Armalite is supporting NY by still selling AR rifles to police. DONE WITH ARMALITE!


PDA






ol' scratch
February 20, 2013, 11:18 AM
:cuss: Armalite will still sell AR rifles to police in New York. I have one Armalite I purchased. I will not be purchasing any more of their rifles. DONE WITH THEM. If they can't take a stand for the Second Amendment, they don't need my business anymore. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/armalite-will-continue-to-sell-rifles-to-law-enforcement-officers-in-states-that-ban-them-for-citizens/

If you enjoyed reading about "Armalite is supporting NY by still selling AR rifles to police. DONE WITH ARMALITE!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CraigC
February 20, 2013, 12:24 PM
How about this, let's not act like "them" by running on pure, unfiltered emotion??? It doesn't help our cause.

ol' scratch
February 20, 2013, 12:28 PM
And not saying or doing anything DOES help our cause? I am not being unreasonable here. I just won't spend my hard earned dollars to support them anymore. I will also make sure I tell them so at Perry this year. Better yet; why didn't Armalite tell LEO's in New York to "Just get a shotgun" like Joe Biden told the rest of America to do?

Derek Zeanah
February 20, 2013, 12:29 PM
Personally I didn't think the CEO's follow-up was all that clear. I"m also not willing to judge at this point.

However, I'm sort of, kind of in the market for a .338 Lapua, and the Armalite AR 30a1 and the Barret MRAD are both in the running. When it comes down to decision time, corporate policies will make it into the decision making process. Might not rank as high as cost or feature set, but it matters in the current political environment.

In the gun market, business decisions can quickly turn into political decisions, which can have an adverse effect on business. See S&W's preemptive capitulation under the Clinton administration and its effect on sales. (I'm not saying anything bad about S&W -- they have new owners now and I like the company. Same with Ruger, by the way.)

Businesses need to stay aware of how consumers are responding to these sorts of issues. It needs to be in their calculus, just like it's in ours.

HoosierQ
February 20, 2013, 12:33 PM
I guess I don't see how a company like Armalite selling to an LEO organization is helping the other side. The cops didn't make the law.

I think the only way a gun company would be helping the "other side" would be to refuse to sell an otherwise lawful product to civilians.

Cee Zee
February 20, 2013, 12:46 PM
I see it as a problem Hoosier. It's "us or them" time in America and if they're going to deal with the enemy they won't be dealing with me. It took me 15 years to get over what Bill Ruger said. That only happened because the assault weapons ban that he had a huge hand in crafting was finally over. Now look at where we are. The stuff Ruger said and did is still biting us on the rear. People often wonder why I don't like Ruger products much. I don't drag politics into every conversation but that's always in the back of my mind. All those so called "evil features" were constructs of the great Bill Ruger. Gun grabbers didn't know enough about guns to even dream up that list.

In short you just don't know how much damage siding with the bad guys can do in the long run. So I take names at times like this. If they support the state of NY and their gun grabbing policies then they are no friends of mine. I did finally buy a Ruger because my wife wanted it. I like many Ruger products but I never owned one until my wife had to have one when we went looking at guns for her (the LCP of course). It's a fine gun. The MkII pistols are great as are many other Ruger products. But I won't be buying any. I'm back to thinking Bill Ruger is Satan himself just to be honest. What he did set the cause back 100 years IMO. He gave the left their list of features to cry about. So when we are no longer able to buy mags that hold more than 10 rounds, thank Ruger and tell me again how great that 10/22 is.

ApacheCoTodd
February 20, 2013, 12:56 PM
I get the "good for the goose, good for the gander" perspective and would like to think maybe they're not taking orders but filling existing ones.

Keep in mind that no-one comments on the Police buying newly manufactured select fire weapons which have not been available the the NY citizen for several decades as well as you and I.

InkEd
February 20, 2013, 01:09 PM
We have in the past but it is beating a dead horse.

carbine85
February 20, 2013, 01:35 PM
Armalite is getting slammed over at ar15.com All of the manufacturers are a bunch of <deleted>. They are going to sell to whom ever they can. Why is Armalite still in IL?

Cosmoline
February 20, 2013, 01:48 PM
The cops didn't make the law.

Did any Chiefs or Sheriffs in NY stand up and protest this law? How many actively supported the mobsters in Albany? I haven't seen much evidence that they're anything but part of the criminal syndicate running that state.

Skylerbone
February 20, 2013, 02:03 PM
There's no need for foul language here Carbine. While I don't often rush to judgement I do agree with ol' scratch that silence speaks every bit as loud as words, particularly under fire. Would everyone in line for PMAGS wait it out if Magpul hadn't taken their stand against Colorado? The House amended the Bill to exclude manufacturers and yet Magpul said no. Any infringement on the Citizens of Colorado was an infringement they would not be part of.

Armalite has more to loose than most considering the bulk of their offerings are the very products being demonized. I say isolate those States that subvert our rights and let those who voted to ignore the Constitution reap what they sowed. Imagine if no one would sell ammunition to any Government agency.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 02:16 PM
You guys do understand that these companies have to make money or they do not stay in business, correct? Personally, I think shooters are way too busy-body on this issue and have WAY too much to say about how businesses conduct themselves. Real easy when it ain't your money. We do business with companies whose politics and policies we don't agree with. Why? Because business is business and politics is politics. If you're smart, you'll leave one out of the other. Unless you're independently wealthy and can afford to burn half your bridges. We're not, we can't, we won't. I don't blame Armalite for getting every penny they can get while they can get it.

Unless you want people in YOUR business?

Sam1911
February 20, 2013, 02:38 PM
If true, there are a lot of other companies out there making weapons at least as good. Send them a note, tell them, how you feel, perhaps even include some of the press releases and public statements from our FRIENDS, their competitors, who apply the "good for the goose, good for the gander" standard.

Every company is free to do business as they choose to.

No-one is free from the CONSEQUENCES of their choices. Make sure they remember that.

As a customer, or potential customer, you have a say in how a business conducts itself. They do not HAVE to listen to you. You do not HAVE to buy from them. Might as well let them know that their decisions have consequences, however small on the individual level.

taliv
February 20, 2013, 02:43 PM
I guess I don't see how a company like Armalite selling to an LEO organization is helping the other side. The cops didn't make the law.

it's fairly simple and obvious to me. LEOs are not a special class of citizens. They do not need any tools to perform their work that are not available to the rest of us.

Saying cops can have something that citizens cannot is an attitude i find utterly at odds with the principle of liberty.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 03:32 PM
I agree that the police should NOT have weapons that the rest of us are not allowed to own. With or without a $200 tax stamp(s). I don't mind paying $200 for the privilege of owning a full-auto but I do mind the police having full access to post-`86 automatic weapons. While the rest of us have to pay astronomical collector prices for pre-`86 guns.

RPRNY
February 20, 2013, 03:36 PM
This is an NSSF issue. If they cannot as an industry agree to either hang together or hang separately, then several companies with MSR based or biased businesses are indeed likely to be left to hang out to dry. If the industry takes a fragmented "not my problem, I'm still selling " point of view, they add to the diminished sense of social acceptability that gun owner discrimination advocates are trying to build in this country. Every "little " victory for "sensible regulations " that the gun owner discrimination advocates can rack up contributes to their long term goal: diminished social acceptability for firearms ownership. When social acceptability has reached a certain low, politicians can act against the Second Amendment without fear of SCOTUS redress or, eventually, they can seek to amend or abolish 2A. A United front against measures that seem to diminish social acceptability is required.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

jerkface11
February 20, 2013, 03:39 PM
The cops didn't make the law.


I bet they'd lock you up if you had a 30 rounder in your pocket though.

hawk45
February 20, 2013, 03:42 PM
Agreed, very poor business decision. I will no longer support them.

Fishbed77
February 20, 2013, 04:02 PM
I guess I don't see how a company like Armalite selling to an LEO organization is helping the other side. The cops didn't make the law.

I haven't seen any law enforcement agencies in New York state stand up and state that they will not enforce unconstitutional laws like the SAFE Act.

Therefore, they ARE the enemies of freedom in this case, and need to be grouped in with the rest of our political enemies. They do not deserve to use or acquire any firearms or equipment that is prohibited from any other taxpaying citizen.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 04:04 PM
It's not a business' responsibility to stand up for YOUR rights as an individual. No matter the nature of the industry. Particularly when it represents an economic risk to them.

Like with every other discussion of this nature, we have people who have no clue what it takes to run a business, especially in such a politically volatile industry, thinking they should be able to dictate how another runs theirs. Sorry but this is no more or less disgusting than what I hear from the other side. Shooters hanging their own out to dry over such silly things does FAR more damage to our cause than Armalite selling rifles to NY. Personally, I'd rather see them in business, even if that means selling to NY and CA governments than out of business.

Here's a question. You run your own business. One of the 20 municipalities you do business with passes a law or ordnance that you disagree with. Are you willing to throw away your business with them over this? What if it threatens your relationship with the other 19? Or do you continue to feed and clothe your family with their money? IMHO, the idealism goes out the window when it's YOUR business, YOUR livelihood and YOUR family that will suffer because of YOUR principles.

Skylerbone
February 20, 2013, 04:18 PM
So let them be without principle? That's no answer. Allow me to pose a question: how would you feel if they came out with a statement that commercial sales will forever be suspended in accordance with the wishes of John Kerry? Would you still support their position, albeit without financial gain to them?

