Detroit Jay

About the Colt not doing anything to hurt us? Have you priced out an Anaconda lately?? My brother bought one in 2000, brand new 6" Ported for $490. The same gun today is $1000+. Heck you can buy a BFR for less.
Jay

Big Al C

I dont hold the current owners of S&W responsible for what a bunch of British businessmen did in a different political climate. I have two S&W's and they are fine revolvers, better than any other companies current guns I have tried. I figure that if we hold grudges too long we will just be hurting our own interests as shooters and hunters.

driftrider

Or perhaps the opposite is true.

Maybe if we held the grudge forever it would send a crystal clear message to the other firearms makers that they ought not ever consider selling out their customers for political purposes ever again. I think the S&W thing has definately made the other manufacturers stand to and take notice, as no one else followed suit. The fact that S&W is still in business is testament to gun owner's general lack of resolve regarding the preservation of our firearms rights against all forms of assault, including assaults from within the very industry that is supposed to be our allies. When S&W shook Slick Willie's hand and aquiesed to his anti-gun politics, they used their free hand to reach around and stab gun owners in the back.

And given that neither the old or new leadership of S&W has publically apologized to their constituants and the rest of the gun industry for setting such a dangerous precident, I don't feel that they deserve to be forgiven just yet. And as for the issue of S&W being under new American ownership...well, that doesn't excuse the actions of the company's past unless the new leaders own up to the past mistakes, which they haven't. They just bought the company thinking that gun owners memories would remain as short as they'd always seem to been in the past and act like nothing bad happened.

In my book that just isn't good enough.

Mike

targetpuncher

Sold us out ?? So Smith & Wesson are guilty of treason ?.... for, let me see..... making a business decision that ANY of your PET companies would make, if they thought it would be to
their stockholder's advantage. Like every other company in this business, S&W are trying to
protect their interests. I dare say that you would do the same, if it meant potentially higher
costs if you did not (or regulation that could be WORSE).
I personally do not agree, any more than any of you, that the firearms industry should
completely "cave" to the anti-gun lobby. I expect, though, that S&W made their decision due
to the advice of the legal profession (whom we ALL support through our overly-litigious society) -
in order to forestall a long-term settlement (similar to that of the tobacco industry).
It is very obvious, to anyone who is paying attention, that additional regulation of firearms in this country is coming. We are ALL, collectively, to blame for this - (the alarming level of gun
violence here, plus our society made up of people who will sue at the drop of a hat). The question is, do we try to work with those anti-gun forces toward compromise....so that we can have RESPONSIBLE regulation (that will allow all of us to continue to enjoy our hobby)? Or, do we stick our heads in the sand - and deny forever the very concept that some additional regulation might
be needed - which will virtually guarantee that the anti-gun forces will eventually win-out. Which
would you choose ? I choose compromise, in the name of reduced gun violence AND being
able to continue in this hobby.

driftrider

Thanks for overgeneralizing and lumping lawful gun owners with the scumbags that illegally use guns to commit crimes. Blaming the innocent for the acts of the guilty is typical leftist thinking.

You're probably right about the reasons that the S&W leadership did what they did, but that doesn't excuse them for doing it. For your information, all of us do not support our overly litigious society, which is evident from the fact that many of us don't excuse S&W's actions just because their lawyers told them to. Also, in case you haven't noticed, recent strong efforts have been made to reform tort law and prevent the ambulance chasing lawyers and activist judges (where the real blame lies, not that a left-thinking individual like yourself really cares about who is really to blame).

A business trying to protect its interests by selling out their constituantcy? Hmm, doesn't seem like thats good for the customers, investors, or the company to me. And now S&W is paying the price for their assumption that their gun-owning customers wouldn't mind if they sided with anti-gun politicians. You must have gone to a different business school than I did; one that taught that corporate suicide was a good business strategy. The way I see it, if S&W can sell out gun-owners to the most anti-gun president in history, then it's the gun-owners right (and responsibility) to make that company pay for their actions by not buying their products. Like I said above, apparently it's working because no other gun company followed suit despite considerable pressure from the Clinton administration and threats of legal action.

No, we don't. The anti-gun forces and their political representatives have proven time and again that if we give them the proverbial inch, they'll take a mile. No responsible gun owner endorses the violent acts that criminals commit with guns, but the laws necessary to prosecute the criminals have been in place in this country for 230+ years. What we lack is adequate prosecution and incarceration for those who break these laws. More gun control laws won't end the violence on the street, because the armed criminal has no respect for the laws he's breaking in the first place, both the old and new ones. The only people who obey and suffer from gun control are the law abiding gun owners that do comply with the law. The only people to benefit from "responsible gun laws" are the criminals, because these laws disarm only the victims.

