Thirdpower speaks of a commenter regularly appearing over at Tom King’s blog:
What he considers a “principled” stance is to throw gun owners he doesn’t associate with under the bus to protect his personal interests for the time being yet can’t seem to understand why we don’t like him.
I’m willing to stand with a hunter who will stand with me any day of the week, but I’m even willing to stand with a hunter who mostly just fights for his sport, as long as he doesn’t actively work against mine. I’d hardly consider that Great Britain was being a good ally to Czechoslovakia when they agreed to let Hitler gobble it up in order to have “Peace in our Time”, and it’s hard to consider a guy like this a real ally too, even a moderate one.
But I do think we need to dispense with the term “Fudd,” and drop the generally adversarial relationship we often promote with the hunting community. We need hunters, for a lot of reasons. I’m a proponent of getting them more on board with the gun rights thing, and it’s hard to do that if they see us insulting them, and denigrating their sport. We won’t get through to all of them, but I don’t see any reason to write off this important demographic in the shooting community. We may not convert this moderate “ally” into someone who sees the light, but there’s no reason not to try.
UPDATE: Pistolero has a different point of view. I should clarify that I’m not suggesting we need to abide by hunters who just decide to be selfish and actively work against the gun rights of others. The proper term for someone like that is gun control advocate, and they must be opposed. My caution here is to not assume that every horse of this persuasion can’t be lead to water. Many of them can. That’s why I caution against terms like “Fudd” that some might see as denigrating. If the shooting community factionalizes, we’re doomed.