There is no harm in being an informed consumer and voting with your dollars. Those who speak loudly for freedom will be remembered in my choices as the John Hancocks of this fight.

Sam1911
February 20, 2013, 04:35 PM
Yeah, I can't see a firearms company, who makes by far most of their money from sales to civilians (and/or who wishes to retain that very lucrative market) not feeling the pressure here to do whatever they can to encourage, stand up for, make a statement of solidarity regarding the fundamental right of its customers -- when that very right is why they are in business to begin with.

If they want to be only a government contractor, hey, that's their deal.

But they are a publicly visible entity operating in a hotly controversial field. Anything they do could affect sales one way or another.

If they choose not to make this stand -- which has been established by other firms at least as far back as Ronnie Barrett and CA back with the .50 Cal ban -- then that makes a statement which their civilian customers will react to. If they choose to make this stand and refuse business to government agencies in certain states, that may as well affect their future sales with the government (and with the people, as well!).

They may wish neither side cared what they do, but that's not how the world works, so they have to make some choice.

If they will not stand with us, some of their competitors have said they WILL. Those folks who care will then shop with those competitors, not ArmaLite.

That's one of the tough realities of doing business.

Honestly, I love to see gun companies succeed, but if some need to suffer -- for their own decisions -- in order to show that the American citizen has a voice and demands their rights, that's a price I'm willing to see them and the industry pay.

Cosmoline
February 20, 2013, 04:36 PM
It's not a business' responsibility to stand up for YOUR rights as an individual.

It's the business' responsibility to keep our business if they want our money. Their decision to work for the enemy can and should have consequences. I would hope Armalite comes to the right decision here.

Personally, I'd rather see them in business, even if that means selling to NY and CA governments than out of business.

We're trying to punish them if they DO business with the other side. So if they want to stay in business, they should do the right thing. NY should be forced to live under the same laws it imposes on its subjects.

It's also important to keep the businesses from going over to the other side like S&W once did, or Bill Ruger before that. This is a war. Thankfully being fought with money and political pressure now.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 04:45 PM
I didn't say operate without principle but principles and idealism are very easy when YOU have nothing to lose. It's very different when you're running a business with employees. You're not only responsible for YOUR family but for them as well. Here's another question, would you be okay with your employer making a business decision based on politics if it meant your job?

There are ways around this issue without throwing the baby out with the bathwater but nobody seems to care. I would sincerely hope that everyone crying "lynch Armalite" does everything in THEIR power to protect THEIR rights. Are you? Or is everyone just hanging with the lynch mob because it's cool? Do you apply this idealism to your own life, or do you hold others (who have more to lose) to a higher standard? Gee, who does that sound like??? :rolleyes:

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 04:56 PM
Yes, S&W is a really good example. They were hung out to dry just as is suggested here for Armalite. Only problem is the lynching has lasted far longer than those who made the decision that got them lynched. The folks who signed the agreement, to save their business, are long gone but the hate lingers.

Same for Ruger and what people hate Ruger for was a lie to begin with. Just as now, the industry was fighting for its life, under attack from government sponsored lawsuits. Bill saw the 10rd magazine limit as a compromise to save his company and the industry. For his effort, the ban was passed anyway and the media twist his words and that is what the hatred for Ruger stems from. So much so that people still hate Ruger for what they 'think' a dead man said over a decade ago.

Another unanswered question, what did YOU do to combat the government sponsored lawsuits against a lawful industry? Anything? Anybody contribute to the NRA-ILA or the gunmakers' defense funds? Anyone??? Or did you do as you're doing now, just sitting back, bitching and moaning about what somebody else should do?

Like I said, all this idealism is real easy when it ain't your money. We can fight the other side without turning on ourselves. Which is exactly what crap like this is. Sorry but what you think is standing up for a principle makes you sound like "them".

Girodin
February 20, 2013, 05:19 PM
I think shooters are way too busy-body on this issue and have WAY too much to say about how businesses conduct themselves.

Shooters and anyone else can choose where to spend their dollars for whatever reasons they like.

I know I'm inclined to support companies that support my rights. I will buy from Barrett and LaRue based on their stance. I will continue to buy from magpul. In fact I recently was looking at some stocks, PGs, etc. There are companies that mag ones I like just as well as magpul. However, I ordered magpul products largely because of their stance on the CO bill.

Like with every other discussion of this nature, we have people who have no clue what it takes to run a business, especially in such a politically volatile industry, thinking they should be able to dictate how another runs theirs.

I've been involved in running businesses for years. The fact is that customers do dictate the way a company is run. O'l Scratch and others like him are simply trying to make it potentially financially damaging to not be on the RKBA side of this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A company can decide which sales are more valuable to it and which is a greater economic risk.

CraigC, a lot of us are very politically active. A lot of us give money, are members of various pro RKBA groups, lobby politicians, work to elect pro RKBA politicians, etc. Voting with our dollars is one more thing we can do. These things are not mutually exclusive. Pressuring companies financially is one way to help affect political change. Why in the world shouldn't I choose to support a company that is very active and clear in helping to fight for our rights versus one that is not? It not unlike choosing to buy from places that are active in charity or the like versus a competitor that is not.

arizona_cards_11
February 20, 2013, 05:22 PM
It's not a business' responsibility to stand up for YOUR rights as an individual. No matter the nature of the industry. Particularly when it represents an economic risk to them.

Like with every other discussion of this nature, we have people who have no clue what it takes to run a business, especially in such a politically volatile industry, thinking they should be able to dictate how another runs theirs. Sorry but this is no more or less disgusting than what I hear from the other side. Shooters hanging their own out to dry over such silly things does FAR more damage to our cause than Armalite selling rifles to NY. Personally, I'd rather see them in business, even if that means selling to NY and CA governments than out of business.

Here's a question. You run your own business. One of the 20 municipalities you do business with passes a law or ordnance that you disagree with. Are you willing to throw away your business with them over this? What if it threatens your relationship with the other 19? Or do you continue to feed and clothe your family with their money? IMHO, the idealism goes out the window when it's YOUR business, YOUR livelihood and YOUR family that will suffer because of YOUR principles.
Are they really principles if you aren't willing to suffer for them? Principles aren't something that can be dismissed at the first sign of trouble.

No one is keeping them from doing business with an authoritarian entity.....but their actions have consequences. As I see it, you're arming the enemy.

I'm an idealist.....I've been called worse.

Skylerbone
February 20, 2013, 05:24 PM
I'll thank you to not voice my actions for me. I am an NRA member and regular contributor. I also vote with my dollars as a consumer. I do indeed write and call my congressmen regularly regarding issues that affect my rights. I take a stand and my line is drawn.

Any company that would acquiesce to the will of the very group who seeks their ultimate and swift demise has not enough sense to be a business. They will not be the one-eyed man in the land of the blind, simply another suicide. Insofar as S&W and Ruger are concerned, what hope does any investment firm have of gaining back loyalty toward a brand that poisoned the well? Are you suggesting bean counters should be hailed as heroes for snatching up brands like so much carrion? It's not up to you to say who deserves a second chance, fool me twice, shame on me.

Sav .250
February 20, 2013, 05:31 PM
They are a business .They need to make money for the Co and employees. Winning the battle and losing the war (business wise) is sense-less.

If you work.......... Would you quit if your employer said, you have to quit smoking(just an example) You could. Win the battle but lose your job. Sense-less!

I don`t think the "Town`s people" will follow you down the street with torches.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 05:34 PM
I don't have a problem with boycotting anyone for any legitimate reason. What I have a problem with is sitting here, moaning about what Armalite does, hanging our own out to dry and yet doing NOTHING to work against the real problem. If you're doing that, YOU are part of the problem. Sorry if I can't just jump on your bandwagon without engaging my brain.


Are they really principles if you aren't willing to suffer for them?
We're not talking about protecting the rights of pedophiles here. If your company sells widgets to the state of New York, you gonna quit your job right then and there? You gonna explain to your wife and kids that they're hungry and the mortgage is delinquent but at least you stood on your principles? Or is this going to be another unanswered question? Like I said, it's real easy when it ain't your money and well-being.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 05:38 PM
It's not up to you to say who deserves a second chance, fool me twice, shame on me.
Like I said, the crap about Ruger is pure myth and he's dead anyway. The foreigners you boycotted at S&W are long gone. So your ill will is misplaced but I guess it's just easier to complain about S&W and Ruger on the internet. Did you do as much against your government which sponsored those lawsuits?

AABEN
February 20, 2013, 05:42 PM
How does AR L know where the money comes from?? The state could give the officer money to buy the gun!!

Sam1911
February 20, 2013, 05:44 PM
Look, I've put a lot of money into the RKBA fight in a number of ways. Many of us have. That is pretty much irrelevant to the question at hand, which is can we exert influence on a manufacturer to take an action which supports our rights? To ask those who we give our money to, to in turn stand with us on an issue of common interest.

The fact that it might be painful to them, or to their employees is WHY it works. Otherwise, we'd not have the ability to exert that influence. They SHOULD do it, and we wish they WOULD do it simply because it is the righteous thing to do. But sometimes the ball doesn't roll without a financial kick.

The fact that someone may suffer for the wrong decision (or the right decision, or ANY decision, or NO decision) is honestly not the most important factor in the larger picture.

We aren't doing anything at all unethical or malicious. Simply choosing where to spend our money. Telling a company why you DON'T spend your money with them is an important thing for them to know. Maybe it is because they don't make a good enough product. Maybe it is because they don't make a left-hand version of what you want. Maybe it is because they aren't supporting a political cause you want their help with.

