I’m not a fan of the Urban Dictionary ordinarily, but whoever wrote the definition for fudd covered it pretty well:
You got it pretty close, too. It symbolizes the “I got mine, TS for you” mentality. In the same way that Democrats consider Joe Lieberman a sellout, some gun owners consider “fudds” to be sellouts.
For my part, I simply say that everybody has an opinion. I think that the people that hold these sorts of opinions do gun owners an injustice, but I can’t say that they’re not allowed to hold those opinions.
Yes, the Dems would be stupid to ram through new gun controls, but I could see it happening. Imagine if a year or so from now, the economy is doing lousy; we’re still in Iraq; promises of “change” seem a bit empty; and the populace is tired of hearing that it’s all George Bush’s fault.
In that sort of a situation, it would be soooooo tempting to pass some new gun controls so as to appear like they are “doing something” and to (hopefully) score points with their constituencies.
I am trying to figure out a way to finally go by an AK before the man I voted for takes office, just as a precaution. It is the only piece of the collection I want (Soviet weapons) that I can’t buy under an AWB as it existed in 1994.
I’m a gun owner and I voted for Obama. I took all the issues into consideration when casting my ballot. I do think the gun control measures are a bad move for the Dems. and aren’t really going to try and pursue it before the midterm elections. This is from Obama’s website:
They may not going to be pushing it anytime soon but you better believe they will try sooner or later.
Wow. I didn’t know Obama actually had those kinds of views on his website. When I was reading his campaign site, specific gun policy agenda items were conspicuously absent.
Seriously, though, what is he smoking? “Gun show loophole”? “Childproof” guns? Another “assault weapons” ban? Saying that “such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets” is a real gem; I really hate to use a Dreaded Car Analogy, but that’s like saying we should ban bright red cars because “dangerously fast cars belong on racetracks and not on our streets.” :rolleyes:
Ah well. I’m still happier with Obama president than McCain, but it looks like we are going to have to gear up for a legislative fight if we want to preserve our rights.
You guys are so paranoid. We all know America is ass deep in guns and they are not going away. Why do you always bleat about someone who thinks we shouldn’t have assault weapons in elementary schools.
That sounds like an hyperbole but the opposite side hears a scream over protecting assault weapons in a similar way. Who the hell needs assault weapons?
I’ll try a moderate’s explanation. Looking at the second amendment right, the question above ought to be phrased in reverse. Instead of considering what can be owned under an enumerated positive right, it is framed in the negative - with the classification of possession of firearms that cannot be abrogated being more or less unbounded.
Now it’s not actually unbounded - as you can’t own a rocket launcher or fully automatic assault rifle, but gun owners in the US are highly conscious of the slippery slope. Perhaps too much so. Those who take a more absolutist approach more so than others - as they set a higher threshold of unbounded right.
Then there are those who also believe this romantic, credulous notion that they are somehow preventing government tyranny and oppression against a modern industrialised and mechanised professional standing army of the kind never envisioned by the original framers. This notion I find completely laughable, especially when it is used to build themselves as superior to Euro weenies or Australians who are supposedly cowering in fear of their governments because they have a different cultural attitude to guns and gun control. Bah to that nonsense!
It is not a question of need. It has never been a question of need. This argument raises its ugly head every time this topic comes up, and it’s a pointless argument.
The distinction between an “assault weapon” and other types of rifles is one of mere cosmetics. A rifle that fires .223 Remington is a rifle that fires .223 Remington, no matter what it looks like. Yet AR-15 type rifles are always on the chopping block because of what they look like.
The basis of the argument to ban them is this: They look like an M-16, therefore they must be M-16s, and since M-16s are military rifles we should ban them for the purposes of public safety.
However, they do not behave like M-16s. There is no option for full-automatic operation, and there hasn’t been since 1986. It is nothing more or less than a rifle chambered for .223 Remington. So, with that in mind, what’s the big deal? Why should they be singled out by name and banned when nobody can demonstrate that the ban is based on anything but appearance?
That is the problem. If a ban stands on such a thin rationale, it marginalizes gun ownership overall and leaves open the potential for other bans of dubious purpose.
Me worried? Why? We have the leadership of the party running the Senate who are charter members of the gun hater club.
We have the self appointed author of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban as VP
We have a President elect who has voted and made statements wishing to increase gun control in this country.
We have a political party that owns both the Legislative and Executive branches of our government who blatantly state their gun control dreams in their party platform.
We have fudds who don’t give a shit about their fellow gun owners as long as they get to keep their 870’s and Belgian Browning over under trap guns.
We have other folks who can’t understand why anyone would need one of those black rifles to hunt with…
Yeah I’m worried. Not go and spend 10k next week on goodies worried, but worried all the same.
Yeah, and who needs to post political opinions on websites? Free speech really only should apply to newsprint. And who needs to follow a non Christian religion? That obsolete First Amendment causes so much discord and hatred in this country that we should get rid of it, too.
It’s not paranoia when it’s already happened. Do you remember the 1990’s? Yes, a whole group of underpowered firearms were banned because of adjustable shoulder thingies and, horror of horrors, the ability to affix a knife to the end. :rolleyes: Yeah, that 6" knife makes it dangerous.
Again let me show two AR15’s. One was illegal just a few years ago and one wasn’t
Legal Illegal
The difference? The banned one has an adjustable stock. I guess short-armed people are a threat to society.
The AWB was based purely on ignorance. The most charitable explanation is that very stupid people wrote it.
I don’t think that Congress will make any new gun control measures a priority UNLESS a high-profile shooting occurs like Virginia Tech or something (god forbid). If that happened, it would be politically popular and there would be nothing to stop them. I don’t really want anything new as I never get to the range anymore.
How can they say that Common Sense Gun Laws did anything? From everything I read, Obama said basically zero except an offhand “I’m not going to take your guns” during the whole damn campaign.
Yeah. Some gun enthusiasts will be fucked. Maybe reaching beyond the lunatic fringe might be a good idea when lobbying. Shitting on moderate gun owners and hunters surely isn’t the way to go. And for Christ sakes, gun related discussion forums might try to tone down the racism, ethnic and religious bigotry, and the supporting of back shooting petty criminals that is the norm on them. I’m gun owner. I’ve owned a semi-automatic assault weapon, a high capacity pistol, held a TX CHL, and have bought and sold firearms privately (a right that I’ll hate losing most), but I just couldn’t stomach so many of my fellow gun owners anymore or what the Republican Party (the Ethnic and Religious bigot party) had became to vote pro-gun this election.
, I have nothing to worry about…
