TexasCHLforum.com

Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".

I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.

2A supporters come in all stripes -- from rabid absolutists (Everyone should Always have multiple guns on them and the Government can't do anything to stop them) to the aforementioned Fudds whose support is largely based on having and using game-getting guns in-season. While not totally an absolutist myself, their stance is both irritating in the bravado often expressed and correct from the perspective of history. A monopoly of force inevitably results in individual rights being trampled -- an eventuality the Founders clearly understood and the reason for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The "danger" I see with the Fudds is their apparent willingness to "compromise" again and again as long as the results don't affect their ability to go afield a few times a year. The resolve of the anti-gun element is consistent, and they fully understand the strategy of incrementalism, so such compromises only result in further compromises until the right has been limited out of existence. There are droves of Fudds out there, and at least some of them might be sympathetic to a broader reading of the Second Amendment than they typically espouse, but the challenge is to win them over. Too few people today bother with history and the lessons we should have learned from it.