The not-so-technical term for a gun owning gun control supporter is a “Fudd.” As in Elmer Fudd. And there are plenty of Fudds out there, casting fear, uncertainty and doubt on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without government infringement. The mainstream media loves them some Fudds, as the NPR video below reveals . . .
The NPR report somehow forgets to mention that the Clackamas, Oregon mall shooter topped himself the second he saw a firearm pointed in his direction — from a concealed carrier. Anyway . . .
When I encounter a gun-owning Fudd I deploy my go-to line: what are you, meshuggah? (Hint: the term has nothing to do with the Swedish heavy metal band by that name.) Followed by SMH and speedy departure. What’s your reaction?
I have had the opportunity to be honest not many fudds don’t know there idiots and keep it to themselves. I would probably say ” you’re a f#[email protected]&ng moron” easy to remember.
(fudd-ly eye roll)
Actually, it’s “They’re”. It is a contraction of “They are”. If you’re going to correct grammar, you should at least be “Correct”.
Based on the previous two comments, can we just agree that there are too many stupid people who are allowed to vote? And yes, I’m talking about the 2A side as well as the antis.
“Smart” counts for sh_t. You can be smart as hell and still be an incredibly deleterious member of Society if you’re an evil POS MF’n (D) MF. “Guns” ain’t the only problem with them MFs.
Can’t we just agree on that (that’s a rhetorical question).
Umm… it depends what kind of gun control for which they’re advocating.
“We need to make sure the wrong people don’t get guns” -> “What makes you think you’re so special?”
“We need to make sure people don’t get the wrong guns” -> “So, we should ban guns based on whether or not they look scary? Why should your mini-14 get preference over my AR?”
To me it all boils down to the notion that if “they” can take someone else’s guns, eventually they will come after yours too. Remember that every proposed law or regulation is “a good first step”.
I find this line fairly effective at cutting through the Fudd FUD:
Please describe exactly what you are trying to accomplish, the law intended to accomplish that end, and exactly how that law accomplishes that end, without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding.
The usual response is some variation of: “Well, I don’t know. But we’ve got to do something.”
^^^^ THIS. Fudds are fucking traitors. Nothing more. Same as the left.
Your argument is a solid line when dealing with Hoplophobes as well. Once you can get them past their specious staunch sloganism.
With hoplophobes, I usually leave off the infringement-of-rights caveat, at least initially.
You can make the same point by specifying “without punishing innocent people.”
And there it is: both FUDDS and casual gun bigots routinely spout off bigot rhetoric without actually thinking it over. When they are actually put on the spot and it is demanded of them that they come up with a workable gun owner control solution, they trip all over themselves as they quickly realise that they don’t have a solution at all.
It is still my favorite go-to argument to demand to know why they are so bigoted against me and want to infringe on my civil rights? What have I done to them? Do they even KNOW me? Why do they hate and distrust people they’ve never met so much?
…and watch their virtue-signalling heads explode…
when they say, “We have got to do something!”, I suggest that allowing more good people to carry, or better yet, scrapping open carry and concealed carry laws for constitutional carry would solve the problem.
Great. You’ve beFUDDled them. Now what?
It’s cute to run rhetorical circles around these fools; a guilty pleasure, one might say. Still, what does that accomplish?
Embarrassing and isolating these people is more apt to elicit what I call a lame “place holder” response, just something to say, quite like the “we have to do something!” line you mentioned, or possibly angry defensiveness, than it is to move the chains even an inch with them.
We need an approach that chips away at their monolithic ignorance. We need to give them enough of a nudge to overcome their inertia of non-thought, but without incurring blowback.
(Whining) “Awww… but I LIKE their defensive blowback!”
Eh, you’re right. We’ll not change the Fudd’s mind, but the mind’s of any spectators on the other hand…
There was once a time in this country when openly advocating for the oppression of the civil rights of blacks was perfectly acceptable in public forums, newspapers and scholastic treatises. Today, such discussions would be quickly and rightfully disregarded as socially unacceptable and boorish.
