Another Fudd Speaks His Piece

[mrjarrell]

These people will be the death of us.
From the Crossville Chronicle

I have been a hunter for over 50 years. Yet, I have never owned a pistol and have no intentions of owning one or an assault rifle. On the Internet, I found 361,000 automatic weapons for sale. Why are so many needed? Because criminals have them and we need them to be safe?

Those who do not want a waiting period of three days or not at all, who believe that registered guns will lead to the confiscation of their weapons, who want no permits to carry a pistol, cite the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as no infringement to be able to possess and carry a weapon anywhere. They quote the second part of the Amendment as, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Often, they omit the first part that states, "A well armed Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Tennessee is among those states having lax laws regarding gun control and ownership. It is now possible for anyone 21 years or older with a gun permit to carry one's pistol into parks, restaurants and bars (providing they do not drink in the bar) unless public and private business owners post a sign that guns are not allowed. Some gun rights' advocates want a law overriding the prohibition of taking a pistol in any of these places.

Those who want no gun control of any kind and wish an individual to arm himself or herself neglect or ignore that liberty means the right to act without restraint as long as one's freedom does not interfere with the rights of others. Greek and Roman laws of liberty were the basis for our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. It seems to me that those who want no gun permits, who wish to take a pistol anywhere have changed because of the return of the "good old days" of the wild west and frontier days. Which liberty is to be respected when one can carry a pistol anywhere in public places and that interferes with one's peace of mind and security of not worrying whether the gun owner is qualified, trained or is of sound mind and emotion? Personally, if I see a person with a weapon in a public place, I will quietly and quickly leave.

Many Tennessee gun permit holders and Second Amendment persons are now promoting the right to carry their guns to work on company parking lots, leaving their pistols in their vehicles and locking them in the glove compartment or trunk. Even if the plant or business posts signs that weapons are not allowed on their property, gun right holders want a law that would override company policy. They argue that the Bill of Rights accord them the right to bear arms.

As a hunter, I do not believe the day will come when my hunting shotgun and rifle will be forcibly taken by law enforcement. I do not need or want an assault rifle that will fire 12 to 15 rounds or more in a sustained mode per minute to target practice. If I ever do own a pistol, I will keep a trigger lock on it, as I have on both my hunting guns, and I will even invest to have a fingerprint safe on it.

One's right to own and carry a pistol with a permit is the right of any individual. Pistols prohibited in parks, restaurants, bars and public places such as libraries, athletic or exercise fields, and all public buildings and facilities are the rights of the general public and owners of those places to prohibit guns. Next year, the Supreme Court will hear the case of McDonald versus the city of Chicago whether the Second Amendment can be used to challenge state firearm regulations or be used only against federal gun control laws. The outcome, as far as I'm concerned, should see that freedom must exist for both the gun owner and those who do not want guns in public or in one's place of business.

 

[Bill of Rights]

These people will be the death of us.
From the Crossville Chronicle

Why do you say "these people will be the death of us."? Because his views do not match ours and support a supposed right to hunt while ignoring the RKBA as written? Speaking more generally, because his views are divisive. Unfortunately, so is your terminology. We will not win "these people" over by referring to them in derogatory terms.

Personally, I agree that his views are shortsighted, narrow minded, and just plain wrong, however, it is his right to have them and live by them, and when his hunting rifle and shotgun are banned by caliber or by gauge, when he is required to store them at the local police station right up until the day he comes to get them and is told they were outlawed and destroyed, only then will he say, "Hmm. Maybe those guys weren't so far off base..." Of course, then it will be too late.

Call the above a friendly suggestion; there's no INGO rule that I'm aware of against a general reference to the group by the term you used, and as such, I'm not going to warn or infract you for it's use. Hell, I'm not even going to censor it unless you ask me to change the title of the thread. (If so, PM me please. I don't know that I'll be back to the thread) I just ask that you consider the effect of your words on the intended audience and on the audience whose views you'd like to change.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

One's right to own and carry a pistol with a permit is the right of any individual. Pistols prohibited in parks, restaurants, bars and public places such as libraries, athletic or exercise fields, and all public buildings and facilities are the rights of the general public and owners of those places to prohibit guns. Next year, the Supreme Court will hear the case of McDonald versus the city of Chicago whether the Second Amendment can be used to challenge state firearm regulations or be used only against federal gun control laws. The outcome, as far as I'm concerned, should see that freedom must exist for both the gun owner and those who do not want guns in public or in one's place of business.

