Stepping away from your point about having an AR on the capital steps, do believe there are restrictions we should concede?
Gun owners contributing to loss of Second Amendment?
- Thread starter usmc 1978
- Start date
- Status
Stepping away from your point about having an AR on the capital steps, do believe there are restrictions we should concede?
My definition of a Fudd goes back to the AWB'94.
I knew gun owners then who were big hunters who had no problem whatsoever with the ban since they could not be used for hunting in PA.
Since it didn't affect their bolt action and lever action rifles, they were okay with it.
This is 27 years ago when the only guns today's tacticool guys were using were squirt guns.
So it goes by perspective and experience IMHO.
Interesting, I had not heard of this group. I am not left of center, I'm not even center, but I would love to see a chapter in Vermont.
smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
Yeah I was not very politically aware back in 94 (I was a sophomore in high school). I didn't know that term dates back to then.
I see it today all the time used the same as "boomer" to denigrate older people and their views.
Whatever you call it, if someone doesn't understand that all firearms are protected under the 2A and banning one set opens the door to others, then they are not on our side.
Absolutely not. Like I said in my comment, no compromise. The only difference between me and most everyone else here is the point you stepped away from. For that, I'm a Fudd...and I'm fine with that. I know my enemy here, I know what makes them tick, and I know what they use against me.
And by the way, thanks for being the only one that bothered to ask me that question.
Last edited:
I am dead-set against any, and I do mean ANY, further restrictions on the 2A. I have mixed feelings about the display you reference. It is their right, but I don't think it does us any good, at all.
Looks to me like their working for change internally, so that some day they may not be voting against their own interests. Whats not to like about that? If we had a chapter in my state I would send them some cash.
Puller
Member
The paradox, and it's a crying shame, is that we need to stand strong on the 2nd amendment so as to protect the 1st amendment, while the mainstream media abuses the 1st amendment in an attempt to abolish the 2nd amendment.
We are in 100% agreement. It is their right, but the way they exercise that is not helping us. In fact, one of the new restrictions proposed here this year is a direct result of that.
Several points to consider.
First: Gun control is not about guns, its about control.
Second: The "Antis" NEVER compromise. Their idea of compromise is only getting part of what they want NOW. BUT, every compromise is in their favor.
Third: They see every movement in their direction as a win for them and a loss for us.
Fourth: They are persistent and more importantly they are patient. They will never give up, even if all guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed, they will not be satisfied.
Fifth: They are truthful. A powerful senator once said that if she could get the votes she would ban all guns. They have told us over and over what they are planning to do and they are working tirelessly every day to achieve it.
Sixth: They will NEVER, EVER give up.
Seventh: WE must never compromise with them at all. They see compromise as weakness and use it as an excuse to push for more.
Eighth: They operate solely on emotion, never on logic. They don't care about facts or truth. They believe they are pursuing a higher purpose and have no compunction about lying, fabricating facts and/or using the senseless deaths of people to their advantage.
Ninth: They have no friends. They know no loyalty. People and groups are merely pawns to be used in their pursuit of their goals.
And perhaps more importantly, they absolutely see US as their enemy.
First: Gun control is not about guns, its about control.
Second: The "Antis" NEVER compromise. Their idea of compromise is only getting part of what they want NOW. BUT, every compromise is in their favor.
Third: They see every movement in their direction as a win for them and a loss for us.
Fourth: They are persistent and more importantly they are patient. They will never give up, even if all guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed, they will not be satisfied.
Fifth: They are truthful. A powerful senator once said that if she could get the votes she would ban all guns. They have told us over and over what they are planning to do and they are working tirelessly every day to achieve it.
Sixth: They will NEVER, EVER give up.
Seventh: WE must never compromise with them at all. They see compromise as weakness and use it as an excuse to push for more.
Eighth: They operate solely on emotion, never on logic. They don't care about facts or truth. They believe they are pursuing a higher purpose and have no compunction about lying, fabricating facts and/or using the senseless deaths of people to their advantage.
Ninth: They have no friends. They know no loyalty. People and groups are merely pawns to be used in their pursuit of their goals.
And perhaps more importantly, they absolutely see US as their enemy.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,221
- Reaction score
- 6,683
I define a fudd as a narrow minded, arrogant and egotistical individual who thinks his opinions are Gospel Truths and is incapable of listening to anyone else.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
And I happen to think that anybody who thinks that this is about "our side" rather than keeping a majority of Americans supportive of gun rights is a threat to the 2nd Amendment.
