Washington Not the fudd we want but the fudd we deserve

[Boss]

1. Wooden stocks are the only acceptable stocks.
2. Magazines should only be 4-5 rds. (eliminating all detachable mags, as well as tubular fed, and lever guns. In other words anything not used for big game hunting)
3. MSRs were designed for military use.
4. NRA exists only to sell more guns.
5. NRA is deranged and derailed
6. He's ok with registering firearms
7. He's ok with requireing a license to own firearms
8. He's ok with mandatory safe storage laws
9. His only objection is to having to take a class and pay a fee. (In other words, only what affects him)
10. He's upset at being treated like a second class citizen, untrusted, or a criminal. (Welcome to our world, Bud).

Exactly. He obviously hasn't thought this through very well and considered the ramifications.

Some people believe the extremists on the other side when they claim they only want common sense safety measures and that compromise/appeasement will satisfy them.

Boss

 

[Capn Jack]

I'll have to look it up... Tomorrow.

 

[DB is Here]

Not to belabor this but is this what a Fudd is:
According to the Urban Dictionary, a "Fudd" is a, "Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment.

I thought it was an acronym for something...guess not.

 

[wp4]

Like Elmer Fudd.

Be vewwy vewwy quiet....

 

[Stomper]

I can handle being called a Fudd.

Fine..... Fudd.

 

[BSG 75]

Its not the words that hurt...
Its the fact that folks say them to me....A fellow gun owner.
One who does not want to give up any more of the 2nd Amendment , when too much of it has already been stolen.
If you were called Fudd or worse , like I have been on this very site and other places , you might be a bit more noticing of name calling.

You're not a Fudd. Whoever called you a Fudd was wrong and should apologize. But unfortunately Fudds do exist. Dennis McGeeHee is the epitome of a Fudd. As is this guy:

I had to look up "fudd"

I'll have to look it up... Tomorrow.

A Fudd is a gun control supporter who happens to own guns. They don't have to be a hunter, they just have to be a gun control supporter who happens to own guns. Not all Fudds are hunters and not all hunters are Fudds. In fact I hope most hunters are not Fudds, but I haven't seen a poll of hunters to know for sure. Here's how you can sort people on the basis of their support for or opposition to more gun control and their ownership or not of firearms (click on the images to enlarge):




Fudds support any and all gun control proposals as long as the gun control would have minimal or no effect on them or the type of guns they prefer or the type of shooting activities they enjoy. It's really pretty selfish and self-centered when you think about it, again just calling it for what it is. Especially since they seem to bask in the praise they receive from other gun control supporters, like this response Dennis McGeeHee received:



I've seen it many times in online comment sections. Some Fudd will say something like "I've been a gun owner and hunter most of my life, and I support an assault weapon ban and a ban on 30 magazine clips. No one needs those things. [he doesn't own those things so no one else "needs" them either] I support universal background checks and waiting periods [he hasn't bought a gun in many years and isn't planning on buying any guns so it wouldn't affect him]. I keep my two shotguns and my one bolt action rifle locked up at all times and anyone who doesn't is a dang fool." Then the other gun controllers heap praise on him i.e. "If only all gun owners were as reasonable and sensible as you are. Thank you so much! *swoon*" It's sickening.

A Fudd's positions on gun control are indistinguishable from David Hogg's or Dianne Feinstein's or Michael Bloomberg's or Moms Demand Action or the Brady Campaign or Ceasefire Oregon, etc. etc. Fudds just happen to own guns too. They support all of that stuff that Dennis McGeeHee listed in his comment, and sometimes more.

Again, being a hunter or liking wood and steel guns doesn't make one a Fudd. Supporting more gun control - especially gun control that would affect them little or not at all - while owning guns makes one a Fudd.

