http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd
I never looked up the proper definition of one before, kind of interesting category.
I never looked up the proper definition of one before, kind of interesting category.
Do you know what a FUDD is?Do we have many
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah, we've had the "FUDD" talk a number of times here. It is an ugly and divisive word that we ask members not to toss around here lightly. We need to work on bringing our community together, not finding ways to marginalize each other.
The only two definitions on the UD link relating to Fudd are people who agree with the "I support 2A, but" rhetoric and who say, "I'm a gun owner, but I'm fine with giving up these things that have no legitimate sporting purpose." While I will agree with you that we shouldn't use derogatory names, I think the person who says "sure, I'll give up my high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun" is more divisive than someone like you or I.
Skribs,
Our problem with the term is the two fold. Too many members here were too casual in tossing it around and applied to people who were only "Meh, I'm a blue and wood guy" as opposed to the sort that fit the UD definition. The other was related to that sloppy use splashing mud on the undeserving, people that were 2A supporters, but not "black gun" enthusiasts were tired of being lumped in with true "Flannel Antis". In one sense there was an element here just as bigoted and narrow minded willing to throw the traditional firearms folks out of our house and under the bus as the real FUDDs were willing to throw the black gun guys under the bus.
When our members use trite caricatures sloppily we end up with a divided community.
Our problem with the term is the two fold. Too many members here were too casual in tossing it around and applied to people who were only "Meh, I'm a blue and wood guy" as opposed to the sort that fit the UD definition. The other was related to that sloppy use splashing mud on the undeserving, people that were 2A supporters, but not "black gun" enthusiasts were tired of being lumped in with true "Flannel Antis". In one sense there was an element here just as bigoted and narrow minded willing to throw the traditional firearms folks out of our house and under the bus as the real FUDDs were willing to throw the black gun guys under the bus.
When our members use trite caricatures sloppily we end up with a divided community.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I rather think there are fewer Fudds than ever, and more active and informed gunnies, than ever, but we still have a ways to go seeing how often the "I agree, but" line still gets trotted out. At this point, I mostly think it's the anti's posturing to eachother so they feel more legitimate and less tyrannical in their ambitions, and that our biggest threat comes from apathetic or uninformed gun owners staying home at the polls, rather than misguided fools who actively support measures limiting their own freedom.
TCB
TCB
oneounceload
member
And that term is totally false as many of us who use our guns for fun and sporting purposes are FAR more active in 2A cases than most mall ninja, camo wearing, video commando wannabees...........
Just sayin'.....
Be careful who you try to insult, they may be the ones keeping you out of jail one day
Just sayin'.....
Be careful who you try to insult, they may be the ones keeping you out of jail one day
If you are truly supportive of the 2nd amendment then you aren't the target of the word Fudd. When I use it I am exclusively referring to "sportsman" who support or are apathetic toward gun control measures that don't affect their interest. I am not just referring to hunters or people who only own sporting firearms for that matter. If you don't own anything that takes a standard magazine, but don't want to limit my ability to own one then you aren't a Fudd in my book.
76shuvlinoff
Member
I don't hunt. I have a deep deep affinity for levers, I think a reliable shotgun is nearly a perfect firearm. Been known to have a revolver or two. I think a 1911 is the cat's ass. I also have so called "Tupperware" sidearms and a AR15.
I love em all and I don't owe an explanation for any. IMHO anyone who thinks their particular choice has more legitimacy or relevancy over another is just as guilty of Fuddism as anyone that thinks it's somehow ok to round any of them up.
.
I love em all and I don't owe an explanation for any. IMHO anyone who thinks their particular choice has more legitimacy or relevancy over another is just as guilty of Fuddism as anyone that thinks it's somehow ok to round any of them up.
.
medalguy
Member
Oh I don't really totally agree with that re who is a FUDD. Personally I don't care for Tupperware but if someone else does, go for it. More power to you. I prefer walnut and blued steel but that's just me. HOWEVER, do NOT tell me that your double barrel shotgun is all anyone needs for hunting as well as home defense. To my way of thinking, that constitutes a FUDD.
