Fudd; or Gun Culture Bias

[Rocketmedic]

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

 

[Mike OTDP]

Depends on just who you are talking about.

I've noticed a tendency, particularly among younger shooters, to consider anyone not into EBRs and run-and-gun events a "Fudd". Which I consider bunk. To me, the real issue are gun owners who are willing to throw other gun owners to the wolves...in order to protect themselves. Those people..."Fudd" is not strong enough. "Quisling" is the correct term.

I'm a firm believer that the entire shooting community must hang together. Picking off one sub-group at a time is precisely the method used in the UK, and look how THAT ended.

 

[Walkalong]

You're not a FUDD, you're an anti.

And we preach against calling people FUDD here, all gun owners are welcome. Not all gun owners have any use for an AR, and that's fine, but they need to understand that one of the antis tactics is divide and conquer. We must all stand toe to toe and protect all gun rights.

It's not complicated.

First they came for the full autos, but I did not speak up as I did not have one.

Then they came for the semi autos, and I didn't speak up because I didn't like them.

Then they came for my hunting rifle, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

 

[Sam1911]

Truth is that's a very good question.

Any loosely affiliated movement or group has to decide what constitutes acceptable variation of opinion and action within that group, and what constitutes working directly against the goals of that movement.

I think in the last 20 or 25 years we have seen a big shift in both the cohesion and the political effectiveness of the pro gun rights movement. And one of the traits of that new paradigm is activism among ourselves to promote a better understanding of the nature of our rights, and much much greater cooperation among the disparate interest groups within those rights to support each other and make sure that no party is left to the wolves or thrown under the bus or whatever other analogy you want to use.

Whereas perhaps in the middle of last century you could say that duck hunters really didn't care whether the deer hunters or the target shooters lost their rights, these days we stand up for each other, and don't accept it when someone says we should protect my rights but we should throw away someone else's.

Any person has the right to believe and to vote however they wish. But a person who goes to a pro gun activism site or gathering and advocates for the giving up our most fundamental gun rights, should expect nothing less than to be seen as the enemy. Because in that arena that is the role he's willfully and publicly taking on.

 

[mjsdwash]

I was recently thinking of this. About 12 years ago, I occasionally went to an outdoor gun range, the only range over 25 yards withing 80 miles that didn't require membership, and remember the rangemaster giving my friend a three minute lecture on how his SKS was an evil death machine, and had no purpose being there. Out on the firing line, every person there was under the impression that no rifle should be fired more than 10 times per year. 5 for sight in, 5 for the hunt. If you needed more than that for either, you had no business owning a gun, and they were quick to tell you about it. Target shooting was looked at like vandalism, and it was just idiots wasting ammunition. I don't know if that range is still open, but I bet if it is, they got new rangemasters, and a better client list. I don't think those people have any chance of becoming a political entity, and many would look the other way no matter how the laws are made. You still have the few people on the "AR VS AK" threads that for some reason need to point out "neither, I prefer wood and blued steel", like that never gets old. Most people don't care what does not affect them, and this issue is no different. Most of the people who feel this way will be dead of old age long before the party comes for the "sniper rifles" (deer rifles), and the "anti material rifles" (magnum deer rifles), and pump shotguns. They're a lost cause for this issue, and those who aren't are not a big enough group to make a difference. Young people who want to shoot junk in the woods, much as I hate them for leaving trash are the future of shooting sports. Most will outgrow the junk thing, assuming the areas are not shut down because of the trash.

 

[Rocketmedic]

Sam, I respect your viewpoint, but I also see your single-minded quest for ideological purity as a barrier to supporting your (our?) interests. I come to THR to ask serious questions, and some of the members here are very aggressive about their opinions of anything other than complete support for an unlimited version of the 2A.

 

[<*(((><]

Healthy conversation should never be squashed, even if it doesn't align itself with the majority of said audience.

I am of the mind however, that if we don't stand for others rights on items/guns/etc that we have no interest of, then who will be there to stand for the rights of the items that I do have an interest on.

I've heard many a gun owner say they have no use for an AR15, so they don't fight the RKBA fight for them, and that is a sad day. They missed the founding fathers point of the 2nd Amendment entirely. As horrific the attacks at Las Vegas and the Texas church shooting was, those people paid with their lives and blood the rights/freedoms we all get to enjoy. In studying history it doesn't take long for one to come to the conclusion disarming a populace is a necessary step to controlling a populace. Many anti-2nd Amendment folks want to believe that control of the US population would never happen even in the absence of an armed populace, and I find their logic to be severely flawed and naive.

