We all know them. When they grew up there was no gun control other than 1934 act and they ordered guns freely by mail and picked up guns in other states. They already had the firearms they wanted so when 1968 came about they were not bothered.

The gun control agenda of the 1970’s and 1980’s got them accepting the idea that guns are bad in the hands of the city folk who abuse them and it was not a bad idea to keep guns away from those folk.

Those elderly Fudds do need to be educated that NJ laws do take away their hunting rifles and prevent them to teach their grandchildren to hunt. That their hunting rifles and shotguns cab be banned.

Most people are not bothered by the abstract rights being infringed, it is when it becomes personal they object.

AHSAhole. That’s much better than GOB (“gun owner but”.)

I don’t care who you are–that’s funny.

I like that one!

I’m thinking “AHSAholes” might help make the distinction.

I have to watch myself to be sure I don’t mention AHSA in front of my Dad–he’d join ‘em and donate in a heartbeat, if he knew about them.

I don’t mind the gun owners who don’t think like one. They just see it as an item they own, shoot it once in a while and mostly forget about it.

The “I am a gun owner but…” that actually take the time to comment on articles or send letters are acting as gun owners. They are engaging in activism whether they realize it or not and they are more corrosive to gaining a voice for gun rights most. Because their voice serves the purpose of the other side.

Most are misinformed. They don’t identify themselves as activists and mostly believe whatever they read or are told by the media or second-hand. To them, it seems reasonable.

One of my desires is to educate them. Or at least get them to stop and think about what they are saying. They probably don’t care about the issue beyond some notion of “reasonableness”. They lack education on the laws, on the technical aspects of firearms, no interest in being politically active and stay in their bubble. If we can break through this mindset, we can make some extra progress.

At a minimum they won’t fight against us by given ammo to the other side. Hunters are the front line of that segment, as you say. Once we can make inroads in that group, hopefully information will trickle down.

I’m not convinced the “I am a gun owner, but” people are either hunters or gun owners. If they are, they don’t identify as gun owners. There are a lot of people who own guns that would fork them over in a heart beat if the government made them illegal. Technically speaking, my sister is a gun owner, but it’s due to inheritance. She would fit in the category of someone who does not vote or think like a gun owner, because they are not part of her life. To those of us who hunt and shoot, guns are part of our lives. That’s why I’m suggesting that a lot of hunters who aren’t really thinking much about gun rights right now are a prime target market for our message.

The issue is outreach. I’ve met many hunters. Most are decent folk like us. Jobs, families, good values and so on. They simply suffer from ignorance. Or just don’t care beyond their desires and needs. That’s not a hunter issue; that’s just human nature.

If I had a way to offer a free “Introductory EBR” class to any hunter interested, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Might help to overcome some of the prejudice.

Some of it can’t be overcome. More than a few hunters are ex-military and see such rifles as military firearms regardless of function. They carried it then and don’t see a purpose for it now. Their experiences have shaped their perceptions. Not a lot we can do about that except ask they do not actively work against other fellow gun owners.

It isn’t ideal but what in this world is? I’ll accept silent dislike of my preferred firearms over an active Quisling in my midst. Where do you think all those “I’m a gun owner but…” editorials came from? Not EBR owners. That needs to be countered and stopped before it gains too much traction.

I’m not being responsible for other’s ignorance nor do I want it coddled. I want it countered.

He was disperraging Black REPUBLICANS, and that point was very clear.

“Fudd” is very similar. “Poacher” is another spesific term that discribes a very spesific hunter.

If somebody is unaware of the meaning of these terms I fail to see how they are any different than people who confuse AR-15s and M-16.

We can’t be held responcible, or coddle other’s ignorance.

I use the term in quotes as presently applied as a stereotype. I actually do use the term as a derogatory but I reserve it for in-person. I have used the term once on my blog and likewise in quotes as a reference in a post from over a year ago here.

I think maybe it is time to write a follow-up post as an open letter to hunters. We need to “reach across the aisle” (spit) to make hunters see we are part of the same group whether we realize it or not.

I should also state that I wasn’t comparing the gun rights movement as a whole to race. It’s not a great metaphor, actually, but the n-word was the closest pejorative I could find to fudd, in that some people suggest it’s meant to apply to a subset, when the whole views it as something different. There are probably other examples that could be used without the baggage of race being brought into the discussion.