I have a couple of friends who unfortunately fall into this category, and despite everything I tell them, their opinions have not changed. BTW both are well into their 70's and I don't really expect them to change. Old dogs and all that.....
Both believe that my revolvers, black guns, and military surplus guns are rather unnecessary in this world, and they will just use their shotguns thank you ma'am. I haven't discussed owning any machine guns with them.....yet.
But back to the OP's question, I believe there are quite a few of these fellows out there, and we need to talk to those who will listen, and try to bring them around to the belief that every gun, regardless of type, color, or prior experience, is equally deserving of protection under the Second Amendment.
I have a couple of friends who unfortunately fall into this category, and despite everything I tell them, their opinions have not changed. BTW both are well into their 70's and I don't really expect them to change. Old dogs and all that.....
Both believe that my revolvers, black guns, and military surplus guns are rather unnecessary in this world, and they will just use their shotguns thank you ma'am. I haven't discussed owning any machine guns with them.....yet.
But back to the OP's question, I believe there are quite a few of these fellows out there, and we need to talk to those who will listen, and try to bring them around to the belief that every gun, regardless of type, color, or prior experience, is equally deserving of protection under the Second Amendment.
heycods
Member
blue steel and walnut guy here, avid 2nd supporter. Realitively new to the forum, Never herd the term Fudd? First thing pops in my mind is Elmer Fudd loved to hunt wascally wabbits. I would love to hear a clear definition.
Vamo Said:
That described my attitude right up to the point where wannabe tyrants started using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an excuse for a gun grab. I was disgusted by the ignorant, bombastic rhetoric, which really got me thinking. Prior to that, I really never thought about the real intent of the 2A.
My primary interest in firearms is still their usefulness for getting food. However, I now consider bearing arms for purposes of hunting to be a priveledge, whereas I consider bearing arms for defense against agressors and would-be tyrants as a fundamental human right.
In other words, Sandy Hook took the Fudd out of me. I never really considered how using the word could be divisive. I guess it kind of is...
That described my attitude right up to the point where wannabe tyrants started using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an excuse for a gun grab. I was disgusted by the ignorant, bombastic rhetoric, which really got me thinking. Prior to that, I really never thought about the real intent of the 2A.
My primary interest in firearms is still their usefulness for getting food. However, I now consider bearing arms for purposes of hunting to be a priveledge, whereas I consider bearing arms for defense against agressors and would-be tyrants as a fundamental human right.
In other words, Sandy Hook took the Fudd out of me. I never really considered how using the word could be divisive. I guess it kind of is...
WestKentucky
Member
Each gun has a place. This is no different than guitars, sportscars, and baseball cards EXCEPT it has an old piece or parchiament to back it up. Just like with "gear heads" there are ford guys Chevy guys, Harley guys, Japanese bike guys, and plenty others. There are in the gun world hangun guys shotgun guys rifle guys...reloaders and ammo shelf customers....old school new school tactical and tacticool. Let's call this our big gun-loving family. All family's are a bit dysfunctional, let's not make ours more so than it already is. Whether a person is a staunch supporter of 2A or not doesn't give us right to judge. The fact that people are here unites us enough, and I honestly believe that when push comes to shove, a "Fudd" will fall on "our side" of the fence.
heycods, the image of Elmer Fudd is exactly where the term 'fudd' came from. The general image of a flannel wearing shotgun toting guy who hunts, and thinks any other type of firearms (especially black polymer types) are impractical and should be rigidly regulated or banned.
There have been some sportsmans groups that have thrown other gun groups under the bus to get exceptions for their sport. "As long as I can keep my shotgun, they can go after the AR15's and Glocks" kind of attitude. Little do they know that after they are done taking the AR15's and Glocks, the shotguns are next.