Whatever it is that gets you to spend your dollars with their competition, they need to know. A good business WANTS to know!

Whether they choose to act on that info or not is up to them.

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 05:53 PM
New York has had gun bans for years and years, the rest of us have never cared before. They've also had armed police forces for at least 200yrs. Somebody sold those guns to them. What has changed? Why have we never cared about boycotting those manufacturers before? How is what goes on in New York affecting OUR rights? How is Armalite selling AR's to city and state police forces affecting OUR rights? It ain't. I'm over it. IMHO, this is misplaced effort and hostility but don't let me stop you from lynching our own.

This is a trivial issue. So again, are you guys telling me you'd let your kids starve and get kicked out of your home to stand up for your principles? You would quit your job if your company started selling widgets to the government of New York? If that's true then the problem is your principles. If not, if you would do no different if you were in their position, then how can you hold it against them?

CraigC
February 20, 2013, 06:02 PM
Did anybody actually read the link?

Robert101
February 20, 2013, 06:16 PM
Bottom line is that I would rather support a gun company that supports our rights - pure and simple. They (corporations) can set policy all they want and I will buy from those that I choose for my personal policy reasons.

taliv
February 20, 2013, 06:24 PM
i think you just don't understand the nature of principles. the entire point of something being a 'principle' is that it is constant. it doesn't cease to become a principle when it becomes costly or difficult.

you should realize that there are many, many men who have already sacrificed their lives for their principles. you may not comprehend it, which is all the more reason you should take care before you insult it.

RPRNY
February 20, 2013, 06:29 PM
Yes. And the link makes it clear that ArmaLite is waffling. They will oppose sales to "enemies of the Second Amendment ", as long as those enemies are nameless. They reserve the right to sell to LEO individuals as well as State entitites that they do not deem likely to be involve in disarmament of the State's residents. A typical corporate vascilation.

There's nothing wrong with people choosing not to do business with the company as a result. Or with writing to ArmaLite to say you are unhappy with their Law Department 's waffle language.

But it would be best to write to NSSF and make it clear that any industry member that continues to do business with any State entity in which laws like the SAFE Act have been passed will be subject to consumer boycott.

However, this should be supplemental to writing to your State and Federal legislators and donating to NRA-ILA and the Second Amendment Foundation among others.

As to CraigC bemoaning continued ill -will towards Ruger and S&W, I beg to differ. Far from counterproductive or useless, such sentiment serves to remind corporate decision makers that the business impact on brand equity from bad decisions to placate the implaccable is tangible and long lasting. Gun owner discrimination advocates want to end, not simply curtail, manufacturers businesses. They cannot be reasoned with nor should they be compromised with. To do so is a betrayal of brand and shareholder value because the end result will be no business, no company and no jobs.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

MachIVshooter
February 20, 2013, 06:32 PM
Armalite says:

I think a bit of clarification is in order.



My purpose here is to pass on his apology from the corporate level and to answer the initial question: What is ArmaLite going to do?



1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s.

2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states… We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.

We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.

3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.



In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.



Respectfully,

Mark Westrom
President,
ArmaLite Inc.


I can personally agree with this stance.

For one, many police officers or sheriff's deputies are not on board with the gun control measures. Secondly, if they're buying as private citizens, they're subject to the same restrictions. I'm not exactly sure how Armalite's policy will work in NY, but I know as far as NFA stuff is concerned, the individual officers get no special privileges; post-'86 machine guns require department letter, and other NFA items require the same to be tax exempt. So if Armalite won't sell to the police department and the officers cannot buy the stuff at a local store, then what's the difference?

If Magpul decides to sell to Colorado sheriffs, I won't lament them for it. After all, the sheriffs stood up for us.

Yeah, it'd be nice if all gun companies took the same stance as La Rue and Olympic, but let's face it-most aren't. Be principled in the extreme if you like, but I can tell you that once you've owned a business, you tend to not discriminate too much about where your dollars come from. What good would it do me if I refused to service cars with liberal bumper stickers? Granted, it's not really a problem out here, but the point remains.

Also, a few people "punishing" Armalite for a less extreme stance than La Rue's aren't going to cripple the company; ALL of their rifles are sold for 2013 already.

I have 3 Armalite rifles. Their quality is excellent, and CS is top notch. I will continue to buy from them.

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 06:36 PM
Where is Colt on this? Where are Colts made? Should we start a list of prefered manufactuers like LaRue and Pmag? Then instead of spamming them with copied emails we could send them the reciepts of our purchase from companies who support our position. Sales they could have had if they had taken a stronger stand like Larue and Pmag.

IMO, the "list" should be limited to companies not operating from behind enemy lines with clear policies we want others to emulate. Freestates only.

MachIVshooter
February 20, 2013, 06:39 PM
IMO, the "list" should be limited to companies not operating from behind enemy lines with clear policies we want others to emulate. Freestates only.

You're going to have a very narrow selection of firearms to choose from with this policy.

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 06:44 PM
That's the idea. A list of those who are industry "leaders" in supporting 2A rights for others to follow.

MachIVshooter
February 20, 2013, 06:47 PM
What are you going to do if they pass federal bans? Refuse to buy from any American company?

Fishbed77
February 20, 2013, 06:48 PM
Here's a question. You run your own business. One of the 20 municipalities you do business with passes a law or ordnance that you disagree with. Are you willing to throw away your business with them over this? What if it threatens your relationship with the other 19? Or do you continue to feed and clothe your family with their money?

CraigC, Armalite is free to sell to sell to whom they want.

I am also free to choose to never buy any more products from Armalite (and encourage all other Americans who value the protection of our rights as enshrined within the 2nd Amendment to do the same), as long as they maintain their current policy.

jerkface11
February 20, 2013, 06:53 PM
Are you willing to throw away your business with them over this?

The government was the one who ruined the relationship not the gun companies.

Skylerbone
February 20, 2013, 06:56 PM
New York has had gun bans for years and years, the rest of us have never cared before.

Craig, you have no idea where any of us have or currently do stand on such issues. Calling everyone hypocrites for mentioning particular company names or acknowledging there are States with restrictions is far beyond your ability to correctly assess. Moreover, it is your opinion on past events that brings forth your conclusions which do not discount facts of the matter. Finally, as Sam and taliv have made abundantly clear, those issues are not our focus. My feelings, a friend to my enemy is my enemy and is counted against me.

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 07:00 PM
What are you going to do if they pass federal bans? Refuse to buy from any American company?
Federally they know they can't make it happen, which is why they are pushing the states to do what they can't get at the federal level.
We're talking about what is true now and what we can do about it now. A few preferred companies we can concentrate our money to and vote with dollars for others to see and feel.

These state governments need to see a backlash from every direction possible. Right now jobs and economy are the only thing more important than the "gun debate" nationally and locally. In many ways the politico's are using the "gun debate" to distract from the economy. We need to point it back that way. Dollars and jobs.

LEO associations and police chiefs have supported these stupid laws at the local and state levels for years. Obama & Co love to do these AWB speeches with a background of uniformed cops. Time for uniforms to speak up. They need to see a back lash from thier own rank and file. Not just "ho-hum" because they're exempt so it doesn't concern them. We need it to concern them. Polarize them to our side or the other.

Outlaw Man
February 20, 2013, 07:03 PM
If they can't survive without selling to New York law enforcement, I can't see that they'll survive much longer, anyway.

Admittedly, I've seen ONE Armalite for every hundred Bushmasters or S&Ws I've seen, but the market for AR-15s in "free" states is enormous compared to NY law enforcement. Which will hurt them more if the sales stop?

I don't wish anyone ill, particularly those factory workers who, like the NY police, didn't come up with this policy. Someone's likely to suffer for this. I wish that weren't the case, but i'd rather see a few suffer now by losing their jobs than the whole country suffer later by living in tyranny.

And yes, I would quit my job (or close my business, if i had one) over principles. Otherwise, they're just ideas.

nyresq
February 20, 2013, 07:07 PM
Not that it matters to those on this forum who bash cops no matter what, but FYI, several Police Chiefs and Sheriffs in NY have already publicly stated they WILL NOT enforce the NY safe act and are calling for its repeal. Along with that, they have also supported local county officials who have passed resolutions to not enforce or even recognize the SAFE act...

Heres a link for those who cant google http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act

But go on bashing ALL the cops in NY, according to all the experts here, every Chief and Sheriff was standing next to Coumo cheering for him when he passed it... Except that wasnt the case at all. But lets not let facts ruin the fun!!

Maybe check some facts first. Outside of NYC and Long Island, almost every other county in NY state has already, or is in the process of, passing resolutions to repeal the SAFE act or ignore it.

But please, let the bashing continue, cops suck blah blah blah, no one should sell to them cause NY politicians screwed the people, blah blah blah.

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 07:13 PM
Not that it matters to those on this forum who bash cops no matter what...

But go on bashing ALL the cops in NY, according to all the experts here, every Chief and Sheriff was standing next to Coumo cheering for him when he passed it... Except that wasnt the case at all. But lets not let facts ruin the fun!!
Maybe check some facts first. Outside of NYC and Long Island, almost every other county in NY state has already, or is in the process of, passing resolutions to repeal the SAFE act or ignore it.
But please, let the bashing continue, cops suck blah blah blah, no one should sell to them cause NY politicians screwed the people, blah blah blah.

