Ashland, OR is a quaint little university town in southern Oregon. My sister attended college there back in the ‘70s (before it became a university), and the town is most widely known for its annual (and quite good) Shakespearean Festival. I’ve spent a fair amount of time there, and it’s an enclave of what most people would call “liberal” thought in a sea of “conservative” people (as imperfect as those descriptors may be and as much as it pains me to use them.)
The Ashland City Council is currently re-evaluating their firearms policies, and one of the items on their agenda is banning the open carry of firearms within the city limits. The anti-gun forces in Oregon have inexplicably focused their attention on quiet little Ashland in order to force this ordinance through. It’s possible that, given their defeats in both Oregon and neighboring Washington (not to mention the favorable 9th Circuit decisions in California and Hawaii), they’re looking for a victory — any victory — to gain back some momentum and keep their donations flowing. They think they can get one in Ashland.
The prohibitionists have pulled out all the stops to get this ordinance passed — including having one of those “reasonable” gun owners, the kind who doesn’t mind restrictive firearms laws, address the Council. The folks at BearingArms.com have the video, and you should watch it.
I don’t know about you, but this guy doesn’t sound like a gun owner let alone a hunter. He doesn’t even sound like an Oregonian (trust me, we can tell these things.) He sounds very much like someone planted in the audience to show that “reasonable” gun owners support this bill. Ashland is full of actors because of the Festival, and it’s not at all inconceivable that one could have been hired (and dressed; look at his clothes) to play a preconceived role.
My problem with our response to this fellow is the use of the term “Fudd”; it’s derogatory in nature. There was a period of time in my life where I would have gladly used it, but I’ve matured to the point that I find such attempts at antagonism quite distasteful. I don’t disagree that there are people to whom that term would apply, and I understand the BearingArms staff response, but in this case I suspect we’re using what I believe to be a shill to illustrate a term in order to justify using that term against others.
If someone says they support the Second Amendment “but…”, they’re not one of us. It doesn’t matter if they’re hunters or not, they’re just not part of the shooting community. They don’t want to be, and that’s fine, but rather than attacking them personally how about instead we focus on defeating their arguments with fact and logic? I submit that doing so will do far more good than calling them names.
Even if I agree with the sentiment.
-=[ Grant ]=-