There have been some sportsmans groups that have thrown other gun groups under the bus to get exceptions for their sport. "As long as I can keep my shotgun, they can go after the AR15's and Glocks" kind of attitude. Little do they know that after they are done taking the AR15's and Glocks, the shotguns are next.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
I once asked my grandpa (about 90 at the time) on his thoughts about AK-47s and AR-15s and he didn't feel anyone needs that many rounds for anything other than mayhem, so I guess he fit the definition of a Fudd. However he did load up several 5rd mags for his semi-auto deer rifle when we'd go hunt. He was definitely a good shot so it probably wasn't needed often.
Sadly I didn't have enough time with him to try and sway him towards the potential uses of these rifles before he passed. He was a patriot and knew the value of self-defense, having a CCW license and willing to defend himself and his loved ones if the need arises.
Remember these folks are the most likely "fence sitters" that will come to our side if you just talk to them about why you like modern rifles & handguns. Don't ostracize them, educate them. Heck invite them shooting. Even if you don't get them to try an AR or AK at least you get to go shoot! Guns are fun, whether an antique or a super modern blaster, it's something you have in common right away.
Sadly I didn't have enough time with him to try and sway him towards the potential uses of these rifles before he passed. He was a patriot and knew the value of self-defense, having a CCW license and willing to defend himself and his loved ones if the need arises.
Remember these folks are the most likely "fence sitters" that will come to our side if you just talk to them about why you like modern rifles & handguns. Don't ostracize them, educate them. Heck invite them shooting. Even if you don't get them to try an AR or AK at least you get to go shoot! Guns are fun, whether an antique or a super modern blaster, it's something you have in common right away.
AlexanderA
Member
I think that the vast majority of the blued-steel-and-polished-wood guys, the "sportsmen," have come to realize that if we don't all hang together, we'll hang separately. The antis have made it pretty clear that they'll eventually go after "sniper rifles" AKA scoped hunting rifles. And even pump action shotguns have been banned in places like Australia. No, the ultimate goal of the antis is complete disarmament, and a gun owner (of any stripe) would be blind not to see that.
Skribs, earlier in the thread, defined a Fudd as someone who would say, "sure, I'll give up my high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." It's a bit more complicated than that. First, such a person would more likely say, "I'll give up your high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." And secondly, I wouldn't call such a hypocritical person a "Fudd" so much as I would call him simply an anti-gunner wearing flannel clothing.
Skribs, earlier in the thread, defined a Fudd as someone who would say, "sure, I'll give up my high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." It's a bit more complicated than that. First, such a person would more likely say, "I'll give up your high cap mags so I can keep my shotgun." And secondly, I wouldn't call such a hypocritical person a "Fudd" so much as I would call him simply an anti-gunner wearing flannel clothing.
glocking26
Member
Bill Ruger was a fudd.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It is also, at the most basic level, simply a sloppy, lazy way of vilifying someone or something, as is all name-calling. Like railing against "liberals," it is imprecise, and insulting/offputting without being narrowly targeted toward the thing you actually want to work against.
Our enemy isn't the grandpa, the guy who likes flannel, the guy who loves his Model 70. Heck we kind of love and cherish that guy as part of our community's shared culture. We don't appreciate a certain kind of behavior. And we should be so specific.
This is just like railing against "liberals." Our enemy isn't the gay guy, or the lady who feels that the state should provide more health care, or someone who feels we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, or who doesn't want "intelligent design" taught in the local schools -- or whatever other "liberal" ideas you might pick. Our enemy is the guy who promotes GUN CONTROL. Railing against "liberals" alienates and sweeps up and puts on the defensive a whole lot of folks who have no beef with our cause.
So, be precise and specific -- not lazy.
Our enemy isn't the grandpa, the guy who likes flannel, the guy who loves his Model 70. Heck we kind of love and cherish that guy as part of our community's shared culture. We don't appreciate a certain kind of behavior. And we should be so specific.
