[Zedicus]

Are Colt & Smith & Wesson Off of your buying list for any new Firearms as a result of the betrayals of the Supporters of 2nd Amendment?

(If you don't know what I mean, Please look at the 2 in the list below.)

Colt Researchs Smart-Guns, and supports the Smart-Gun Law.
S&W Supported Clintion's moronic idea (can't remember what it's called).


And I can't remember which it was but one or both of them Supported the new idiotic Restrictions Imposed in the Loony Bin State (C.A).

Personaly I think that they are both "Supporting" themselves out of the Firearms Industry by Siding with the Gun-Grabbers.

As a Result, I will not buy a firearm from them that was made after they more or less turned on there Coustomers.

Just my $0.02...

What about you?

[Rebel Gunman HK]

I like my guns dumb. Im the smart one. :evil:

[ARperson]

The short answer to your question is 'yes.'

But I don't buy from Colt anyway because I refuse to pay for the name when I know there is something out there that works equally well or better and doesn't cost as much.

[Cosmoline]

I thought Colt stopped making iron for sheeple a few years ago.

I don't buy new firearms much anymore, so this rarely comes up. There's too many good OLD S&W and Colts out there to waste money on the overpriced firearms S&W at least produceds today, politics or no.

[Mark Tyson]

Someone tell me: who makes good wheelguns besides Colt, Ruger and Smith? All three of these companies are on my list.

Oh yes, I also thought that Colt stopped making weapons for us little people a few years ago.

[MicroBalrog]

Someone tell me: who makes good wheelguns besides Colt, Ruger and Smith?


Taurus? Freedom Arms?

[Thumper]

In my opinion, Colt's transgressions aren't even close to S&Ws.

I used to badmouth Colt quality as badly as anyone but, under the new management, the Gov't Models (past two years) are an incredible buy. Tolerances perfect and bluing "old school," even on the formerly crap 1991 models.

...and the "not selling to civilians" was internet hokum.

[Lone_Gunman]

If you dont like S&W or Colt because of their politics... just buy used.


Their older guns are usually better anyway.

[Sean Smith]

In my opinion, Colt's transgressions aren't even close to S&Ws.

I used to badmouth Colt quality as badly as anyone but, under the new management, the Gov't Models (past two years) are an incredible buy. Tolerances perfect and bluing "old school," even on the formerly crap 1991 models.

...and the "not selling to civilians" was internet hokum.

Agreed. Colt looked into smart gun technology (and apparently dumped it). Dopey, but no big deal in my book. Not even the same order of magnitude as what S&W did.

I thought Colt stopped making iron for sheeple a few years ago.

Wrong. And by my count Colt is selling close to 50 different firearm models to the public.

http://www.colt.com/CMCI/home.asp

[greyhound]

well, when I was a newbie and had no clue about the boycott, I bought a used S&W.

Not saying I wouldn't buy a new one if a great deal came along, but I'd think twice about it....

[GSB]

Smith paid the price. Or should I say their foreign owners paid the price. I'm not about to beat up the new owners over it. Yeah, yeah, before anyone goes on about how the new guys didn't crawl across broken glass and brave a volcano to make their way through Mordor to throw the Agreement in a river of fire and purge their souls of their inherited cosmic guilt through ritual scourging, I've heard it all before.

It's simple for me. The guys who screwed up are gone, pushed out of the business by the boycott, and new guys are running the store -- people who've gone out of their way even to the point of having reps go out and letting the masses test drive their product line.

Carrot and stick folks. If you don't let up on people when they try to do better, then you don't give anyone any incentive to try to placate you in the future. They'll just write you off and move on.

[Zedicus]

Agreed. Colt looked into smart gun technology (and apparently dumped it). Dopey, but no big deal in my book. Not even the same order of magnitude as what S&W did.
True, S&W more or less Stabbed there own Coustomers in the Back and releaved themselves on there remains....

[CGofMP]

I do not mind colt, though I have never bought one of their products as the prices were too high anyhow.

Smith & Wesson on the other hand.... I opine that they betrayed myself and all other gunowners and though the new management APOLOGISES for their agreements they have yet to crawl across broken glass and brave a volcano to make their way through Mordor to throw the Agreement in a river of fire and purge their souls of their inherited cosmic guilt through ritual scourging by truly RENOUNCING the agreements.

The truth of the matter is those agreements are STILL in place. The next time a Klintonesqe administration comes into power they probably CAN BE ENFORCED!

I WILL buy used S&W pieces which were made before the agreement... In fact I did just last year... but until they renounce their betrayal, they will not see one single hard earned dollar of mine.

This is too bad because I believe that they make the best revolvers ... I love the 586/686 series and in fact have a well worn 586 that has made me very proud.

S&W's loss is a gain for other gun companies however... There are plenty of other items I'd love to have... I will spend money on them. A Thompson Contender sounds like a fun toy, I'd love a Luger, and someday I'll get a Jardine's Custom 1911..... If I can get out of CCCPalifornia I will get something class III...

S&W DOES have the opportunity to win back my business, but they will have to do some pretty heroic and brave things to do so.

Charles


S&W's Dance With The Devil (http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/gunagree.html) can be found here
An interesting read on this can be found here (http://www.seark.net/~jlove/s&w_faq.htm)

[Moparmike]

New, they are both too expensive for me. I cant even afford 90% of their used products.

[TheeBadOne]

The anti's must love it when they can sit back and let gun owners put gun makers out of business, with out rasing a pinkie... :scrutiny:

[Standing Wolf]

I don't do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

[Alan Fud]

Posted by Jeff OTMG (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25873#post314451): S&W has been actively dismantling the work of the former administration. They have had 12 agreements repealed, the largest being the one with Boston. Keep your eyes on the news this fall, you just might see something that may surprise you.

I still boycott Ruger, but when S&W went to the AG and cities to try to get this resolved, they were okay in my book. For liability reasons you will NEVER see S&W take out an ad saying 'WOO-HOO! Look what we did! We got out of it!' If you are waiting for that, you will never buy a new S&W. Posted by ahadams (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12072#post152818): AFAIK those who said that the agreement with the govt is an assumed liability are essentially correct. They are, however, ignoring something else that happened about 5 or 6 months into the current Bush administration. At that point in time the Bush Administration stated (publicly, but not terribly loudly) that they did not see the agreement as enforcible and were not interested in enforcing it. I do not know the technical terminology for this, but what they've effectively done is to give the new S&W an out which does not require them to spend one more dollar on legal fees in this regard. Even should (God forbid) President Bush not get re-elected, by the time whoever comes after him gets into office the government will have allowed the agreement to lapse due to the fault of the government, which means S&W gets off scott free as long as they keep their mouths shut.

Do you get it NOW?

[Tamara]

Colt Researchs Smart-Guns...

So does SIG. Probably other companies, too. (SIG had an "authorized user" P-226 prototype on the covers of all the gun rags as far back as '95.)

[Parker Dean]

Originally posted by Cosmoline
I thought Colt stopped making iron for sheeple a few years ago.


While this has already been refuted I'll expand on it a bit.

I, too, used to believe that Colt stopped making commercial firearms but this was never true. At best it was a misunderstanding of Colt's position, and at worst it was a blatant lie that took advantage of a change in the sales policy at Colt.

What happened was that Colt chose to stop selling guns directly to whatever FFL called them up and said they wanted one. The change in sales policy was that Colt would now sell only to distributors, who the retail FFL's would then buy from.

Not that hard to understand IMO, but here nearly a decade later the rumor persists. Not that Colt has done just a whole lot to dispel the myth until here recently.

[six 4 sure]

My decision not to purchase (new) Colt or S&W has little to do with their politics and more to do with they don’t make anything I want. I have purchased Colt and S&W, but everything has been used and/or old. These include a 1911 (circa 1917), green label AR, S&W Mod 28.

[garrettwc]

1. Colt looked into smart guns, as did most every other gun manufacturer as has been previously stated. It's called new product R&D. Car manufacturers do it so that they are ahead of new emissions laws that Congress may pass.

2. Colt has never stopped making guns for the sheeple. Due to their financial conditions and the failures of previous management the supply trickled down to nothing and they are still trying to overcome the myth that they went out of the consumer business. They are coming back full force. They even have their own M4gery AR15 out again and it looks to be the schizzle:p

3. S&W doesn't have any new products that I am even remotely interested in so they are a moot point. As for the agreement, new management has chosen not to pursue it, which is a start, but still a long way from pulling out of it all together. Pure politics, don't be braver than you have to stuff. :scrutiny:

[Alan Fud]

" ... Colt has never stopped making guns for the sheeple ... "

Am I to understand that I can still buy a new Pocket-Nine and a new Magnum Carry :confused: I really wanna get my hands on them :D

[GSB]

I WILL buy used S&W pieces which were made before the agreement... In fact I did just last year... but until they renounce their betrayal, they will not see one single hard earned dollar of mine.

This type of senitment tells all gun companies "these people can't be reasoned with or mollified. I'll concentrate on the other 98% of the market and ignore the fringes." The "THEY" no longer exist. Why some people fail to grasp such a simplistic concept is beyond me.

[Joe Demko]

Ruger should have been included in this discussion of betrayal.

[Litlman]

I buy what I like and happen to have both brands. Old and new . It doesn"t to me...

[Tamara]

Am I to understand that I can still buy a new Pocket-Nine and a new Magnum Carry

No, you can't.

You also can't buy a new Model 49, Model 58, Model 581, Model 13, Model 19, Model 27.... Companies discontinue product lines all the time without sinister overtones being read into it, especially when they are hemmorhaging red ink like Colt was in the late-'90s. Maybe if they'd introduced the Magnum Carry (without troublesome QC issues) around the same time that Ruger, Taurus, and Smith introduced their little magnums, rather than half a decade late, they wouldn't have been in such dire straits in the first place.

[TheeBadOne]

Maybe if they'd introduced the Magnum Carry (without troublesome QC issues) around the same time that Ruger, Taurus, and Smith introduced their little magnums, rather than half a decade late, they wouldn't have been in such dire straits in the first place.
Amen

[Augustwest]

Not in the market right now for anything either of them sells, but I would do business with Colt, and won't with Smith until they publicly repudiate their betrayal.

[Thumper]

Remember to keep in mind that Saf-T-Hammer, the company that bought Smith, was the original "smart gun technology."

'Course, it wasn't seen as such a big deal at the time, just kinda neat..

[El Rojo]

I think S&W learned their lesson. I would buy from both, but less likely from Colt. I already have my 1911. My wife wants a Lady Smith 9mm.

[Rebel Gunman HK]

The only "Smart gun" im interested in is the ones they used in Judge Dredd!:evil: DOUBLE WHAMMY!!!!!

[Balog]

Ruger: I'll buy second hand, but not if they'll receive any profit from it.
S&W: Same as Ruger. I'll wait to see if the new management keeps up the trend of defying the agreement. Probably still wouldn't buy new even if they repudiated it, because I hate that stupid little lock.

Colt: I will never own one of these, not even if they would receive no profit. Not because of the "smart gun" fiasco, but because of the M-16. Whatever you may think of the design (I hold it's fundamentally flawed), when it was issued it was useless. Colt and that idiot McNamara pushed this abortion through over the objection of the military. They said it didn't need to be cleaned, so they didn't issue enough cleaning kits. In the middle of a war, they issued a massively unreliable, underpowered POS with out adequite training.
In short, they made a massive profit on the deaths and injuries of US servicemen. They can all burn in hell, those m*****f***ing bastards. Along with the political whores who helped push it through. I'd recommend John Leppelman's book Blood on the Risers for a detailed look at the M-16 in all it's glory. Here's a quote to illustrate what the situation was like for the grunts who got stuck with this POS. Taken from http://gunlover.8m.com/custom4.html

In May, 1967, one Marine wrote home about it:


"I just got your letter today aboard ship. We've been on an operation ever since the 21st of last month. I can just see the papers back home now - "Enemy casualties heavy, Marine casualties light". Let me give you some statistics and you decide if they were light. We left with close to 1400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. I knew I was pressing my luck. They finally got me. It wasn't bad though, I just caught a little shrapnel. I wish I could say the same for all my buddies.

...believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Before we left Okinawa, [we] were all issued this new rifle, the M16. Practically everyone of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. There was a newspaperwoman with us photographing all this and the Pentagon found out about it and won't let her publish the pictures. They say that they don't want to get the American people upset. Isn't that a laugh?"

[Silver Bullet]

Alan Fud
The post you quoted from ahadams is profoundly significant to this issue. Twice, now, in various THR threads (including the one you copied that post from) I have asked if anyone else could confirm it, and nobody speaks up.

