… you know the rest. I wanted to comment on a few things:
Fuck the Fudds.
They have been selling our gun rights down the river for the last 50 years.
They are ones who have allowed the anti-gun politicans to get away with the lie that the 2nd Amendement is about hunting.
I am on record supporting the banning of all Hunting Firearms that don’t have a self-defense purpose. Kill Bambi with your teeth, Hunters, if you can. The 2nd Amendment enumerates your right to self-defense, not some diaphonous right to shoot pheasants tied up in little cages under bushes that the guide releases when you get close.
All this is doing is helping the gun control folks is pull on the pry bars that they’ve wedged into the fissures of this movement. This is exactly the attitude that I jumped on Dan Cooper for, just coming from our side instaed of his. Understand that we need hunters in the gun movement. As many as we can get. We do not have the numbers to stand individually on our own, so that means we need to support the “fudds” even if all of them don’t always support us.
We have the data, and the arguments, to show that hunting is in every bit as much danger, and perhaps more, as gun rights are. Hunters may soon come to find they need us more than we need them. When it comes to that, we need to stand by them. The proper remedy is to convince hunters their interests lie with ours, and divisive language isn’t going to help achieve that.
Let the gun control people work the pry bars, we should be out there with cement trowels trying to smooth things over, not actively helping work the fissure.
I don’t see anything wrong with making it clear that there’s some Mutually Assured Destruction at work here. My only interest in firearms is for self defense. If I lose that, I don’t really care if hunting is still protected.
So it makes sense for me to make clear to hunters that if self-defense is banned, I’ll switch sides to make sure their guns get banned too.
Sebastian,
I have no problem with hunters. I’m a hunter myself.
But these Fudds like Dan Cooper, Zumbo(before his conversion), etc. really piss me off. We’ve been fighting a hard, brutal fight for many years and now we have these people working their asses off to elect the most anti-gun politician in American history. The guy’s Mayor Daley’s wet dream.
And people like Dan Cooper give interviews to the gulliable press and blows smoke up our asses and tells us that Obama respects the 2nd Amendment.
And I see red.
Honestly, my patience is at its end.
Awwww, you took my comment out of context and selectively quoted. Isn’t THAT what the other side does?
Stormy:
I am in the same boat. Once they destroy my rights, I’ll find another cause to blather about.
Sam:
I understand how you feel. I’m just warning that we can’t appear to be excluding hunters. There are plenty of hunters who haven’t been reached that can be. AHSA is reaching out to them in a big way. Up until now AHSA has been a joke. If Obama wins, they won’t be. That’s a real threat, and I think we have to be careful of alienating rhetoric.
JT:
I did provide a link for the full context.
Might be worthwhile here to mention two things from the NSSF’s recent mega-survey/research project:
1. “Shooters” now equal hunters in numbers.
2. The NSSF’s project had one (1) action item for shooters.
We *do* have a problem with Fudds. Sebastian is right in that we shouldn’t throw them *all* off the sleigh (or probably even most), but it is time to rebalance things.
There are hunters that will not be reached. But what we have to watch is condemning them as a group. There are shooters who are willing to cut off their noses too.
Yes, you linked to the comment. Not a link to the “I’m no record” part referred to in the comment. Or you might have cited this from Oct 16th as well:
“”Why am I ranting so? Every so often you hear about some hunting advocate talk like, “I don’t want you to ban my rifle, but I’ll support efforts to ban AR-15s or Glocks if you just promise to leave my stuff alone. That’ll give you cover and you gun-banners will be happy.†Fake organizations like AHSA try to capitalize on this. They think they can sacrifice to the anti-human-rights beast and not be eaten in the end. And I like to fantasize about turning the tables on these Fudds (derogatory term for that type of anti-gun hunter. Shortened term for Elmer Fudd) and their wrong headed policies. Would I really do this type issue advocacy? No. But I am lazy AND principled. “”
I, too, am a hunter. Or, well, I am someone that goes out at 5AM and get’s very cold while deer laugh at my incompetence. But the spirit is there.
Perhaps I should have been less facetious and wise-acrey in your comments section so the context was easier to discern and there would have been less confusion.
Coalition building is an *incredibly* good idea here.
Do I have issues with (what I take to be) the odd idea that the 2nd involves hunting in some way? Sure. Doesn’t matter if it’s a hunting-based defense of 2A or if it’s Biden talking about how “Obama better not try to take my Beretta shotgun, harrumph harrumph.” It’s a cynical setup for infringement of non-hunting arms, flies in the face of the Miller decision, etc. But we should be smart about this.
Time spent educating “Fudds” about the concerns of shooters is IMHO a far more constructive pursuit than alienating and/or attacking Fudds. In fact I would tend to think that since there are mutual interests afoot between the groups, they’d be the low-hanging fruit of choice for the purposes of an enhanced education in the truths of liberty.
I think Uncle Ted’s example vis-a-vis Jim Zumbo was darn near perfect. Ted is a ferocious defender of the 2nd, but he was able to see the larger picture and keep the larger “family” together – a smart (and very, very quick) move which surprised me at first, but I have come to see the wisdom of it. To be frank, we can’t afford to splinter and fracture – a unified front is going to be critical in the coming months and years.
Let’s please not win the battle and lose the war. In my opinion, the Cooper company made a hard choice (I can’t imagine that was easy or fun for anyone concerned!) and it wouldn’t be a horrible idea to *reward* them for doing it – if one had the means and the inclination. To each his own, of course. (I still remember the Boston Agreement, S&W…)
I heard about your pressure to oust Dan Cooper. What an idiot you are as are most of rest of the folks that believe that we have the second amendment to protect our right to hunt or for self protection.
The second amendment protects you from the government. For if the Government does fear the people the people should fear the government. It is that simple.
Unfortunately the folks who think by supporting McCain they are protecting their gun rights are even more simple. Your rights to be left alone by an intrusive government have been eroded more under George Bush then they ever were under a bunch of incompetent Democrats.
If you want to lose you rights along with your guns keep voting for the guys who tell you one thing, pander to your fears, then do just the opposite.
So the reader of this blog know about this poster: I am a life long Libertarian Republican (read Goldwater) I did not leave the Republican Party it has left me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA, a Gun Dealer and I have a cabinet full of guns from AKs to my trusty 30-06 deer rifle, as do all my kids. I am also a rural Oregonian and I am pissed off at the RINO’s (Republican in Name Only) Republicans.
I am voting for Obama because he does not want my guns, and I believe in Obama and in what he wants to do to fix this country, and I haven’t believe a politician since I worked on Barry Goldwater’s campaign.
I know a hell of a lot of gun owners who will not buy guns from anybody who tries to suppress their right to support anyone they want. Until the time Dan Cooper is reinstated I will no longer buy or sell their firearms.
Wow David Young.
Are you for real.
You are pissed at RINO’s, so you are going to vote for a socialist.
I’m calling BS on that one.
We need the Fudds, and they need us (and I’m sure that they have their own derogatory term, like “militia nuts” or some such thing). This is on two levels:
1) Political and
2) Economic
I’ll cover economic first, since no one disagrees on this and it is the easiest to dispose of. It boils down to this: the more bolty rifles that a manufacturer sells, the more rifles it has to absorb its fixed costs. Hunters, varmint shooters and long range accuracy shooters all have, do and will have rifles made on Remington 700 (to pick one) machinery, thereby lowering costs for all of them. Cartridge development, components, accessories, etc. operate the same way. In short, the more shooters, the cheaper it is to shoot.
Politically, we also need each other. The major reason, IMHO, that many hunters act like Fudds is that they are simply unaware of the depth of the problem that all of us know all too well. This is OUR job, then – to educate them in a respectful fashion. Let them know that in 17th Century England, for example, all uses of firearms except for hunting…and then a decree was issued, banning hunting of “the King’s animals.” End of hunting, end of guns. They have to understand that yes, indeed, there ACTUALLY ARE people that would like to ban ALL guns, even their bolties or custom O/U shotties. They must understand that there is a divide-and-conquer strategy, and that the most important thing is for us to “hang together, or surely we will all hang separately” (to steal a phrase and the title of the thread). Trite, but true. First the full autos and the .50s, then the semi-autos, then the “sniper” guns, etc. Handguns go, too, though maybe in a different fashion due to the concealability, crime, etc. But, and this is critical for us to communicate and them to understand, once one class or the other loses their rights, the ability of the other to survive is reduced.
