This is surreal. A grown man wishing to be commended simply for not doing anything wrong on any given day...the "Wow but I did lotsa good things, too" defense, but will not apologize when he's made an all too obvious misstep. Kudos for the "good things", Mr. Petzal, as it's obvious you've not received enough strokes in life without begging for them. Now act like a man, tell the truth, tell us precisely where we've erred in judging you, and get on with your business.
I've been reading Petzal long enough to know that while he's far from stupid, he IS very stubborn.
What I bet happened was he blathered the bit about banning assault weapons in a younger and dumber time, later changed his mind, but HELL if he's going to admit it NOW- he's embarrassed and he's got his back up. (And he still has no respect for the horde of "mental patients" ranting at his old buddy.)
Too bad I was talking about poster number six, from whom I quote here: "I don't believe this appology is sincere, I think he is scrambling to cover his backside."
As Dave says: "Most important, you shouldn’t construe any of this as an apology. It isn’t. "
Dave is, I'm sure, many things. But stupid isn't one of them. Note what else he said in his oft-quoted-but-taken-out-of-context 1994 piece:
(which you can find whole here, by the way)
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_part.html#comment-61364004
"So what's wrong with supporting--or at least not opposing--this amendment? Perhaps nothing--except that the reveille sounded by the 1994 Federal Budget warns us we can't think of Amendment 1152 as a final step. Anti-gunners see it as an interim measure, paving the way for much wider prohibitions. Sarah Brady, Senator Metzenbaum, and others, have been quite honest about what they have in mind. The Feinstein Amendment is, in their view, just one in a series of steps to outlaw other types of firearms. The next step, without doubt, is handguns. In the lengthy list of "legitimate" guns protected by Amendment 1152, not one handgun is mentioned."
In short, Dave was not throwing AKs & etc. under the bus in order to protect hunting firearms, he was doing so to protect HANDGUNS. I don't seem to recall Elmer Fudd carrying one of those around the woods, do you?
You can disagree with his methods, but if you actually read the piece, and if your reading comprehension rises above the 4th-grade level, then you can't blame his motivation on a fudd mentality.
Odd, isn't it, that it was so apropos of Petzal's post, though?
"You can disagree with his methods, but if you actually read the piece, and if your reading comprehension rises above the 4th-grade level, then you can't blame his motivation on a fudd mentality."
Sorry, "NobodySpecial," you apparently missed the piece immediately above this one, which addresses your (poor, misguided, 4th-grade) point directly. I can, indeed "blame his motivation on a fudd mentality" - that mentality is "mine are OK, yours are suspect." Doesn't matter what he was defending, he was supporting the banning of weapons he didn't think other people ought to have.
That is the very definition of the Fudd mentality. It is the wedge the opposition is using to divide and conquer.
B. Fudds are hunters, hence the name Fudd. Since Dave is defending handguns (for, say home defense purposes), he's not a fudd. You'll have to come up with another polarizing catefory for him. Have fun with that. I'm sure it will become another useful tool for the brady bunch.
C. I did indeed miss the piece above. My apologies.
"The term "Fudd" is EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED to that group of hunters/clay shooters/benchresters/etc. that believe that only "sporting purpose" firearms ought to be protected by the Second Amendment." -- Kevin Baker
(my emphasis)
We can drop the "Fudd" term, and just call them traitors.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-proof-that-anger-makes-you-stupid.html (8 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
This is surreal. A grown man wishing to be commended simply for not doing anything wrong on any given day...the "Wow but I did lotsa good things, too" defense, but will not apologize when he's made an all too obvious misstep. Kudos for the "good things", Mr. Petzal, as it's obvious you've not received enough strokes in life without begging for them. Now act like a man, tell the truth, tell us precisely where we've erred in judging you, and get on with your business.
I've been reading Petzal long enough to know that while he's far from stupid, he IS very stubborn.
What I bet happened was he blathered the bit about banning assault weapons in a younger and dumber time, later changed his mind, but HELL if he's going to admit it NOW- he's embarrassed and he's got his back up. (And he still has no respect for the horde of "mental patients" ranting at his old buddy.)
Too bad.
Too bad I was talking about poster number six, from whom I quote here: "I don't believe this appology is sincere, I think he is scrambling to cover his backside."
As Dave says: "Most important, you shouldn’t construe any of this as an apology. It isn’t. "
Dave is, I'm sure, many things. But stupid isn't one of them. Note what else he said in his oft-quoted-but-taken-out-of-context 1994 piece:
(which you can find whole here, by the way)
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_part.html#comment-61364004
"So what's wrong with supporting--or at least not opposing--this amendment? Perhaps nothing--except that the reveille sounded by the 1994 Federal Budget warns us we can't think of Amendment 1152 as a final step. Anti-gunners see it as an interim measure, paving the way for much wider prohibitions. Sarah Brady, Senator Metzenbaum, and others, have been quite honest about what they have in mind. The Feinstein Amendment is, in their view, just one in a series of steps to outlaw other types of firearms. The next step, without doubt, is handguns. In the lengthy list of "legitimate" guns protected by Amendment 1152, not one handgun is mentioned."
In short, Dave was not throwing AKs & etc. under the bus in order to protect hunting firearms, he was doing so to protect HANDGUNS. I don't seem to recall Elmer Fudd carrying one of those around the woods, do you?
You can disagree with his methods, but if you actually read the piece, and if your reading comprehension rises above the 4th-grade level, then you can't blame his motivation on a fudd mentality.
"Too bad I was talking about poster number six".
Odd, isn't it, that it was so apropos of Petzal's post, though?
"You can disagree with his methods, but if you actually read the piece, and if your reading comprehension rises above the 4th-grade level, then you can't blame his motivation on a fudd mentality."
Sorry, "NobodySpecial," you apparently missed the piece immediately above this one, which addresses your (poor, misguided, 4th-grade) point directly. I can, indeed "blame his motivation on a fudd mentality" - that mentality is "mine are OK, yours are suspect." Doesn't matter what he was defending, he was supporting the banning of weapons he didn't think other people ought to have.
That is the very definition of the Fudd mentality. It is the wedge the opposition is using to divide and conquer.
A. Apropos? You see anger, I see disgust.
B. Fudds are hunters, hence the name Fudd. Since Dave is defending handguns (for, say home defense purposes), he's not a fudd. You'll have to come up with another polarizing catefory for him. Have fun with that. I'm sure it will become another useful tool for the brady bunch.
C. I did indeed miss the piece above. My apologies.
"The term "Fudd" is EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED to that group of hunters/clay shooters/benchresters/etc. that believe that only "sporting purpose" firearms ought to be protected by the Second Amendment." -- Kevin Baker
(my emphasis)
Fine. I don't like that term anyway.
I think I'll just call him a short-sighted and stubborn man of no integrity.
Of course, "Quisling" is a lot shorter than that, and it has the weight of venerability behind it.
That will work for me.
We can drop the "Fudd" term, and just call them traitors.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>