jeepguyjames (or anyone else who isn't familiar with what a Fudd is)
If you've never heard the term "Fudd" used in the gun world, here's a good description from the Urban Dictionary:
| 1-Fudd |
|
|
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. |
| 2-FUDD |
|
|
The slang term for gun owners of what could be called limited tastes. They are thought of as being casual gun owners and nut true supporters of the Second Amendment. These are the guys that Diane Feinstein is talking about when she talks about acceptable gun ownership.
Two characteristics normally identify a FUDD.
#1: Very limited range of shooting interests. A FUDD could have just 1 gun, or more than 153 guns, but all those guns fall within a very limited range of interests. The interest that defines a FUDD is "sporting purposes". All their 12 ga wood and blued steel shotguns, bolt action rifles, 44 magnum revolvers, and 9mm pistols only have one purpose: sport. These guns are either for hunting, or they are for marksmanship and trap competitions. Nothing they have is supposed to take the role of a dedicated defense gun, or a daily carry gun. They wouldn't be caught dead with anything black polymer, tactical, or concealable. If you ask them why they own guns, the typical answer is for hunting or for sport. If you ask them about personal defense, expect either half-assed answer about a shotgun loaded with birdshot, or just calling the Police.
#2: Provincialism in applying the Second Amendment. By the estimation of a FUDD, the Second Amendment exists to let him hunt deer, shoot quail, play trap, and punch targets. They will likely talk about how nobody needs an "assault weapon" or anything like that. FUDD type sentiment is what brought about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, as well as many other ultimately pointless laws. The FUDD does not care so long as they can keep their M1903a3 Springfield and their custom Beretta double-barreled shotgun. They are willing to sacrifice other sections of the gun community to save themselves.
Here's a fictional FUDD:
Name: XXXXXX (I edited just in case someone shared the name used)
Age: 53
Employment: Auto Mechanic
Guns: 3; 1 Mauser 98 sporter, 1 Remmington 870 shotgun, and 1 Ruger 10/22.
Why he owns guns: He likes the sport.
Reaction when offered an AR-15: Grimmace.
Stance on Second Amendment: Giving citizens the right to have guns, but allowing for certain types of dangerous guns, like handguns and semiautomatic rifles, to be regulated. All he cares is that he still gets to hunt and do shooting sports.
|
jeepguyjames (or anyone else who isn't familiar with what a Fudd is)
His monthly check is gone, like a little kid he is acting out. Check the mailbox in a couple of weeks Trixie.
jeepguyjames (or anyone else who isn't familiar with what a Fudd is)
I doubt it too, he will get greater joy of killing an intruder with his hands. Just who he is, likes shooting guns, loves the challenge
jeepguyjames (or anyone else who isn't familiar with what a Fudd is)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lowellhturner
Allow me to clairify, as you just did. You said "I believe in no form of GUN control", correct? I simply want to truely feel "safer' than anyone else, so while you restrict yourself to potentially barreled projectal shooting devices, i will allow NO limits upon myself. while nuclear weapons (other than likely a "dirty" bomb) are somewhat (thankfully) hard to secure, potentially chemical weapons are SHOCKINGLY easy to find and use, and if PROPERLY personally protected from will spread terror and flight from them simply with the threat of their use. While admittedly somewhat random and less than pin point accurate, they are both area denial and mass casualty type weapons quite capable of "home defense". Limit YOURSELF to "only" owning and being ABLE to USE guns, machine guns, artillery, anti aircraft guns, ect. I simply WANT to be "safer' ie, DEADLIER than you, and chemical weapons are CHEAPER, QUIET and SIMPLE to use (few to no 'moving parts") AND can KILL far more "intruders" than you can. Agrue with THAT logic...
Dayum dawg, I'm almost ashamed to call you dawg.