Rights don't just exist. And anyone so inclined can hold their lectures on natural or god-given rights; that's philosophical la-la-land. We live in the real United States.
Our rights are in the Constitution, and state constitutions, and nowhere else. That means they are ultimately subject to change, by the consent of the governed.
The hurdles for constitutional change are high, but laws are much easier to pass, and if a large enough majority of our fellow citizens, and thereby the representatives and leaders they elect, and the justices they appoint, ever turn against the 2A, we're toast.
That's what we have to stop. And that's best done not by defining people as enemies who are supposedly not on our side, but by getting and keeping as many folks as possible on board, even if they don't agree on all points.
Despite some people's fantasies about defending their rights with their guns, political power in the US does not come from the barrel of a gun. That's why aggressively waving an AR in public accomplishes nothing, or worse, is counterproductive. Letters and e-mails showing politicians which way the public swings accomplish everything.
We live in times that see the widest possible availability of firearms, ammunition, and reloading tools/components under Federal laws; most restrictive laws are generally state and local.
My suggestion is that we not screw up the joy by calling other gunowners names, railing against Washington when Trenton or St. Louis are the problems, or by taking actions that make it easy to label gunowners as extremists.
My suggestion is that we not screw up the joy by calling other gunowners names, railing against Washington when Trenton or St. Louis are the problems, or by taking actions that make it easy to label gunowners as extremists.
So true. They play the long game. Examples abound. DOJ put out a white paper years ago explaining that universal background checks could not be enforced without registration, yet we don't hear the antis referring to registration with regard to the checks, even though they are well aware of this. Rather, they coin a phrase 'gun show loophole' and hang on that. They'll wait until after they get the checks, then say we need registration due to the 'universal background check loophole.' Might take years, but they'll wait.
outta_ammo
Member
Life would be much simpler if I had only one overarching interest that defined my vote while eveything else can rot & die. But the world I see is a bit too complicated for that. If that makes me a Fudd, I can live with that. I'm sure there are some who are horrified
that I'm even here.
I don't know if this amounts to that, but the 2A is a threshold issue for me. If a candidate is pro 2A, I consider where they are on other issues. If they are not pro 2A, they get no further consideration (or a vote) from me.
tripledipper
Member
Just an old school revolver guy who never owned more than a .22 rifle, however, it is your right to purchase and own whatever semi-auto pistol and AR type rifle you want with the maximum size clip allowed by law. Because I am not interested in these weapons does not mean I don't support the ownership of them. Background checks are for purchasing from FFL dealers and any private FTF transactions or family transfers are just that, private, and they should not be required unless the seller and the purchaser wish to. The NRA has shot itself in the foot numerous times. I live in an open carry state but prefer a licensed concealed carry and the new gun laws here are just for show even though they went backwards decades. How many buy more than one gun a month? How many are straw buyers? How much of this stuff affects the average gun owner? Am I a fudd?
How many buy more than one a month? Not an issue. If a couple with 2 teenagers has been asleep at the switch and suddenly wake up to the fact that life can be rough, and want to buy 4 rifles (or handguns, or shotguns), they should certainly be able to do so without gov oversight. How many are straw buyers? Those are out there, but that's already illegal. Address them, not the rest of us. In fact, studies show that criminals rarely get their guns through FFLs.
How do regs affect the average gun owner? Maybe right now they don't. The question is, how do they affect the future of the nation. Write the 2A on a piece of paper. Every time there's a new reg, however innocuous it seems, tear a bit of that paper off. Actually, you should start with less than a full sheet of paper due to the numerous regs already in place. Anyway, at some point you're going to end up with just a small slip of that original paper. Then, one more reg, and you can throw that last scrap away.
How about we think of it this way:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
Just substitute various firearm actions, magazines, etc. for the named categories of people.
I've never seen legal firearms confiscated (meaning kept and/or disposed) in this country from lawful owners, even when I used to live in a place where handgun possession required a permit. Pardon me if I don't buy it that such is imminent, I've heard it since the '70s. Again, firearms, ammunition, and the ability to carry and/or use the same have never been easier from the standpoint of Federal laws.
One thing I truly appreciate on this forum is the ban on politics.
One thing I truly appreciate on this forum is the ban on politics.
- Status
Similar threads