The problem with Fudds is that they lend credibility and respectability to gun control proposals, making it harder to fight those proposals. By casting themselves as "responsible" gun owners they imply gun owners who don't capitulate and go along with more gun control are somehow irresponsible. Fudds have no problem throwing other gun owners under the bus, as long as they are not affected. Mr. McGeeHee is a prime example. He doesn't like the NRA, he's all for the "ideal" of limits on so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, because a better-written law would have excluded the guns he owns and likes. But since I 1639 was poorly written and overly broad - as usual for gun control laws - it now affects him, and boy he doesn't like it. Yet he still thinks - just like all gun control supporters - the only purpose of gun rights organizations like the NRA is to drive up gun sales. Like they say, you just can't fix...some things.

Calling a spade a spade, and a Fudd a Fudd, isn't what is driving gun owners apart. It is some selfish gun owners - nicknamed Fudds - siding with gun controllers, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of gun rights, and throwing other gun owners under the bus who are the problem.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Yup...The NRA are definitely the ones who are deranged and derailed

 

[bbbass]

Yup...The NRA are definitely the ones who are deranged and derailed

Well, there IS that LaPierre guy...

 

[DuneHopper]

This whole thread reminds me of California, but hear me out.
As a kid we carried firearms and went hunting right where the SF stadium is today.
No one cared, even when stopped by the local sheriff time to time they could care less about our rifles
and more about what we were up to. The laws were not restrictive much at all growing up. But soon there
would be a move to ban guns for our safety. They went with that guideline, and started a movement to paint and evil picture on the firearm. It went from freedom to carry, to restriction to carry, to restriction to own all with in a span of about 15 years.
Why should anyone care, as I already lived the future of WA and OR, saw it first hand, and I now can see the exact mirror image I saw living there. OR and WA are about 10 years away maybe less from losing all rights. Our lobbies wont solve this, I do not care who want to donate to them, go right ahead and in 10 years look back and see nothing changed. In Oregon, in ten years, not one lobby stopped legislation or preserved right. I was able to preserve some for all of us, but it only delayed it some. We are still moving forward at being just like California.

How did this all start?
It was much easier then one would think.
They eased up on gun crime sentencing, often even removing the charge of a gun used.
As sick as it sounds, California allowed and encouraged the killing of people to allow the criminalization of ownership.
I can already see the Nay-sayers. Well the fact is in the mid 1970 for three years gun crime dropped, when they use a go to prison became policy. Jerry( moonbeam) Brown, worked and repealed it and crime shot up 75% in the five years after. And has never stopped. But it allowed them, to use the death of others at the hands of a gun to show how bad guns were.

The proof is there, the evidence is there. Ease up on criminals is all it takes, they sit back and watch the law abiding lose rights. Its simple and easily accomplished, and with the exploding homeless crime it makes it all that much easier whe n a nut uses a gun, they win, we lose. So it is written, so it will be. Unless we wake up...........which I doubt. California didn't, and had 20 years notice and couldn't stop it.

 

[Slobray]

You're not a Fudd. Whoever called you a Fudd was wrong and should apologize. But unfortunately Fudds do exist. Dennis McGeeHee is the epitome of a Fudd. As is this guy:

A Fudd is a gun control supporter who happens to own guns. They don't have to be a hunter, they just have to be a gun control supporter who happens to own guns. Not all Fudds are hunters and not all hunters are Fudds. In fact I hope most hunters are not Fudds, but I haven't seen a poll of hunters to know for sure. Here's how you can sort people on the basis of their support for or opposition to more gun control and their ownership or not of firearms (click on the images to enlarge):

View attachment 530823


Fudds support any and all gun control proposals as long as the gun control would have minimal or no effect on them or the type of guns they prefer or the type of shooting activities they enjoy. It's really pretty selfish and self-centered when you think about it, again just calling it for what it is. Especially since they seem to bask in the praise they receive from other gun control supporters, like this response Dennis McGeeHee received:

View attachment 530824

I've seen it many times in online comment sections. Some Fudd will say something like "I've been a gun owner and hunter most of my life, and I support an assault weapon ban and a ban on 30 magazine clips. No one needs those things. [he doesn't own those things so no one else "needs" them either] I support universal background checks and waiting periods [he hasn't bought a gun in many years and isn't planning on buying any guns so it wouldn't affect him]. I keep my two shotguns and my one bolt action rifle locked up at all times and anyone who doesn't is a dang fool." Then the other gun controllers heap praise on him i.e. "If only all gun owners were as reasonable and sensible as you are. Thank you so much! *swoon*" It's sickening.