You’ll notice that was the first and only time I’ve used the term SNBI on this site if you search for the term. I’m not a fan of pejoratives.

Indeed I did notice that, and I appreciate it. My point is that you haven’t seem to have gone far out of your way to criticize use of that term–even to the extent that you’ve expressed doubt about referring to rabid anti-gun sentiment as “bigotry,” or anti-gun rights hunters as “Fudds.”

I don’t mean to imply that I’m terribly offended by this, just that I find it a bit inconsistent. It’s almost as if you advocate tougher “rules of engagement” for gun rights activists: gun owners shouldn’t call anti-gun zealots “bigots,” but gun rights advocates calling hunters who are willing to sell tactical firearms down the river are not to be called “Fudds.”

You’ll notice that was the first and only time I’ve used the term SNBI on this site if you search for the term. I’m not a fan of pejoratives. I should also note that I’m not defending hunters who advocate for gun control, or who don’t see a reason why gun rights are important for the future of hunting. But I’m hesitant to embrace a term that on its surface, seems to be shooters taking pot shots at hunters.

Robb:

Rust, those hunters need to read more. You can’t get enough information from a single comment or blog post. What your describing is the same phenomenon where someone comes in here, reads one post by Sebastian, and automatically accuses him of being a right-wing, Republican shill.

Yes, but you see, hunters are a key demographic we need to reach, because they are among the greatest potential to expand the movement. Most of the people who come on here saying that to me aren’t reachable, because they have no interests I can appeal to. The problem with “fudd” as a term is that it won’t encourage them to keep reading. They’ll assume you’re anti-hunter and go away. “Elmer Fudd” has been a derogatory word for hunter long before gun people took it up.

But he still uses the term Fudd. ;)

The most common argument is “Why do you need more than 5 rounds when 1 or 2 at most will do?”. They don’t see uses beyond the deer and turkey hunt.

They don’t understand the “need” because they do get the fact these non-traditional rifles are underpowered for game hunting and are prohibited from doing so under many state hunting regulations.

So the reaction on their part is natural. The state says you can’t use it so why do you “need” it?

The only way to reach them is to make them understand that with us out of the way, their “high powered sniper rifles” are next. You can’t argue ammo taxes or sky-high ammo prices to someone who fires maybe 20-30 rounds a year at most. Far less if the gun is already sighted in. To them, a $50-$100 box of ammo is the price of hunting. They’ll pay it. They already do in many cases at $25-$35 per box. They can rationalize it that way.

But they do understand how they will wind up in the crosshairs. Say they really ban EBRs. And over a decade or so effectively confiscate or force them underground and out of sight and out of use by restrictions, ammo taxes, registration, etc. Same happens to handguns. Hunting rifles remaining the dominant sporting rifle and the only “accepted” firearm (along with two shot shotguns) for civilian use.

Then some criminal pops a cop through the armor with a bolt-action hunting gun. Doesn’t take rocket science to see where that will lead if only a few such incidents occur. Especially if these guns are found on the street more frequently since that is all criminals can steal.

Then the “Fudds” usually get it. I had a co-worker whom I’ve sparred on this issue with have a change of heart and bought an AR after a year of admonishing me to defend my “need” of such a gun. He got the “sniper rifle” analogy in that the only difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is the target.

“Fudds” need to be educated. We need to demonstrate attempts publicly to do so. Only then, if the persist in knowingly throwing us under the bus, do we treat them as persona non grata and as honorary members of the Brady Campaign. Open season on “Elmers” and all that.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

That’s misdirection, bub ;)

Actually, you understood my point exactly – we don’t let up – so it’s not so much misdirection, but simply pointing out the obvious using analogies.

And yes, you can change the way people think and act, it’s just not easy.

People also push to ban firearms because of misunderstanding. I guess we should just give in and let them since, well, that’s what people do.

Robb, that’s pure misdirection. I never said that we should ease up on anti-gun hunters. When I said “that’s what people do”, it was ONLY a statement about how people (especially uninformed ones) typically act. It is not within your power to change that no matter how much you wish it.

there can be arguments on the effectiveness of using pejoratives

Indeed. I in this case, they are effective at getting the inhabitants of an echo-box nodding their heads. I’m talking primarily about those times (?) when you or I are not preaching to the choir.