Obama Assault weapons speech.
Should these cops get special privlages to buy guns the citizens don't?

http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-assault-weapons-ban-vote-in-Congress-01.jpg

NWcityguy2
February 20, 2013, 07:20 PM
What are you going to do if they pass federal bans? Refuse to buy from any American company?

Who said they had to be an American company? I can refuse to buy from international companies as well.

kimbershot
February 20, 2013, 07:22 PM
hey--i'll sell them mine for 4k.:evil:

MachIVshooter
February 20, 2013, 11:37 PM
Good lord. It's not good enough for some of you that they've refused to sell to the agencies, which is more than most gunmakers do. No, they have to take the same stance as FOUR (count them, 4) other gun makers, or you'll punish them. Meanwhile, nobody is ready to ostracize countless other firearm companies who have not made a peep about refusing to sell to the agencies of these states.

Buncha pharisees in this thread if you ask me.

Matno
February 20, 2013, 11:41 PM
Imagine if no one would sell ammunition to any Government agency.

I'm trying to, but such a beautiful dream is hard to conceive...

MachIVshooter
February 20, 2013, 11:51 PM
Here ya go, a partial list of all the other gunmakers you should boycott because they haven't refused to sell to NY agencies:

Accu-tek firearms
American Spirit Arms
AMT
Auto Ordnance
Axtell rifle Co
Ballard Rifle
Benelli USA Corporation
BerettaUSA
BersaFirearms
Bond Arms
Bravo Company
Browning
Bryco
Bushmaster
Cavalry Arms Corp.
Charles Daly
Charter Arms
Christensen Arms
Cimarron-Firearms
Clark Custom Guns, Inc.
Colt
Connecticut Shotgun Mfg. Co.
Cooper Firearms, Inc.
CrawleyCustomGuns
Creedmoor Sports
C SharpsArms
CVA
CZ-USA
Dakota Arms
Dan Wesson
Del-Ton
Derringer
Dixie Gun
DPMS Panther Arms
D S Arms, Inc
duPont/Krieghoff Gun Company
EAA Corp
Ed Brown Products, Inc.
Entreprise Arms
FN Manufacturing, LLC
Franchi USA
Freedom Arms
Fulton Armory
GibbsRifle
Glock
Harrington & Richardson
Heckler&Koch
Henry Repeating Arms
Heritage Mfg
Hi-Point Firearms
Ithaca Guns USA, LLC
Joseph Brazier
JP Rifles
Kahr
Kel-tec
Kimber
Knights Armament
Kolar Arms
Krieghoff International, Inc.
Kriss
L & G Arms
Lazzeroni Arms
Les Baer
Ljutic Industries, Inc
LMT
McMillan Bros
Magnum Research
Markesbery
Marlin Firearms
Maverick Aarms
Mossberg firearms
Navy Arms
North American Arms
Ohio Ordnance Works, Inc.
Para USA, Inc.
Palmetto
Quicksilver Manufacturing LLC
Randy’s Custom Rifles
Remington
RobinsonArmament
Rock River Arms
Ruger Firearm
Rossi USA
Sabre Defence
Savage Arms
Seecamp
Serbu Firearms
Sharps Rifle Manufacturing Company
Shiloh Rifle Manufacturing Company
Smith & Wesson
Springfield Armory
Springfield Armory, Inc.
Stag Arms
State Arms Gun Company
Stevens Arms
STI International
Stoeger Industries
Strayer Voigt Inc
Sturm, Ruger & Co.
Taurus USA
Thompson Center Arms
Traditions™ Performance Firearms
Troy
U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.,
Valkyrie Arms, Ltd
Vector Arms, Inc.
Vulcan Group Inc
Walther America
Weatherby
Wilson Combat
Winchester Repeating Arms
Wyandot Traditions
Searcy Rifles
Springfield Armory
Yankee Hill Machine Co, Inc.
Z-M Weapons

NWcityguy2
February 21, 2013, 12:41 AM
MachIVshooter,

You probably already know your twisting things around, but just in case you don't I'll clarify it for you. No one here has a problem with selling guns to NY agencies or LEO individuals if they can be bought by the general populace as well. Hence no one calling for a boycott on Weatherby, Marlin or Rossi. CVA should be worried though, pretending to tap their foot so you can't tell their leg is shaking worried.

As to why Armalite and not someone equally deserving? It is because they stuck their foot in their mouth at a poor time. It is 100% self inflicted damage. The issue came up from actual NY gun owners pushing gun companies not to sell LEOs guns that they can't buy and I 100% agree with them.

As for some other companies, hopefully their time will come to. Make sure to give this thread a bunch of free bumps trying to get the last word in, once it gets locked hundreds of people will read it just to find out why.

Girodin
February 21, 2013, 12:57 AM
How many in your list are selling to NY or is it even an issue for? That is how many even make guns affected by the NY law and of them how many are agencies or officers in NY even buying from? In sum your list is either not well thought out or deliberately obtuse.

Skylerbone
February 21, 2013, 01:47 AM
FYI, I'm not bashing police officers, my father spent some 30 years of his life as a police officer. The point is that sentiments expressed by a few token individuals in blue with political aspirations aren't considered universal among all LEOs. By pushing the issue however there are opportunities to make clear that We the People granted rights to Our Government and Not the other way round.

I would not wish any LE agent to face danger without every reasonable advantage needed. I expect no less in return when protecting myself and family.

MachIVshooter
February 21, 2013, 02:51 AM
How many in your list are selling to NY or is it even an issue for? That is how many even make guns affected by the NY law and of them how many are agencies or officers in NY even buying from? In sum your list is either not well thought out or deliberately obtuse.

How many Barrett or Olympic ARs do you think NY LEAs buy? If they weren't making any sales there, then they had nothing to lose by making such policies, and their gestures are nothing but a nice, loud horn toot.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud these companies for the stances they have taken, but we don't know who is or isn't selling what to NY LEA, so until we do, it's pretty pointless to applaud those who may be simply grandstanding while chastising those who really could lose big money by adopting such a policy.

So no, the list isn't obtuse. We have absolutely no clue which of those companies could take a La Rue stance and not lose a dime, which ones had contracts, and which ones are simply not willing to jeopardize the livelihood of their company and their worker's incomes by becoming involved in politics. Yet some here feel it's OK to idolize one maker who may only stand to profit while chastising another who took a similar but less rigid stance, even though they may have never sold a single weapon to NY LEA.

You think Barrett will quit selling to the military if the US government passes a .50 ban? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Where's all the animosity toward AR makers we know sell to LE on a large scale, like Colt? They haven't denied sales to NY, IL or CA LEAs.

It seems very emotion-driven to me, not unlike the liberal progressive anti-gun mentality we lament so on this board. One employee wrote a terse email (not uncivil, BTW), evidently because his inbox was blown up with some type of form letter, the president of the company apologized for his employee and took a stance against selling to NY LEA, and now everyone is pissed? Makes no sense to me.

But carry on, you guys obviously need some outlet for your anger over what the dems are doing, so why not direct it at an underserving gunmaker. May you all be business owners one day.

Diamondback6
February 21, 2013, 03:29 AM
Besides, American Spirit also helps our cause by selling 90-something-% PCR "non-receivers" to the public. Legally it's just a hunk of dead metal, but a few quick machining operations and you have a LIVE AR lower, completely unregistered... the only limit is you can only complete it for yourself. Oh, and you have to comply with whatever local laws, and watch your count of any imported parts under 18USC922R (import ban)...

Ash
February 21, 2013, 06:59 AM
I'm a business owner. More to the point, I'm a forestry consultant. Following Hurricane Katrina, many consultants upped their site-preparation/burning rates because the government was cost-sharing these activities because of the extreme timber damage. The goal was to make it possible for people to replant their trees. The consultants saw it as a means to line their pockets.

I charged the old rate, knowing that I would make less money, but also knowing that fleecing my clients was bad form.

Timber companies also dropped their prices big time - like 75% drops - for timber because people were desperate to salvage what value they could (though of course, the price of a 2x4 remained the same). I held my clients off of selling timber where they could until the prices returned/stabilized. Those were commissions I directly would not see (of course, I would see them later with increased prices, but later would be one or two more years). I got real hungry during those months (the first two years) but could not stick it to my clients by urging them to sell timber just so that I could make money.

Not quite the same, I know, as selling products, but taking care of the customer is important. Armalite can sell to whom they choose, of course. That is their right and their business model.

Lots of scrap companies said the same as they were supplying Japan with the raw materials to make war in the 1930's.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 12:45 PM
i think you just don't understand the nature of principles. the entire point of something being a 'principle' is that it is constant. it doesn't cease to become a principle when it becomes costly or difficult.

you should realize that there are many, many men who have already sacrificed their lives for their principles. you may not comprehend it, which is all the more reason you should take care before you insult it.
Do NOT misinterpret what I've said. I'd suggest taking your own advice. We're not talking about sticking up for somebody in a life or death situation. We're not talking about fighting for your country. We're talking about quitting your job and making your family suffer because your company starts selling widgets to NY. We're talking about putting your politics ahead of your family's well-being. What YOU people don't realize is that it's political to you. It's deeply personal to the business owner. Total lack of perspective.

I'll ask again...

...are you guys telling me you'd let your kids starve and get kicked out of your home to stand up for your principles? You would quit your job if your company started selling widgets to the government of New York? If that's true then the problem is your principles. If not, if you would do no different if you were in their position, then how can you hold it against them?