Can you confirm that his statement is accurate and relevant ? If so, what are your legal qualifications and background ? I'm not criticizing you, I'm just looking for credible validation of ahadams' point. I sincerely hope he is correct.

[CGofMP]

This type of senitment tells all gun companies "these people can't be reasoned with or mollified.

This statement is incorrect sir. I, and others like me CAN indeed be mollified. Remember I said " but until they renounce their betrayal..." Renounce and I am mollified.

The "THEY" no longer exist. Why some people fail to grasp such a simplistic concept is beyond me.

You say that the "THEY" no longer exist. Unless I misunderstand how corporations work, with all due respect YES they do sir. The corporation is an entity with a still standing agreement that would seek to grease the skids to destroying our rights. Whether or not the English owners are gone, the legal entity, eg: the corporate entity DOES exist as its own legally continuing entity and in my opinion has the responbsibility to repudiate their failures of the past. Your so called 'simple concept' is in my opinion quite flawed because it is oversimplified, does not take into account a STANDING agreement, and the fact that the entity that signed the agreement still is bound to it.

If Mr Fud/Adhams is correct in his statement that "by the time whoever comes after him gets into office the government will have allowed the agreement to lapse due to the fault of the government, which means S&W gets off scott free as long as they keep their mouths shut." this would mittigate my position somewhat and I'd CONSIDER buying S&W (those stupid locks would have to go first however) BUT someone is going to have to PROVE to me that this is the case. I frankly doubt it and I know politicians well enough that they'd bring out their cadre of lawyers to still try and enforce it... in an environment that at THAT time would be harder to win in.

In my opinion, better for S&W to foorce the issue now when we have a friendly majority and some court decisions are going our way (product liability and shall issue stuff for instance) than to wait until the dack is stacked against us by a Clinton type administration and democrat controlled congress.

If S&W truly does mean what they now say, then there will be a fight, the question is WHEN.

I'll concentrate on the other 98% of the market and ignore the fringes."
Finally, if this gives other companies a wrong message, ie: if my standing up for your rights as well as my own makes me a 'fringe element' (something I have never been labeled before) well so be it. If they ignore me that is their perogative but I am not inclined to make decisions made on principle bassed on what a third entity will do in the future.

In any evennt, I think we can all agree that the backlash S&W visited upon istelf was quite effective. I opine that should any other company wish to enter in to such a stupid agreement in the future, that they would be quite derilect in their duties to the owners and stockholders to NOT remember and to take into account the scourging and purging that S&W received because of their poor decissions.

To those that say that its sad that gun-grabbers got their way by the near death of S&W I'd only point out that S&W did it to themselves by (in my opinion) becoming part of the gun grabber's camp.

I am not sure if this is analogous or not:
When your best general goes to the other side, it IS INDEED a loss for your side.. but Benedict Arnold was not OUR fault, his actions were his own fault, and had he been killed by our troops it would not be us attacking ourselves now would it? No, it would be us attacking someone who for whatever reason decided that the safest path lay with the enemy and not the people that made him great.

The sad thing to me is that I am an all time S&W fan. The older versions of their product are simply outstanding pieces of work. I have put many thousands of rounds through my 586 and my family and I have other older S&W products in our vault that are spectacular. (I have heard, but not personally seen, charges that some of the new stuff has fallen off a bit and I dearly hate the idea of an intergral lock but thats not the point). The thing is that if S&W would clean their bed, I'd be very happy to consider their products again. I really truly AM a fan of their revolvers and have at various times reccommended them to classes I helped teach and have had patches, mugs and other 'groupie' items that I used.

switching gears:

As for the M16 problems and Balog boycotting Colt... I think you'll find an article written by Major Dick Culver on the M16 in Nam to be very interesting indeed. Its a brief 'boots on the ground' account of what happened and it shows just how repulsive a corporate entity and politicians can be when people's lives are at stake. Have a look here: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/


Charles

[Trisha]

I buy what I like. I look for quality.

I'm from Finland. Does that mean I'll never buy something made in Germany, or one of the old Soviet-bloc countries? No.

I put this in the same context as other boycotts. Is all of my clothing only produced in countries that have eliminated child labor, or do I own a vehicle made completely in the USA? Do I buy Japanese electronics? Do I vote for politicians who slur the LBGT community? The applicable list is endless.

