Boycott Colt


PDA






Boss Spearman
May 18, 2005, 11:29 AM
I feel I must speak on this. I saw a Colt representative on the History Channel saying Colt feels compelled to develop the smart gun, for the safety of their customers.

The smart gun only allows its owner to fire it. No one else can. This technology to me is far worse than the Clinton deal S&W signed.
Yet, everyone brags on Colts and buys Colts, while ripping S&W or Ruger for their deals. How can gun owners sit by and allow Colt to do this, and continue to buy them? The Colt company is a traitor to American gun owners. I feel we must let them know if they pursue this smart gun nonsense we will not buy them.
I had to say something, because it deeply distresses me that people are still so loyal to Colt dispite this smart gun garbage.

If you enjoyed reading about "Boycott Colt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
May 18, 2005, 12:09 PM
If Colt wants to build a Series 2000 smart gun let them. It's their money. As long as they don't eliminate choice for the consumer it's fine with me. I will still buy the Series 70 and Series 80 guns that don't have that gimmicky technology.

Now if the Colt openly lobbies for a law requiring every gun have the technology, and drops the old series 70/80 that is deserving of boycott.

GEM
May 18, 2005, 12:51 PM
How old was the show? The 2000 is dead as a gun as is the Colt CZ model that was a basis of the smart gun.

What is their current view?

There was a great deal of debate about Colt when the smart gun stories were out several years ago.

Is this a repeat?

jmilliron
May 18, 2005, 01:42 PM
A fitting story for the History channel.

-jason m

unspellable
May 18, 2005, 02:43 PM
You won't have to worry about it. The way Colt has been going they will no longer be selling anything to the general public by the time the "smart gun" is "perfected".

spacemanspiff
May 18, 2005, 02:47 PM
boycotting only makes the boycotter feel good about 'standing up for something'. its akin to standing on a street corner waving a placard that reads 'Duct tape nukes to baby whales to swim through bloody oil to attack china and free tibet for jesus!' anyone who sees you with that sign is going to ignore you. they will forget your movement 5 seconds after you are out of sight.

if you want a manufacturer to change their practices or mantra, they must be made aware that consumers are displeased. simply not buying their products doesnt send the message clearly.

your intent is to try and hit them 'where it hurts'. well supposedly s&w and ruger have been 'boycotted', but it hasnt stopped them from marketing new products.

but then you gotta realize that there are consumers out there (much like myself) that care not one whit about the politics of a manufacturer. i bought a colt AR instead of a bushie because i dont care about colts policies of not marketing so-called assault rifles to the general public, or about their decision to machine their lowers to not allow the trigger group to be modified to FA. that means absolutely nothing to me.

do you know what your proposed boycott will wind up doing? working in favor of colts diehard customers that wait patiently for their orders to be filled. so you all will likely wind up being thanked by other gunowners in the long run, but for reasons you did not originally intend.

boofus
May 18, 2005, 03:38 PM
Colt and HK still answer to the almighty dollar and when they see the dollars go to their competitors they will react quite predictably.

I predict HK will see the light soon when FN reaps huge profits next year from sold out production runs of the F2000 and P90.

unspellable
May 18, 2005, 06:53 PM
boofus,

Your statement appears to be based on the assumption that there is intelligent life in the offices with a view.

Colt has been watching the dollar go else where for a long time and they have yet to do anything about it.

Can't speak for HK's case, haven't been following it.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 18, 2005, 07:26 PM
A painless boycott for me since they don't make anything I want to own right now. If they ever restart production of the Detective Special or the other revolvers then It'd bite.

But you know if and when Colt restarts the revolver line it'll have a safety lock a la Taurus or S&W, and a billboard a la Ruger.

Mr. X
May 18, 2005, 07:29 PM
Boycott Colt?

Haven't they been boycotting the consumer for years? :rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
May 18, 2005, 07:29 PM
If Colt were able to develop a so-called "smart gun," you could bet your last nickel it'd be out of production within two weeks—unless, of course, it didn't work at all, in which case, it would muscle real guns off the production line.

