Question of the Day: Know Any Fudds?

The term Fudd refers to Elmer Fudd, the hapless hunter eternally outfoxed by a wabbit. In gun control terms, a Fudd is someone who owns guns who supports gun control. In this video – viewed by some 40k people – a Fudd named Mark Carman outlines his reasons for doing so. First, he claims that the National Guard is the milita, despite Supreme Court rulings saying otherwise. Carman then argues for universal background checks and shows . . .

the audience a copy of ATF form 4473. Carman calls it a laughable document, but neglects to mention buyers have to go through a NICS check when they buy a firearm from an FFL. Plenty of commentators under the video agree with Mr. Carman’s call for “sensible” gun control.

Know anyone like this? What do you say to them?

[h/t mecha75]

comments

  1. avatar Publius says:

    My dad is ex-army and as a result thinks that no one but those who work for the government should be allowed to have full auto / select-fire weapons, armor piercing ammo, or be allowed to open carry. My brother-in-laws (both cops) agree with him.

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      That still doesn’t make him a Fudd. He could be ok with semiautomatic versions of those scary black rifles. A true Fudd only thinks bolt action rifles chambered in 30-06, rimfire rifles and break action shotguns are ok.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Debating Fudd status in terms of which actions are allowable sounds a lot like debating which was the smartest Stooge.

      2. avatar Chris. says:

        My father – he’s a Fudd. He’s even ok with Semi-auto .30-06’s – as long as they have wood furniture & 4-5 round magazines.

    2. avatar Timmy! says:

      I must admit that I am in fact just a wee bit Fudd when it comes to full-auto/select-fire. I, personally, see no need for the average Joe to have it. I’m not saying I don’t think they should, I just don’t see the utility. I will not argue against it, but I cannot in good conscience come up with arguments for it.

      Having said all of that, the one “Giggle Switch” gun I have fired was fun as hell!

      1. avatar HJ says:

        Because I want one.

        Do I need more reason that that?

      2. avatar LarryinTx says:

        “Shall not be infringed” is all the reason necessary! Followed closely by, “Why not? Can you come up with one reason why not, other than to deliberately infringe, unconstitutionally? Do you pretend it has any effect on crime, whatsoever?”

        1. avatar BrentB says:

          >> “Shall not be infringed” is all the reason necessary! <<

          I love this answer. I read it here on TTAG all the time to argue EVERY point. It's so laughably detached from the relaity of our representitive form of government that FLAME DELETED

          To spell it out–if you think you can just say "it's my right" to do anything you damn well want even if the vast majority of folks start to view you as a ranting, dangerous nutjob, then you're a dumbas*…you're too stupid to fail to recognize that same vast majority can Constitutionally Amend your beloved Second Amendment right out of existence.

        2. The purpose of the second amendment is to kill those who take it away.
          Know this!

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        The Fudd factor kicks in when you choose to impose that view on others, thereby denying them their right on the basis of your squeamishness.

        Does anybody really need a 75″ high definition, 3D, curves screen television to watch adult group sex pornography? Nope. While I’m sure that makes some people squeamish, too, it’s likewise the owner’s right and nobody else’s business.

        Feel Fuddy all you want, just mind your own business.

        1. avatar Brad says:

          Can a 75″ TV kill someone with the aimed press of a button? I agree, firearms should not be restricted in any way, but come on now. A TV or a car compared to a gun is as ridiculous as comparing the swimming capabilities of a fish and a newborn, land-dwelling mammal.

        2. avatar Publius says:

          That’s funny, Brad, seeing how several times more people die in car accidents each year than are murdered with a gun. FLAME DELETED

      4. avatar Paelorian says:

        The same reason all militaries use them: they’re useful for combat and for self-defense in some contexts. An SMG would be a good home defense option for some people. And if you believe in the “preventing tyranny” arguments for gun rights, well, the people ought to have the arms to go toe-to-toe with corrupt government forces.