It seems very emotion-driven to me, not unlike the liberal progressive anti-gun mentality we lament so on this board.
Exactly! If we are ever to win this battle, we have to be better than they are. "They" being liberal progressives who want to take us into socialism/slavery. This ain't better. Emotional, knee-jerk nonsense like this thread is not the answer. Facts, logic, reason and perspective are the answer.

NWcityguy2
February 21, 2013, 12:51 PM
It seems very emotion-driven to me, not unlike the liberal progressive anti-gun mentality we lament so on this board.

Thats funny and I've heard it before. I wish anti-gun activist would try to solve problems on their own by boycotting companies and encouraging business with others. I wish they had that mentality. This debate would be a lot simpler if they did.

Sam1911
February 21, 2013, 12:59 PM
I'll ask again...

...are you guys telling me you'd let your kids starve and get kicked out of your home to stand up for your principles? You would quit your job if your company started selling widgets to the government of New York? If that's true then the problem is your principles. If not, if you would do no different if you were in their position, then how can you hold it against them?

I can hold it against them because it is a choice they make that I don't agree with. I'm not making their children starve. I'm choosing to spend my money elsewhere.

If they choose other issues over getting my money, that's fine. So what? I can get my products from other sources, and they can go on making their way in the world as they see fit. I'm offering them a choice. They don't have to take it, to care, or even to notice me. Its a free world.

I'd encourage others to do the same because I want the children of the owners and employees of companies who DO support me to be happier and more secure than those of companies who do business in a way I don't like. That might put a little pressure on the companies to act a certain way. Or it may not -- their choice. I'm rewarding them for doing something I appreciate.

You've got to chose one thing over another SOMEHOW. This might as well be part of your math.

Making it all about "would you starve your own children" is a fallacy of extremes. We're a bit better than that here ... right? :scrutiny:

NWcityguy2
February 21, 2013, 01:05 PM
...are you guys telling me you'd let your kids starve and get kicked out of your home to stand up for your principles? You would quit your job if your company started selling widgets to the government of New York? If that's true then the problem is your principles. If not, if you would do no different if you were in their position, then how can you hold it against them?

Thats a very common logic fallacy, taking an argument to an extreme. It is called Reductio ad absurdum and it's wikipedia page actually uses the same example you are using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Because of course leaving a job on the basis of principle will lead to all that. I've left a couple jobs, never on principle though. Thats probably why I got another job and no one starved.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 01:25 PM
Nice way to avoid the question. Bottom line, it is very easy for you guys to say what you're saying because it doesn't cost you anything but the time it took you to type it. Faced with the question of whether or not you would sacrifice a paying customer over your principles, you avoid the question. Yes, it was a somewhat extreme example, it was meant to be and there was a point to be made. I'm trying to offer a little perspective and you're turning your back to it.

I'll reduce the question to its core, would YOU sacrifice part of your business, that you depend on to feed, clothe and shelter your family, over something as trivial as this?

I can tell you right now, if one of my 40 customers told me to cut 5%, 10%, 20% of my business over something so stupid, I'd tell them to pound sand. While it may seem like an admirable and noble thing to do, in the end, all it is is a stupid business decision based on emotion and THAT is how liberals operate. Nobility lies in what YOU do with YOUR money, not where it came from, as long as it was legal and ethical.


Thats a very common logic fallacy, taking an argument to an extreme. It is called Reductio ad absurdum and it's wikipedia page actually uses the same example you are using.
Says the guy whose argument is the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball and going home. :rolleyes:

taliv
February 21, 2013, 01:30 PM
Do NOT misinterpret what I've said. I'd suggest taking your own advice.

how did i do that? I think your point is pretty clear. principles are meaningless when you get hungry.

We're not talking about sticking up for somebody in a life or death situation. We're not talking about fighting for your country.

that is precisely what we are talking about.

What YOU people don't realize is that it's political to you. It's deeply personal to the business owner. Total lack of perspective.

i'm afraid it's still you that fails to understand that our liberties are just as deeply personal to us. they are more important to some of us than jobs. we can get another job if we lose the one we have. there are thousands of ways to earn a living. there are not thousands of other countries we can emigrate to if this one turns totalitarian.

...are you guys telling me you'd let your kids starve and get kicked out of your home to stand up for your principles? You would quit your job if your company started selling widgets to the government of New York? If that's true then the problem is your principles. If not, if you would do no different if you were in their position, then how can you hold it against them?

i think nwcityguy covered this pretty adequately.

Derek Zeanah
February 21, 2013, 01:31 PM
I'll reduce the question to its core, would YOU sacrifice part of your business, that you depend on to feed, clothe and shelter your family, over something as trivial as this?
Yes. Or at least, I'm willing to give up (potential) ad revenue to support the gun rights fight in states where I have no intention of living and will probably never visit.

If gun laws in the US go the way of Britain or Australia, and all these companies we're talking about are going to go out of business or experience extreme cutbacks to downsize to "government only" sales demand. One could argue that taking a stand now -- one that might freak the NY State decisionmakers out when they can no longer purchase firearms or get them serviced -- might be in the long-term best interest of the company.

This is magnified when folks like me stand up and say "I'll buy a Barrett .338 Lapua over the Armalite AR30A1 I was considering just because of their stand on this issue, even if it costs more." That's one sale, but multiplied by how many? Hell, I just spent $100 on a bunch of MagPul magazine add-on doodads that I didn't need because I wanted to support the company.

I guess we just disagree here.

Sam Cade
February 21, 2013, 01:36 PM
Here ya go, a partial list of all the other gunmakers you should boycott because they haven't refused to sell to NY agencies:


Where did you get your list?

...some of these aren't selling firearms to anyone cause they are out of business. Also, many of these are importers not manufacturers.

taliv
February 21, 2013, 01:38 PM
craig, we're not avoiding the question. we've responded to it several different ways so far. you're just upset because you think we're idiots and you're trying to catch us in a silly logical trap.

reality is, you simply cannot even comprehend others having principles, and this is more a reflection on your own principles than ours. history is full of examples but mine is pretty simple, when columbus OH passed an assault weapon ban about 9 years ago, I sold my house in the city and 130 acres outside and moved my family to a different state that respected individual liberty.

so it's not trivial to me. and i would quit a job over it. i have moved over it.

Sam1911
February 21, 2013, 01:49 PM
I'll reduce the question to its core, would YOU sacrifice part of your business, that you depend on to feed, clothe and shelter your family, over something as trivial as this? Yes.

And I've done so. I don't see this as trivial AT ALL. This is a way of making a statement nationwide that does indeed get a lot of press and public attention. And quite a few manufacturers and suppliers have committed themselves to this.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 01:51 PM
If you don't live in New York, your liberties are not at stake.

Yes, I do think principles go out the window when you're hungry. They're real easy when you're sitting at home, fat & happy.

No, this is not a life or death situation. We are not at war, not yet. This is politics and we're talking about one of the most notorious anti-gun jurisdictions in the US. So again, where was all this hostility when New York banned handgun ownership and yet manufacturers still supplied their police departments with handguns. Sorry, to me this is all just misplaced and foolish.


i'm afraid it's still you that fails to understand that our liberties are just as deeply personal to us. they are more important to some of us than jobs. we can get another job if we lose the one we have. there are thousands of ways to earn a living. there are not thousands of other countries we can emigrate to if this one turns totalitarian.
You're barking up the wrong tree and preaching to the choir. What we disagree on is how we choose our battles. Nobody takes their liberty and freedom more seriously than I do. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You think because I don't agree with you on this issue that I don't take my liberty seriously? Do not insult me, sir.

No, when you're 40yrs old there aren't thousands of ways to earn a living. Nor is it just an arbitrary thing to walk away from a business you've spent half your lifetime building, over something so ridiculously stupid. Like I said, easy words when you have nothing to lose.

If you do not refuse to do business with any company whose policies you disagree with, you should probably keep your mouth shut about Armalite. I know if I did, I probably wouldn't have but 25% of the business I have. My wife would have to go back to work at that hellhole in Memphis, where I was constantly afraid of school shootings, riots and stabbings but hey, at least my "principles" would be in good standing, right? What a total crock of you know what. :rolleyes:

Wanna really stick it to our political enemies? Take their money and spend it on guns.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 01:54 PM
reality is, you simply cannot even comprehend others having principles, and this is more a reflection on your own principles than ours.
This is not only 180° from reality but I also take it as a personal attack and I expected better. I have NOT flung any personal insults and would appreciate the same, at least from moderators.

DAP90
February 21, 2013, 01:57 PM
Armalite can sell to whomever they please, I have no direct authority to stop them, but if I have a myriad of choices (and I do) why wouldn’t I choose those to support those companies that support me? Why on earth would I instead choose to buy from a company that either doesn’t care about me or only cares so long as it doesn’t interfere with their bottom line?

I’d much rather give my money to the guy who supports my rights. I’d like to help make his risky stand have a financially positive outcome – and I fully intend to.

It’s no different than not patronizing a restaurant with a no carry sign and instead going to the pizza place with a discount for people who carry.

Sam Cade
February 21, 2013, 01:58 PM
So again, where was all this hostility when New York banned handgun ownership and yet manufacturers still supplied their police departments with handguns?

New York City you mean?

Well, it was 102 years ago...

