Anyone who grew up with Warner Brothers cartoons will be familiar with the ungainly character that is Elmer Fudd. He is portrayed as a simpleton who blunders through the outdoors, hunting rabbits (or wabbits as he calls them). Fudd suffers from severe deficiencies in both safe and accurate firearm handling, to which he appears completely oblivious. He is also possibly the worst hunter in children’s fiction.
I was unaware that “Fudd” was a slang term for an undesirable type of firearm owner. A good friend fortunately rectified this shortcoming in my knowledge base. In order for me to explain the ins and outs of Fuddhood, let us take a journey down an Internet black hole.
What’s a Fudd?
According to the Urban Dictionary, we can define a Fudd as follows:
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.
Two characteristics normally identify a Fudd, again according to UD:
- A very limited range of shooting interests. A Fudd could have just one 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 gauge 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 fill the role of a dedicated defence 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 defence, expect either half-assed answer about a shotgun with birdshot, or just calling the police.
- 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” among similar lines. Fudd-type sentiment are what brought about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, as well as many other ultimately pointless laws. The Fudd does not care as long as they can keep their M1903 Springfield and their custom Beretta double-barrel shotgun. They are willing to sacrifice other sections of the gun community to save themselves.
Why Fudds hurt us all
So-called Fuddhood has its foundations rooted in a fallacy of logic. The people who subscribe to this misconception believe that some types of firearms have a more legitimate purpose than others. As is evident from above, guns are “good” if the firearms are used for hunting, wing shooting, and static forms of sport shooting. “Bad” guns are anything suited for self-defence or which involves “rapid fire” sport shooting disciplines. We can find Fudds in gun owning communities worldwide, despite their American terminological origins. They are even here, in South Africa.
Fudds believe that by sacrificing the interests of other firearm owners, they will be able to safeguard their own. I have seen them throw handgun owners under the bus on numerous occasions. They mistakenly believe that if they give the regulatory authorities somebody else to chew on, their bolt-action rifles will remain untouched. They also completely fail to grasp that we all form part of the same community. It adversely affects us all when one segment’s rights are eroded. Fudds are therefore short-sighted and highly ignorant.
The truth is that government and anti-gun organisations despise civilian firearm ownership in totality. Regulations start at the lowest-hanging fruit, and gradually move their way up the tree. First the handguns will go. Then those pesky semiautomatic rifles. Then the lever-action shotguns, like the Adler non-debate in Australia. Do they really think the Bambi-murdering, high-power sniper rifles are safe from these people?
We need unity, not adversity
It is an incontestable fact that the firearm owning community’s fortunes are closely tied to all its segments. When any subgroup is targeted by government regulation, and we do not all stand up for them in unison, we are all weakened by the result. This is why I keep telling non-hunting firearm owners to never throw the hunters under the proverbial bus. The exact sentiments count in the opposite direction: hunters should stop throwing people with handguns to the wolves. We either stand together, as one, or we fall separately. But ultimately we will all fall. It is merely a matter of time.
We can stop this from happening.
Don’t be a Fudd. Be pro-hunting. Be pro-sport shooting. Support people who choose to carry for self-defence. Together we can, and will, win. But we all need to come together under the same roof.
Have a good weekend everyone, and stay safe.
Written by Gideon Joubert
Gideon is the owner and editor of Paratus.
5 years ago
Great article. Brought to mind Winston Churchill’s quote “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
5 years ago
Under all circumstances appeasers and collaborators are selfish cowards.
5 years ago
It does the heart good to see somebody lay it down. All to often in this fight the first casualty is facts.
A curse I say on those who will sacrifice others for some promise or perceived advantage. Firearm ownership has not managed to rise above the temptation of thinking like complete idiots. The FCA brought that home and the first to “crack” were the Bisley shooters who were quite willing to go alone with a handgun ban or restriction. Others followed, hunters not far behind. The same attitude was eminently present when 182,000 firearm owners were deprived by force to hand over their firearms. Firearm organisations and thus owners following the lead were quick to abandon them washing their hands and pretending they did not exist. There was no opposition organised, none, when the +700,000 firearms had been looted and pillaged by the police to the point it was a huge embarrassment. The police moved like lightening to destroy the evidence. Despite being asked and the advantages being pointed out not one firearm organisation objected and insisted on an audit before destruction. Not one. The police now cannot be held accountable for the many thousands of firearms pillaged from their stores. The media would have gone bananas over this with little encouragement. The FCA already failing on all fronts could have been dealt a severe blow.
The next step is the elitists, those who believe they are better than others because they have undergone training. They view others as a danger to themselves as they have satisfied government and must be seen as good boys and girls. Others will spoil it for them and bring down the wrath of government. Organisations set themselves up as police helpers advertising and demanding firearm owners comply making rules and regulations way beyond the requirement thinking they will be left alone because they are such good people. Demoralising any objection to this unjustified oppressive law. Fact is it may well be law and we may well have to comply in order to purchase legally firearms but nothing on this earth should compel anyone to agree with it, help in any way or promote. Fact is there is no evidence to suggest mandated training is needed for any reason
I often have said that had firearm organisations been fighting oppressive inhuman apartheid laws (no different to the FCA) the officials would have found themselves with a tyres around their necks. That is no exaggeration. What they did is inexcusable. Unfortunately people do not view their lives and safety as being very important. Not important enough to make some effort to secure the best means possible for self-defence. Many view firearms simply as recreational and the majority sets the policy.
There is a huge battle just to be fought in educating firearm organisations that has only one solution. Common sense, facts and appealing to some better nature of firearm organisation officials will fail. Unless members force this issue they can forget about ever obtaining meaningful success in reattain firearm ownership. People who have abandoned others and now collaborate with an oppressive law advertising and educating for the police are never going to oppose it or fight for its removal.
Gun control was very clever to add collaboration and promotion as conditions of the act in order to ensure the oppressed remained under control.
The net result is to put firearm owmners iogg.
5 years ago
Gideon, I agree wholeheartedly with the core message.
But the language used, particularly the stereotyping of some hunters who genuinely have no interest or love in self defence style firearms won’t drive these folks closer or educate them into rectifying their perceptions or refraining from their disdain for these types of weapon or more importantly the disdain for the owners of them.
Good message. Needs FAR better wrapping…
5 years ago
I always appreciate your input, so thank you. Fortunately I believe that the vast majority of hunters are the polar opposite of the “Fudd” described here. Still, I think this is a discussion our community should have. We cannot afford to throw any segment under the bus, be they hunters, sport shooters, or SD carriers.
5 years ago
While you clearly are passionate about your beliefs, your manner of writing is completely counterproductive. As a person who has just discovered that they are a “Fudd”, your article goes to great lengths to insult me and my intelligence, while explaining that we should stick together.
Pardon my slow uptake here, but how is that insulting me is supposed to help bring me on-side?
5 years ago
In what sense are you a Fudd? If you believe other gun owners should have their rights curtailed, stop doing that. If you don’t believe that, then you aren’t a Fudd.
3 years ago
Quit being a bootlicking retard if being called out on it hurts your feelings, idiot.