A Fudd's positions on gun control are indistinguishable from David Hogg's or Dianne Feinstein or Michael Bloomberg's or Moms Demand Action or the Brady Campaign or Ceasefire Oregon, etc. etc. Fudds just happen to own guns too. They support all of that stuff that Dennis McGeeHee listed in his comment, and sometimes more.

Again, being a hunter or liking wood and steel guns doesn't make one a Fudd. Supporting more gun control - especially gun control that would affect them little or not at all - while owning guns makes one a Fudd.

The problem with Fudds is that they lend credibility and respectability to gun control proposals, making it harder to fight those proposals. By casting themselves as "responsible" gun owners they imply gun owners who don't capitulate and go along with more gun control are somehow irresponsible. Fudds have no problem throwing other gun owners under the bus, as long as they are not affected. Mr. McGeeHee is a prime example. He doesn't like the NRA, he's all for the "ideal" of limits on so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, because a better-written law would have excluded the guns he owns and likes. But since I 1639 was poorly written and overly broad - as usual for gun control laws - it now affects him, and boy he doesn't like it. Yet he still thinks - just like all gun control supporters - the only purpose of gun rights organizations like the NRA is to drive up gun sales. Like they say, you just can't fix...some things.

Calling a spade a spade, and a Fudd a Fudd, isn't what is driving gun owners apart. It is some selfish gun owners - nicknamed Fudds - siding with gun controllers, lending comfort and support to the enemies of gun rights, and throwing other gun owners under the bus who are the problem.

This right here.


Ray

 

[Geardo]

This whole thread reminds me of California, but hear me out.
As a kid we carried firearms and went hunting right where the SF stadium is today.
No one cared, even when stopped by the local sheriff time to time they could care less about our rifles
and more about what we were up to. The laws were not restrictive much at all growing up. But soon there
would be a move to ban guns for our safety. They went with that guideline, and started a movement to paint and evil picture on the firearm. It went from freedom to carry, to restriction to carry, to restriction to own all with in a span of about 15 years.
Why should anyone care, as I already lived the future of WA and OR, saw it first hand, and I now can see the exact mirror image I saw living there. OR and WA are about 10 years away maybe less from losing all rights. Our lobbies wont solve this, I do not care who want to donate to them, go right ahead and in 10 years look back and see nothing changed. In Oregon, in ten years, not one lobby stopped legislation or preserved right. I was able to preserve some for all of us, but it only delayed it some. We are still moving forward at being just like California.

How did this all start?
It was much easier then one would think.
They eased up on gun crime sentencing, often even removing the charge of a gun used.
As sick as it sounds, California allowed and encouraged the killing of people to allow the criminalization of ownership.
I can already see the Nay-sayers. Well the fact is in the mid 1970 for three years gun crime dropped, when they use a go to prison became policy. Jerry( moonbeam) Brown, worked and repealed it and crime shot up 75% in the five years after. And has never stopped. But it allowed them, to use the death of others at the hands of a gun to show how bad guns were.

The proof is there, the evidence is there. Ease up on criminals is all it takes, they sit back and watch the law abiding lose rights. Its simple and easily accomplished, and with the exploding homeless crime it makes it all that much easier whe n a nut uses a gun, they win, we lose. So it is written, so it will be. Unless we wake up...........which I doubt. California didn't, and had 20 years notice and couldn't stop it.

Ax an ex CA "inmate" I 100% agree.

 

[BSG 75]

One of the most infamous Fudds is Jim Zumbo.



He was the hunting editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel. In 2007 he posted this on his blog:

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.

That's pretty classic Fudd thinking. Their bolt action and pump action "sporting firearms" are good, "assault rifles" are bad and are "terrorist rifles", and should be shunned if not banned.