  2. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    Yes – he has a nice house with a beautiful gun safe full of magnificent over-under shotguns, most of them inherited from his father and grandfather. He votes for the least conservative Republican he can and let his NRA membership lapse in 1984.

  3. avatar JMAC says:

    Typical argument of liberals in just about every facet….as long the regulations my political rivals and not ME, I am okay with it. I’ll join on the side of regulation and they’ll recognize me as an exception.

    Only that, once the regulations and stigma has completely ostracized the political target….they will then become the next monster.

  4. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Technically, the National Guard is the organized militia and in the days of the draft you had to serve the second two years of your six year obligation in the Guard. They did away with this requirement during Vietnam for those who went to a combat zone. Today, the Guard is more like a standing reserve force of US Volunteers. The rest of the population. sits in the unorganized mitia ready to be drafted.

    But that is neither here nor there. The Militia isn’t authorized in the Second Amendment. It is a governmental function. authorized and broadly defined in Article I, Section 8 Paragraphs 15 and 16. Whenever someone tries to tie the authority for the Militia to the Second Amendment it is important that you point out that the constitutional authority for the Militia is found in the body of the Constitution and not the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights only applies to individuals and in the 10th Amendment to the States.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Yep. When I mustered out I had a 2 year inactive reserve status. Basically I was on the hook if a Pearl Harbor style event happened during those two years. But no meetings, no drill.

      After that it would have required an act of congress to get me back.

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Wrong. The whole premise of the national guard was to be used as an “instead of” and it isnt any type new nomenclature for the same, albiet evolved, thing. The issue arose around 1900. Some states were asked to send their state militias to help the war effort (spanish american war). Some states refused and the federal governement had no to stand on. So congress enacted several acts to offer training and funding of a new military unit that would be mostly under the control of the individual states, but the federal governement reserved the right to deploy with regular army units any time they saw fit. The carrot for excepting this new military unit was the federal funding and equipment grants. The states no longer had to fund or purchase equipment for their individual militias. But to further underscore my point, the SCOTUS ruled in 1990 (Perpich v. DoD) that the national guard is not the militia and the state governors do not have the constitutional right to refuse deployment orders by the DoD. Further stating in the ruling that the state governors have the constituional right to raise their own militias, funded by the states themselves with their own equipment and training.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        I believe the Militia Act of 1903 as amended in 1908 says differently.

        1. avatar Mecha75 says:

          The army cannot order the militia on deployment outside the borders of the US. those acts created two types of militia: one federally funded, army trained, and federally equipped that provides the functions that belonged to the traditional militia but under the control of the DoD and the other manned by individuals with thier own arms, and no expected level of training. The later is the militia as described in the Constitution. The former (as ruled by the SCoTUS in 1990) is not as they can be deployed anywhere at the whim of the federal governement. The governors do have a limited amount of veto on their deployment, but that is only for a few instances. The ruling also states that the governors are free to form their own militias.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          You are splitting hairs. The Federally funded National Guard is still the organized Militia under the Militia Act.

        3. avatar Yadama says:

          The closest thing to militias today would be known as a State Defense Force or SDF. Most states don’t have one, nor do they show any signs of creating one in the future. The main exception of this would be the Texas SDF; motherf’ers have their own state Air Force. If any type of insurgency or civil war breaks out, Texas is the only state who could hold their own.

      2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        In addition, the concept of the “national guard” didn’t appear until the late 19th century. There was no “national guard” before then.

        Ergo… what was the militia before there was a national guard? The Congress articulated what the militia was before the national guard: Every male between 17 and 45, supplying their own gun.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          History is being re-written again.
          “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
          George Mason
          Co-author of the Second Amendment

  5. avatar jwm says:

    My family is rife with fudds. People that have shotguns and rimfire rifles and wonder why anyone needs a semi auto pistol or 30 round mag. I sometimes feel like a mistake was made at the hospitol and I was sent home with the wrong family.

    Of course, I often also think I was born in the wrong century.