We make choices every day. Political activism is a wonderful, healthy expression of personal values. I choose to pursue 2A activism at the source - the politicians.

Trisha

[GSB]

With all due respect YES they do sir.

No, they don't, and I will comment no further on it.

[10-Ring]

Nope, not entirely off my list, but not on the top of the list either.

[Silver Bullet]

This isn't about punishing the previous owners. This is about (1) keeping S&W down so that if a new administration decides to start enforcing the agreement, S&W's leverage with the dealers is minimized. It's also (2) a lesson to other manufacturers to not enter into this kind of agreement with the government in the future. With regard to item (1), the ownership of the company is irrelevant; the threat from the government remains.

This is why I think ahadams' point is very crucial. If he's right, at some point in the future (1) becomes nullified, and I suspect a lot of us may be satisfied that point (2) has been made.

For those of you new to this discussion who don't understand item (1), here's an excerpt from a thread on the ol' Firing Line:

Domino Theory

How does S&W agreement infringe on 2nd Amendment rights ? Try this:

1) HUD bears down on S&W and coerces them to sign the Agreement, leading to

2) S&W required by agreement to inform Dealers that they will be not allowed
to sell S&W products unless they conform to the terms of the agreement
pertaining to dealers, including the agreement term about not selling other
Manufacturers' products unless the other Manufacturers' products also
conform to the terms of the S&W agreement, leading to

3) The Dealers don't want to lose business by not selling S&W products, so they agree to the terms, leading to

4) The other Manufacturers want Dealers to keep selling their product, so they also must conform to the terms of S&W's agreement, leading to

5) The Consumer now has reduced options, forced "safety" features, higher
prices supporting anti-firearm advertising, and government intervention in
the firearms industry, leading to

6) HUD now calling the shots and overseeing an industry that previously was
market driven.

This was how HUD intended for the agreement to play out.

It didn't happen that way because 1) the Dealers rebelled and said they
would not carry S&W products under these conditions, and 2) the Consumers
boycotted S&W, which has the benefits of a) discouraging other Manufacturers from signing similar agreements, and b) supporting the Dealers who put their financial butts on the line to slam-dunk this deal.

We owe a lot to the Dealers for keeping domino (3) from falling. And, to
the big-picture Consumers who boycott S&W for the above reasons.

The little-picture Consumers who don't boycott seem unable to get past
ideas like, "putting S&W out of business is just what the antis want," or
"we can't put an American company with American workers out of business."

[Balog]

CGofMP: great article. Not sure what I was supposed to take away from reading it, tho'. I knew most of that beforehand, altho' he put it pretty well. I still hate Colt for profiting from the blood of good men. I'll still never forgive them. I still despise and loathe the government who led the charge, but I can't exactly boycott them.

[willyjixx]

i will buy a colt and an S&W.

i have an S&W now an i am very happy with it. i do not own a colt but there are a few of there products i like.

[CGofMP]

CGofMP: great article. Not sure what I was supposed to take away from reading it, tho'.

M16 woes may well deserve it's own thread.. hehehe
I did not post that for you to take away anything from it... I just thought it melded well with what we were talking about and I posted it as an educational device for anyone that had not heard of the hatred and dioscontent the M16 had brought the men in Vietnam. It was basically just one side of history for those who had not heard about this before from one of the guys that was knee deep in it.

:-)

Charles

[Alan Fud]

Tamara, I really would like a new D-frame snubbie in .357magnum (larger than the J-frame but smaller than a K-frame) ... Any suggestions?

Posted by Silver Bullet:
Alan Fud
The post you quoted from ahadams is profoundly significant to this issue. Twice, now, in various THR threads (including the one you copied that post from) I have asked if anyone else could confirm it, and nobody speaks up.

Can you confirm that his statement is accurate and relevant ? If so, what are your legal qualifications and background ? I'm not criticizing you, I'm just looking for credible validation of ahadams' point. I sincerely hope he is correct.I have 12 credits in contract & business law from the mid-1980's when I was earning my MBA ... in the "legal" world, that doesn't mean ANYTHING so I have no legal qualifications which is why my reply was in the form of a quote with a link to that quote. My subsequent answer to your question is done in the same way ... Posted by ahadams (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12072#post154848): Yo! Silver Bullet - I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Television. (actually my younger brother is a lawyer, but right now he's been recalled to be part of the USMC [he translates that as 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children'] contribution to the ongoing festivities, and therefore I can't get a comment from him either.)

