It's clear that they talked to no one but FUDDs!

[xd ED]

Making up derogetory names

I guess it sorta comes down to how sensitive someone may be to bein' called a "Fudd"?!

As I understand it, we're simply referring to the cartoon character who was often pitted against Daffy Duck and/or Bugs Bunny?!

I don't recall Elmer doin' nothin' most any of us ain't done?! I mean, it ain't like we're suggesting they're flat out retarded?!

As I understand the reference, Elmer was strictly a hunter ... at that, never used anything but a shotgun?! I think that reflects the Fudd's mentality quite accurately?! ... "if you don't need a shotgun, you don't need it"?!

Again, those of us actually putting money/effort into preserving/restoring 2A rights, as of yet, have no other moniker fer such folks?! Put out a better alternative, and see if it sticks?!

... 'til then, if some Fudd wants to wet his bed 'cause I referred to him as a cartoon character, I reckon we really don't need him ... 'er, at least, we'll probly never otherwise get him, anyhow?!

FWIW, I've actually had arguments with such folks ... they believe the VPC/Brady propaganda ... that the NRA is a scam ... and that members are merely paranoid ... moreover, each of these people was, IMO, at least, borderline retarded! ... probly shouldn't be owning any gun ... even a shotgun! At which, IMO, something far more derogatory, would be more appropriate!

How 'bout dip*****s?! ... who's with me?!

Yeah, when having a discussion about gun politics, and why some people feel the way they do, a guy could speak two paragraphs describing the deer or duck hunter who has no interest or need for the various long and handguns that many of us own, because they don't fit into HIS hobbies, the resultant attitudes of those folks, and their political views. After a bit, a clear perspective of that person's shooting habits, and firearms collection might become apparent. Or you could just say: "he's a fudd". and have an instant understanding of the individual.

[Holland&Holland]

Making up derogetory names

I guess it sorta comes down to how sensitive someone may be to bein' called a "Fudd"?!

As I understand it, we're simply referring to the cartoon character who was often pitted against Daffy Duck and/or Bugs Bunny?!

I don't recall Elmer doin' nothin' most any of us ain't done?! I mean, it ain't like we're suggesting they're flat out retarded?!

As I understand the reference, Elmer was strictly a hunter ... at that, never used anything but a shotgun?! I think that reflects the Fudd's mentality quite accurately?! ... "if you don't need a shotgun, you don't need it"?!

Again, those of us actually putting money/effort into preserving/restoring 2A rights, as of yet, have no other moniker fer such folks?! Put out a better alternative, and see if it sticks?!

... 'til then, if some Fudd wants to wet his bed 'cause I referred to him as a cartoon character, I reckon we really don't need him ... 'er, at least, we'll probly never otherwise get him, anyhow?!

FWIW, I've actually had arguments with such folks ... they believe the VPC/Brady propaganda ... that the NRA is a scam ... and that members are merely paranoid ... moreover, each of these people was, IMO, at least, borderline retarded! ... probly shouldn't be owning any gun ... even a shotgun! At which, IMO, something far more derogatory, would be more appropriate!

How 'bout dip*****s?! ... who's with me?!

Here is the issue I have, while everything you stated is true and I am right there with you and have had those same conversations, the fact of the mater is that the Term Fudd is meant in a derogetory way (look it up in google and you will see it defined as a derogetory term" and whether we mean it to be so or not the fact of the mater is those we refer to in this way are the very ones we need to support our cause so here are your choices. Either A it is not taken as an offense and in this case it neither helped nor hindered your efforts or B is is taken as an offense and it hurt your cause. There will be some in each A and B so what is the benefit of conitinuing to use it?

It is like saying, "hey you stupid democrat, vote for me" Not likly to be a successful campaign strategy really for either party. Just saying, how you say something matters often time as much as what you say.

[rugersol]

how you say something matters often time as much as what you say.

I don't disbelieve you!

Again, offer up an alternative that's as easy to use, and carries the same meaning ... see if it sticks?!

... 'til then, to the extent I actually use the term, I'm comfortable with its continued use!

[Le Pistolero]

We all knows better, yet we does it.

We needs to stop.

This ain't no case of "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar," it's a case of "you don't make friends by slapping them in the mouth."

[Collector1337420]

... while we're hammering out the sensitivity training ...

what, precisely, would be acceptable to collectively refer to gun-owners who're content to throw AR's, 11rd+ mags, private FTF transactions, and any other such thing, under the bus?!

Gun owners.

Disgusting.

Shame on anyone who would throw those things under the bus.