This is just like railing against "liberals." Our enemy isn't the gay guy, or the lady who feels that the state should provide more health care, or someone who feels we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, or who doesn't want "intelligent design" taught in the local schools -- or whatever other "liberal" ideas you might pick. Our enemy is the guy who promotes GUN CONTROL. Railing against "liberals" alienates and sweeps up and puts on the defensive a whole lot of folks who have no beef with our cause.
So, be precise and specific -- not lazy.
I think with this latest gun control push and the power of information spread online that are far fewer "FUDD's" than previously. I remember in January/February 2013 many hunters or wood-only guys coming into our LGS wanting to get an AR15 'while they still could'.
Whether it's your favorite platform or not doesn't matter, but there are a lot of angry people coming together, finally recognizing that THEIR Rights are in just as much jeopardy as the rest of us. I think the time of thinking that the anti's/government would stop when they got just one more thing is over.
Whether it's your favorite platform or not doesn't matter, but there are a lot of angry people coming together, finally recognizing that THEIR Rights are in just as much jeopardy as the rest of us. I think the time of thinking that the anti's/government would stop when they got just one more thing is over.
Outlaw Man
Member
I think the outcome of the policy against black rifles at the Eastern Outdoors and Sports show is proof enough that we should be careful with that term. Everyone came together, including those who often get mislabeled as Fudds. Look at the strictly hunting/conservation-only groups (NWTF, RMEF, etc.) who had ZERO reason to protect black guns other than a common Right. They all pulled their support from the show and stood with the others.
We should never stop educating and trying to reach others, but I see that as one of the most positive moments in gun politics in several decades. I think the average sportsman is starting to realize the true agenda of the antis.
We should never stop educating and trying to reach others, but I see that as one of the most positive moments in gun politics in several decades. I think the average sportsman is starting to realize the true agenda of the antis.
huntsman
Member
Well it's all I need, but what I need or believe someone else needs is irrelevant, what counts is how one votes or the fact they vote at all when it comes to RKBA. The rest is just talk and posturing.
sugerwater
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 91
Anti-gun tactic to split the ranks of gun owners. Reminds me of uncle Joe and his double barrel.
We live in a society that has very little understanding of the difference between wants and needs. I own well over 100 guns from 22 revolvers up to an AR-10 and a whole bunch in between. I don't own all these guns because I "need" them. I own them because I want them and I live in a country that, today at least, allows me to own them.
I don't know ANY of the guys on this forum personally but I bet the number that actually NEED an AR-15 is about .002%. Let's face it, the old single shot 22 or 20g is enough to do pretty much anything we NEED to do. I deer hunt and all I really need for that is a 50 cal black powder rifle or even a bow. I don't need the 5 rounds that go in my 30-06 or the 30 rounds in my AR.
The problem arises when we think our way is the only way. That stick is sharp on both ends. When a person, or a group of people, start to think that they have the answers and that they know better than the Constitution then I have a problem. I believe it says we have the right to own guns and I exercise that right. It also says YOU have the right to run your mouth about something I disagree with so I have to respect that Right even if I want to bash you in the nose.
I don't use the term. There are ignorant people in every group including gun owners. We can try to change their point of view or we can ostracize them.
I don't know ANY of the guys on this forum personally but I bet the number that actually NEED an AR-15 is about .002%. Let's face it, the old single shot 22 or 20g is enough to do pretty much anything we NEED to do. I deer hunt and all I really need for that is a 50 cal black powder rifle or even a bow. I don't need the 5 rounds that go in my 30-06 or the 30 rounds in my AR.
The problem arises when we think our way is the only way. That stick is sharp on both ends. When a person, or a group of people, start to think that they have the answers and that they know better than the Constitution then I have a problem. I believe it says we have the right to own guns and I exercise that right. It also says YOU have the right to run your mouth about something I disagree with so I have to respect that Right even if I want to bash you in the nose.
I don't use the term. There are ignorant people in every group including gun owners. We can try to change their point of view or we can ostracize them.
- Status