My dream is that one day, gun bigots will feel the same way: ashamed to publicly declare their contempt for our civil rights and will discuss such nastiness only among themselves for fear of public ostracism.
One can dream. As it is MLK day, I’m tempted, but not enough to actually do it, to modify his “I have a dream” speech to gun rights.
Well, if one approaches such a conversation with intent to embarrass, then that end would be easily achieved at that point. But I gave up such discourse sometime after college.
The, “We have to do something!” line can alternately be used as an opening to more constructive dialogue. Typically, my end goal is the other person’s realization that passing laws that merely impede the actions of the law-abiding, while neither compelling nor constraining the lawless, is futile. That realization, in turn, refocuses the “doing something” elsewhere: arming the law-abiding, and dealing more effectively with the violent criminals.
It doesn’t always get there, but that – rather than embarrassment – is my goal.
There are a few approaches I can think of. One is to destroy they other person for the benefit of an audience. Another is to embarrass/shame someone into proper behavior in front of a group of like minded individuals. A third is to convince the person you are talking to. This is the hardest to do because telling someone they are wrong usually doesn’t work. Persuasion and debate are very different things.
“Please describe exactly what you are trying to accomplish, the law intended to accomplish that end, and exactly how that law accomplishes that end, without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding.”
Yes, that approach tends to get a “Well, we’ve got to do SOMETHING!”
At which point I agree. Then I propose such things as a tax credit for buying a gun safe or other means of storing them so others can’t just wander off with them, which usually goes fairly well (except from people who want others to pay for implementing their ideas), along with Eddie Eagle programs in schools and actual safety training in high school.
Nothing…i’ve never even met one, let alone know one.
It would be like a pro-life abortion supporter. I’m sure they exist but not in very significant numbers.
Very much like. There are plenty of anti-choice folk who have had or will have abortions, and approve/pay for same for their children. Precise same rationale as well; “laws for thee, but not for me!”.
Actually, there are a LOT of people who are anti-abortion until someone close to them has an unplanned pregnancy.
Your sourcing for “lots” would be of interest, and a range of numbers for what “lot” is. But, it does seem easy to do. Let me give it a try. There are lots of unplanned pregnancies that don’t end in murder. Hmmm, that was easy.
I usually explain to gun control advocates of all kinds that there are two approaches to the problem. The first is to lock up the criminals and nut cases, and maximize freedom for everyone else. The second is to make the whole country a vast prison, and take away everybody’s guns, knives, and shoe laces. There’s no point in arguing with anyone who prefers the second approach because his brain just doesn’t work.
If I were to encounter a genuine Fudd, I’d probably ask, “So what qualifies you to have a gun?”
“The second [approach] is to make the whole country a vast prison, and take away everybody’s guns, knives, and shoe laces. There’s no point in arguing with anyone who prefers the second approach because his brain just doesn’t work.”
I think you are right on the money.
Keep in mind that you should continue engaging such a person IF fence-sitters are listening to the discussion. The only thing more effective than providing a solid argument is providing a solid argument AND having your opposition show how insane they are.
uncommon_sense -In your second example, you are describing England and their laws.
I think your description of those two approaches are one of the most insightful things I’ve read today, and that includes the .458 Winchester Magnum M1 Garand image a friend sent me:
I will be borrowing the idea, if not the phrasing when a discussion comes up. Thanks!
The fastest way to get anti gunners to stop posting at a website discussion of guns….ask them if this is true……if they don’t want citizens to own and carry guns, then their preferred outcome of a violent rape, robbery or murder, is for the victim to be raped, robbed or murdered…right? I have done this about a dozen times and they stop posting when this question is put to them….
I have provided a similar argument with the same results:
“Tampons have dry cotton which is a fantastic fire starter. How many people do arsonists have to injure/kill every year with fires that they start with tampons to justify outlawing tampons?”
Can’t take a guy seriously that goes on national tv with a hi-point.
