[NIGHTWATCH]

I read this on a NYC based Yahoo user group thread. Did this happen? Did it work? And if it did, why is there even an AWB? Thanks. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The solution is simple and pioneered by Ronny Barrett. If you remember when
the LAPD came out against 50 cals, what did he do? He Banned the LAPD from
buying Barrets and refused to service existing ones. Remember that Glocks were
initially banned in Cali. What did Glock do? Ok no police sales. The ban ended
quickly.

What the manufacturers need to do is simple. THEY NEED TO SEND A LETTER TO
THE NYPD SAYING THAT IF ANY OF THESE BILLS PASS THERE WILL NOT BE A SINGLE SALE TO THE NYPD AND ALL WARRANTIES ARE VOID (hey if the guns are broke they can't kill any innocent people)

This is the answer to the lawsuits, the assault weapons ban, etc. WHY DON'T
THEY JUST DO IT ALREADY AND STOP BULLSH*%ING!

Tim

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[TheMotivationalSpeaker]

I doubt that most gun manufacturers would be willing to show the cajones that Ronny Barrett did!

[Hkmp5sd]

The Barrett/California incident really happened.

From Barrett to LAPD

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individual to own firearms.
http://www.barrettrifles.com/ltr_bratton.htm

[NIGHTWATCH]

OMG. So this is true. :what:

The guy who posted this is right. Why are not all manufacturers getting on this train???? :confused:

[jsalcedo]

Many other manufacturers are not jumping on this band wagon because they are publicly held companies with boards of directors that are not as pro-gun as we would like.

There is also the factor where some companies would choose a short term profit off of police and military sales over the long term strategy of assuring
millions of law abiding citizens can buy their guns in the future.

[TallPine]

They gotta make the Nth quarter sales quotas.

Can't see any further ahead than that. :barf:

[dog3]

The same reason the Mauser bros didn't pull this with
the Wehrmacht when that government banned private
ownership. I hope this is "nuff said".

Ronnie Barrett is a honorable man.
Glock showed some real class.
I think I know what the H&K folks are all
about. That's why I no longer own any of their
products, and never will again.

[MacPelto]

I'ts true. Much as we might like to believe it, many of the gun manufacturers out there probably don't believe in our same values. Particularly the foreign-owned ones, who have no Second Amendment. Just because they sell firearms, doesn't mean that they believe that it's our right to own them - they're perfectly happy selling them only to police/military - what do the Germans/Austrians/Anybody else care about an armed American populace? Answer - Not one thing, until it cuts into their bottom line.

[Futo Inu]

Good idea - as mentioned, it's simply a matter of cajones. I've GOT to get a Barrett now!

[answerguy]

As good a time as any to mention this: it's been mentioned that on 9/11 we should have scrambled fighter planes to shoot down the hijacked ariliners. But why go to all that trouble when a couple of guys on the ground could have just taken them out with 50 caliber Barretts? Think of the tax savings. :D

[NIGHTWATCH]

Maybe its time to start boycotting gun manufacturers instead of celebrities and musicians? :rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

Why are not all manufacturers getting on this train?

Divide and conquer is a tried and true leftist tactic.

[Quartus]

They gotta make the Nth quarter sales quotas.

Can't see any further ahead than that.




Bingo. Money, not principle.



Which, oddly enough, often leads to the poor house.

[jimpeel]

Basically, the same thing would have happened if the tobacco companies had, at the advent of the Florida lawsuit, simply stated that they woould suspend all sales and the filling of orders in that state until the lawsuit was settled. At that point, the state of Florida would have been in the soup. The loss of revenue would have killed them and they would have had but two choices:

1. Allow the lawsuit to go on and take the hit on the loss of revenue (419.7 million dollars in FY 2001)

2. Lodge an anti-trust lawsuit against tobacco companies for restraint of trade and collusion, thereby showing themselves to be the hypocrites they are.

Unfortunately, the tobacco companies didn't have the guts, or the legal council with the guts to recommend this aproach, and the rest is history. More and more states jumped on the bandwagon because the tobacco companies refused to make an example of the state of Florida.

Don't expect the firearms companies to act any differently (Barrett excepted).

By the by, in answer to the thread header, yes, it would work.

[greyhound]

Just because they sell firearms, doesn't mean that they believe that it's our right to own them - they're perfectly happy selling them only to police/military - what do the Germans/Austrians/Anybody else care about an armed American populace?

Does anybody know what % of firearm sales goes to police/military? Seems that the American populace would make up a pretty good portion of sales, so it would be stupid business to write off that segment of the market. Doesn't mean they wouldn't do it, of course.

[4v50 Gary]

Politicians don't think like we do. They go on Polls and how to keep buoyed up and their name positively protrayed by the media. Results of their actions may not even benefit society, but that's not important. It benefits them. :mad: