Honoring the Boycott


December 15, 2003, 10:16 AM
Say you refuse to buy certain firearms because the company that makes them has done something you dislike (S&W agreement, Ruger complicity, Taurus dumbgun research, etc.). What do you find acceptable boycotting measures? Will you not buy any product made by the company? Not buy new, or only buy used manufatured before the time of transgression? Does it matter if money goes to the manufaturer or is buying anything of that brand a sign of weakness?

If you enjoyed reading about "Honoring the Boycott" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 15, 2003, 10:24 AM
However you plan on honoring the boycott, the most important thing is that you write the company and tell them what you're doing and why.

Ala Dan
December 15, 2003, 10:49 AM
Greeting's All-

With all due respect, I'll buy what I want to. I don't
get caught up in all the hype of time's. If a firearm
is of the quality I desire; then I'm going to buy
it, if not I will leave it alone.

The most recent acquistions to my S&W collection are
a 5" 629-5 S&W "Classic" .44 magnum manufactuered
in 1999; and a 6" S&W 686-5 made right about the
time "the agreement" was being hammered out,
in the year 2000. Neither have the intergal locking

And as to the phrase "older is better", well may
be in historical term's; but I beg to differ on the actual
firearms quality control issue! A perfect example is
the aforementioned S&W 5" 629-5 "Classic" .44
magnum. As examined by other THR member's, this
firearm is absolutely perfect; not only fit and finish
wise, but lockwork and internal's as well. One could
not ask for a finer, slicker DA revolver. And oh yes!
It does have the "S&W endurance package";
something that IS NOT found on the older S&W
N-frames, such as the model 29's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

December 15, 2003, 11:05 AM
I agree with Ala Dan.

My safety and the safety of my family is more important that a political statement. Dead people don't have civil rights to protect.

It just so happens that I haven't had a strong desire for any of the "boycotted" companies' new products...


Dave R
December 15, 2003, 11:21 AM
I feel the need to honor appropriate boycotts.

If a company makes a good firearm, but participates in the erosion of firearms freedoms, then you (and all of us) lose in the long run.

My definition of supporting the boycott is not buying new from the company in question. Buying used is OK. No money goes to their pocket.

I'm interested in others' opinions.

December 15, 2003, 11:40 AM
I won't buy anything new. Used is okay (the manufactuer has already gotten it's money) and I'll write the company. And if I already own one of the manufactuer's products when the boycott begins I'm still keeping the gun. It's mine.
I remember shortly after the agreement was signed between S&W and Clinton in 2000 one foolish individual posting that he had just taken his 686 to his shop and destroyed it with a torch. If he was telling the truth then he's an IDIOT. My guns cost money and by destryong them I'd be playing right into the hands of the antis. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

December 15, 2003, 12:10 PM
I'm with Checkman on this one for his reasons & a few more...

1. If you buy used, the manufacturer isn't making any more money off of its sale. I can buy all the used S&W's, Rugers, etc. and the company isn't making a dime.

2. The used models are often better quality than what is coming out of the factories new. Original S&W bluing, Flattop Rugers, Detective Specials and pre-'64 Winchesters aren't going to be found in the new section. And QC actually meant something back then.

3. Used cost less! :D And, factoring in #2, you're really getting your money's worth. :D :D

That's why I spend more time at the used counter at gun stores....;)

December 15, 2003, 01:17 PM
The best way to do a boycott is use the internet to get information out on what they are doing. I also would refuse to buy company stock, since dropping the stock price hurst the CEO and management who are actually the morons responsible for such decisions. Refusing to buy their products will do one thing: get workers at the company laid off when business slumps.

December 15, 2003, 02:06 PM
A simple law of economics states that where there is demand, supply is not far behind.

All of you that support the S&W boycott and then buy "used" aren't helping out at all.

When you buy used S&W, all you are doing is creating a demand on "used" firearms. Buyers of the new products have no issues buying and selling because they know there is demand when they decide to resell. Then they can always go back and buy the newest S&W models. ERGO, S&W still gets money for your second-string demand.

If you STOP buying S&W products, used or new, then you create a huge surplus of S&W products, used and new. When this happens, the company has to lower prices, buckle under, admit blah blah blah.

Buying used STILL helps S&W.

December 15, 2003, 02:11 PM
in addition to what Goet said, if you buy used then you keep the prices up in the used market, which will encourage people who don't care about the boycott to purchase new because their new gun will hold its value.

If nobody is buying the used guns, then a person interested in a new gun may think twice if his purchase will be instantly devalued by too much.