I spent 1991-99 living inside the DC beltway and from time to time doing volunteer work for various *ahem* politically conservative causes *ahem* as it were. One of the noticable differences between the days of billy jeff and the days of Dubya is that the current administration does not ever say anything in a public place that is ever 'off the cuff'. When they released the item about the S&W agreement a little asking around came up with the fact that if an agreement remains unenforced for an extended period of time it effectively lapses - the govt's disinterest is indicated by their lack of enforcement, making any future enforcement very difficult if not impossible. Somehow this doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that President Bush would do by accident. And no I can't cite a specific portion of federal law on this one, you're going to have to find an experienced federal attorney to do that, because like I said, mine's currently unavailable.

anyway, sorry if I offended you! It's just that I sometimes get frustrated with people who don't understand that a *lot* of what happens in DC not only doesn't happen in the House or Senate, but is almost completely ignored by the liberal media - *they* only report what they want people to believe. FNC and a few others are better, but even they only cover high profile stuff most of the time - well that's what sells product, right?

The problem is that a lot of the stuff the conspiracy buffs think is conspiracy is, well, the only conspiracy is the liberal media conspiring to keep people in the dark. My wife and I have been gone from there going on four years now, so we're hardly 'wired in' to the current situation, but you've got to pay attention to the little stuff - including press releases and so forth and piece it together that way. Look at the pieces of the puzzle. You can't seen them all, but the outline of what's going on is clear if you get enough of the small pieces around the edge and a few of the bigger ones toward the center.

argh! now I'm ranting! sorry, I guess I better quit here

[Silver Bullet]

Alan Fud,

Thanks for responding, and thanks for bringing up Mr. Adams old post. I think it is very important to the resolution of this issue.

I keep hoping that some of the resident lawyers will chime in on this point, but either they have better things to do than read yet another S&W debate, or maybe their expertise is in a different area of law.

[Silver Bullet]

I choose to pursue 2A activism at the source - the politicians.
That sounds really good, and it is the correct general course for RKBA, in addition to taking cases to the Supreme Court, and most important of all the grassroots efforts to make shooters of fence-sitters.

However, in this case the game would have been over long before politicians did anything. It's the immediate action by the dealers and boycotters that trumped the Clinton Administration's plan.

What progress have you seen so far from the politicians regarding the HUD agreement with S&W ?

[MeekandMild]

I buy what I like and happen to have both brands. I happen to have both brands too. Old only. Forever. "Think globally and act locally."

[Frenchy]

I have owned both old and relatively new Smiths...I will continue to by their product because of the quality I've received.

[Silver Bullet]

I will continue to by their product because of the quality I've received.
And, thanks to the boycott, you can continue to buy guns with the quality you have come to expect. If it hadn't been for the dealers taking a stand, you would be buying guns with the features that the government thinks are quality.

The dealers put their livelihood on the line to make this stand. Does everybody here appreciate this ?

[Balog]

CGofMP wrote:I did not post that for you to take away anything from it... I just thought it melded well with what we were talking about and I posted it as an educational device for anyone that had not heard of the hatred and dioscontent the M16 had brought the men in Vietnam.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[sm]

Grew up with "smith for wheels and colts for 1911" [actually colts for semi's just only cared for the 1911 style]

I like the OLD , quality and craftsmanship. Patience and carry cash. Then the politics kicked in, still doing what I did before, politics -especially the wheelies-gonna assure I never change.

[Silver Bullet]

I did some research on the issue of expiring contract by virtue of inactivity, and I found this thread on The Firing Line. There were many threads on the S&W agreement , some of them very heated, but most of them were very lucid and brought together a wealth of knowledge and insight into the issue.

This thread is one of the best. Mr. Irwin’s reply to Robert on the subject of fear cuts right to the bone.

This thread also has some comments from Mr. Knox regarding the nonexpiration of agreements with the government, and he appears to have appropriate credentials for his opinion.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89505&perpage=25&highlight=to%20get%20you%20excited%20confiscation%20registration&pagenumber=1

[curt]

Heck no! won't buy from rugers due to bills stand on hicaps, don't care for gaston glock either. Don't buy commie stuff or junk from china either. don't buy H&K cause of WWI and II. Don't buy Sigs cause i just don't like the swiss. But i'll give any neer-do-well a bad poke in his eye with my sharp american hickory stick by gum!