There are however, pro 2A people who believe in no further laws and quite in the opposite direction. I find myself closer to this group but not entirely in this camp, and I'm always open to hear others perspective on laws that might actually help the situation, not just more laws on the books. I feel a majority of gun laws could be scrubbed from the books and replaced with few laws that are actually targeted at keeping arms out of criminals.

It saddens me that the Texas shooter's past wasn't reported by the Air Force to NCIS as his mental health record, as well as his physical domestic felony would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. Someone on this website had just previously suggested that person's restricted from purchasing a firearm should have a mark on his/her license so even private parties can see they are restricted from owning a firearm, to which another person on this website responded that infringes on the 2nd Amendment due to a license being required to own a gun. I side with considering (meaning I'm open to discussing) the idea of a restricted mark on the license to happen, but it would have to be done in the right way (through a court system, where it is judged by peers, etc. which would overload our court system likely).

It is my belief (and in no way am I saying it's truth) that many of the founding fathers were divinely inspired when writing our founding documents. And in the experiences that this country was born out of in Europe I believe their writings were written from a point of seriousness, as to the ramifications if they are not followed or are forgotten in the future that the past would repeat itself, and this would most definitely include the 2nd Amendment which is often referred to as the Amendment which protects all other Amendments.

But to quell any discussion from the other side of the argument is dangerous in itself, IMHO.

 

[Sam1911]

My interests are in promoting the Second Amendment in its most original and un-infringed understanding. As far as gun rights go that's about it, so that is the way I am going to present my arguments, and I am going to speak clearly and as eloquently as I am able in support of that view.

I also speak about a great number of other gun, shooting, competition, self-defense, and related topics. I do not believe that those conversations even regularly touch on my fundamentalist views of the Second Amendment, so I disagree that my RKBA views get in the way of effectively discussing these topics with our members.

Your contention here appears to be that since I disagree with you and have a tendency to systematically, and I'll admit with a certain degree of glee, dismantle your pro gun control arguments each time you bring them up, this constitutes us not effectively supporting each other's interests or some such thing.

Look if you want to ask me questions about pistols, or shotguns, or how gun laws work, or reloading, or any other sort of technical question we can discuss those without any animosity whatsoever.

But if you want to have a polite discussion about how much you want to see another assault weapons ban instituted, I'm going to be a most vigorous opponent.

Best get used to it.

 

[<*(((><]

I will say, that if one has a minority opinion within a population then one must have thick skin, and the majority should argue with facts and logic, I don't feel that animosity gets anyone anywhere in an argument at this level. But at the same time I'll be right there with Sam1911 with facts and logic in defending the 2nd Amendment against another assault weapons ban.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I am with Sam1911 on this one.
I love shooting all kinds of guns and would like to see the 2nd put back where it was supposed to be in the beginning.

When I talk to people who think this or that should be banned/outlawed/etc I seek to find some common ground and go from there.

What are we trying to prevent?
Murder?
Okay.

Do laws stop criminals from murder?
No?

Okay! then we agree no new laws are necessary and the good people of the land can be left alone.

Ask me how cool it is to live in CA with some of the most asinine/illogical gun laws in the nation.

 

[ontarget]

Some things are just not negotiable. My 2A rights are the second on the list. (the first is not appropriate to this forum). As a law abiding citizen of this great nation I shouldn't be penalized for the actions of others.

 

[csa77]

i own every few EBR's the vast majority of my collection is in ww1 or earlier guns...that being said i feel that there is no room for further control in our 2nd amendment. they have taken too away much as it is. we have given away too much in the name of safety and remain no safer for it.

you ether believe in the 2nd amendment as it it written or you do not. if you believe it is an unalienable right to all citizens (currently it is not) and shall not be infringed apon (it is heavily infringed) then your pro 2nd amendment.

or your not pro 2A, believe in the current interpretation that only certain citizens should have the privilege to own a gun, depending on the regulations of the day.


i know that is not a popular view, i guess it just boils down to how much you value freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[Moparnut]

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

The real question is whether you are alienating yourself? I have read some of your posts and simply choose not to participate. If we take a position to ban one firearm and not another we will go down a path of destruction for the Second amendment. Today you will allow them to ban semi-automatic rifles, tomorrow will you allow them to take semi-automatic handguns? At what point do you stop alienating yourself? Maybe when the only the thing we own are wheelguns and bolt actions? What happens when those are up for debate? You have to ban them for the children they cry! Will you then be part of the fold or having to pick a side?
I don't mind a debate, but if you go to a pro 2A forum and say we need to ban something you better get ready for a roast. A guy once told me, "you have to read the audience."