    1. avatar Dollup15 says:

      To be fair, I only own manual action firearms (pump shotguns & level action rifles), but I would not describe myself as a Fudd, and hope no one would call me one. I do wonder why people buy semi-autos and large magazines, not because I think they should be banned, but simply because I have no personal interest in them (the same way I wonder why anyone would buy a bright orange car, as seems to be popular now). I have no desire to see those things banned, I just have no desire to own them personally.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        My family would vote for a guy wanting to ban semi autos and 30 round mags.

        I, like you, have no need for “assualt rifles” or 30 round mags. I prefer a revolver to a semi. But I will not support any pol that stands for gun control and believe constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

        1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          There are those of us who would never own a black rifle because they are ugly. Real guns are made of wood and metal. That’s why I just went with a standard Mini 14 for a trail gun.

          It’s ok to own one but no gentleman would admit to it.

        2. avatar notalima says:

          tdiinva, your prejudice against ‘black’ guns is unbecoming. In this day and age, such things as ‘back of the safe’, ‘separate but equal’ safes, or, in your case, a complete absence of ‘black’ guns, should be a thing of the past. Embrace diversity.

          /end sarcasm 😀

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          #blackgunsmatter

        4. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Black plastic rifles are a sy mbol of the pussification of the American man. The next thing you will be telling me is that hanguns should be made of plastic instead of steel like God and John Moses Browning intended.

      2. avatar Publius says:

        So your CCW gun is a mare’s leg? That’s pretty difficult to conceal without a large jacket.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          *SIGH* A mare’s leg and a black frock coat. Backed up by a navy colt converted for .38 cartridges and an army colt converted to cartridge.

          But, I live in CA in the 21st century. Sucks.

  6. avatar Gman says:

    “The term Fudd refers to Elmer Fudd, the hapless hunter eternally outfoxed by a wabbit. In gun control terms, a Fudd is someone who owns guns who supports gun control.”

    hapless – unlucky, hard-luck, ill-fated, ill-starred, jinxed, luckless, snakebit (or snakebitten), star-crossed, unfortunate, unhappy
    I fail to see how the first is related to the second. Poor Elmer is simply a victim of bad luck or too simple minded to out fox the wabbit as it were.
    In gun control terms, a Fudd is someone who owns guns who supports gun control.
    I’m unsure what is being said here. I have never met a gun that supports gun control. Other than being held with respect and reverence. But if the intent is to say that someone who owns guns and who supports anti-gun legislation, does that make them hapless? Simple minded? Uninformed? Dumb? Dangerous? But to slander poor Elmer, who has given so much to so many, and never harmed a soul, seems unjust.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      It’s a term of art.

      And I think you’re over thinking it.

      Elmer was a hunter (and on occasion a rich industrialist). He was also unable to see the world from any perspective other than his own, and ignored blatantly obvious signs that he was wrong even if they were literally waved in his face.

      And Elmer didn’t “harm a soul” except for blasting Daffy repeatedly in the face. He never got Bugs but not for lack of trying or intent. He was not a peaceful man.

      So a Fudd is a gun owner (usually a hunter) who refuses to face facts that he finds inconvenient.

      1. avatar Timmy! says:

        “He never got Bugs but not for lack of trying or intent.”

        I seem to recall he DID get Bugs in “What’s Opera Doc?”

        1. avatar Matt in TX says:

          I am Elmer J. Fudd Millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.

          http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc94j_elmer-j-fudd-millionaire_news

        2. avatar John L. says:

          Ah, one of the classics! But as I wecall, the wascally wabbit pulled a wuse on poor Elmer and lived to tell the tale! (And why when you *don’t* want it does AutoCorrect do such a good job…?! Razzle snazle frickle computer frackle snatter)

  7. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    Carmen plays the role of the Judas Goat pretty well… All about emotion and intentionally weak of facts… IMHO he doesn’t deserve the hard fought liberty that we still have…

    1. avatar SkyMan77 says:

      Weak ON facts… Need more coffee… 🙂

  8. Look at that old ass tube TV this guy still has. Do you even HD Bro?

    1. avatar Publius says:

      He probably thinks plasma / LCD / LED TVs should be banned too. Only the government needs such high capacity screens with assault definition!