Thank you for coming out of the closet as a rich pig gun owner.
Thank you for letting the world know that only rich people can have guns and civil rights.
Thank you for you honesty.
Calm down. The dude is storing his Hi-Point in a Liberty safe with biometric fingerprint reader. That $200+ would’ve been better spent on a better pistol… or at least a 2nd Hi-Point so he could dual wield!
The guy lives in a decent house on the water. Doubt he’s poor. Bet he has a smart phone, a couple flat screen TVs and wifi. Even if you’re struggling, there’s ways to save up to make a proper purchase.
My real point is, if his decision making process leads him to purchase a POS, why should I listen to him trying to influence others’ opinions?
The Fudd count is very high in “Republican” areas of So Cal because most gun owners own range toys only. Few hunters in San Diego, OC, and Riverside Counties because firearm hunting is often restricted because of wild fire conditions and only archery hunting is allowed during fire danger.
While not ideal, it is better to have some what pro gun Fudd than rabidly anti-gun liberals. As the country urbanizes, Fudd will become a much higher percentage of gun owners.
I ask them – Is a woman who has been raped or murdered morally superior to woman with a dead rapist-murderer at their feet?”
The ‘conversation’ usually quickly deteriorates from there…
I start by immediately enforcing Godwin’s Law.
“How would you like it if Hitler came for your guns? “
Which just makes you stupid. Godwin’s Law merely states that the longer an internet comments thread goes on, the higher the likelihood that someone will mention Hitler. If anything, you’re subverting Godwin’s Law by bringing up Hitler right off the bat.
It was a joke.
Here’s the problem with the gun control argument. To successfully arrive at any of their desired goals (keep guns away from criminals, crazies, felons, redheads, etc) you have to remove all firearms. Total disarmament. That’s just the only logical way any of their goals can be achieved. They’ll never say that, but they know it deep down. Problem with that is, there’s like what, half a BILLION of them inside our borders? So instead, they slowly chip away at our rights with their “common sense gun laws” that appeal to the uneducated masses. Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, safe storage laws, ammunition purchase limits….all lead to total disarmament. They’re playing the long game, and if you ask me, they’re winning.
“They’ll never say that, but they know it deep down.”
I disagree. I don’t think they know that deep in their core at all… indeed it has been my observation that Fudds seem to work from the assumption that fixing the problem means taking away everyone else’s guns – that somehow they will be immune because their guns are better than mine… or something like that.
It’s fun to point out their bigotry to them, followed immediately with pointing out that they will NOT be immune to the same restrictions on their civil rights as everyone else.
Sorry, kind of went on a rant. I was speaking in general. Congresswoman got me riled up. I agree with you, as far as Fudds go. Somehow they think the antis only want the scary black rifles, and somehow their bolt guns and shotguns aren’t included in the gun grabbing.
HAHAHA! Dude is basting his Hi-Point and then makes sure it’s secured in his biometric Liberty safe that’s worth twice as much as the gun!
You can almost picture someone stealing the safe, while leaving the gun.
Maybe he lost the nicer ones in a boating accident
“Good news, Bub, you’re only 2nd against the wall.”
“You’re next.” With example(s).
When discuss gun with people I get racial. I ask them if only white police should have guns???
I’m very polite when I ask them. No need to be rude. The blacks get just as uncomfortable as the whites do.
I will compose a letter and send it to NPR. We’ll see if I get a response.
EXACTLY my choice. Since I’m not white, I always start any gun control conversation with a line like: “Every single gun control law I’ve personally encountered disarm people like ME, but are meant to insure that wealthy, white people get to keep theirs. Why should I support racist attempts to further subjugate me by denying my right to be armed against crime, tyranny and oppression?”
That look of utter defeat and full-on mental backpedalling in their eyes is priceless.