Sgt_R
February 21, 2013, 02:08 PM
Armalite is free to sell to whomever they like. And I am free to purchase my next rifle from LaRue.

Funny how that "freedom" thing works both ways, isn't it?

N

pty101
February 21, 2013, 02:23 PM
Armalite can sell to whoever they want, I can also buy from whoever I want. I do support companies who stop sales to the government of NY and CA, but unless the big law enforcement suppliers join in, it will achieve little. I am more offended by their their sarcastic first email. that alone is enough not to buy from them.

Sam1911
February 21, 2013, 03:02 PM
Look, Craig, I'd like Armalite to do a specific thing: Join the movement of manufacturers and and suppliers who won't deal with law enforcement on a different fundamental level than they deal with other civilians.

To that end, I would not buy their products if they don't do what I want. It's really that simple. I don't have to buy their products. They don't have to do what I want.

Whether that's perfectly internally consistent across every purchase I ever made, or every issue I ever cared about, or any other wide-cast extensions of the theme is actually quite irrelevant.

This is a matter of import to me at the moment. I'd like ArmaLite's help. This is my way of asking for that help. They're free to do as they wish.

Skylerbone
February 21, 2013, 03:12 PM
Craig, let's make it personal. Would you leave Tennessee if your home State said owning any firearm was a crime and the courts upheld the decision? What say your company manufactured bombs and the year was 1940. Would you have sold them to a short man with a mustache? Furthermore, would you expect to continue those sales through 1945 unabated by those who hadn't been bombed yet?

Where were we on supporting NYC? Not born yet but participating in the battle with NRA/ILA contributions. Doesn't affect us? Ask Colorado residents how Bloomberg affects them via politics.

When it comes to feeding my family I can say that my work record stretches back to cutting grass and shoveling snow at age 8. Never been 2 weeks without a job since, never drawn an unemployment check and most certainly have changed careers.

To some of us, and we are all fallible, principle means correcting course the moment you realize your direction is wrong.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 03:57 PM
...when columbus OH passed an assault weapon ban about 9 years ago, I sold my house in the city and 130 acres outside and moved my family to a different state that respected individual liberty.
Did you announce to the world, including all future employers, why you left your job in Ohio? Or did you keep that little tidbit secret for your future prosperity?


Would you leave Tennessee if your home State said owning any firearm was a crime and the courts upheld the decision?
I left my lifelong home in Florida 6yrs ago because it was becoming an overcrowded blue state.


What say your company manufactured bombs and the year was 1940. Would you have sold them to a short man with a mustache?
And my example was extreme? I guess it's only extreme when you disagree with it. :rolleyes:


Join the movement of manufacturers and and suppliers who won't deal with law enforcement on a different fundamental level than they deal with other civilians.
Really? You want Colt and FN to stop selling automatic weapons to the military because they law prevents them from selling to us? What about fighters and tanks??? See the hypocrisy here? Where does it end?


IMHO, if you have a lick of sense, you'll leave politics out of your business, or you'll be out of business. The rest is just juvenile posturing and idealistic silliness. I grew up with nothing, my wife grew up nothing, we are not materialistic or greedy people. Yet when I posed a hypothetical question about cancelling some of my contracts because I disagreed with the politics of those customers, I stood back. The response was about what I expected.

I'm not passing judgement on whether or not what they did was a good idea. I'm merely trying to point out that it's not as black & white as you guys like to think and not everybody wants to cut their own throat to make a political gesture.

taliv
February 21, 2013, 04:15 PM
What about fighters and tanks??? See the hypocrisy here?

you're completely confused here because fighters and tanks aren't protected by the 2A. It's not hypocritical at all.


You're barking up the wrong tree and preaching to the choir. What we disagree on is how we choose our battles. Nobody takes their liberty and freedom more seriously than I do.

no, clearly others are willing to sacrifice now to impose economic sanctions against companies that don't support our rights, and you think it's silly.

you can see this as picking your battles. but we are at war we're just not shooting yet. and the rest of us would rather work economic and political angles, even if they cost us our jobs, in hopes of avoiding having to shoot.

many of us make business decisions based on politics and are still in business.

MachIVshooter
February 21, 2013, 04:16 PM
OK, let me put this into perspective for some.

I run an automotive repair shop. Suppose the US government passed a law that all cars sold to the public must be governed at 79 MPH, but police and government vehicles are exempt.

I can stand up and say "I refuse to sell parts to or service the vehicles of any government agency!". Everyone cheers, I've taken a noble stand, hooray for me. But I don't work on LE and government vehicles to begin with, so this stance can only help me by increasing my customer base.

But the shop 12 miles east of me has long worked on county vehicles, sheriff's vehicles and the local police vehicles; Those accounts comprise a significant portion of their revenue. If they take the same stance, it will be a serious economic loss to their business. They may have to let people go, even close their doors.

Are you starting to see the bigger picture? I seriously doubt very many NY LE are buying La Rue rifles, so there is likely no economic risk to them by taking this stance. Principled, commendable, but I suspect mostly grandstanding. Same with Barrett, Olympic and York Arms. Now, I don't know that Armalite has ever made much (or anything at all) selling to officers of NY LE, but if they did, then taking the same stance could really hurt them.

If anyone can prove to me that one of these companies refusing to sell to NY LE actually stands to lose any significant amount of sales over their stance, then we can revisit this argument. Until that time, though, I suggest you either back off of Armalite or stick to your guns and boycott all gunmakers who haven't refused NY LE sales. If you're gonna be principled, then be principled. Don't just jump on the boycott bandwagon to feel like you're sending a message, because if you refuse to buy Armalites but continue to buy Colts and other brands that still sell to NY LE, you're a raging hypocrite.

mcdonl
February 21, 2013, 04:23 PM
machivshooter, I suspect that if Armalite lost their private market sales they would feel significant pain. We buy more guns, more often than LE does.

murphys_law
February 21, 2013, 04:26 PM
It's not a business' responsibility to stand up for YOUR rights as an individual. No matter the nature of the industry. Particularly when it represents an economic risk to them.

Like with every other discussion of this nature, we have people who have no clue what it takes to run a business, especially in such a politically volatile industry, thinking they should be able to dictate how another runs theirs. Sorry but this is no more or less disgusting than what I hear from the other side. Shooters hanging their own out to dry over such silly things does FAR more damage to our cause than Armalite selling rifles to NY. Personally, I'd rather see them in business, even if that means selling to NY and CA governments than out of business.

Here's a question. You run your own business. One of the 20 municipalities you do business with passes a law or ordnance that you disagree with. Are you willing to throw away your business with them over this? What if it threatens your relationship with the other 19? Or do you continue to feed and clothe your family with their money? IMHO, the idealism goes out the window when it's YOUR business, YOUR livelihood and YOUR family that will suffer because of YOUR principles.

With that behind said people are always free to make their own decisions on who to buy from based on any factor they want. That is why this is AMERICA. The business makes the decisions, whichever way that may be and they live with the consequences. THAT is the risk you take running a business. Period

Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk 2

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 04:29 PM
you're completely confused here because fighters and tanks aren't protected by the 2A. It's not hypocritical at all.
Join the movement of manufacturers and and suppliers who won't deal with law enforcement on a different fundamental level than they deal with other civilians.
Did you not read what I quoted???


clearly others are willing to sacrifice now to impose economic sanctions against companies that don't support our rights, and you think it's silly.
Sacrifice what, exactly? Because I don't think we're talking about sacrificing the same thing. If we were, you guys wouldn't be so flippant about it. Are you saying you would sacrifice, say 20% of the business you killed yourself building for 10-15yrs to make a political statement? 50%??? Or would it be smarter to donate that money to the NRA-ILA, buy guns, ammo, components and hunt the world?

Taliv, I know you are a moderator but I would appreciate it if you modified your tone with me because several statements you've made are being taken as personal insults. If you want this to stay civil, please make the appropriate adjustments. Your assumptions are incorrect and I won't stand for incorrect character judgements from anyone.


THAT is the risk you take running a business. Period
And if you're smart you leave the politics out of your business so you can stay in business. Minimize risk. Period.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 04:33 PM
Quoted for truth. All questions we should know the answers to before we start the witch hunt. If we do not, we're no better than they are. I just think the companies that GIVE money to anti-gun entities are more evil than those who TAKE money FROM them.

OK, let me put this into perspective for some.

I run an automotive repair shop. Suppose the US government passed a law that all cars sold to the public must be governed at 79 MPH, but police and government vehicles are exempt.

I can stand up and say "I refuse to sell parts to or service the vehicles of any government agency!". Everyone cheers, I've taken a noble stand, hooray for me. But I don't work on LE and government vehicles to begin with, so this stance can only help me by increasing my customer base.

But the shop 12 miles east of me has long worked on county vehicles, sheriff's vehicles and the local police vehicles; Those accounts comprise a significant portion of their revenue. If they take the same stance, it will be a serious economic loss to their business. They may have to let people go, even close their doors.

Are you starting to see the bigger picture? I seriously doubt very many NY LE are buying La Rue rifles, so there is likely no economic risk to them by taking this stance. Principled, commendable, but I suspect mostly grandstanding. Same with Barrett, Olympic and York Arms. Now, I don't know that Armalite has ever made much (or anything at all) selling to officers of NY LE, but if they did, then taking the same stance could really hurt them.

