Sunday, January 30, 2011

The Fudds Among Us

This from NEWSWEEK's coverage of Sarah Palin ay SCI:

A few members, like Leonard Kutkey of Spokane, Wash., were willing to go even further, calling on the government to pass "more regulations on handguns—guns with no sporting purpose." Asked how the National Rifle Association would respond to such apostasy, Kutkey, a tall, professorial, white-bearded man, scoffed. "I think that the NRA goes too far, and that's why I've never been a member," he said. "It's overkill. We hunters pay a price for it." But Kutkey knew he was in the minority, and, looking around the room, he guessed that "99 out of every 100 people here w[ould] disagree."

My friends, we need to watch what we say and who we say it to! There are trolls, and Fudds, among us!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad


Unknown said...

How do we "splane" to the "pure" hunting crowd that an assault on any gun is an incremental assault on all guns and gun owners. It's amazing that in todays gun media environment that there are still some among us that just don't choose to get it...... IMHO,when it comes to gun control, it's this type of attitude that has lead us to where we find ourselves now. ARUGH!!! It's amazing that we still need to have these discussions with the history we've accumulated since the `80s'.

Isn't freedom of speech wonderful.

Tim Covington said...

@Mike - We explain it to the Fudds that their hunting rifles have been called "deadly sniper rifles" and there have been calls to ban all ammunition that can pierce police body armor. This includes all hunting ammunition, since in order to take a deer or elk it has to be powerful enough to pierce typical police body armor.

Also point out that there are more and more hunters using AR pattern rifles (in calibers other than 223) to hunt with. And, todays hunting rifles were yesterday's military rifles.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Kutkey, just like the anti rights crowd will not be convinced of the facts. The strategy should be to show them for the bigots that they are.

DamDoc said...

trolls, fudds, relatives (in my personal case), and pafoots are among us.... this week we almost had a mag ban in the works here in Maine... which i thought was a fairly reg immune state.... newly turned red... i shutter to think if tucson occurred about a year ago, when we had a far more left government here... no one is safe and our guard MUST be up...

Anonymous said...

F U Mr. Kutkey, many of my friends and I hunt with AR's. Do you hunt with a single shot break open rifle? I seriously doubt it! If you don't like how we roll in America, take your fudd gun & move to a different country. We in the NRA don't "need" A-holes like you as members.

philw said...

this is exactly what happened over here in Australia
if every LAFO stood together we might still have not got bent over soo much

Moosejaw said...

I hunt...I shoot...I protect myself...I know the constitution was written to preserve our FREEDOMS...and our ability to KEEP defending them...this guy must think the 2nd, was about deer or pheasant hunting...stupid git.

My problem with most people, is in the conservative websites I frequent (I freep) is they dont understand the one issue group like the NRA, that will support a moderate or liberal candidate that has a 99% progun rating...I have a hard time with it most of the time too, but the NRAs track record is too good for me leave my life membership and join a more conservative but ineffective organization

rpm64 said...

The definition of SPORT is,as I see it, an activity that is done for enjoyment,competition,personal development,relaxation,personal defense practice. Every time I shoot anything be it rifle,shotgun,handgun or bow and arrow I am practicing my sport. Anyone who tries to narrow down my responsible use of any weapon is attacking my sport and my personal freedom. We don't need these attacks coming from our own ranks. Thank God for the NRA. I'll always be a member.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem with folks disagreeing with my opinion of gun control. It won't change my mind.

I have a much large problem with reporters and editors cherry picking data or quotes to get the angle on the story that they want.

When 99% of the attendees disagree with the statements by the speakers opinion, a careful writer would have weighed the data a bit more carefully if they did not have an agenda.

Of course I knew this was coming when I read a headline two weeks ago that Palin to talk at "gun group".

Safari Club International is a hunting and conservation organization, not a gun organization. I am proud to be a member, just like proud to be a member of the NRA.

Michael, I doubt your friend Comus is happy about this either.


Anonymous said...

I've met a fair number of shotgunners who have told me point blank, "they can have your pistols as long as I get to keep my trap shotguns".

I've met bowhunters too who said basically the same thing, "bowhunting is so much fun I don't care if they come for my guns".

Anonymous said...

Moosejaw, you nailed it. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting rights. It's about defending rights.

"Gun Control", on the other hand isn't about guns, it's about control.

Now Mr. Kutkey, you do the math!

Life Member

Anonymous said...

I've met a fair number of shotgunners who have told me point blank, "they can have your pistols as long as I get to keep my trap shotguns".

I've met bowhunters too who said basically the same thing, "bowhunting is so much fun I don't care if they come for my guns".

Dave S. said...

I'd like that dolt to name just one way in which NRA "overkill" has hurt hunters.

I don't get on my high horse and point out that his "sporting purpose" involves killing living beings, while my collecting does not. The Fudds should extend the same courtesy.

Kristophr said...

Throw the Fudds to the wolves.

The second amendment is not about duck hunting.

Enforce the militia act, and require citizens to own select-fire assault rifles.

Allow PeTA to ban any firearm that has no defensive purpose. If it doesn't have a selector switch, it ain't covered.

Gee ... no more $10k shotguns, or trendy bows, unless you are a fully licensed hunter, and take a 4 year course in game management.

Angry Monkey said...

@Kristopher, The problem with your idea is that you're still banning guns. Even if it is a $10k shotgun, it's a gun. Not all hunters are Fudds, and even if they were, their rights need protection just as much as ours do.
On a secondary note, requiring citizens to own rifles is different from requiring citizens to purchase health insurance how?

Kristophr said...


Read the Militia Act.

We have been required to own a militia ready weapon since 1793. The SCOTUS has been OK with this law since then.

Enforcement of the $5 fine for non-compliance has been a bit lax since the end of the civil war ...

As for letting the Fudds burn, I was simply pointing out that the Fudd crowd is not protected by the second amendment, and that two can play the throw 'em to the wolves game.

A major problem here is that the politicians and newsies have not noticed the shift in gun-owner demographics. Hunters are a tiny minority. Most gun-owners are shooters, and are more likely to take to the woods to shoot at tin cans with an AR than shoot at at Bambi's mom with a wooden-stocked Rem-chester.

nj_larry said...

Hunters are a tiny minority. Most gun-owners are shooters,

Wow...that is a real stretch. I don't believe this for a second. Don't get fooled by the insular community on these blogs etc. Most gun owners see firearms no different than a hammer in the garage. It is a tool they use for hunting or worse that just sits in the closet cause that is what their daddy did with a gun. Shooters (pretty much however you define that) are the minority. Lucky within that group there is a vocal minority of a minority. Come on and wake up. If shooters were the majority we would have dispensed with all this gun control crap decades ago.