Boss Spearman
May 18, 2005, 09:20 PM
Not caring about the politics of firearms manufacturers will one day help to result in us losing our guns rights, I fear.

Jeff White
May 19, 2005, 05:38 AM
Not caring about the politics of firearms manufacturers will one day help to result in us losing our guns rights, I fear.

And who do you think the manufacturers would sell their product to? The military and police market is really pretty small.

Jeff

Beren
May 19, 2005, 07:48 AM
I promise to stop buying Colt. Um..well..as soon as I finish paying of a 6920 and pick up a GSP and GSP Commander.

Nightfall
May 19, 2005, 02:40 PM
Not buying Colt isn't a big loss to me. There are better AR choices, and better 1911 choices, IMHO.

JohnBT
May 19, 2005, 03:15 PM
I still like my WWI replica.

And I still can't see driving a gun company out of business. We need more gun companies, not less. There's no hope of them seeing the error of their ways if they're out of business.

John

Lobotomy Boy
May 19, 2005, 03:33 PM
The Smart Gun debacle was two or three bankruptcies ago for Colt. I think that History Channel segment was filmed in 1998 or 1999. Colt has restructured a time or two since then, and probably will do so again.

It's a damned shame that a company with some marketing savvy doesn't pick up Colt. Imagine what someone like Gaston Glock could do with a brand name as strong as "Colt." Look what has been done with the name "Springfield," which not too long ago was another defunct or struggling American icon. Getting control of a brand as iconic as Colt would be a dream come true for any half-bright marketing whiz.

If a company with some serious resources purchased Colt and invested in revitalizing the brand, and I was directing the brand, I'd:

1. Develop a new line of 1911 models that incorporated all the real improvements available and used top-end parts, and sell it alongside existing models for traditionalists.

2. Develop the highest-quality ARs available on the civilian market, guns that justified their price tags.

3. Bring back the full revolver line, including Pythons, Anacondas, and Detective Specials.

4. Develop a line of custom, hand-built, high-performance handguns ala Smith's Performance Center guns.

5. Bring back a modern version of the Woodsman, packaged in period-style boxes.

6. Develop a complete line of modern, poly-framed, striker-fired handguns (though this would take place after the above moves had proven successful).

7. Promote the bejeezus out of all the guns above, like Sig and Smith did with their 1911s. Get guns on the covers of all the gun mags and have reps at every gun show and open house worth attending. Let the world know the brand was back and stronger than ever.

Nathaniel Firethorn
May 19, 2005, 03:54 PM
If Colt wants to build a Series 2000 smart gun let them. It's their money. As long as they don't eliminate choice for the consumer it's fine with me.That's exactly what will happen. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=124034) Anyone who buys Colt products is AFAIC an accomplice.

- pdmoderator

McPherson
May 19, 2005, 04:04 PM
Anyone who buys Colt products is AFAIC an accomplice.
An accomplice to the great conspiracy eh? Wow I feel like I'm part of something.

Can one circumvent the designation of "accomplice" by purchasing used Colts?

Nathaniel Firethorn
May 19, 2005, 04:15 PM
Yeah, you're a part of something, all right... Troll. :rolleyes:

- pd

spacemanspiff
May 19, 2005, 04:27 PM
whoooooooooo hooooooooooooooooo! i'm an accomplice!!!

:scrutiny: :rolleyes:

McPherson
May 19, 2005, 04:51 PM
Yeah, you're a part of something, all right... Troll.
You still didn't answer my question. My status as an "accomplice" is seriously threatened if I don't clarify this issue. It is very important that I retain my "accomplice" designation so I can collect my reward from Colt once civilian ownership of firearms is made illegal.

Oh nevermind, I forgot about the Ruger I purchased a few years back so I have nothing to worry about right?

bearmgc
May 19, 2005, 04:53 PM
Last time I checked, there were a whole bunch of gun manufacturers, with a vast variety of models and designs to choose from. The industry is competitive. If Colt wants to pander to the elite, or to the Government, who cares. I don't have a desire to buy anymore Colts, but that's because, in my part of the world, a new Colt is as elusive as a Bigfoot. I can find something else with equal or better quality with much less effort. I don't think Colt wants my business that bad, my feelings aren't hurt.

