Messages
334
Reactions
534
What can we update Fudd with? I mean it’s 2019 and I can’t be the only one that rolls my eyes when I see the Fudd card being played....even if it’s completely deserved. Realistically most new shooters haven’t even watched good ol Elmer hunting that wabbit, on Saturday morning.

So what’ve you got?
EA762A97-9F92-47F0-B37E-2320DFE0726A.jpeg 0B532791-72D2-4827-980C-A8E8B21444E7.png F2B1BDB1-DF21-4B17-8149-3D6C0BE7C8D1.jpeg
 
How 'bout we drop the name calling...?

Maybe try and explain to those folks that a ban , restriction , limit , etc on one type of firearm , ammo or firearm accessory can easily be turned to effect any firearm , ammo accessory.
Will you change many people's mind's...No
But you do have a better chance to influence other people's thinking with facts and a well worded argument , than you do with 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.

For the record , just because I prefer muzzleloading firearms and classic wood stocked firearms , does not make me a "Fudd".
Yes I know that the above alone , does not make a "Fudd" ..but name calling and assuming often go hand in hand...Many folks who have called me a "Fudd" , assume that because of my firearm likes , I must think a certain way....

Any firearm has the potential to be on someone's "You should not own list"...A ban , restriction , limit , etc.. against one is a threat to all.

As part of the famous quote says : "Some men you just can't reach..."
I know that you will not make head way all the time , or change everyone's opinion...But having used facts and a well worded , reasoned argument , I have :
Given people something to think about...
Shown that you can be around guns and not get hurt or be a danger to someone...
Have had folks tell me : "Thanks , "I hadn't thought about it that way before" , "Hm , maybe not all gun owners are azzholes" etc...
Even helped turn a anti-gun person into a pro-gun person...

Again will this happen all the time or will we all ride off happily into the sunset...No
But I'll take the chance to get my point across , without name calling , or the risk of me sounding like a media stereotype , every time.
Andy
 
Messages
3,018
Reactions
10,603
I guess I'm one of those men who just can't be reached. No matter how someone explains their logic to me, I'll never understand why anyone would be for less freedom. Call me dense, I guess.
Fudd is just the name that seems to fit. Would 'anti-lite' be better? The label doesn't really matter. I know I'm repeating myself but, 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.
 
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 agree...
And all of of which you stated , can be said , the reasons why the "wishes to restrict " are wrong , can being listed ...all without names be called or labels being assigned.
( Please note that I am not saying that you are name calling in your post )
Andy
 
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,491
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.

In a debate, or discussion as you mention, first thing is validation of their concerns. To us they appear
maybe like a antigun lunatic, it may just be they are concerned about safety and most likely influenced allot from TV and
their party. So first thing is validate their concerns, then explain how you are for safety as well and how that can be done without
having one side scared, and the other appearing a gun nut. In any possible hostile situation, the more they see you are interested in their point of view, and not appearing like to push your agenda the more your conversation will be successful. ( its also very close to how LEOS's do in a hostage situation lol)
 

BSG 75

Messages
776
Reactions
2,647
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 don’t think the OP was name calling any individual. And of course persuasion and logical discussion are better than name calling.

But the sad fact remains that Fudds do exist and they are especially malignant and harmful to us all. It wouldn’t matter if they simply had a different opinion, but these guys go up in front of legislators and actively campaign in favor of gun control, and are quite proud of themselves for doing so. “I’m a veteran, and I’ve been a gun owner and hunter most of my life, and I support this” they’ll say. It’s music to the ears of gun controllers, and gives an aura of reasonableness and respectability to gun control. Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the backers of IP43 the “assault weapon” ban, bragged that there are several hunters and gun owners who are members of his organization. Fudds really do give aid and comfort to the enemies of our gun rights and are particularly deplorable for that reason.