      1. avatar Tactical Dad says:

        He probably thinks Plasma is cool but is still waiting for prices to come down…

  9. avatar Larry says:

    Yes I know Fudds. I tell them that I’m all for sensible gun control too.

    It’s not sensible that in NYS a person has to wait up to a year for a pistol permit, a month would be more sensible.

    Why can I only load 11 rounds in my gun built to hold 14?
    That dose not make sense either.

    How come the same gun in wood stock is legal but in a plastic one with a different grip is not ? Makes no sense .

    Hope you guys can change that , Thanks!

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Waiting a month for a pistol permit is no more sensible than waiting a year for one. Pistol permits are not sensible – the government is requiring you to obtain their permission to exercise one of your rights that is supposed to be guaranteed in the Constitution. How is that sensible?

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    FO DBag?

    There is no point in arguing with most of them. They want less privacy, higher taxes, and more government oversight in their lives. They think it makes them “safer” and their lives “fuller” being sheparded and “taken care of” by the state and if you disagree with them you are a terrorist teabagging nutcase extremist. There is really no point in any further discussion with them.

  11. I know more people that don’t have guns but are against gun control.
    I was one of those for several years. I got my first gun three years ago at 47 years old.

    Opposite of a Fudd is a DUFF.
    Don’t Undermine Firearm Freedom

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      DUFF? That doesn’t sound good. Can we come up with a better acronym? They are going to relate those types with Homer Simpson IQ levels downing DUFF beer.

      1. Well FOAD was taken and it didn’t play off of Fudd.

      2. avatar PerplexedPistolero says:

        Not to mention that common parlance has some rather distasteful extensions for the DUFF acronym as well.

    2. avatar notalima says:

      Heh, I like that.

      Unfortunately, while not FUDDs, I have the acquaintance of several firearm owners who are pro-gun control. They ‘feel’ that UBCs (which they don’t understand, nor will listen to an explanation of), registration, etc. are all perfectly fine since they ‘have nothing to hide’.

      Debating with them is not possible since they simply circle-jerk each other’s bandwagon.

  12. avatar MAC][ says:

    I know several Fudds. The “Fuddiest” of them all is known to have an amazing collection, buys and sells weekly, and works in a gun store. He calls all modern sporting rifles including the AR-15 “Terrorist Weapons”, and has been known to lament to customers how scary it is to realize how many people carry concealed.

    “If it ain’t a revolver, bolt, lever, or break-open – Ya can’t hunt with ’em and God doesn’t intend for man to own them”

    Yeah…he’s just a bit uncomfortable with Gun Culture 2.0.

    1. avatar Ad Astra says:

      You should ask him then why did God give us the M1 Garand in our time of need?

  13. avatar fishydude says:

    My sister almost qualifies as a FUDD. She supports disarmament of everyone but people like her husband. He just took advantage of the tax free weekend to buy a new Sig 716 in 308/7.62 and a S&W Shield 40. He also owns a few other pistols and rifles.
    She shares the incorrect view that the 2A only allows the government to have guns. She fails to grasp that there would not be a 2A if that was the intent.

  14. avatar Shire-man says:

    Used to be everyone around me was a Fudd back in CT. Even the gun shop and range owners. Then something happened and the state was split about 70% Fudd and 30% raging psycho ridiculous moron hyper-douche gun owner. I could sort of see the Fudd’s point when these clowns would roll up with skulls and punisher logos all over everything spitting and cursing.

    Then I left the state and I’m glad to say I currently do not know any Fudd’s or gun-douchebags. Just regular vanilla folks who like to shoot.

  15. avatar B72512ga says:

    Here’s the definition of Militia per U.S. Code

    10 § 311.

