Death to the 2A Fudders and Butters!!!

Rabid mouth frothing ensues as the extreme gun community decry all opposition…

gun-control-cartoonSuch has been the call recently among the stauncher segments of 2nd Amendment (2A) supporters, and (more recently) the now more extreme Open Carry (OC) movement as seen in Texas. These two sides of the gun community see the fudders and butters within the gun world as “uncommitted” to 2A gun rights, and thus unworthy of their own rights, property, or voice. But oddly the only reason members of the pro-gun community are so quick to turn on one another is because of the same mentality taken by those seeking more gun regulation; control.

For those that may be confused, the terminology has a variety of meanings but among the gun culture the terms (defined by the urban dictionary) are;

“Butter” a pejorative term used to describe individuals who are perceived not to be fully committed or supportive of an effort/movement. Initially taken in the context relationship of “guns vs butter” illustrating that as one social concern grows, the other diminishes. Seen in the gun community as those whom own firearms and claim to advocate 2A rights, but(ters) only to a point as the rights and laws should be restricted for a variety of reasons that neo-conservatives view runs countenance to the totality of the 2nd Amendment.

Elmer_Fudd__Gun_Contwol_by_AngryDogDesigns“Fudd” (a.k.a. “Fudder”) is a derogatory term used for someone who owns “sporting” weapons and thinks that “evil” black assault weapons should be banned. Often they are portrayed as believing that the gun control advocates are willing to compromise and would never try to ban their hunting rifles. The association with the term stems from Elmer Fudd trudging through the forest with his shotgun. (Urban Dictionary n.d.)

Some examples of individuals in the gun community discussing fudders and butters include;

We know that butters would rather ask permission to carry than be free.

I am disappointed in Starbucks decision, but will honor their request & spend my money elsewhere. I am also disappointed in the butters… the people who say “I support gun rights, but…” – but not open carry, but not rifles, but just keep it hidden, but you don’t need to carry for self-defense, etc.

No “Butters” Allowed. If you hear, “I support the 2nd amendment, but….” – don’t walk, RUN and find someone else to support. Our right to keep and bear arms has no “but” attached to it.

To the butters you should turn in your guns and go join Moms Demand Action. YOU are the problem now. To the antigun holophobes, keep on whining, see what good it does

You’ll notice the “KEEP AND BEAR,” that means OPEN CARRY as well y’all. Lets not forget about that, and continue to FULLY SUPPORT the 2A. I’m sick and tired of all the 50% “butters” out there. YOU will be our downfall, not the politicians and the lame stream. WE NEED TO STAY UNITED IN THIS EFFORT!!

It’s disheartening to see the gun community disparaging others within their own camp, especially when there are so many Progressives working to do away with 2A rights all together. Fact is however, demonizing others (on the left or right) who simply do not adhere to another’s views is strictly about control – the ability to dictate the direction of discussion, and mandate that all others should believe in accordance with another’s view.

In the context of gun control, Progressives feel that all guns are dangerous and that the entirety of 2A does not apply to civilians (seen as Fudders). All guns are scary and perpetuate only violence. Thus we must all be made to share this view (or we are too unintelligent to comprehend it) by force and regulation. So too does it go for the pro-gun community as well, labeling those within its own group as “noncommittal” (a.k.a. the fudders and butters). When confronted with thoughts or logic on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed”, the extreme gun enthusiasts insist any gun owner that does not “wholly” support gun rights as anything but absolute is akin to a traitor and aligned with anti-gun groups like Mom’s Demand Action. Thus if you’re not with us, and accept the ideology that there should be no infringement on gun ownership, then you’re an anti-gun person.

images-1However an America existing only in polar opposites isn’t how the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be interpreted, and the dogmatic view that we as a modern society are unable to move past the phrasing of laws written in a 1789 context (when Madison first proposed the wording for the 2nd Amendment in the first session of Congress) is laughable were it not disappointing. The technology and tools of today could never have been imagined at the time when the 2nd Amendment was drafted and ratified into law. At the time, colonialists were more concerned with foreign occupation, suppressive government, and personal security. Not what would the technology of weapons look like in 200 or more years. So the Constitution, and the law, was written in the context of that time. It has been up to us as citizens to ensure such laws remain relevant with the times via voting in politicians and judges we as a majority deem fit to reflect the values of society today. The counter-argument would be that in that time the threats have remained the same, and so too has the threats of government and oppression, thus the need for weaponry that places the people on par with government forces is necessary to maintain a balance. This despite the landscape of America in the 21st century looking vastly different that it did in the 17th.

Recently when the debate of gun control was reignited following a series of high-profile shootings, individuals like Conservative Ben Carson attempted to outline the debate citing that while the 2A clearly defines a citizen’s right to own firearms, it did not apply to the more extreme sides of weaponry, such as anti-tank rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, or heavy machine guns. In May, when speaking to the National Press Club Carson said,

“I think there’s some weapons that probably are not appropriate, like tanks. And I’m not sure that people should have a rocket-launcher in their bedroom. But conventional weapons, I don’t have any problem with. The Second Amendment is an essential part of our constitution, it’s there for a reason because it would give the populace the ability to assist the military in case of a foreign invasion but more importantly it’s there because if we ever have a rogue government that wants to dominate the people the people will have the ability to defend themselves. We must always protect that right.” (Strauss 2014)

Members of the gun community immediately derided Carson, but the fact remains that the 2A is not an end-all-be-all for citizens to own all types of firearms. There are simply some things that civilians, untrained and/or undisciplined, should not have. The tools of war should remain as such and only available to a well standing military. The extremists within the gun-culture can gnash their teeth and curse fudders and butters as “anti-gun”, but the reality is just because people don’t share their extremist views doesn’t mean they love their rights and firearms any less. It simply means they don’t ascribe to the beleif that Bubba John should have a ZU-23 anti-aircraft gun in today’s society with hundreds of modern aircraft commonly carrying over 200 people overhead daily. Moreover if you really think the 2A is going to hold back a tyrannical government with what is currently available to civilians, these would do little against the full weight of the military and federal government were it unleashed (just keep smiling as law enforcement keeps getting all those MRAPS). So the delusional Red Dawn fantasy many in the extreme may have about fending off their own government is moot and unrealistic at best. If they truly DO have those concerns then by all means, find your local recruiter and enlist in the military and be the honorable stewards of America. Not armchair commandos who vilify anyone who doesn’t think like them.

Works Cited

Strauss, Daniel. Ben Carson: Second Amendment Doesn’t Mean ‘Rocket Launchers’ In Bedrooms. May 28, 2014. (accessed July 25, 2014).

Urban Dictionary. Fudd. (accessed July 25, 2014).



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s