 

[buck460XVR]

some of the members here are very aggressive about their opinions of anything other than complete support for an unlimited version of the 2A.

Some of the members here are very aggressive about their opinions on all things gun related. Anything but a Ruger SA revolver is junk. Anything smaller than or bigger than .44 mag in a handgun is unnecessary. Hunting is hunting even when the animal is tied up and eating outta a bucket. All Walmart ammo is factory seconds and should be avoided......the list goes on and on. Seems to be the norm anymore on social media. Bash and intimidate fellow posters will somehow make you right. Belittling and sarcasm means one doesn't have to respect anyone else's opinion, i.e., keyboard commando.

Infringed means different things to different folks. Same goes for what constitutes an "Assault Weapon". Folks are quick to correct others as to how both should be interpreted, and generally that's their interpretation. Not just gun culture, but today's culture. In the past, I've been called a Fudd, because I don't own any high capacity semi-automatic weapons, even tho I don't have a problem with others owning them. Many times this is from folks who bought their first gun just a few years back. Somehow, they are more "gun" and more "Pro 2nd Amendment" than I, even tho I've owed guns for over half a century. Have confidence in your own definition of the 2nd Amendment and respect the opinion of others on the same. In the long run, the correct definition/opinion is held by 9 folks wearing black robes.

 

[1911 guy]

Let's define some terms. First, opinion. Some people like Picasso, I think my eight year old is a better artist. By far. That is opinion.

But we agree that there is cultural value in art. That is principle. To deny the cultural value of art, even art we do not like, is to deny more than five thousand years of recorded history. To deny the value of art is to be wrong.

Different people find different weapons interesting, useful or just plain fun. That is opinion.

People such as yourself are willing to ban private ownership of arms you personally do not like, enjoy, find interesting, etc. This view denies the recorded history of every nation that has denied the use of arms to it's citizens. Totalitarianism, dictatorships, genocide, the list goes on. In short, based on principle, you are wrong.

Opinions can be talked about all day long. Principles rooted in fact, however, are no more debatable than two plus two equaling four. Yet some insist it is five. They are wrong.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

In the long run, the correct definition/opinion is held by 9 folks wearing black robes.

and the millions of people who vote for their representatives that create these silly laws...

Also, I know enough about history to recognize that there could be times when the 9 folks in the black robes and the .gov they sit for are WRONG.
It is the #1 reason why the 2A is so important.

 

[Walkalong]

But to quell any discussion from the other side of the argument is dangerous in itself, IMHO.

But for one to expect them to be honest about their motives is completely reasonable. The antis lie as part of getting their way, and those lies need to be brought to light.

I also see your single-minded quest for ideological purity as a barrier to supporting your (our?) interests. I come to THR to ask serious questions,

The first part is just another line out of the antis playbook, a book you like to quote extensively from, and the second is complete hockey, as clearly shown by your thread where you pretend to want an AR.

 

[<*(((><]

But for one to expect them to be honest about their motives is completely reasonable. The antis lie as part of getting their way, and those lies need to be brought to light.

No argument there, the anti's tactics often come from ignorance of firearms and perversion of facts. We need to be careful we do neither.

 

[Sam1911]

There is another element to this. And that is that on the subject of gun control your views and your arguments are repeated over and over again without any apparent learning, or evolution, or reflection, or consideration of the points of others, no matter how many times the holes in your argument are pointed out.

In thread after thread you make the same points. Half a dozen or a dozen members will point out to you the flaws in that argument. You yourself will make statements which point out contradictions or flaws in your own judgement about the effectiveness of your gun control plans. You make points in debate which clearly show that you're not familiar with gun laws or gun technology or other matters which eviscerate the point you're trying to make.

And yet you repeat those same arguments over and over again without even acknowledging how many times they've been knocked down, torn open, or had holes poked in them.

Honestly, since at least 2012, when I believe you first started making your gun control pitches, I feel we've been extremely patient with you. You never been banned or censured, never told to shut up, and we have prevented members from attacking you personally for your views.

But you're a broken record, showing zero personal development through all of your time reading threads here, and all of your time debating. You don't acknowledge that your arguments were vacated in serious debates five years ago!