    Militia: composition and classes

    (a)
    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1)
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2)
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjomga says:

      So, as I read this, only women who are members of Natl. Guard are considered militia and thus fall under 2A rights protections? And, there is no requirement in this statute that equates gun ownership with being a militia member, so does that mean that owning a gun doss not make one a “protected 2a militia member? I assumed all us citizens were considered potential “militia”, male or female armed or not?

      1. avatar HJ says:

        Dude, what?

        I know it’s in legalease, but it’s not that hard to figure out. Every male in the US between 17 and 45 is in the militia. Everyone who’s in the National Guard is in the Organized Militia. Everyone else who isn’t in the Organized Militia, but still in the Militia, (That is, every male between 17 and 45) is in the Unorganized Militia. Women, who are in the National Guard, are in the Organized Militia, and thus, also part of the Militia.

        Militia status as sweet fuck-all to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right of the *people* to keep and bear arms. Like the other parts of the Bill of Rights, it is there to prevent the government from interfering with these natural rights.

        1. avatar Jjimmyjomga says:

          Hey, thanks for the “fuck” and beat down…nice. The 2A does in fact mention both a “militia” and “bear arms”, so, as such, both are relevant to the discussion (or, we could just agree that can only be defined and someone on the internet says so, just because). I would think it important to discuss all arguments, for and against one’s precieved definitions – it has not been settled completely. I would comfortable in saying that most readers of this sight did not know that only women in the Natl. Guard are considered, by law, to be a member of the Militia….was news to me.

        2. avatar HJ says:

          You’re making this way more complex than it needs to be. First, there are no “preconceived” definitions to argue about. There are correct definitions, and incorrect definitions.

          “To bear arms” means to carry weapons.

          The “Militia” is every male between 17 and 45, and every female in the National Guard.

          The militia clause in the 2nd Amendment has no legal or semantic bearing. For all intents and purposes, the 2nd Amendment reads “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The stuff about militias is just one reason why people should be allowed to keep arms.

          If you actually care about all this, go read the majority opinion in DC v. Heller. If you just want to piddle about and try and create some alternate reality on it, well, that’s you’re business.

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      All this “organized militia=National Guard” and “unorganized militia=everything else” is a modern definition made out of whole cloth by Congress in the 1903 Dick Act (if memory serves). The militia started in 1636. A militia can be assembled and disbanded as needed.

  16. avatar BDub says:

    “Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I’ll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger ’til it goes “click.” Jesus Quintana

  17. avatar Kapeltam says:

    The one Fudd in my life was my brother. I converted him within 6 months of just taking about gun ownership and the constitution. Every day. But he kept an open mind. If they don’t, well, you can’t fix stupid.

  18. avatar Chrispy says:

    The area I live in is comprised mainly of FUDDs. I cannot go to a gun range between now and spring time, because they’ll all be crawling with hunters sighting in shotguns. If I show up with a pistol I will never get any time at the line anyways… Luckily I can do all my shooting at home, so it isn’t really that big of a deal.

    In a few weeks you will not be able to buy ammunition at my local Wal-Mart, because the sporting goods counter will have a line of hunters out the front door trying to fill their tags.

    While I do support hunting, it sure seems like the people who go hunting around here are d-bags. While I personally would go hunting, I can’t stand the idea of being in the woods while all these other people are as well. Every year I hear more stories of hunters being accidentally shot around here. Maybe if I owned enough land and kept other hunters off of it I would consider it.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      While I do support hunting, it sure seems like the people who go hunting around here are d-bags. While I personally would go hunting, I can’t stand the idea of being in the woods while all these other people are as well.
      Probably why i do not hunt as much as I used to.

  19. avatar PeterK says:

    Yeah we got fudds in the family. All probably do. They like guns, but they also like gun control. It’s not hard to see why. What is hard is how one must exercise the brain to justify gun control, oh but not your guns.

  20. avatar CJ Minnesota says:

    His LEO experience has certainly clouded his judgement. I’m sure that there were plenty of times when he had wanted to skirt protections of the Constitution, and that is what is getting in his way of understanding the “rights” part of what is recognized.