No, we don't stick our head in the sand. In fact, the S&W boycott is a fine example of gun owners acting in the interests of preserving their freedom. I challenge you to specify one gun control law that actually reduces crime or protects people from victimization.

Then we can hold you responsible when the BATF starts confiscating banned guns from gun owners who have never harm another soul who were victims of their own "compromise", all the while improving the job safety rating of armed felons. I once again challenge you to find one "reasonable" gun control law that hasn't been around for decades already that actually reduces gun violence. I don't think that you'll find one that. Laws that target and effect only lawful citizens don't reduce crime, because lawful citizens don't, by definition, commit such crimes. Vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment, as well a healthy and well deserved fear that their victim may be armed, are the only real deterrents for violent criminals. All the laws we need to accomplish the former have been around for decades or centuries. The latter are finally becoming more and more common as people and their elected state representatives realize that the victim has the right and therefore deserves to possess the ability to defend themselves, and that empowering the victims is the best way to prevent violent crime, and have thus enacted shall-issue concealed carry laws that allow lawful citizens to arm themselves. Of course, you won't find CCW laws on the anti-gunners "reasonable" gun safety law wish-list, but they have been the only ones that have proven to actually accomplish their intended goal.

Oh, and to touch on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment...it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN OWNERSHIP AS A HOBBY!!! The 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee us our God-given (inalienable) right to control and protect ourselves from both foreign aggressors AND from the tyranny of our own government. The 2nd Amd. wasn't meant to protect your right to hunt deer with a your .30-30, but rather to provide the citizens the means to secure their own liberties against a corrupt and determined government by force if necessary. The Founders knew from experience that the threat of armed insurrection, and rebellion if necessary, was the only sure means of preserving liberty, and THAT ALONE is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The recreational use of firearms is mearly a pleasant biproduct of the original intent of the amendment.

I think that you need to pick whose side you're really on. If we don't draw the line in the sand and stand our ground, it is WE that will lose our rights to protect ourselves and our liberty and become little more than slaves of the government we can no longer control.

Here's a PDF document that you should download and read in its entirety. Once you do, come back and tell us what you think about the "reasonable gun safety" laws that are slowly destroying our freedom while doing NOTHING to protect us.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

And here's another essay you should read:

http://www.rkba.org./comment/cowards.html

And another:

http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000218.html#000218

Mike

Briman

Driftrider, I bet you are feeling like your head has been bouncing off a brick wall by now.[:@]
I've noticed a trend here lately and on a few other gun boards where people are showing up, spouting off about how we need to have more gun control, then disappearing a day or two later.[:@]



Another thought on S&W. When I bought a gun from Springfield Armory awhile back, they included a coupon for all kinds of nice goodies at cut rate prices including magazines for about 1/3 retail price, shirts, hats, knives, etc. If maybe S&W were to do something like this, or maybe team up with winchester, UMC, or Federal and include a 1/2 off coupon for a case of ammo, it would be a wiw-win situation for everyone- it would show that they support shooting sports, would sweeten the deal on a new handgun, and would also promote the manufacturer's ammo.

Anyone from S&W listening? I have $500 burning a hole in my pocket which I might buy another Garand with unless S&W can convince the money in a different direction