Now, I’ve explained what WE want. Guess what, the hunters also want something: hunting land, hunting seasons, etc., etc. (and I say that because I’m not a hunter and I’m not familiar with all of their needs & desires). We have to let them know that we will support them in obtaining and/or protecting those things. One hand washes the other, people – and if either side forgets it, nothing good will come of it for us.
By the way, it wouldn’t hurt if a few very well-known people from our side went hunting, and if a few very well-known hunters went to a match or on some kind of training. Let’s get some of these folks from both sides to write complementary articles, or to give complementary interviews, about the other side, so as to reduce the traditional split as much as possible. Likewise, all of us “Joe the Plumber” types (i.e. regular folk) can do the same with family, friends, co-workers, etc. (on top of introducing new people to shooting altogether – but that’s a different issue).
United we self-defense types and the hunters get to preserve our respective ways of life (and, maybe, even turn the clock back to better times); divided we end up dead or in camps. That’s the bottom line.
Oops on my prior post, in Paragraph 3:
“Let them know that in 17th Century England, for example, all uses of firearms except for hunting…and then a decree was issued, banning hunting of “the King’s animals.†”
should read as:
“Let them know that in 17th Century England, for example, all uses of firearms except for hunting WERE OUTLAWED…and then a decree was issued, banning hunting of “the King’s animals.†“
Sebastian,
Maybe I should define what I mean by Fudd.
A Fudd is a member of a minority of hunters who advocates or supports anti-gun politicians or policies in the mistaken belief that the anti’s will be satisfied with banning black rifles, handguns, etc.
Many Fudd’s, if not most, are snobby elitists who’s firearm of choice is a $10,000 over-under shotgun or an expensive hand-crafted rifle. John Kerry is the archetypical Fudd.
It is toward these types that I direct my ire.
I am voting for Obama because he does not want my guns, and I believe in Obama and in what he wants to do to fix this country, and I haven’t believe a politician since I worked on Barry Goldwater’s campaign.
You were making sense up until that point.
Paul W,
What you post sounds nice and I want to agree with it, but the problem is that the Fudd’s hate and loathe us. They hate us when we try to get along with them and they hate us when we fight them. It’s the same kind of thing as the elites hating Sara Palin’s guts.
The thing is that as far as they are concerned, vis-a-vis gun banning, they are probably right. The banners will probably never ban the types of guns they like to shoot. Hell, those guns are still legal in England.
It just seems to me to be an unbridgeable divide.
I agree with YS’s definition of fudd.
“armor piercing ammo” anyone? Guess what THAT means, pretty much every center fire rifle cartridge. That seems to pretty much eliminate the “fudd vs defense” argument, doesn’t it?
David, just what DOES Obama want to do to “fix” this country? Is that “fix” as in repair or “fix” as in punish (I’ll fix you!) Remaking it in his glorious vision of what it should be is far outside the constitution, if not a direct assault on it. When your support of someone who, in conjunction with CONgress, who WILL remove your right to choose what gun you even have the opportunity to buy you do far more harm and you get the government you deserve. Sadly you drag us all down to hell with you.
I think that many of us here don’t comprehend the danger of being divided as gun owners and as second amendment rights supporters … whether for defense from government, common criminals, hunting, shooting sports, collecting, or any other reason (or even for no reason, as it’s a right).
In regard to the history of gun ownership and use and the reasons people might own them, these are cultural issues. They cannot and will not be changed overnight, over a presidential term, or even over a lifetime.
Please … do not be so quick to divide, so quick to cast people off or out. Find your common ground as a first approach, and your intractable differences as a last approach. A truly last approach.
Be thoughtful, conservative, and patient about these issues.