    He needs to buy a clue!

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    What do I say to them? FOAD. Brief and to the point.

  22. avatar GrampsGuns says:

    FUD is also an acronym for “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt”.
    It describes use of a tactic to undermine a rival, competitor, or opposing point of view.
    It is Alinsky-esque in nature in that it doesn’t stand on rational merits, and instead appeals to emotions in order to get someone to think or decide in a certain way.

    Lies, rumors, deceptive reasoning. The typical leftist drivel.
    FUD is prolly the most used anti goto tactic out there.

    I think that is what RF is aiming at (figuratively) here with his use of Fudd is actually “FUD”.
    Personally, I think of poor Elmer as one of ours, and he deserves better than to be lumped in with the likes of Carman or that ilk.

    As to RF’s question….. do I know anyone like this? I can’t think of anyone. In my (limited) experience, folks are all in or all out on this. I’ve found very little middle ground. Guess that isn’t so surprising considering the state of affairs here in 2015.

  23. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    One comes to mind each time Nick Leghorn writes about how, if allowed, carrying guns on airplanes would be a terrible idea and you shouldn’t do it. I guess we can’t be trusted, eh, buddy?

  24. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    Yes i do know a fudd. He forgets he even owns a gun and when I tried to get him to sell it to me he stated “I’ll keep it because it might be fun to shoot sometime”. I know for a fact he owns no ammo for said gun. What do I say to him? I am slightly sympathetic to the condition of bringing a dumb argument to a gun control debate so I say “dad, let’s not talk about politics. You won’t listen to me and I will only upset you”.

  25. avatar RDK says:

    I couldn’t watch the whole video…the old TV in the background was too distracting. Who can take a man seriously who still owns and uses such a relic 😉

    BTW..the guy to me is just another illogical TRUE FUDD. He has another video where he goes on with the now clearly disproved “40%” stat http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

    If this guy is a TRUE gun owner/believer in ANY gun rights..he would’t be taking the anti-gun propaganda hook line and sinker.

  26. avatar Publius says:

    Still only 68 dislikes on the video. Does TTAG have that few readers these days?!

    1. avatar Buck says:

      We can’t get though the whole video.

  27. avatar mirgc says:

    Just tell the fudd that, after ‘assault weapons’ bans, that everyone can finally start working on banning those long-range, scoped sniper rifles. Or close support shotguns. Because no one needs to own a weapon of war. Except the government.

    See if their eyes light up when they realize that’s all their hunting rifles and duck guns. And remind them we win if we stick together, not divide ourselves.

  28. avatar John says:

    Many of my friends are Fudds. Hunters that think they know everything there is to know about firearms but the reality of it is a different story.

  29. avatar Silver says:

    Proof that owning guns doesn’t make you a gun rights supporter, and living in America doesn’t make you an American.

  30. avatar Chris says:

    I use to work with a FUDD. He didn’t think the American public should be allowed to have AR-15’s because “it was a military rifle only designed to kill”. But the M14/M1A was A OK in his eyes!!! It has a wood stock. Apparently his definition of the BS term assault weapon was determined by the rifles wood content. I showed him a picture of an AR with wood furniture, he looked at it a for a little bit, and then determined he still didn’t like it. Critical thinking plays no part in decisions made by any controllist.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      I came into a pittance recently and was physically forced to move along by my friend Larry when I stopped to look at a bronze-colored receiver/wood furniture AR at a gun show. “But… but… but… I’d have the only one!” He had ZERO sympathy for my pleading. My earlobe is still a bit tender as well.

  31. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    Does he show his approved FCC form 5517 for exercising his right to free speech?

  32. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I admit I was slightly Fuddish back in the 90s when I was a teenager. I hunted, had a Remington 760 Gamemaster in .30.06. It all changed when I fired an M16a2 for the first time. I realized how small 5.56 was and how easy it was to shoot. I wanted one and figured out how much more powerful my 06 was. It evaporated the OMG it’s an evil black rifle mentality when a Drill sergeant fired the rifle in burst with the butt of the rifle on his forehead. It only took me 9 years to finally buy an AR. I had an AK within 7 years, so I was slow to start my collection. Now I’m an absolutist.