[CaesarI]

The evidence for S&W magically getting out of the agrement by default is not sufficient. I'm not yet convinced they should be allowed to survive. When they do, I'll buy their stuff. I've actually got a list of stuff I want from'em, but can't buy cause they're still not OK.

Ruger also remains on my list of companies I won't do business with. Which is a bloody shame, cause it makes getting a .22 pistol a bother.

Not sure on Colt. If they wanna invest R&D on smart guns, they're making their own noose. I won't buy'em. Don't know anyone who will. I like my guns dumb.

"No no, you're holding me ALL wrong! SQUEEZE the trigger, don't JERK it, you jerk! I'm a fine piece of machinery you barbarian!"

It just wouldn't work out.

My guns should only say 2 things "click" and "bang"

-Morgan

[Futo Inu]

Zedicus, good question, but the better question is to ask in order of magnitude of traitorious actions, which puts Ruger easily at the top, followed then by S&W, and Colts is way down on the list. I personally don't buy any of the above, but I think boycott of Ruger and S&W are the only "musts" by informed gun owners at present who care about the RKBA. Messing with WHAT guns can be owned and carried/used is the sacred ground of the second amendment, and that is what Ruger did in 1994.

[Silver Bullet]

I personally don't buy any of the above
How about a short term lease ? :)

[Silver Bullet]

It seems to me that what Ruger did was done by Bill Ruger the individual, and not by Ruger the company. He basically sold us out to get a more competitive advantage for his company.

S&W went way past that -- by several "orders of magnitude". S&W colluded with the Clinton Administration to give HUD control through the back door over the entire industry.

[Joe Demko]

Bill Ruger was the company. Until comparatively recently Ruger was a privately held corporation. Even if it was publicly traded at the time, Bill Ruger was the guy in charge. His decisions and corporate decisions were one and the same.
S&W did exactly the same thing Ruger did. They were conniving at getting a business edge out of an unfavorable legal environment. Only difference was that S&W did so after wide-spread internet access and so organizing and propagating boycotts became easier.

[Silver Bullet]

Only difference was that S&W did so after wide-spread internet access
I disagree.

[Kevinch]

This type of senitment tells all gun companies "these people can't be reasoned with or mollified. I'll concentrate on the other 98% of the market and ignore the fringes." The "THEY" no longer exist. Why some people fail to grasp such a simplistic concept is beyond me.

Boy, I wish I'd have seen this thread sooner...

The simplistic concept here, my friend, is the large number of so called pro-gunners that decide to look the other way through emotion & "feel good" press releases & buzz phrases when they plunk money down on a new S&W, & then do a group hug.

If 98% of the gun buying community insisted that the Agreement be null & void - officially - before buying a new S&W handgun, then do you really think that the new owners would be ignoring it?

Saf-T-Hammer evaluated an investment opportunity, took the risk, & I guess it is paying off. They knew S&W made a nice product - no argument there - but then calculated a large percentage of us are selfish when it comes to our materialism & would be happy to look the other way once an American firm bought the company, using it as justification to buy what we want no matter who or what cause it funds. Apparently, they hit that nail dead on.

The message you are sending is that a change in management and/or ownership null & voids the Agreement with the pro gun community. If would appear that simple evaluation is too hard to appreciate, & we are truly our own enemy.

[Mike Irwin]

Kinda sad, isn't it, Kevin?

Gun owners truly are the Second Amendment's worst enemy.

I've come to accept the fact that S&W is never going to give up the agreement, because most gunowners simply don't have the sense or stones to demand it.

I've also come to accept the fact that when the next anti-gun administration forces STRICT compliance with the agreement, and puts BATFE people in charge of S&W's marketing and R&D we're going to hear a screeching wail from those self-same senseless and stoneless people about how the "government" is crushing their rights, when all it will really take is a quick glance in the mirror to see the true culprit.

I think the Democrats dropping gun control from their platform, but not their support of it, is one of the smartest things they've ever done.

Gunowners have proven to be a bunch with very short memories, and will be lulled into complacency and lethargy -- "Hey, if it's not happening now, it never will happen again!"

And when the Democratic anti-gun ????storm really breaks it's going to be ugly, monumental, and our fault.