Yea Yosemite Sam,
I am for real. Where do you get that bullshit that Obama’s a Socialist? Was it McCain’s redistribution talking point you are referring to? Well what has been the real distribution of the wealth in this country? It has been the destruction of the middle class by rigging the game so that those with the most get the most advantages. The role of government is to act as the referee in the economic game, not to be a player. What has happened since Regan is the referee was been not been a fair arbitrator! So now we see the stock market tank, a credit crisis, and the CEO’s who did nothing but fuck it all up walk away with millions of our money. Then you have the same bozos that created this mess step in and nationalize insurance companies and banks. What are you smoking, because it seems that it must have gotten into your eyes? The whole damn thing is already socialist and it was created by both parties. I just choose the guy that I feel will give me fair shake (Obama). Do you believe in a graduated income tax system – it’s socialist and unconstitutional (the constitution only provides for an excise tax)? My point is that just because someone claims to stand for something doesn’t they really mean it. My party the Republicans which used to stand for states’ rights, balanced budget, individual liberty, now try to push their social agenda on me. They continue to subvert the constitution and usurp the rights of the states, they have created a deficit in the last 8 years larger than all the administration before them combined, and finally they have passed some of the most intrusive legislation to my liberties in the history of this country (to Paraphrase Ben Franklin “those who would trade liberty for security deserve neitherâ€). Let me make this clear, these fuckers are not your friends, they want only one thing that is power and we need to check their desire by throwing them out every so often. The Republicans or McCain would take your gun in a heartbeat in the name of national security in order to preserve their power. Ask McCain if he believes in what Pat Buchanan said “that any gun that you don’t have to tow with a trailer hitch should be legalâ€. I believe even those weapons should be legal, their not because you have all fallen for the specious argument that the debate is about your right to hunt and self protection. Gun control it is really about power, which should reside with the governed.
At least by changing who controls the Government we will start moving this country away from the policies of President Dipshit. If in 4 years Obama screws it up we can change again, but I am unwilling to support a dottering old fool who wants to continue the policy of the last eight years, and yes he was a hero by resisting the North Vietnamese. I fought in Vietnam too, got wounded and was decorated for valor, should I be President? McCain may have been capable of being President 8 years ago but no longer and Palin is nothing but a moose hunting bimbo, my duck hunting dog Moses is smarter than that bombastic bitch.
If in the next four years, after McCain loses, maybe the Republicans can get their shit together and dump the crazy nuts who want to try control my life and tell me what I do in my own home and on my own ranch.
If you want to keep your gun and not have to use it to protect your rights then use you head instead, quit being taken in by McCain.
David Young,
Perhaps you should google the term “Judendienstordnung.” Say it five times fast while looking in a mirror. In English, it means “Jews Who Keep Order.” You fit the pattern.
Mike Vanderboegh
III
First they came for the republicans, and I said nothing because the republicans left me….
While Mr Young has some good points, granting total control to THE party so covetous of power, the same people from congress who passed the PATRIOT ACT and a host of the others he rails against…and speaking of which, just WHERE and WHEN was that PATRIOT ACT drafted up? You think that pos was just whipped together in a few days or you think that shit was written up the LAST time the WTC was attacked under Clinton, when we had OKC and WACO?
The mere fact that you don’t have the balls or common sense to vote against BOTH sides of the coin and support a 3rd party shows that you don’t give a damn about rights in general. Oh, and another thing, guess what voting for Obama WILL do for the republicans. It’ll show them that their shit isn’t far enough to the left.
There will be no reasoning with him, no intelligent discussion because he has a horrible case of “TWO party-itis” and obviously thinks that picking the other greater evil that openly stands in opposition to all he CLAIMS he stands for will somehow magically make things different and better.
Useful idiot comes to mind.
For David Young, you may have cabinets filled with guns, but I don’t. I’m a relatively new shooter (4 months) and i’ve probably bought a gun a month since I started.
While you’re not worried about Obama taking your guns, i’m worried about actually getting guns, so I can have a cabinet-full like yours. With Obama in the White House, a democratic super-majority in congress, and a loaded Supreme Court, the anti-gun people will have a rubber stamp to do anything they please: Lawsuits against gun makers, “child-proof guns”, semi-automatics and .50 cals added to NFA if not banned, etc.
With Obama in the White House, my cabinet will probably never be as full as yours. Especially if Obama’s “common sense regulations” causes an increase in prices.
We must hang together does not mean “we must hang together, except for Wayne Fincher, David Olofson, and other people who might get me disinvited to the cool parties if people think I’m like them.”
I don’t care what anyone thinks of me, so long as I don’t give them cause to think I’m dishonest.
III