Really, wouldn't someone who's debating in good faith at least remember that a particular point is incorrect or illogical or has some kind of big flaw, and not bring the same thing up the next time?

So you say you're being alienated? It would appear to me that you've been more then equitably accommodated. How long should we have to hear you repeat the same errors and the same vapid arguments over and over again? If half a dozen different people had joined THR and each one of them brought up your same emotional arguments for gun control, I believe we would treat them with great patience and far more politeness than is usually to be found on internet forums, and would not have any problem answering their questions and debating their points even if we'd answered those questions 100 times before.

But when it's the same guy, popping up over and over again like a bad penny after every tragedy that hits the news to repeat the same unenlightened, unevolving, merry go round of anti-gun talk, just how patient are we supposed to be?

I mean, if you said hey guys I'm sorry, I have terrible amnesia, I could extend a lot more patience. But every thread you enter it seems like you start on page 1 of the gun-control playbook and read through every argument point by point by point all over again as though we haven't all walked you down this path half a dozen or more times already.

Enough. Do better. Evolve. If you're going to stick to an anti gun position, so be it, but evolve that position. Come up with something better, something we haven't knocked apart over and over again. Make make it worth our time to bother to respond to you.

 

[2ifbyC]

I believe that most of the posters on THR are highly intelligent and have a deep passion for firearms and self-defense. The 2nd amendment has been continually infringed and the RKBA is under constant attack. This passion is at its zenith when events like the recent church incident strike home and legislatures again look for more ways to invoke new gun control laws. Few of the existing laws are enforced with proper punishment and it leaves the gun friendly community with a sense of exasperation.

You are entitled to your opinion but that opinion can be challenged. Therefore, you must present that position in a well thought –out, factual, and cogent manner. Frankly, I do not believe your posts meet the muster. Much of the feedback you have received is directed at requesting you to improve your stated position. Repetition is not a form of improvement.

The moderators do a good job of preventing personal attacks. If you believe this is happening to you, you can report the incident since it should not be tolerated. Your liberal viewpoints can add value provided they are couched in reasonability.

 

[Reloadron]

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

I keep it real simple. I don't engage in threads which take that direction. Generally for the most part the moderation here does a good job of either cleaning threads up and issuing warnings or just closing threads which head in a bad direction. When a troll can't get an argument they normally just quietly go away. Just as a side note when some spout off about the right to keep and bear arms the organization defending that right is the NRA and when asked about their membership they have none. Anyway, if everyone just avoided threads baiting others into argument we would never even see the problem. Overall, this forum is really pretty good as to members respecting the views of others.

Just My Take....
Ron

 

[pintler]

Rocketmedic: If you want to argue in favor of banning semiautos, by all means do so. However, your posts seem pretty conclusory to me - you state that semis ought to be banned with out offering any substantive justification other than that you fell it should be so, and get miffed when people don't share your opinion.

If you're going to argue for a semi ban, I'd like to hear:
-How many lives you think it will save, with the analysis supporting your number
-What problem are you trying to address? Murder in general? Spree shootings?
-the details (include 22 rimfire? only rifles, or handguns and shotguns too? semis with fixed mags or small mags (e.g. 1911's)? Ban only new production, or confiscate existing ones? How do you propose to address smuggling and clandestine manufacture?
-what about lever actions, pumps, straight pull bolts, etc?
-what is your plan if your predictions of lives saved prove optimistic? Repeal or sunset the ban and not try again? Extend the ban to other classes of guns?

Those details matter. Tell us exactly what you are advocating for and we can discuss the details. To be honest, you don't seem to have studied the issue (e.g. the effects or details of previous bans) very deeply. That doesn't make it likely that a lot of folks are going to agree to go along with vague proposals. Figure out what you really want to do, then come here and persuade us, with dispassionate facts.

 

[Sistema1927]

Rocketmedic,

You have consistently parroted anti-gun talking points and expect that we are going to roll over and agree with you? Think again.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

I feel that healthy debate is good.and we should encourage it. That said when it comes to infringement of our rights we need to leave any differences behind and not tolerate anyone or anything that leads to the loss of our rights.

I look at CA and am blown away that people tolerate the way they’ve ignored our Constitution and make laws that clearly are illegal. I understand it’s hard to fight a majority but our country has a system that gives all of us representation and means to address injustices.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

"Those of us that don't think all gun control is treason."


We already have gun control and it doesn't stop mayhem. I can only assume by your statement that you're insinuating an "intelligent" conversation about more gun control?