I know about 4 FUDD’s up in Western Montana. All of them hunt, all of them carry handguns when they are hiking/camping but all of them don’t have much of a problem casting their vote for gun control politicians (mostly Democrats) and all but 1 is against the ownership of scary black rifles and standard cap magazines. Mostly they prescribe to the “mass shootings would end if we banned AR’s” mentality and that their hunting rifles/shotguns and handguns would then be safe.
I tend to bring up events like the Navy Yard shooting and the media’s term “police style” or “assault style” shotgun and Virginia Tech where one of the 2 handguns was a .22 with a 10 round mag in order to get my point across that sacrificing ground on AR’s is not going to protect their hunting guns.
In the end, they always want to drop the conversation because I think they know their logic is flawed. I have yet to hear one compelling argument from any of them in regards to why they think their guns would be safe from a future ban. Useful idiots, the lot of them.
I know one who is a tech addict and a bit of a data hoarder. All I have to say is 3d printing since I know he has copies of the liberator pistol files and 30 round magazine printing files.
The Fudds whom I’ve encountered I have referred to as “Jews for the Nuremberg Laws”, “Blacks for Jim Crow”, and “Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws”.
Then I go negative…
Harsh, but I like it.
Quislings like AHSA (American Hunters and Shooters Association) and the even deader NFA (National Firearms Association) are nothing but fifth columnists.
Every few months or so, some “Lord Haw Haw” from AHSA makes an appearance in one or the other of the firearms forums which I frequent. They get exposed for the false flag shills they are and go away, only to return later.
I’ve said to them on multiple occasions, “If this were 1942 and you were a Polish Jew, you’d be kicking your neighbors onto the boxcars as fast as you could, just to be the last one ‘resettled to the east’.”
I usually very politely ask them to let me know when they decide to sell or get rid of their guns. No calls yet.
I don’t care much for the term “Fudd” because of the implied insult to Elmer, who was a charming and likable fellow whose stance on gun rights was unclear beyond his fondness for using them to hunt scwewy wabbits.
I prefer to use “Quisling.” Lacks the whimsical roundness of a word like “Fudd,” but it is a lot more accurate.
The best way I have come up with when someone says “we need to do something” is by asking them if they think it is possible to prevent suicide, by someone determined to kill themselves. Once they admit Japan has far worse suicide rate and nearly no guns I ask them if they would support a law requiring a buyer to show government ID to buy a gun. Then I ask if they would support requiring the buyer to fill out and sign an affidavit stating they have no legal impediment to owning a gun (felony to lie on form). Would they support a system requiring the dealer verify with federal law enforcement that what was put on the affidavit was, in fact true. I follow up by telling all that is law right now, and ask how, given most criminals steal their guns, do they propose to “do something” about the already dwindling crime problem.
I have successfully converted a number of anti-gun men and women by utilizing biblical aspects:
1. Life is precious and, as such, defending it is paramount. We ARE responsible for defending innocent life whenever practicable, both our own, and that of others. When practical, we ARE “our brother’s keeper”…
2. Jesus Christ, himself, exhorted his followers to sell a robe and buy a sword–the normal means of self-protection of the day. In today’s world, buy a firearm and become proficient with it.
My “conversions” have been so successful, the most rabid anti-gun women have become capable CPL holders and are actually better shots than their “significant others”…
Oh I’ve met a few…I’m not nice. Usually dumbotards too and of a “dark” complexion. Usually the white/Hebrew types won’t have a gun “for the children”.
Joke’s on you when politicians try going after bolt action rifles and over-under shotguns. You’ll frantically cry for help from the same people you once demonized for owning AR’s and AK’s, then we’ll proudly give you two middle fingers and laugh.
I inform them that splashy spree shootings make headlines, but are extremely rate. The majority of gun deaths are suicides. The majority of the remainder are gangland drug war murders. Excluding those, our firearm homicide rate is on par with or even lower than much of Europe.
It makes no sense to impose universal restrictions when the vast majority are not going to abide by them anyway. All that “gun control” accomplishes is the harassment, vilification, and legal entanglement of good Americans who have no desire to hurt anyone.