December 15, 2003, 02:24 PM
If you plan to follow a boycott then stick to it and don’t be a hypocrite. New, used what’s the difference; you’re still buying a product of a certain company. It seems trivial to say "I bought mine used".

Furthermore if you buy a new gun from a gun shop your giving your money to the shop owner not the manufacturer. The gun shop owner buys from a distributor who in turn buys from the manufacturer. So saying that buying used is better than new is flawed logic.

December 15, 2003, 03:01 PM
Ala Dan: just curious. Do you apply that standard to every aspect of your consumer life? If you found out a company that was selling a product you wanted was also engaged in something morally repugnant to you (supporting Al Qaeda, supporting the Aryan Nation, selling child porn in Europe etc) would you still buy from them?

December 15, 2003, 03:32 PM
I'm sure this boycott crap is good for your ego's and all, but what do you really think you are accomplishing. By weakening the industry further you're playing into the hands of the people who are against you.

It's just like the LA riots. "We're gonna show those white folks, we're gonna burn down our own neighborhoods" Makes a helluva lotta sense don't it?

Civillian sales of firearms are a drop in the bucket to these companies anyhow.

December 15, 2003, 03:35 PM
I believe that often a demand for used goods (e.g. Ruger pistols) may result in new products sitting on the shelves longer...slowing the revenue stream to Sturm Ruger. A manufacturer does not benefit from revenue which isn't received. I don't see material benefit to a company by those who choose to procure a used version whether from a store front or private sale.

Each individual has to make their own decisions regarding how they execute a boycott.

Some choose not to boycott at all, believing that buying a gun is still buying a gun...the anti's lose.

Others believe that cutting off the revenue (or at least materially slowing it) from civilian purchases of a company's product is an effective way to express their displeasure and hopefully get the message across that certain behavior is not acceptible.

Still others believe that any new acquisition of product from a boycotted company (whether new or used) violates the spirit and intent of the boycott...that so doing represents a sort of "wink" in the direction of the targeted company.

Finallly, there are the truly committed who are willing to divest themselves of any assets associated with the boycotted company whether through a sale, trade...or the truly misguided who will destroy a perfectly good gun which had no part in the political crimes of the manufacturer in question.

I do my best to stay informed...I don't always get the news I'd like when I'd like...therefore I am the owner of products by some companies that I would not buy from today given what I know now.

- I will not divest myself from these products. They do work, I'm pleased with their performance and reliability.
- I will continue to ensure that necessary spare parts and/or consummables are purchased to ensure they stay in good working order. As a matter of personal safety and of others I encounter, I will not allow any of my pieces to fall into disrepair.
- I would consider purchasing a used version of these same products because contrary to opinion offered above, I believe that demand for used versions may indeed limit the ability of the offending company to generate revenue with its new versions. I would however, seek alternatives from a 2nd Amendment supporting company before considering the "used from boycott entity" because I seek to reward those who stand behind us...not just punish those who may betray us.
- I find it regrettable that to some, there is no deed so sinister that it would cause them to act with their wallet to express their outrage.

Still, I cannot advocate liberty while concurrently seeking to impose my values on others so I won't. I'd urge each individual to consider the merits of the various points of view, make your own decision, and stick to it.

Best wishes,


Ala Dan
December 15, 2003, 04:46 PM
Greeting's Balog-

Right off the bat let's get something straight, and clear
up what seems to be a major point of interest. Being
a veteran of both the United States Army; and as a
former LEO, I have NEVER tried to undermined this
nations security!!! :D I have not, nor I ever will take
sides and support anyone who mandates
terrorist activities towards these United States Of
America. This includes individual's, company's, and
country's or their allie's; including but not limited to
group's, leader's, sympathizer's, etc.

With that said, if the product I was seeking wasn't
available through other avenues; then I certainly
would rather do without! :) To my knowledge, the
new owner's/partner's, etc. of Smith & Wesson
HAVE NOT engaged in this type of activity. I'm just
proud that someone had the ball's to stand up, and
bring Smith N' Wesson back home where it belongs. ;)

May I ask, why would you ask such a stupid question
to begin with? I think MY post specified firearms;
nothing else! :eek:

Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

December 15, 2003, 06:27 PM
i recognized smith and wessons legal ploys. the contract i think was one simply to stall untill the elections to see what the political climate would be after the elections. i think had gore gotten in S&W would have folded or stopped selling to the public like Colt did. possibly only selling overseas also.
further it was a smart tactic also in hopes of knocking glock from the most favored police handgun position. anyway its over now. personally i can't blame a falsely accused person or corporation for pulling every legal tactic in the book.
another thing i think is a sneakie tactic, it might not be so but i think it is. the new super power guns such as the 500 smith and the 50 cal. could it possibly be that those were put on the market especially to get the anti's underoo's in a wad? there by distracting there attention from the other guns? sure let go running off with try to ban those, it keeps them busy and they leave all the other guns alone.

as for smith revolvers with the silly locks, i will not be purchaseing one of those. i have no need for a silly looking lock.