Lobotomy Boy
May 19, 2005, 04:58 PM
Yeah, you're a part of something, all right... Troll.

Chill out, PD. The moderators work hard to prevent this sort of name calling. We should respect them enough to avoid such behavior. I apologize for getting on a soapbox here, but you've crossed the line.

FNFiveSeven
May 20, 2005, 06:00 AM
Ahhh spacemanspiff. Someone starts a thread about problems with Colt, and just like clockwork, there you are defending them. I like this quote:

you gotta realize that there are consumers out there (much like myself) that care not one whit about the politics of a manufacturer.

It's called principles spaceman, some people have them, and apparently, some people don't... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah BTW, boycotts do work because, believe it or not, manufacturers do care whether or not people are buying their products. Ain't capitolism great?

FNFiveSeven
May 20, 2005, 06:02 AM
Ahhh spacemanspiff. Someone starts a thread about problems with Colt, and just like clockwork, there you are defending them. I like this quote:

you gotta realize that there are consumers out there (much like myself) that care not one whit about the politics of a manufacturer.

It's called principles spaceman, some people have them, and apparently, some people don't... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah BTW, boycotts do work because, believe it or not, manufacturers do care whether or not people are buying their products. Ain't capitolism great?

Sean Smith
May 20, 2005, 08:52 AM
I feel I must speak on this. I saw a Colt representative on the History Channel saying Colt feels compelled to develop the smart gun, for the safety of their customers.

Let's see, you see a TV show about Colt doing R&D on something, and you're howling for blood? I think that bit was 5 years old or something, it was done back when calling your gun "2000" still sounded cool.

JohnBT
May 20, 2005, 09:31 AM
My interpretation of Colt's public relations strategy...

1996: Gun critics say "Guns are dangerous."
Colt says "We're working on a smart gun."

2000: Gun critics say "Guns are dangerous."
Colt says "We're working on a smart gun."

Today: Gun critics say "Guns are dangerous."
Colt says "We're still working on it...and will be for some time." ;)

Anybody see the pattern?

John

Boss Spearman
May 22, 2005, 11:47 PM
When the powers that be trying to influence manufacturers to go the anti route with devices such as smart guns finally get absolute power, they won't care at that point if those manufacturers stay in business.

Antis don't think about how they'll get weapons in the event of war, they just want to get rid of them.

Lobotomy Boy
May 23, 2005, 09:24 AM
During the house debates about passing the Minnesota Personal Protection Act one anti-gun representative said, "We should be working to disarm the public, not arm them."

You'd think that would scare some sense into the hunters, gun manufacturers, and legislators who might be tempted to compromise with these people, but I still hear hunters who say, "I don't like handguns," and, "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?"

Elmer
May 23, 2005, 10:17 AM
Having met the management of most of the firearms companies, if you think the main concern of any of them, is protecting our 2nd Ammend rights, you're sadly mistaken.

CAS700850
May 23, 2005, 10:57 AM
Elmer is right. The first concerns of the management of these companies is the profit of the companies. If that cooincides with 2A issues, great. They look good to the shooting public, and profits increase. In this case, Colt sees some writing on the wall about "smart gun" technology, and they want to maximize profit potential, and not get caught behind the curve again, so they start developing the technology.

Can I fault them for conducting R&D in this area? Not yet...

Tory
May 23, 2005, 11:58 AM
"I feel I must speak on this. I saw a Colt representative on the History Channel saying Colt feels compelled to develop the smart gun, for the safety of their customers."


Did you happen to notice that the quote was a HALF-DECADE old? BEFORE you cluttered up at least two forums with it?


Was it a stupid remark? Possibly - then again, Colt may have again been sucking up to the antis in the pathetic delusion that it would be spared from their pogroms. Was it an attempt to cover up its suck-up tactics by blaming the ignorance of the general population and Colt's "concern" for its customers? Possibly.


Is this attempt to cause a flap over an old statement by a management group no longer in place serving any useful purpose? Hardly. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Boycott Colt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!