If anyone can prove to me that one of these companies refusing to sell to NY LE actually stands to lose any significant amount of sales over their stance, then we can revisit this argument. Until that time, though, I suggest you either back off of Armalite or stick to your guns and boycott all gunmakers who haven't refused NY LE sales. If you're gonna be principled, then be principled. Don't just jump on the boycott bandwagon to feel like you're sending a message, because if you refuse to buy Armalites but continue to buy Colts and other brands that still sell to NY LE, you're a raging hypocrite.

Derek Zeanah
February 21, 2013, 04:47 PM
I really don't see the source for all this hostility. Here's the way it looks to me: Some states and municipalities are outlawing classes of firearms for everyone but government employees.
These tools are essential defensive tools. For cops as well as for other civilians.
If police departments, who have employees who are only trained and competent on one handgun type and the AR were suddenly denied access to these essential defensive tools, they'd damn near revolt.
As a result, the rules in these states for everyone would likely change.
Some companies see this, and are willing to forego some economic benefit in order to do their part in this cause. Some other companies are jumping on the bandwagon as it's free PR with no real downside.
Some of us see this and will choose to reward those companies for standing up for the second amendment.
Some of us will pay more to send our money to these companies than an equivalent product might cost from another company not willing to make this level of commitment. For me, I'm probably willing to pay 50% more out of principle before I start to really think about it.
All of this is terribly upsetting to some folks.There are no real monopolies here. ARs are essentially commodities. This is easy for consumers to figure out.

I guess the point I don't understand is this: If I'm willing to pay more money to buy a Barrett .338 and forego buying an Armalite .338 (and the Armalite shoots great, by the way), then why does anyone care?

If I encourage others to do the same, why is this so offensive to some?

Fishbed77
February 21, 2013, 04:51 PM
you're completely confused here because fighters and tanks aren't protected by the 2A. It's not hypocritical at all.

And it is actually quite legal for civilians to purchase most models of fighters and tanks that come to market, aside from ones that are specifically prohibited by law (F-22 Raptor, M1 Abrams). For example, there are M60 tanks and at least one F-16A fighter in private hands.

In fact, the government intentionally destroyed most F-14s after their retirement from the fleet (aside from ones earmarked for museums) to prevent the civilian sale of airframes and components, as it was feared that they would find their way to Iran (the only other operator of the F-14).

Skylerbone
February 21, 2013, 04:53 PM
Taking a rigid stance is nothing like what liberals do. Taking a stance requires a spine. Your stance requires no action and expects no consequences which begs the question. I took a stance when I discontinued contributions to United Way. I sent a letter informing them that the director of a charity ought not be making a salary in the multi-million dollar range. I explained it belittled my paltry contribution as well as sending the wrong message about true charity. If you don't live it, don't preach it.

As far as business savvy, ignoring future consequences to feed mouths now in hopes of avoiding personal sacrifice is beyond short-sighted particularly in regards to firearm manufacturers. Every business starts with a plan to first offer what is needed at a price that is competitive. It means knowing your clientele. It means no blood diamonds for Helzberg Jewelers and no animal testing for Cover Girl because customers deem it so. Is it more expensive? Not compared with bankruptcy.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 05:07 PM
Your stance requires no action and expects no consequences which begs the question.
You guys sure love to assume crap that isn't true. I didn't say I didn't take a stand. I drive an hour every time I go shopping to avoid going to Walmart. I just don't sacrifice my business to make a political statement. There are other ways and I utilize them. Declining business hurts me more than them. I work smarter, what you suggest is beyond stupid.


As far as business savvy...
The record speaks for itself, business and profit has increased 400% over the last two years. Why? Because I don't make stupid decisions like sacrificing business to make a dumb political statement. I'd rather take their money and spend it on guns, ammo, components, hunting and the NRA than leave it on the table for potential enemies. This should be obvious. I'm in a better position to FIGHT them with their own money than the man who "stands on principle" by shooting himself in the foot. Which is really the more wise position? Think, it ain't hard.


I posed this question to the man in charge and he said... "I would take their money and and use it against them. Buy more guns and ammo!"

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 06:34 PM
Battles are fought with the extremists but the war will be won somewhere in the middle. What strikes me as the biggest issue we face is not the actions of people like Feinstein and Schumer but the ignorant masses that make their work possible. The anti's really have no clue who we are, what we do or what we stand for. They operate on emotions and in almost total ignorance. Their knowledge of who they are fighting and what they are trying to ban based solely on generalizations, stereotypes and lies. They have lots of handy labels to apply to us but few if any of them are accurate. I just think our efforts would be better spent educating the undecided and battling our foes than destroying our friends.

We also should not hold others to standards we're unable to live with. Personally, I think the enemy's money is in a better place in my bank account than theirs but I'm weird like that. :scrutiny:

NWcityguy2
February 21, 2013, 07:56 PM
Craig, thanks for keeping this conversation at the top of the front page, it really helps get the message out. You don't understand why we are doing this but after reading your posts that really isn't a surprise. Asking taliv to modify his tone while you say in the same thread...

...let's not act like "them" by running on pure, unfiltered emotion... YOU are part of the problem... don't let me stop you from lynching our own... and THAT is how liberals operate... They're real easy when you're sitting at home, fat & happy... The rest is just juvenile posturing and idealistic silliness... not everybody wants to cut their own throat to make a political gesture... If we were, you guys wouldn't be so flippant about it... You guys sure love to assume crap that isn't true... what you suggest is beyond stupid... but the ignorant masses... The anti's... They operate on emotions and in almost total ignorance...

...says a lot. (It says you are way too emotional about this)

If you don't want to stand on this principle, choose some others to stand on. I doubt you'll be subjected to the same treatment you are giving us.

cal30_sniper
February 21, 2013, 08:17 PM
If you don't live in New York, your liberties are not at stake.

Let's get one thing straight right from the start: The New York ban threatens the liberties of every single citizen of the United States of America. NY will be a test bed for other states and the federal government to introduce future laws in other states or on a national level. If the New York gun ban is a success, others states, and eventually the federal government, will follow the same route. If the New York ban goes off like a crap bomb with mass civil disobedience, rioting, demonstrations, and critical law enforcement agencies not being able to buy the equipment they need to perform their jobs effectively because manufacturers refuse to sell it to them, then not only will the law be repealed in New York, but it will have very little chance of being duplicated elsewhere.

We're not talking about companies going out of business, and children starving, because a firearms manufacture refused to sell to the law enforcement agencies of a SINGLE state out of 50. Even if Armalite said they weren't going to sell to New York, what would they lose? Even for a populous state as NY, they might lose 10% of their profits from law enforcement sales. That would be assuming that NY buys 5 times the number of law enforcement weapons as your average state (1/50 = 2%). Now, how much money do you think they would make in civilian sales when people started buying ARs instead of Colts, because Colt refused to boycott New York LE agencies? Then Colt loses business on the civilian side and either has to raise prices or follow AR's lead. Either way, New York State gets hurt. If Colt follows AR's lead, then New York law enforcement agencies might not be able to buy the rifles they need at all. At that point, something has to be done, so the law is repealed, and freedom wins everywhere.

An idealistic line of reasoning perhaps, but an elephant can only be eaten one bite at a time, and you've got to start somewhere. If you're too blind to see that process, then you really need to revisit American history of civil disobedience and free market economy.

Yes, I do think principles go out the window when you're hungry. They're real easy when you're sitting at home, fat & happy.

Principles are principles because you hold to them when times get rough. If you're not willing to do so, then it's not a principle. You claim you're willing to let principles go to avoid difficulty and to make sure there's food in your belly and everyone is happy. I say you don't have principles at all then. It's people like that that make the transition from republic to totalitarianism so easy. There's an old line that holds very true with the sentiment you've been presenting here:



"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

-Martin Niemöller

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 08:20 PM
(It says you are way too emotional about this)
Are you a comedian? I'm one of few in this discussion taking the emotion out of it. You're obviously not actually reading my posts, only finding little snippets to argue about. Since reading comprehension is a lost art, I'll not bother any further because you clearly aren't getting the message.


If the New York gun ban is a success
Like all the other big city gun bans??? :rolleyes:


I say you don't have principles at all then.
I'd say I'm smarter at choosing my battles than you are. I'd also say that those are fighting words from an internet tough guy who obviously can't read.

I really don't know if it's my inability to express my thoughts or your inability to comprehend them, or both but we are having an obvious communication breakdown here.

Like I said before, among all the other hard questions no one bothered to answer, who's in the best position to fight the good fight, the guy who uses the enemy's money against them or the guy in the unemployment line who did something stupid to "stand on principle"? Who REALLY stands on their principles, the who puts politics above his family's well-being or the guy who takes care of his immediate responsibilities first and foremost? Again, these "principles" are real easy when you have nothing to lose. It ain't your business we're talking about.


If you're too blind to see that process, then you really need to revisit American history of civil disobedience and free market economy.
You can pound sand on that note. I've spent more money on books on liberty and history in the last five years than you probably have your whole life. I ordered nine books on history, liberty and philosophy yesterday.

cal30_sniper
February 21, 2013, 08:25 PM
CraigC,

You also might want to do a little extracurricular reading about a pair of men named Oskar Schindler and John Rabe. IMO, both are prime examples of men that learned how to put personal principles ahead of capital gain. A bit higher stakes than we are talking about here, but it just goes to show that some things are more important than making money. I'd start with things like principle, honor, integrity, and morality, but I'm sure there are more that could be added to the list.