The truth is that most restrictions aren’t even about crime prevention. They’re just about increasing the hassle associated with exercising this right. The true goal is to decrease the incidence of people exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Really, what other constitutional and human right would we tolerate placing this many restrictions on?
My standard question in Australia is what is the second biggest mass murder in our history. No one has ever got it. ( Childers backpacker hostel fire in 1999 followed by another fire in 1973)
The media constantly brings up Port Arthur shooting from 1996 but nothing else.
Australia has its local Fudd organization. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). During the 1990s they openly stated if service rifle owners were sacrificed they would be left alone. Suddenly a lot of members decided not to renew, me being among them for over a decade. The SSAA changed their tune and have one of the largest service rifle groups as well as other disciplines, youth programs, and more.
But they still have pockets of ultra-Fuddism, the Silverdale range being among the worst.
Now other “Ostrich” groups such the NRAA (National Rifle Association of Australia) and their state subsidiaries need to realize sacrificing part of their organization will not appease the anti-gun groups. It just makes them hungry for more victories.
Note: when an Ostrich sticks it’s head in the sand, what part is sticking up high in the air?
I either ask questions because they don’t know what they are talking about, or say if it’s ok for voting because a liberal thinks it’s racist for voting (and they aren’t changing their mind, so I’m just trying to miss them off).
I tell them that it’s not about how “scary” a gun looks, they’ll be after your scoped hunting guns next, then anything over a certain caliber, then the rest, then your crossbow, then your pointy stick, and they’ll keep raising the bar for their “licensing” schemes so that “good cause” is politically determined and anyone who wants a weapon is deemed mentally unfit to own a weapon.
Do they hunt? I ask them why my mousegun AR-15 (real men use real calibers, of course) should be banned but their Remington 700 sniper rifle shouldn’t be.
The only ones that really get to me are the guys who think, for one reason or another, they’re preeminently qualified to pass judgment on who can carry or not. Everything from “well I’ve been hunting since I was 10” to “I shot M16s while I was at Basic”. They’re the expert. They alone should craft whatever legal scheme they think will work (and they can invariably pass with flying colors).
Usually – FO. Most I have encountered are Leftist Democrats with an Elitist mentality.
“There are some men you just can’t reach.” – (Cool Hand Luke) Especially when they think (know) they are better than everyone else.
I prefer to tell them “ES&D.”
well considering you guys think people who are insane and felons should be able to buy guns it depends on what that persons definition of “gun control” is.
other than that, i usually try to get them to name one thing, JUST ONE THING, that has become eradicated simply by being made illegal. and watch their tiny minds explode.
Oh yeah, my grandfather fits into this category. No matter what I tell him, he never has anything good to say. Of course, him and his wife live in a nice part of florida and as most of us already know: The view always looks better from the top. I’m not so fortunate, my city is comparable to that of an open sewer in one of the worst states for gun control. He and his wife both open-carry their firearms but feel others should not be trusted.
Onto the story: I told him about a year ago I was considering a gun and not only did he go off on a rant about “gun restrictions that are about to be passed” that never came true, he also called my father and had a discussion with him about it. The details of what he said still aren’t known. The reason for all this is because I take psych meds, but I’m also in my mid-30’s and don’t live with my father. He has no say in what goes on and couldn’t care less, either. So it’s reasonable to conclude that I can make my own decisions and I am responsible for those decisions.
To answer the question: He doesn’t know. I’ve never told him because he has no right to know, it’s not his business. He lives 3,000 miles away, didn’t pay for any of it, and has no say in what goes on in my life. Most people don’t know that I own at least one (but maybe more!). These days I dont talk to him that much. He emails me just about every day, but details about my daily life are far and few in between because again, he only has bad things to say and he’s just too judgmental and considers himself sort of an authority figure. Well, that’s his call but again, I don’t have to talk to him so I prefer not to.
