I agree...go reread 2A. No conditions, limitations or exceptions are listed. So in my book, anyone who wishes to restrict me in any way is just...wrong.
I am not sure how to have a fruitful discussion with anyone completely dogmatic on a subject where their opinion does not coincide with facts and evidence.
Edited to say, I am open to suggestions as to how to do so.
How 'bout we drop the name calling...?
Having been called more than once , even on this very site a "Fudd" ...I can assure you that it does nothing to further your ideas that you want to get across.
...Many folks who have called me a "Fudd" , assume that because of my firearm likes , I must think a certain way....
I think a pretty common dog whistle is "nobody needs". Once I hear that, I know exactly who I'm dealing with.Are there any examples of online postings by known 'fudds' who are outlining their beliefs and positions?
Reason is I would like to read some to gain a Better understanding of them.
To the best of my recollection, I've never been accused of being a Fudd, nor have I have I leveled said at someone, but I still don't care for the word. Name-calling is inherently divisive and rarely advances the conversation.
That said, there is a very real phenomenon embodied by the aforementioned term. Some are likely well-meaning, but grossly misinformed. Others are likely little more than shills cynically used by 2A opponents to advance their agenda. I'm at least somewhat optimistic we can reach the former, but have no illusions of changing the minds of the latter. Rather than spending times on worthless memes, maybe a better use of said time is an honest attempt to reach rather than repel.
And at the heart of Fudd-dom (for want of a better term), or any other Nanny State notion, is that the government decides what you do or do not "need". I categorically reject such an idea. As long as the respective sides cling to the notion that the state is a bludgeon to be wielded against their fellow citizens, we will continue our present political folly.
To me these derogatory terms being referenced (Fudd, Libtard) are merely shortcuts used in dialogue. They simply describe what would otherwise take many words. Therefore, it's efficient.
Does one think that the opposite ideology does not have shortcut words? Hmmmm? Things like MFer? Yah.
My understanding of interpersonal dynamics is that it is confrontational and button pushing to call a person a name while addressing that person. And as has been said, that's counterproductive. I get it. But if I am discussing House Rep xyz with my friend and I call House Rep xyz a Fudd I don't think I'm being confrontational to House Rep xyz. Maybe disrespectful, but House Rep xyz maybe doesn't deserve my respect.
I agree, but in this forum sometimes its overlooked, sometimes discouraged, sometimes we can say Dems are at fault
other times we can't. It surely is accurate, but here at NWFA their is no general cohesion. of proper use.
Personally, I think its time we call a rock a rock, and stop pussy footing around because it might offend people.
But the rules still discourage grouping and political usage when used in a derogatory way. Wish it was not like it is, but those are the rules in this forum...