So he believes that carrying is your right, as long as you don't carry in public.

He also believes the definition of freedom entails the right to not be offended, and/or to dictate what other people own and carry.

 

[El Cazador]

Fudd? As in Elmer Fudd, I suppose? Eh, OK.

The editorial/Letter to the Ed (I didn't click the link) is so full of wrong assumptions and third hand facts (that aren't facts) it would take an hour to respond. From his incorrect interpretation of the 2nd, to where the basis of our liberty, Common Law and Constitution comes from, to his theory that his right of freedom and liberty is predicated on him feeling safe. Not to mention the cliched nonsense about the "wild west" and pioneer days being one big Hollywood gunfight in the streets.

Either this guy figures himself to be highly educated on the issue of rights without the need to debate his assumptions, or there's always the possibility he's what is known as a "Moby". Either way, I'll bet the hunting forums he frequents just love him.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

I think you've nailed this one right on the head, Bill.

However, I would like it noted for the original author who feels that law enforcement isn't about to take away his shotgun that any gauge which is smaller than 12 is already banned and/or illegal by the entirety - you aren't going to find many 8- or 4-bore rifles for sale even here.

 

[Jack Ryan]

However, I would like it noted for the original author who feels that law enforcement isn't about to take away his shotgun that any gauge which is smaller than 12 is already banned and/or illegal by the entirety - you aren't going to find many 8- or 4-bore rifles for sale even here.

What are you talking about?

You can buy all the ten gauge shotguns you want and 28,16, 20 guage you want and 410 bore.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

What are you talking about?

You can buy all the ten gauge shotguns you want and 28,16, 20 guage you want and 410 bore.

Sorry, I misspoke/mis-typed.

I'm not talking about larger-gauges (smaller-sizes), but rather, smaller gauges (larger sizes).

You will hardly ever see an 8-bore or 4-bore, ever.

Period.

There's already restrictions on shotguns, was my original point, although you're absolutely right, 10-gauge is legal... for now, at least.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Sorry, I misspoke/mis-typed.

I'm not talking about larger-gauges (smaller-sizes), but rather, smaller gauges (larger sizes).

You will hardly ever see an 8-bore or 4-bore, ever.

Period.

There's already restrictions on shotguns, was my original point, although you're absolutely right, 10-gauge is legal... for now, at least.

There's "restrictions" on every thing any more. The only shotguns any more regulated than any other I know of are punt guns market hunters use that were more like a cannon they fired from a boat and could take out sitting ducks 30 at a time or more. You can't hunt with those, nothing illegal about owning them that I've ever heard of.

People today cry around about the recoil of a 12 gauge and whined around to get these puny pistol rounds in the concept of "women and children" couldn't handle a shot gun. Look through the threads here and see who's shooting those. It was yippe kyaa over that S&W 500 when it came out, now you can find them for $175 dollars used "It kicks too hard, it cost too much to shoot..." what ever.

That's why you don't see a 4 bore at the trap range.

 

[VUPDblue]

There's "restrictions" on every thing any more. The only shotguns any more regulated than any other I know of are punt guns market hunters use that were more like a cannon they fired from a boat and could take out sitting ducks 30 at a time or more. You can't hunt with those, nothing illegal about owning them that I've ever heard of.

People today cry around about the recoil of a 12 gauge and whined around to get these puny pistol rounds in the concept of "women and children" couldn't handle a shot gun. Look through the threads here and see who's shooting those. It was yippe kyaa over that S&W 500 when it came out, now you can find them for $175 dollars used "It kicks too hard, it cost too much to shoot..." what ever.

That's why you don't see a 4 bore at the trap range.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

I think you've nailed this one right on the head, Bill.

However, I would like it noted for the original author who feels that law enforcement isn't about to take away his shotgun that any gauge which is smaller than 12 is already banned and/or illegal by the entirety - you aren't going to find many 8- or 4-bore rifles for sale even here.

wait I own a 10 gauge to my knowledge it is not illegal am i correct in this?

 

[Thumper]

If you cant handel the heat stay out of the kitchen

 

[VUPDblue]

wait I own a 10 gauge to my knowledge it is not illegal am i correct in this?

You are correct. You can own a 10 gauge all day long...

 

[PatMcGroyne]

Hey BillOfRights, the left side of your face . . . . . .