What kind of psych meds? And what is the history/reason for use? (I am being rhetorical,No need to answer). The answer to that would affect your firearm ownership eligibility. I.e. If meds are for bipolar disorder with a history of violent outbursts and a court has mandated counseling and drugs then the eligiblity to own should be restricted. Vs taking ADHD medicine
They don’t open carry in Florida, unless it’s on their property or they are always fishing.
Open carry is a quick trip to being a po-po magnet.
There is no such thing as a pro-gun control gun owner; if you’re in favor of gun control, then you don’t believe in the right to own guns, and if you do happen to rent guns from the government then it’s only until the government decides to “buy” them back.
So what is the definition of a FUDD really? someone who want restrictions to certain people, mentally ill, criminals etc? Someone who wants restrictions on certain types of weapons, do we all get nukes and mini guns? Or a combination of both?
I lean heavily to the more freedom the better side of the argument but given the full spectrum of the argument someone I am sure to someone I am a FUDD (I don’t think we all need nukes). Moreover I think more is gained in civil discourse with fellow citizens then shutting them down immediately as a traitor, idiot or fool. I have friends across the spectrum who I deeply disagree with on core issues but realize that they have the right to express(vote) their opinion and that I do not help my cause by cutting off contact.
You’re using the Nuke and bazooka lip flapping BS? YOU sir are the problem, YOU sir are NOT a 2A supporter.
See on your spectrum I am a FUDD. On another I might be a right wing zealot. I am sure you were born with every political position already(self evident and everything). My views on a myriad of subjects have changed considerably with study.
I still contend that reasoned discourse is the better to win someone over then name calling or cajoling.
I agree on the nuke because – where do you keep it? how do you shield neighbors from the radiation?
Maybe on the mini-gun — I’d probably want some legislation to prove you could feed it and that it wouldnt be an eyesore in my neighborhood – you know – keep it under a tarp or have some cool rising platform to plant it.
Everything else is pretty much fair game.
I think his point is that you are raising up a strawman and are not going for a reasoned discourse yourself. That is the impression I got from your original comment.
“So what is the definition of a FUDD really?” – Google it. Urban dictionary has some pretty fair definitions. For example: “Slang term for a “casual” gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called “non sporting” firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.”
My point was to express frustration with using a negative term to label those that disagree with one side when we haven’t even defined what that is. From reading most of the responses on this site one would think that the 2A was only for personal defense. Which it isn’t, it’s meant to protect the people from the tyranny of the government. If it was only for defense why not just restrict weapons so that we all carry revolvers and pump shotguns? But if it’s from defense from tyranny then we need weapons equivalent to our armed forces, which we don’t have. Therefore we have already moved to a gray area based on the extremes.
“If it was only for defense why not just restrict weapons so that we all carry revolvers and pump shotguns?”
Because in a self defense centric SC decision they said semi auto handguns are protected.
So you are insinuating (and rightfully so from my perspective) that the SC view on firearms has already shifted from the framers intent. Laws are fluid and interpreted by people and if we let those we disagree with control the conversation and write us all off as bigoted extremists then we let them change the narrative.That’s why I don’t like to shut down the conversation with those I disagree with.
“That’s why I don’t like to shut down the conversation with those I disagree with.” I don’t disagree.
California, New York, Mass, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, etc etc etc. Are awash in FUDS. I got mine, screw the rest of you. Sadly, they are low informed and vote.
To be frank I disarm them with stories of rape and spousal abuse, etc. then ask if those are the people they’re trying to target. Usually I get some hemming and hawing but usually they admit those are legitimate.
Then I ask why gunlaws are going to affect people who *by definition* don’t follow the law…
usually the filament in their half-watt bulb flicks on for a few seconds after I explain it that way. I finally say they can pass whatever laws they want but the only people they will be hurting are the people in my first scenario. usually their bleeding heart is on overload by that point and they can’t do much but remember to breathe.
Somehow, we need to get across the idea that a shotgun (perhaps with a shorter barrel or stock) is highly suitable for robbing a 7/11. A .308 deer rifle is highly suitable for assassinating a politician.