Silver Bullet
December 15, 2003, 07:26 PM
May I ask, why would you ask such a stupid question to begin with?
Nothing stupid about Balog’s question. You stated in your previous post that, with regards to firearms, you buy what you want without regard to a company’s morality (which you referred to as “hype”). Balog is merely asking if you apply the same blind eye to non-firearms products.

Ala Dan
December 15, 2003, 07:42 PM
by Silver Bullet:


Looks too me like you do not understand the topic;
which is incidentally FIREARMS?

As to answer Balog's question:

No, I guess I would have to judge each product and
decision on its own merit's! ;) With that said, and
excluding the Ti and Sc revolver line; I still feel that
Smith & Wesson brings a very good product to the
table. The jury is still out on the Ti's and Sc's; as
from what I have seen, they seem a bit over priced.
And in listening to skuttle butt from Smith & Wesson
factory 'smith's; these guns have a far greater
return rate for repair's.

For me, this will be the end of this conversation;
to each his/her own, I will continue to conduct
business MY way.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

Standing Wolf
December 15, 2003, 07:48 PM
Smith & Wesson knows I won't buy any new products from it until a.) the company rescinds the agreement it made with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, and b.) it offers me firearms without internal locks.

There's nothing like a shortage of used Smith & Wessons on the market.

Silver Bullet
December 15, 2003, 08:19 PM
Looks too me like you do not understand the topic; which is incidentally FIREARMS?

I do understand the topic, thank you. I'm merely explaining Balrog's question, at least as I understand it. I have no doubt that he could explain it better than I, and maybe I should have left it to him.

Ala Dan
December 15, 2003, 08:26 PM
No harm, no foul there Silver Bullet my friend. :)

Maybe I didn't do a good job explaining my belief's.
thought's, or opinion's? But, I think the boycott of
S&W is kind'a childish; and it certainly has been
beaten to death! Hell's bells, I think we owe it to
ourselves to give the new ownership of Smith N'
Wesson at least a half decent chance; don't you?

Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

December 15, 2003, 08:32 PM
You can make a case for just about any gun manufacturer.

-Glocks approval of ballistic fingerprinting

-HK not wanting to even hear the word "civillian" when it comes to ownership of their guns

December 15, 2003, 09:00 PM
I think we owe it to
ourselves to give the new ownership of Smith N'
Wesson at least a half decent chance; don't you?

Just how long are you planning on giving them? How long has it been now?

Is the agreement still standing? Is it still enforceable? Yes!

Silver Bullet
December 15, 2003, 09:01 PM
I think we owe it to ourselves to give the new ownership of Smith N'
Wesson at least a half decent chance; don't you?
Well, actually, I think if you research any of my comments on this subject in previous threads, you'll find that you and I are on opposite sides of this argument ! :) That doesn't make either of us evil, just ... opinionated.

So my answer to your question would be a lot more complex than a simple "yes" or "no"; something more along the lines of "they've had a 'decent chance' for a couple years to publicly repudiate the agreement," etc., etc.

I recommend the following threads as a starting point:




December 15, 2003, 09:33 PM
The Smart Gun Bill was originally meant to keep police safe whilest having their guns taken from them. I'm not an LEO, but I've spent lots of time with a .45 strapped to my side as a military type. Weapons don't just get "taken", but that's a whole other thing.
Funny how LEOs and the military are exempt from smart gun technology, but this is not time to "beat a dead whore". Our legislators jumped ALL OVER this in further attempts to trick people into thinking that their pet bills are "for the good of the people". Sounds very familiar (if you're keen on history).
In my opinion, anyone who plays into this environment by partnering up with the right arm of this legislation, the NJIT, is not my friend. Gun shops can't really join in my personal boycott, but I will only buy from a shop that doesn't actively market Taurus products. I will never buy a Taurus product, ever, for any reason and I will state my case to anyone asking my advice on Taurus products.
In my opinion, the line in the sand is drawn. "That's just the way it is" doesn't work for me. Kinda the straw that broke the camel's back. It would probaby be someone else if it wasn't Taurus, but it's Taurus. Even when I move to Pennsylvania next year with little chance of being subject to smart gun technology, we all lose if any part of the United States passes such legislation.
I'll buy the entire Taurus company if I ever hear of a single criminal who ever used a smart gun while committing a crime.:fire: :fire: :fire: I'm pissed.

