Fudd’s (Part 1)


“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might abuse them, which would include their own Government”

~Geo. Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that everyman be armed. Everyone who is able to have a gun…”

~Patrick Henry

Originally this post was going to simply be a response to an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle titled “A gun in the Editors Top Drawer” shared by my friend @tactical_review

However, as I was thinking about what to write and how I wanted the article to read, I kept coming across post after post of Fudd’s. To be fair, the article I linked appears to be written by one.

We’ve all seen them. Maybe we even know one or two in real life. The Arguments are ALWAYS the same, perhaps variations on a theme, but the same none the less.

“I’m a second amendment supporter but…”

I own guns, but…”

I hunt, but…”

“I served in the <Insert military branch here> and…”

Kinda like this guy here:

Variations on a theme, to be sure, but the message is always the same. Someone claims to support the second amendment, tries to establish some sort of authority or expertise then say that no private citizen should be able to own an assault weapon or weapon of war.

Now, never mind that the AR15 has never been used by any military anywhere in the world, or that it was originally designed as a sporting rifle by the Armalite Corporation or that AR means ‘Armalite Rifle’ and not ‘Assault Rifle’ like these Fudd’s claim. It’s an emotional appeal by people who claim to be an authority on the subject and use that appeal to authority or emotion to shut down debate.

Oftentimes, these self-proclaimed experts inadvertently out themselves to be completely ignorant of the firearms in which they argue against. That or they show a complete ignorance on the subject of arms in general as Christie Levin shows us in her article shared by Tactical Reviews.

You can find the article here:

In this article, she tries, desperately, to convince us that the author is a gun owner who took several classes and extensive training for a CHL. Also, in this article, the author tells some glaring falsehoods that make it clear to any gun owner that she’s lying through her teeth.

While this article isn’t anti-gun per se, it’s more a hit piece on Trump’s criticism of the mainstream news media, it still shows this insipid banality used by Fudd’s around the world.

So, let’s start with this one:

“When you go to a church or a bar, you usually see a sign that says, “Leave your guns outside”.

Now I have several friends who are from Texas or currently live in Texas and they’ve all told me the same thing. They’ve NEVER seen ANY such sign. In Texas, the gun culture is such that it is not at all unusual to take your concealed carry weapon with you every where you go, including Church.

Next, let’s take a quick glance at this quote:

“I took a gun safety class and started to target-shoot as a hobby. I got pretty good. Eventually I became an instructor in Gun Safety and taught classes on the weekend” …

Note, first of all, the language used in the first sentence. I don’t know a single gun owner who talks like that. It sounds contrived and un-natural. Next, I direct the reader to the last sentence. You will note that this is where the author of this trash attempts to establish her Bona Fides as an expert. Never mind that in a couple of paragraphs she blows away any such attempt by her own words. 


“I opened my glove compartment and took out my Glock 17, and flipped off the safety…I rolled down the window and held the gun in front of my chest with both hands as I’d been taught…”

Okay, there is so much wrong with this paragraph in the story that it makes me cringe to think that people actually believe this vapid garbage. It would be laughable…if it wasn’t for her readers who actually believe this tripe.

First, a little about the Glock for those of you who’ve never handled one. A Glock does not have a safety that can be ‘flipped off’ as she claims. I mean, I’m sure you could fly the bird at them but I don’t believe for a second that is what she meant.

No, the Safeties on a Glock are all incorporated into their ‘Safe Action Trigger’. Basically, It goes like this: the first safety is a small lever in the center of the trigger that prevents the trigger from travelling backward unless you first depress that lever. The second part of the safety is that the hammer is never fully cocked unless you pull the trigger. It is in a state of half cock until you depress the trigger. As a result the Glock has a much heavier pull and longer travel than most other firearms. This is because, as you pull the trigger, you are also cocking the hammer back until you reach the third and final stage of the safe action trigger.

The final stage comes when you are pressing the trigger and you feel a sudden tension or maybe ‘catch’ or hesitation would be the more correct term. It is at this point where ANY further movement of the trigger backward will discharge the weapon.

You can actually feel each safety disengage when firing a Glock. I know because I have personally owned 4. Unlike the 1911, the Beretta, the sig or most other modern handguns, there is no switch, lever or button to ‘Flip off’ when you draw the weapon.

Next, her description of the incident…as a firearms instructor, she should know that in such an incident, you don’t stop. You continue driving until you reach a place of safety, such as a police station or well-lit public area. The absolute worst thing to do in such an incident is stop on the side of the road.

Next, any CCL instructor will tell you that the worst place to keep your concealed carry weapon is in your glove compartment. You have to lean over to grab it, which also telegraphs your intent. It’s often out of reach and takes time to reach. I carry mine on my hip or attached under my Dash if I can. Seldom I carry it under the driver’s seat or in my center console.

Finally, after a road rage incident, if the two people are approaching your vehicle, you don’t sit there and wait, you put the car in gear and get the hell out of there. Staying and confronting them can paint you as the aggressor, especially if you’re brandishing a weapon. All stand your ground means is that you do not have a duty to retreat. This doesn’t mean you must engage or that you can’t retreat.

If you watch any of the videos on @USCCA you will learn that it’s better to avoid engagement and to retreat to a place of safety than to engage. Basically, it’s better to avoid rather than use deadly force.

What the Author claims to have done are decidedly NOT the actions of a firearms safety instructor…certainly not a competent one.

The point I am trying to make is that in a few sentences, this author…this Fudd, establishes herself as an expert only to reveal her abject and stark ignorance in a single paragraph. Fudd’s always do this. They claim to be gun owners, former military or some other kind of expert as an appeal to Authority only to invariably reveal their ignorance for all to see. Often, not content to merely reveal their ignorance, they also continue to argue and thus shine a spotlight on it, revealing themselves to be frauds.

Until then, we need to combat their misinformation…no, let’s be honest and call it what it is… We need to combat their lies with facts, data and educate those who may not be opposed to us, but are on the fence about the gun control debate.

Thanks for letting me rant. Take care.