targetpuncher

Thank you so much, driftrider, for setting me straight on all of these matters. I especially thank you for the legal counseling. Obviously, you are a great expert on what works for our society and what doesn't. Thank you as well for attempting to insult me by calling me a leftist. Whatever label
you wish to apply, so be it.
I am curious as to just who is generalizing, here. You obviously took issue with my assertion
that we are all to blame, in a sense, for the level of gun violence in this country. I, of course,
intended that statement to be taken in a larger, sociological sense. Evidently you didn't grasp the
import of it. Or, would you dispute that, since as members of this society, we all have a hand in
the development and direction of it - the good and the bad? Or are YOU, perhaps, above it all?
Further, I don't really think that you can defend the statement about the anti-gun elements 'taking
a mile, if we give them an inch' - as anything but overgeneralizing. Certainly your assertion that
"blaming the innocent for the actions of the guilty is typical leftist thinking" cannot be characterized
as anything but an overgeneralization. Since you are obviously not a "leftist", how would you know
what IS typical leftist thinking ?
As for choosing what side I am on.... I will continue to be on the side of responsible gun owners who are not irrationally terrified of any and all regulation. The future of gun ownership in this country (whether for "hobby" purposes or for purposes of the "great survivalist war", which you, perhaps, fervently believe is coming... or are looking forward to) unfortunately, in all probability, hinges on some additional (hopefully reasonable) regulation -to make a dent in the problem of easy gun availability to criminals.
By the way, I never advocated penalizing law abiding citizens for anything. If you are, in fact, a law-abiding citizen.... and a responsible gun owner/user.... then I must ask.... what are you afraid of ? Come now, you can't actually believe that it is even politically POSSIBLE for the evil government to confiscate all of your guns, can you? Perhaps you are only just worried about the illegal ones in your collection, yes? The purpose of gun-control efforts should be to remove guns
from the hands of criminals.... and to thereby reduce the level of gun violence in this wonderful
nation of ours. Do you not agree that this is a worthy goal ? If it is, then how would that be accomplished without some controls ? Or, perhaps, you would rather we just have a "wild west"
sort of society.... all of us "packing heat" at all times, ready to take out anyone who crosses us ?
I would remind you and others that, before a criminal becomes as such, there is NO way to tell
whether an individual might go that way in life. With no (or very few regulations), it just makes
it that much easier for those that choose "the dark side" to obtain the tools of their trade. I would
further remind you that ALL of the guns in the hands of criminals came from somewhere. They
are not being manufactured by some underground, evil gun company, expressly for the criminal
market. In fact, those guns come from legitimate sources.... due to inadequate regulations (and
as you alluded - to inadequate enforcement of existing laws). Since we, as a society, have not
seemingly found a legal solution yet, to these issues, is it not at least POSSIBLE that the laws need some tweaking ? Or, as you assert, is the problem is only that existing laws/regulations are not
being enforced? Really, the "rightists" (as opposed to "leftists" like me) have been in power for
some time now... (the White House, as well as a majority in both houses of Congress). If they
(you) have all of the answers (better enforcement of existing laws) - then, why haven't they
moved to increase enforcement of these laws ? Could it be that this is, perhaps, not the total
solution.... (and most reasonable people recognize this)? Hmm, food for thought.
I wonder, also, why you wish to blame "the most anti-gun President in history" (I assume that
you mean Clinton) for what is happening NOW. Unless I am very much mistaken, I believe that
it is Mr. Bush, not Mr. Clinton, that is currently the President..... and has been for three-plus years.
So, why have we no perfect solutions, which in no way affect law-abiding gun owners, such as
yourself ? Is it that the "Assault Weapons Ban" has caused all of this mayhem ? Perhaps if we
issue fully-automatic Kalashnikovs to all of the trully GOOD gun owners (you can be first in line) -
you guys can go out and kick some criminal butt - and save us all. Thank God for Rambo (driftrider) !
Again, I wish to make it clear: I am NOT now (and never have) advocated penalizing responsible, law-abiding citizens (by confiscating their guns or any other draconian measures).
(After all, if that were to happen, I would lose my guns as well.) I am only asserting that, in the
real world of today (which is where I live, driftrider.... where do you reside?)... some additional
regulations regarding guns MAY be needed, in order to effect a solution to the problem of guns
in the hands of the criminal population. If by this, it becomes necessary to cause me to have to
accept a "waiting period".... or, perhaps, register my guns with the police, or even, accept a
limitation on the magazine capacity (or indeed the type) of weapon I may purchase... then, as
long as those regulations are REASONABLE (oops, there's that horrible word again)... I would
consider it an acceptable price to pay for saving lives and protecting our children's future (in-
cluding, I might add, YOUR children, driftrider).
You challenged me, driftrider, to find one gun-control law or regulation on the books that has
reduced crime. Well, as you know, that is impossibly broad and statistically not provable. I, too,
would like to challenge you. Can you prove that allowing citizens ownership of guns (even CCW
regulations, as you seem to support) - has ever reduced crime, either ? No, no, I am not referring
to anecdotal evidence ("well, my brother Harvey knew this guy that...") or simply the opinion of
gun owners like me or you.... or, for that matter, the OPINIONS expressed in the essays which
you were so keen for me to read. I am referring to hard facts, as you seem to demand from me.
Well, I will answer my own question. Of course, you CAN'T offer any such proof.
So, where does that lead us ? You can't prove that gun-control doesn't work.... and I cannot
prove that it does. Hmm, whatever are we to do ? I am merely in favor of TRYING.... and making
the attempt to compromise - so to effect some improvement in the situation. I do not accept that
that is an unreasonable (or, automatically "leftist") point of view.
I would further assert that, if we as citizens do not like the policies of our own government,
we do, ultimately have the power to change that government. As for Smith & Wesson, boycott
them as you will. It is, as they say, a free country. I am neither in favor of, nor against, Smith &
Wesson and their policies. I am simply not willing to brand them (or anyone else) as "sell-outs"
without due evidence as to the end-result of their policies.
Have a nice day.