Alan Fud
December 15, 2003, 10:04 PM
Dan, old friend, I think that your view of things is indeed logical & correct.

Ala Dan
December 15, 2003, 10:58 PM
Many thanks for the kind word's Alan! :D You've known
me for a long, long time; and with that said, you also
know that I will stand on my own two feet for what I
believe is right. :uhoh: :D

Like our friend Silver Bullet said, our belief's do not
make us evil; its just that we are opinionated . It also
doesn't make either of us wrong; as the pendulum often
times swings both ways.

Wishing All A Happy, Safe, & Joyous Holiday Season! ;)
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

December 16, 2003, 04:56 AM
Pro-Gun politics first, Anti-Gun-Manf politics last.

Sorry, but if I disagree with a firearm manufacturers dealings re RKBA, I will write them expressing my opinion and reasons behind it.
But I'm not going to shoot the whole issue of gun ownership in the foot via the fratricide of attacking a gun manf's bottom line.

December 16, 2003, 07:12 AM
I think its silly. I thought a person's decision on purchasing a product (or a gun) was based on quality and price not on the politics of that company. If I'm saving-up to buy a Colt, S&W or Ruger I really don't care about who owns the company, their religious or political beliefs. Its a business deal, no more no less. If I'm a stockholder, I expect the company to do whats required to stay in business and make a profit. Some of you are passing the buck, if you don't like the laws or the firearms environment YOU work to change the situation, don't expect a corporation to do your dirty work for you. Its lazyness on your part. If I can afford a 1st rate gun, guess what, I'm getting it no matter what!

December 16, 2003, 07:38 AM
"It's laziness on your part."

My position on boycotting, then, is a personal one. It's possible that you don't understand New Jersey. Don't feel bad - neither do I. Focusing on the company's bottom line is the only option here, in my opinion. Changing the laws isn't an option for now. Changing the laws to improve the horrific school funding problems isn't even an option so changing the gun laws in the liberal epicenter of the universe certainly isn't. Maybe it is in the very long term, but Taurus has teamed up with the "enemy". Maybe it's not possible to grasp the concept unless you live here.
Someone's got to take a firm stand. It may, in fact, be too late, but integrity is more important to me than the mythical "bottom line". Standing up for what's right is the bottom line where good business is concerned.
We all know the facts. Each of us will make up our own minds.
Boycott Taurus. Boycott Taurus. Boycott Taurus...

December 16, 2003, 07:57 AM
I buy what I like/want and, that's the way it is...

December 16, 2003, 09:47 AM
Ala Dan: if you wouldn't give money to a company (oh sorry, a firearms company) that supported terrorists, why would you give money to a company that supports defecating on our freedom? :confused: We all have a lot more to fear from our overbearing Nanny State than we do from a bunch of ignorant goatherders.

And you still haven't answered the question about a firearms company supporting things that are morally repugnant (Aryan Nation or child porn rings in Europe) but not related to terrorism. So I'll ask again.
Would you give your money to a company that donated a significant portion of it's profits to the Aryan Nation?

A simple yes/no question. Thanks for answering.

Ala Dan
December 16, 2003, 10:37 AM
Att: Balog-

If all the indicator's proved beyond a shadow of doubt
that a firearms company supported the likes of the
Arryan Nation, KKK, or as you say "a child porn scheme
based in Europe"; then quite frankly the answer would
be NO, I wouldn't support their cause.

If you have any concrete proof of such action's
by any company I would love to hear the story; and
especially if its a firearms related company?

Thanks for tuning in ! :D

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

December 16, 2003, 10:46 AM
Ala Dan: Thank you for answering. I'm a bit confused tho.
Why is supporting the Aryan Nation worse than supporting the socialists (Clinton Feinstein etc etc) who would disarm us?
I'm sure you've read the text of S&W's agreement w/ HUD, correct? You are aware that it has never been repudiated? While it's not being enforced, it certainly could be. And of course they still put those vexing little locks on 'em.

George Hill
December 16, 2003, 10:58 AM
This thread is at it's end right here.
If you guys want to continue this pissing contest - take it to email.

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