majority of the cretins in question called between 1999 and 2004 - when they went to buy their "box of bullets" or renew their license and were denied due to the effects of Chapter 180. Many of these calls were not just long after 180 was passed, with all that hoopla, but also after:

1. Scotty Harshbarger ran for Governor based upon his work for c. 180;

2. Cheryl Jacques ran for Congress based upon her work for c.180;

3. GOAL and even the NRA alerted gun owners to the threat from/effects of c. 180; and

4. The twits had literally years in which to learn about and prepare for it.

But wait; there's more!

I've had an LTC since '79 and and FID a decade before that; I hunted with my Big Brother when I was in high school, read G&A, F&S and Outdoor Life cover to cover. Want to find documentation of the "Fudd Mentality?" Read their own magazines. Where do you think Zumbo and his ilk work? Who do you think they are writing for?

Think it's just a handful of twits calling my office? Live in the real world. Work a recruiting table for GOAL, the NRA or USPSA (I have) and listen to the hunters and shotgunners that they won't join because:

1. The NRA is too "extreme;"

2. "You don't need 'assault weapons'/'Saturday Night Specials'/pistols/semi-automatics to hunt with;"

3. "Only the police and military need handguns/semi-automatics/ 'assault weapons;'

4. "They won't take my guns; I'm a hunter / shotgunner;" and

5. "All I need is an over-under and my bolt gun."

Indeed, you can hear that selfish, self-deluded drivel at any gun show or gun shop; just wait 10 minutes.

Still not convinced? Well, just who is joining the "alternative to the NRA" organizations like Rosenthal's?

How is it that self-professed hunters number in the many millions in this country, yet are grossly under-represented in the rolls of the NRA, SAF, and GOAL?

I never said all hunters and shotgunners were "Fudds." I did and do say that the clear preponderance of Fudds come from their ranks, however. I never hear an action pistol shooter make asinine statements about how his guns are "protected" because of some ephemeral "sporting purpose;" no "assault weapon" owner thinks he's safe from further legislative depridations; big-bore target shooters who follow events know that their guns qualify as "sniper rifles;" and those hunters who do have a clue fully realize that the anti-gun and anti-hunting crowd have overlapping agendas.

Those who deny that the majority of the gun control contingent among firearms owners are hunters and shotgunners are deluding themselves. Their long history of inertia opposing, actual support for, and written comments regarding gun control prove it.

Those who get upset with me for stating the obvious are simply shooting the messenger - a poor response, intellectually and politically.

 

[stoneypete]

Now I really want to buy one....If only I could afford (need new carpet, and a fence first )...

I"ve been on the fence for a while. But the CC has a balance too high already, the basement needs to be finished, within the next couple of years I'll need to replace my car and the M1A comes first.

 

[fubar]

Romney " I've been a hunter all my life ....I support the 2nd Ammnedment and an Assault weapons Ban." .... remember John Kerry with the Goose hunting gun photo op of the last election...

Like it or not the Democrats believe in Fudds. They want hunters to relax and be assured no one wants their guns taken away. They only want cop killer handguns , and terrorist anti aircraft .50 cals , and bullet spraying machine gun AR15's and Sporterized AK Variants , and High capacity magazines , and only "highly trained proffessionals" carrying handguns , and semi automatic loading pistols , and anything that will take 11 bullets , and semiautomatic shotguns , and medium range sniper weapons like the Remington 700's , and... as long as the hunters aren't paying attention : England has a great system where you keep your O/U engraved clay pigeon gun in a vault at your country club ....

"Fudds" may have been named by EBR/Self Defense/LTC/2a people but they've been in the crosshairs of the Democrat extremists for a long time.

They know that if the deer & duck hunters ever started paying attention they'd be screwed. The 2A rkba people know it , too.

Anecdotal unfounded evidence ? : Name an AR15 shooter who votes Democrat.

 

[Jose]

To support fubar's point, I wrote a letter to all my state and federal legislators after the VT murders to remind them of the failure of gun control.

One of my two moonbat US senators wrote back to say that he fully supports the "Second Amendment right of hunters to own sporting guns" yada yada yada. The rest of what he said could have come right out of fubar's post.

Why do DemonRats court hunters so much and try to assure hunters so much? Because they know hunters IN GENERAL will support any gun control that they perceived is not a direct threat to their gun and one box of ammo per year.

In fact, some fudds I know could care less if all centerfire guns were banned and collected tomorrow. They would simply pick up their muzzleloader and bow and arrow and go back to fudding.

 

[Scrivener]

In fact, some fudds I know could [sic] care less if all centerfire guns were banned and collected tomorrow. They would simply pick up their muzzleloader and bow and arrow and go back to fudding.

Very true. I've actually heard several tell me that when informed they were disqualified for a license.