Throwing other gun owners under the bus didn't turn out well for Zumbo. His comment sparked outrage among non-Fudd gun owners with threats of boycotts of Zumbo's sponsors:

In response to the flood of threatened boycotts, Remington Arms' CEO Tommy Millner fired Zumbo as a spokesman on February 19, The Outdoor Channel announced that Zumbo programming would be on a temporary hiatus, but did not sever their affiliations with Zumbo. His online blog was discontinued "for the time being" by Outdoor Life on February 19. Outdoor Life subsequently dropped him completely, stating on its webpage that Zumbo would no longer be contributing to the publication once the last of his columns already to press had been printed. Gerber Knives and Mossy Oak severed all of their business dealings with Zumbo as well, as did a majority of his other sponsors.

The NRA pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

As usual, after gun control supporter and gun owner Jim Zumbo threw owners of black rifles under the bus, fellow gun control supporters praised him:

On March 20, a month after Zumbo's column was published, gun control advocate Senator Carl Levin praised Zumbo for "his forthrightness, his honesty and his courage," calling the response to his comments "swift and callous," in a speech that supported the renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

After Zumbo lost his employment and sponsors he suddenly had a change of heart, apologized for his comments, and blamed his comments on being tired.

Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt.

"I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed early."

He is back writing for Outdoor Life. The Outdoor Channel now has a show dedicated to those firearms Zumbo called "terrorist rifles" called America's Rifle America's Rifle - Outdoor Channel

 

[amusicman2]

1. Wooden stocks are the only acceptable stocks.
2. Magazines should only be 4-5 rds. (eliminating all detachable mags, as well as tubular fed, and lever guns. In other words anything not used for big game hunting)
3. MSRs were designed for military use.
4. NRA exists only to sell more guns.
5. NRA is deranged and derailed
6. He's ok with registering firearms
7. He's ok with requireing a license to own firearms
8. He's ok with mandatory safe storage laws
9. His only objection is to having to take a class and pay a fee. (In other words, only what affects him)
10. He's upset at being treated like a second class citizen, untrusted, or a criminal. (Welcome to our world, Bud)

View attachment 530611

That is what my liberal gun owning friends think.

 

[wp4]

By definition in reference materials... a liberal person would be open to the progression of modern arms. A conservative person would hold closer to traditional arms or use caution in the acceptance of that technology.

The labels people attach to their identity or force upon another, often misrepresent and do harm to the community as a whole.

Unfortunately the classical liberal term has been co-opted by those who support an increasingly tyrannical government.

 

[DuneHopper]

The FBI, had the right to carry based on no other law then the 2nd Amendment.
This included full automatic firearms.

DO NOT, let others tell you any different. Hoover said to OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE when asked about his men being armed.
That they had a right to do so because of the 2nd Amendment.
Not until much later would congress pay for firearms. But to date no official law has been passed granting the
FBI to be armed. What they can buy of course, but the right has not change.

THE ABOVE TID BIT IS IGNORED TIME AND TIME AGAIN......SEEMS BY BOTH SIDES !
(YESS I WAS YELLING )

 

[Alexx1401]

Not to belabor this but is this what a Fudd is:
According to the Urban Dictionary, a "Fudd" is a, "Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment.

I thought it was an acronym for something...guess not.

First thing that came to mind for me was that guy who had a dream job, wrote for one of the rags, on hunting. Made a stupid comment about AR's. Something along the lines of no honest man needs one or such. Backlash was immediate and severe. He tried the "that's not who I am apology. IIRC did not do him any good. In my opinion he slipped up and told the truth about how he felt. Anti gun people LOVE people like that. Compromise to them always only goes one way, we give up rights and its never enough.

 

[bbbass]

That is what my liberal gun owning friends think.

Yah, I got one of those too.

It's getting harder to be friends with liberals!!!

 

[JeremyK]

This Fuddin' thread has bored me to tears...

 

[Alexx1401]

One of the most infamous Fudds is Jim Zumbo.l

Thanks, that was the guy I was thinking of but could not for the life of me remember his name.

 

[wp4]

This Fuddin' thread has bored me to tears...

Well then you can just go Fudd yourself!