Real Fudds are not delicate flowers who need protection. In my experience they are sanctimonious and feel superior to other gun owners. They refer to gun rights supporters as “gun fetishists”, “gun fondlers”, and “ammosexuals”. How’s that for name calling? That’s worse than being called a Fudd. They really don’t deserve your protection.

Fudds exist and I think open discussion about what they do, why they are particularly harmful, and importantly who is and who isn’t a Fudd is beneficial and isn’t simple name calling. Tamping down discussion only perpetuates confusion and misunderstanding, and that leads to people like yourself being incorrectly and unfairly being called a Fudd.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,491
If we were to look at this and use the 1st Amendment in place.

We would find Fudds, that had private theaters, and used speaking venues.
Would look down upon those that spoke at public places and required a permit.

I have known more Fudds then I could count, my view of them, and then of me was.
Firearms are strictly for recreational use, a use other wise makes me some kinda backwoods militia type.
There are two family fudds that have a shotgun for protection, and are actually shocked that we carry 24/7 where
ever we go. When they heard about the AK and Ar's they nearly shipped their pants. And these are from people
that bought a firearm legally and bought it to use at home and for sport. They actually bought a Beretta 9mm
and said it was too much gun for anyone to own.

This is what we are up against by those that even own them.
As as been noted Prozasnki is a CC holder and carries each day and owns other firearms.
He is the worst fudd of all, he wants you and I regulated, and not himself. As if getting voted into
office makes you a fireaarms professional.
 
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.
 
Messages
3,018
Reactions
10,603
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.
I think a pretty common dog whistle is "nobody needs". Once I hear that, I know exactly who I'm dealing with.
While not a posting, here's my example; I have an acquaintance (husband of wife's friend) who is an orthopedic surgeon. Very intelligent and generally conservative guy. I was actually a little surprised to learn that he has a gigantic safe in his garage filled with what many of us would consider to be pretty exotic stuff. I thought he was a like minded soul until I brought up HPA and found that he was very much against it. I stated that I would have expected someone with a medical background to be in favor of something that would prevent hearing loss. His reply? "Oh, bull$hit. No one needs a silencer unless they're a hitman or sniper. If you want to save your hearing just put on some ear muffs." The conversation ended right there. I can guarantee he and his wife didn't vote for Kate but I'm not so sure how he'd vote on something like a 1638 or 501. He's got his.
BTW, he has approached me about moving his safe to my Idaho basement. Well, huh.

So, I'm not sure actual posts would really help you understand since there doesn't seem to be any real logic behind fuddery. It seems to basically be that imaginary line just outside their personal taste and interest. Kind of selfish IMHO.
 
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,491
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.

I am not sure when it was exactly, but sometime in this country it became common place to require a permit to speak publicly.
Its not everywhere, but it sin enough places that many see it as the norm.
And why I get the term Fudd and its implication, its along the lines of Libtard etc, and sure I get the venting, I do it too.
But I also get what you are saying @CountryGent
 
Messages
3,576
Reactions
7,197
Don't identify the identifiable as it might upset some people?

Be meek and humble at all times?

Remember passionless banality is a virtue?

Is that the message?
 

bbbass

Messages
15,159
Reactions
32,815
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.
 

WAYNO

Messages
2,815
Reactions
9,045
Reminds me of the term milennial. It is what it is, but also can be used as a slam.

The milennials blame the Fudds, while the Fudds blame the milennials for doing mostly nothing to protect our cause.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,491
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...
 
(1) We recognize that there aren't presently enough 2A supporters to protect gun rights, but
(2) we use derogatory terms to describe those that we would recruit to our side.

Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:
 

bbbass

Messages
15,159
Reactions
32,815
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...

Well, it's not my house. And I don't get to do whatever I please while in Joe's house. Many of us push the envelope or downright flaunt the rules and it's rare that we get any lashback about it. I'm not sure how it's all going to work out, but I am sure that these are stressful times.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors August 2-Day Show
Hillsboro, OR
Vancouver Gunshow
Ridgefield, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top