  33. avatar Bernard says:

    Here’s a fun fact: Bugs Bunny accidentally transformed the word nimrod into a synonym for idiot because nobody got his joke comparing Elmer Fudd to the Biblical figure Nimrod (a mighty hunter).

    http://www.dailywritingtips.com/accidental-shifts-in-meaning/

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      I always wondered about that! Thanks.

  34. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    As usual this guy misses the point.
    So have alot here who have commented so far.
    Owning a firearm is a right.
    End of story.
    The 2nd isnt about hunting. Or long arms only.
    Driving a car or having a motorcycle endorsement is a State privilege.
    Hes a FUDD alright in every sense of the word.

  35. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Yep I know lots of fudds-mostly of the “nobody needs” variety. I mentioned a local Shopper publisher a few days ago”I own guns but”…also my ex-military son and lots of idiots I do business with “nobody needs a50caliber”,”why would you carry a gun?” and other drivel…

  36. avatar Lone Ranger says:

    They are just drooling *all over* this guy in the YouTube comments section… they wubs him!! He’s like the poster child for the entire incrementalist approach to gun control.

  37. avatar Scorpion says:

    Mr. Carman may love his guns, but not his liberty.

    What he doesn’t realize is that the anti-gun rights movement is not about guns. It’s about adherence to a largely arbitrary set of laws and the primacy of government over the citizen. He may think that extra laws don’t infringe on anyone’s rights and that even if they do, the small good the laws might do is worth it.

    But I would ask Mr. Carman, if 10 men stand before you and 9 are guilty and 1 innocent, but you don’t know which one, do you put all 10 in jail just to be safe?

    I favor the primacy of the citizen over the government, and am more comfortable taking my chances with ex-felons and the mentally ill having guns rather than government being able to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights at will.

    1. avatar LarryinTx says:

      My hat’s off, dude, that was nice.

  38. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Usually the Fuddies want all guns banned, except for the double barrel shotgun that they own. This might explain England and Australia.

  39. avatar GusMac says:

    I managed to watch that regurgitated nonsense until he mentioned he was a former cop.. Fudd logic is hard enough to stomach without it also coming from an elitist former cop that require others to match his former cop skills. Firearm skills that are statistically wanting and a big downgrade for many, including people with little to no training. I am betting he “just doesn’t get” quite a lot.

  40. avatar LarryinTx says:

    Come on, guys, the National Guard is also not the reserves, they are two completely different entities. If you are going to discuss one, at least keep it separate from the other.

  41. avatar Buck says:

    He’s not a Fudd. He’s a Elitist. He believes if you’re not his level you aren’t worthy of gun ownership.

  42. avatar JohnF says:

    If you take 2A absolutely literally, I guess I would have to be a bit of a Fudd. It says, “…the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.” I know the framers meant “guns” but nowadays “arms” includes nuclear, biological and chemical warfare weapons, fuel-air explosive, mines, anti-aircraft missiles and all kinds of nasty stuff.

    I am all for silencers, full-auto, open carry, concealed carry, no mag limits, no gun-free zones, but sorry, I can’t go for the public owning all “arms.”

  43. avatar Matt in SC says:

    ‘the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.” I know the framers meant “guns”’
    No. They meant arms. Swords are “arms”. Pocket knives are “arms”. So is a cannon, war ship, or a submarine. They did not mean “guns” or they would have used that word as it was available to them.

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      I think you’re probably right, which adds weight to my point. Nowadays there are “arms” that the framers could not have envisioned, which the public clearly should not have. Yes, I know the antis use that logic about black guns, but I have an argument for why the antis are wrong about that. But that’s for another thread.

      If anyone could own WMD, I don’t think the country would long survive. I would not even agree with cannons and warships for the public.