As a consequence of these facts, advocates for “public safety” will go after your duck-gun as soon as they get rid of the handguns. Advocates for “politician safety” will go after your deer rifle just as soon as they get rid of the “assault weapons”.
“Reasonable” and “common sense” gun-control measures are merely wishing that the tiger will eat the Fudds last. Your skin is in-the-game, right after the hides of handgunners and AR-15 marksmen.
I hope that the Fudds can recognize how little space separates guns with wood furniture from those with barrel shrouds that are “things that go up”. Once that idea settles in, then – eventually – they will recognize that banning “the wrong kinds of guns” can’t do enough to reduce suicides, homicides or accidents to quench the gun-controllers’ hunger to disarm us.
A disproportionate number of suicides are elderly, single, men; e.g., widowed farmers and the like. Perhaps these guys kill themselves with an old revolver. Once the gun controllers ban handguns this demographic will turn-in their pistols and use their shotguns or rifles to end their misery. Then what? Will the gun-controllers acquiesce and leave farmers and fowlers shotguns alone? No! They will promptly raise the obvious point that a long gun is just as effective as a handgun for suicide!
If someone swung that magic unicorn and all the firearms suddenly disappeared, the real question is “How long before I acquire a replacement from the pimp or drug dealer down the street?”. As long as I have the money, someone will sell me the product!
Don’t worry, the lawmakers you support will get around to taking away your favorite guns eventually. Just be patient.
Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
This is the only reason I am against bump fire stock regulation. I honestly think they are useless garbage that might be fun for some people. (I have used one).
“First they came for the ARs, but I did not speak out for I don’t own an AR.
Then they came for all semi autos, but I did not speak out for I don’t own a semi auto.
Then they came for my bolt gun, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
I have a close family friend who is a gynecologist in a border state doing work for Planned Parenthood. He has encountered numerous death threats and, as a result, owns enough guns to arm a small country. My liberal friends tend to be pro choice so i challenge their convention by reminding them no policy choice exists in a vacum. The right to choose can be imperiled by limiting the 2nd. 90 percent of the time they go away mubmblimg under their breath. The rest of the time i get one of a couple of replies. “Well only certain people need guns.” This is a deep rabbit hole and i don’t go down it. Natural rights aren’t subject to the whims of a few. Or i get some convoluted constitutional argu,rant to which i ask them to show me where “arms” are enumerated and then their issue is. We k ow which one is in the document. Anyway this is not a rant on abortion and i hope the comments don’t go that way. This is like the MLK piece _ gun rights matter and you should decide if you need or want one. Not the government.
Had a black female co-worker complain that there were too many guns and didn’t see the need for them. I tactless mentioned that if the slaves back in the day had been armed in the first place, would things even be remotely the same?
“But it’s just not right.”
What do I say to them? How about, “It’s all fun and games until they come for your break action .410 shotgun.”
Owning a gun is an american right, as you are all aware. It is also a privilege. Your personal rights end at your doorstep. We need to treat gun laws like alcohol laws or automobile laws: These come with an age limit. driver’s ed. license test. renewal tests. mandatory liability insurance. vehicle registration and inspection. If you drive a truck/ bike/ etc you need to check-out a special test on that vehicle. You drink and drive (and get caught), you have endangered the rights of others. First offense is harsh wake-up call. future offenses get the book thrown at you. Sound logical? signed FUDD and quite proud of it.
“Your personal rights end at your doorstep.” Does this apply to the 1A? The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th?
You are wrong. A “right” is “non-negotiable”…
A “privilege” requires “asking for permission”…
I don’t understand how my accurate quote and a question are “wrong.”
No, they don’t.
For one, alcohol and automobiles do not involve natural, civil, constitutionally protected rights. For another, firearms are already regulated far more than both alcohol and automobiles.
By law, the same – and more – is true of firearms. (Unless one is a feral youth, who are allowed continually to terrorize law-abiding society due to coward prosecutors and the catch-and-release “justice” system.)