Briman

Target puncher- riddle me this:
Why is it that places that already have what you call "reasonable gun control" such as New York city, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago also have the highest levels of murders involving guns?

If you want to have gun ownership regulated down to a hobby, move to somewhere like the UK or Australia. You may not appreciate the freedoms we have, but once they are gone they will never be regained. I don't own any "assault rifles" yet, but I will be the first in line at the local gun shop with a huge wad of cash in hand if the government ever decides that citizens can no longer own these rifles. You can stand around with your dick in your hand when the fascism follows, I will fight them.

targetpuncher

To answer your question, Briman..... very simple. Just load the guns in your car.... drive into
any one of those cities you mentioned..... and sell the guns on the "black market". Having controls
in any/all of those cities does little or no good - if the rest of the country around them does not.
Your analogy about these cities partly proves my point.... thank you.
As for your second statement, when did I say that I wished to have gun ownership regulated
"down to a hobby" ?? I don't believe that I ever said that. All I have said (since it becomes
painfully obvious that you either can't or won't carefully read my posts) is that additional controls
MAY be necessary in order to affect a decrease in the quantity of guns in criminal hands. There,
I've said it again. Plainly. Did you get that ?
You certainly may not agree, which is your right. (Great how we have a free country, so that
we can disagree, isn't it ?) By the way, thanks for the advice about moving to "somewhere like
the UK or Australia". But no, I think I'll stay. You see, this is my country, TOO. So, I think that
I'll stay and continue to try to make things better, for us all.
Your comment regarding "assault rifles" is interesting. So, you'll be the first in line at your local
gun shop (when the government bans them)? Well, good for you. I don't need to do that. I
already have the ones that I want, you see. This reaction of yours (including the obvious anger you project at me) creates the impression that you ARE planning for the "great survivalist war" .... or Helter Skelter, or Armageddon... (or whatever you choose to call it). A very responsible
attitude, I must say. My desire is to PREVENT such a calamity. It appears that, you are LOOKING
FORWARD TO IT. Hmm, kind of an interesting.... I wonder which of us REALLY has the best
interests of this nation at heart?
Finally, I will say that, though it has been great fun "calmly" discussing these issues with you
and driftrider, I think that now is the time to agree to disagree. You (and others) are obviously
bothered immensely (perhaps, even frightened) by the MERE MENTION of gun control. This
certainly, was not my original intent. Do calm down, remember this is not good for your blood pressure. I wonder, at this point, if it is even possible to have a civil discussion of these matters, with you or others. I have my doubts. In any case, I shall now move on to other matters. I consider this particular thread closed.
Have a nice day.

Danny45

Geeze, now I have a headache! Targetpuncher, you are stereotypical of former gun owners in the UK, Australia, and Canada. Your attitude is not dissimilar to the citizens of those countries. In fact, you are worse than they were. They were just complacent and let things happen without standing up for their rights. You seem to want gun control. You say the reason the DC, Chicago, New York etc are having such problems with gun violence is because the rest of the country doesn't control the guns the way they do. Well, the aforementioned countries all control guns, and their gun violence is no less than those cities. So your argument on that is ridiculous. What about the cities in the US that have laws stating you must own a firearm? Those cities have the lowest violent crimes in the nation. So do the States that have right to carry laws on the books.

Are you calling gun owners that aren't afraid to stand up for their rights warmongers? Seems that way. You seem to think that Briman and Driftrider WANT to have another civil war over gun ownership. How do you know that? Did I miss something in their posts that said that, or are you just generalizing? Hmmm, seems to me you used that word a bit also. You also seem to want to bash Driftrider when all he did was answer each one of your points in your post. Since you didn't like his reasoning, you want to turn it into a pissing match.

No, S&W is not guilty of treason. But yes, they sold us out. Kind of funny that they were under British ownership during that time huh? Your comments again are foolish since no other gun manufacturer did what they did. And they had the opportunity to do so at the same time S&W did. It wasn't because they saw what we were doing to S&W with the boycott because it hadn't happened yet. But they didn't sell us out the way S&W did because they value their customers. Face it, without customers, a business is not going to survive. The government isn't going to save them.

I hope you continue to live in your own little cocoon and rely on others to stand up for what's right. Someday, you might get to continue punching paper because of those that know what's right and stands up for it. I certainly have no faith that you'll be there beside us.