      1. Ever heard of government by the people? It’s a great idea. Maybe you should look into it.

        1. avatar JohnF says:

          I understand your argument. But I have worked with the WMD I listed in the military. I know what they can do. There can be no “government by the people” if millions of the people can be wiped out indiscriminately.

          A political theory can only describe a desired reality. It cannot create that reality.

        2. You trust government with WMDs more than an individual even though the individual can be thwarted from an evil action much easier than the government. Besides, an individual or group that wants to deploy such weapons isn’t going to be stopped by a law.
          What happens when the US military shoots down a civilian aircraft, sinks a cruise ship, or bombs a hospital? NODT.
          Now imagine if a citizen did that. It would be the fastest trial to execution in the history of capital punishment.
          The only person you have to worry about is someone stupid wealthy and certified psychotic. Don’t you think such a person would be extremely high profile? That person should be watched and should have been committed already. No one watches the bureaucrats when they murder. And we can’t do anything anyway since our 2nd amendment rights have been infringed.

        3. avatar JohnF says:

          Michael

          My answer to your first sentence is yes I do trust the government with WMD more than average citizens, because I have seen the controls in place. The rest of your post I won’t comment on, because it is a editorial rant that goes way off of responding to my point.

        4. No, I was 100% on topic. We just disagree.
          Do I trust citizens who are evil more than government? No. But it is easier to take out a rogue citizen than a rogue government.
          On some subjects, your opinions can evolve. Others, such as the bill of rights, only a firm stance will retain the spirit of the law. We’ve lost to much ground already. Time to get back to fundamentals to counter the fundamental change.

  44. avatar Lee H says:

    I live in NJ (I know hold the lol) I hunt I fish I shoot. As all of you know, me not being an leo or having a lot of powerful friends I will never get a ccw in this state. Say if I do all he said but after all of that bs don’t tell me I cant carry in this state. (I know Im dreaming) but living here I could see tuning into law and that’s the same day I move.

  45. avatar anaxis says:

    Fudds are why I stay out of the woods during hunting season, and buy enough ammo during preceeding months to avoid the mad scramble for that last box of .308/30-06/5.56/7.62x54R/etc (and forget about finding .22 during this time).
    On Opening Day (and the night prior) my store is swarming with guys who somehow forgot that they had all year to stock up on the basics; ammo, cleaning kits, earplugs, hand-warmers, thermal underwear, bipods & shooting-sticks, gloves, deer-corn. They line up at the sporting-goods counter and I get to hear a plethora of both common and novel Fuddisms while they wait hours for ammo. A majority are shotgun/boltgun Fudds, along with a few smokepole-&-bow-only types, with these usually being new to black-powder or bows. A few carry big revolvers slung in shoulder rigs, but I’ve begun to suspect that they do so only to garner cool-points. All are generally in foul moods, and many demand that we treat their piss-poor planning as an emergency.
    The worst part is that most stop by the beer coolers on their way out, quickly leaving it as bare as our ammo shelves.
    I used to enjoy stalk-hunting, but now I stay out of the woods when they’re full of guys who only dust-off their rifles/shotguns once a year and sit up in their blinds getting drunk. And at the end of the day after being blanked, they start blasting targets-of-opportunity with little regard for what is downrange. After many seasons of witnessing such behavior first-hand at various deer camps (and had buckshot pepper the sides of my barn facing the treeline on several occasions), I decided it’s just not worth the risk.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      And yet you have no problem at all with supplying them with beer and bullets. For a price.

      1. avatar anaxis says:

        Hey, it’s a “free” country. But I can (and do) turn away obviously intoxicated customers, and there’s been more than a few who stagger up late and demand that we fetch them ammo from the warehouse. And Fudds happen to be the most common offenders.

  46. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I don’t know if this guy is a Fudd or not, but I’m pretty sure about his status as a pud.

  47. avatar Tim C says:

    Is Elmer Fudd a take off on Elmer Keith, father of the magnum revolvers? Or just coincidence?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email