. . . . .doesn't seem to know what the right side is speaking::
Quote: '.....We will not win "these people" over by referring to them in derogatory terms. ' (then the very next line begins your collection of insults):

"....his views are shortsighted, narrow minded, and just plain wrong,...." Where you coming from, Dude? Pat

 

[VUPDblue]

You can still describe someone's views as shortsighted, narrow minded and wrong without calling them names or insulting their person...

 

[Leadeye]

Nothing wrong with a 10 gauge, great on turkeys! They do get heavy carring around all day though.

 

[Bill of Rights]

. . . . .doesn't seem to know what the right side is speaking::
Quote: '.....We will not win "these people" over by referring to them in derogatory terms. ' (then the very next line begins your collection of insults):

"....his views are shortsighted, narrow minded, and just plain wrong,...." Where you coming from, Dude? Pat

You can still describe someone's views as shortsighted, narrow minded and wrong without calling them names or insulting their person...

Correct. To say "You are a worthless moron" is not the same thing as saying "I think your views, at least on this subject, are moronic and without any redeeming value." (note: Not directed to you personally, Pat. This is a hypothetical "you")

To use the Jim Zumbo example, he wrote something really ignorant, which was at the same time indifferent to the views of gun owners, specifically but not exclusively black rifle owners. He subsequently went and spent some time with "Uncle" Ted Nugent and offered gun owners in general and black rifle owners specifically, an apology. Some may still not accept it, but he offered it. I'll give him credit for realizing he needed to say SOMEthing (losing his sponsorships and columns probably had something to do with that) and doing so, rather than letting pride cause him to stick to a viewpoint like that. His views on that subject (at least his public views; possibly his entire outlook) are no longer ignorant nor indifferent. As to whether or not he personally is... I leave that to the individual to decide his/her opinion for him/herself.

As a closer example, you chose to point out the specifics of my post as an example of a problem you saw with my stated opinions and views. I'm happy to answer that (as is VUPDBlue for me, and I appreciate his help).
Alternatively, had you chosen to call me some rude choice of terms, it would have been addressed far less happily but probably a fair measure more permanently.

Good choice on your part.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate knowing I didn't present something as well as I could have, and being able to better explain it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Disposable Heart]

Bill has an excellent point and a refreshing one in regards to INGO: All day, I hear of "stupid" this and "retarded" that in regards to the "opposition". "Dumocrats" and so on. Racism has a VERY similar method of dehumanizing something they don't like too: slurs. Unfortunately, those are still around, but have no effect other than to dumb down the conversation and illegitimize the speaker's point.

When we stoop to the level of sheer ignorance, yes, ignorance, we give power and credibility to the other side's arguements. Speech 101 here: Pathos is a powerful method of influencing people, however has VERY little staying power, is difficult to use properly and serves only to dissuade the intelligent. Usage of powerful language, such as stereotypes, dehumanization and other methods serves only to paint us in a similar light: undereducated, overpassionate, violence/passion prone, uncompromising individuals that stick their fingers in their ears and yell over other's conversations when we don't "like" something. The concept of proper rhetoric (not the base dennotation shock jocks have given us) is that both sides present their information/data/concepts, then LISTEN to the opposition. That serves to make us better individuals: How? We now know what they think, how they think and how they present their information to help us better form our arguement.

You can't change how someone thinks: basic rule of life. However, we can help change WHY they think about something and get folks on our side by giving our facts instead of having a foil or counter to everything they say.

 

[tyrajam]

One's right to own and carry a pistol with a permit is the right of any individual. Pistols prohibited in parks, restaurants, bars and public places such as libraries, athletic or exercise fields, and all public buildings and facilities are the rights of the general public and owners of those places to prohibit guns. Next year, the Supreme Court will hear the case of McDonald versus the city of Chicago whether the Second Amendment can be used to challenge state firearm regulations or be used only against federal gun control laws.

This kind of brings up a point that is often overlooked. Outlawing carrying a firearm into a public place, ie park, library, etc., is something that most of us can agree is a gross infringement on our rights. Same with a state/local ordinance outlawing carrying in specific private venus, like bars or arenas. But any business owner has the right to ban any firearms, or anything else, on their property. If walmart decided to ban anyone carrying in their stores, I would write them a letter and stop shopping there. But property rights are as important in America as gun rights. Any business or privately owned property should be able to ban whatever the heck they want on their own property, no matter how stupid and irrational.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Another "useful idiot" heard from.