Some things are worth dying for. Even more things are worth going hungry for. I can think of a whole lot of things that are worth giving up money for, and the defense of liberty falls under all three categories.

cal30_sniper
February 21, 2013, 08:27 PM
You're obviously not actually reading my posts, only finding little snippets to argue about. Since reading comprehension is a lost art, I'll not bother any further because you clearly aren't getting the message.

I actually read every single post in this thread. I find your arguments emotionally charged and spineless. If you can't see the importance of what some manufacturers are doing to stop the NY weapons ban, and the importance of what we as the consumer are doing to help them, then maybe you should go back to penny pinching and putting your profits a little higher in the black.

To take it to an extreme like you've been so fond of doing, all that extra money you're making by selling out on principle isn't going to be worth a hill of beans when the government comes to take it from you and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

CraigC
February 21, 2013, 08:44 PM
Some things are worth dying for. Even more things are worth going hungry for. I can think of a whole lot of things that are worth giving up money for, and the defense of liberty falls under all three categories.
You will never find anyone who agrees with that sentiment more than I. Do you really think that gutting my business will hurt them? Or will it hurt me? Do you really think it's wiser to gut my business, live on a bare minimum and suffer for absolutely no reason? Is that really the path to victory? It's really tough to fight an expensive battle when you're broke. Spineless? I don't think so. I've been called a lot of things but never that. More cheap talk from an internet tough guy.

You guys must only work for companies who sell to customers you approve of then? You must also only employ domestic personnel and only work with goods made in the US. No? Typing on a keyboard made in China or Taiwan? Sell goods to whoever can pay for them? The Commander in Chief is an anti-gun socialist that wants to disarm and enslave us all. I guess all the military and federal law enforcement personnel who have not left their posts are also "spineless"???


...by selling out on principle...
Yeah dude, I give regularly to the NRA-ILA, have been a regular member for over 20yrs, signed up all the family members and friends I could, participate regularly on the NRA and other pro-freedom webpages, write my congresscritters and make an ass out of myself on forums like this but I'm a sellout because I don't pollute my business with politics. Yep, that's it. Feels like I'm arguing with idealistic juveniles that are all balls and no brains.

Sam1911
February 21, 2013, 09:01 PM
And if you're smart you leave the politics out of your business so you can stay in business. Minimize risk. Period. Unless, of course, you're in a politically charged and affected business and many of your customers ask you do do something (yes, to make a sacrifice) which makes a statement.

Then, NOT engaging in politics is harmful to your business and the opposite of minimizing risk.

There is no way to simply stay neutral and carry on with no recriminations. Other firms have set the bar. ArmaLite can join that movement, or not. Their choice, free country.

Either way, their actions will have some consequences.

They don't have to like it. YOU don't have to like it. It just is how it is.

cal30_sniper
February 21, 2013, 09:02 PM
Like all the other big city gun bans??? :rolleyes:

The New York ban is not a "big city ban." It is a statewide ban imposed by big city politics, in a state that has a large, rural, gun-friendly population outside of that "big city." That is why its stands a good chance of failing. Hopefully some of those books you've been buying dealt with geography. You might want to look up the difference between a state and a city.



I'd say I'm smarter at choosing my battles than you are. I'd also say that those are fighting words from an internet tough guy who obviously can't read.

I really don't know if it's my inability to express my thoughts or your inability to comprehend them, or both but we are having an obvious communication breakdown here.

I'm going to go with the latter, since I read and quoted your direct claim that principles were worth giving up to avoid going hungry. If you didn't mean it, then you shouldn't have said it. If you did mean it, you're wrong. The fact that everyone else is seeing the same thing is also helping my case here.


Like I said before, among all the other hard questions no one bothered to answer, who's in the best position to fight the good fight, the guy who uses the enemy's money against them or the guy in the unemployment line who did something stupid to "stand on principle"? Who REALLY stands on their principles, the who puts politics above his family's well-being or the guy who takes care of his immediate responsibilities first and foremost? Again, these "principles" are real easy when you have nothing to lose. It ain't your business we're talking about.

It is my liberty we are talking about here, which is personally much more important to me than my business or food in my belly.

It appears that you've now shifted your argument to the fact that its better to take the enemy's money and use it for good than to not take it in the first place. I'm sorry, but I've seen no announcement where Armalite said they were taking all profits from NY LEO sales and donating them to the NRA. That would be wonderful, and I would fully support that route. However, all I HAVE seen is Larue, Olympic, etc, come out and say they would not sell to NY. If Armalite is not willing to do the same, I reserve the right to not only spend my money elsewhere, but also to spread the word to as many gun owners as possible to do the same. If Armalite then goes out of business, then perhaps the next company to take their place won't be so weak to stand up for the rights of their primary customers.

Not to mention that Armalite is very unlikely to go out of business because they fail to sell to NY LEOs. They very well may lose a lot of business if they continue to alienate their public customers with rude emails and wishy-washy political statements that fail to make a stand for what is right.



You can pound sand on that note. I've spent more money on books on liberty and history in the last five years than you probably have your whole life. I ordered nine books on history, liberty and philosophy yesterday.

Oh my, we've got a regular Herodotus here...

Skylerbone
February 21, 2013, 09:05 PM
Answer the question, Craig. I'm positive you're not the only business owner on this forum and we're not discussing your business. What would you do if they banned firearms in your State? Would you pull up stakes and move, forcing your children to starve? Grin and bear it till you could retire in Colora...er Texas?

Battles are fought with the extremists but the war will be won somewhere in the middle.

So which parts of our Constitution do you in the middle see as too extreme? Which rights are you ready to compromise on in the interest of peace through appeasement? Was my example of Hitler really too extreme now?

I think the enemy's money is in a better place in my bank account than theirs but I'm weird like that.

Here's how I'm weird, I'd sooner starve my enemy than sell him the sustenance that feeds his growing intolerance. I prefer removing his teeth, that he can no longer bite as I turn my back.

You guys sure love to assume crap that isn't true. I didn't say I didn't take a stand. I drive an hour every time I go shopping to avoid going to Walmart. I just don't sacrifice my business to make a political statement.

Alas, we assumed from the mountain of evidence you offered against those who take a stand that you were actually against such policy, now this. You view your stand against Walmart as worthy, though it no doubt takes gas money and time away from your children (and from the children of Walmart employees) but ours is a less noble cause being based on principle?

Congratulations on your success in business, clearly ethics, logic and reasoning play no small part in its daily affairs. I am "beyond stupid" in the ways of commerce which is why I simply chose a career and saved for rainy days.

cal30_sniper
February 21, 2013, 09:22 PM
You will never find anyone who agrees with that sentiment more than I. Do you really think that gutting my business will hurt them? Or will it hurt me? Do you really think it's wiser to gut my business, live on a bare minimum and suffer for absolutely no reason? Is that really the path to victory? It's really tough to fight an expensive battle when you're broke.

You've yet to show any valid argument that not selling to NY LEOs will cause Armalite to go bankrupt. You keep taking things to extremes by saying they're going to be living off the streets or off of unemployment checks unless they sell out on principle. Logic decrees that Armalite probably does way more business with private citizens than they do with NY law enforcement. They stand to benefit in civilian sales by boycotting the NY state law enforcement. They stand to lose big time if laws like the one in New York spread to other states or nationwide. They stand to lose big time if they keep treating their customers like the original message that was sent out also.


Spineless? I don't think so. I've been called a lot of things but never that. More cheap talk from an internet tough guy.

This is coming from the fellow who was just bragging about how many books he could put on the shelf in his house?


The Commander in Chief is an anti-gun socialist that wants to disarm and enslave us all. I guess all the military and federal law enforcement personnel who have not left their posts are also "spineless"???

This is just ridiculous. The CIC has made absolutely no call to reinstate slavery. He has done many things, but not that. Stop being so emotional and extreme about a very simple concept. Perhaps some of us choose to remain at our post so we can have a legitimate say in the times that may come? Would you rather have the military and law enforcement staffed with "yes men" from the Government, or free thinking individuals ready to die for their principles? I think you just answered your own question.



Yeah dude, I give regularly to the NRA-ILA, have been a regular member for over 20yrs, signed up all the family members and friends I could, participate regularly on the NRA and other pro-freedom webpages, write my congresscritters and make an ass out of myself on forums like this but I'm a sellout because I don't pollute my business with politics. Yep, that's it. Feels like I'm arguing with idealistic juveniles that are all balls and no brains.

Again, sounds like you're all about standing up for your "principles" until there's some real skin in the game. Also, see your comments on "internet toughguyism" above...

NWcityguy2
February 21, 2013, 10:05 PM
I'll not bother any further because you clearly aren't getting the message.

Thats cool. I read all your posts in this thread, it took me at least 5 minutes. The only message you are sending is "I can say whatever I want but if you disagree you are making crap up, not understanding me, going off pure emotion and don't have as much principle as a man who would rather have food than principles to begin with."

Also for those of you who haven't seen it, I believe this is the NY based gun forum that started this whole thing. My hats are off to them. http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/firearms-news/45935-official-manufacturers-list-refusing-le-govt-sales-thread-campaign.html

B!ngo
February 21, 2013, 10:42 PM
You guys do understand that these companies have to make money or they do not stay in business, correct? Personally, I think shooters are way too busy-body on this issue and have WAY too much to say about how businesses conduct themselves. Real easy when it ain't your money. We do business with companies whose politics and policies we don't agree with. Why? Because business is business and politics is politics. If you're smart, you'll leave one out of the other. Unless you're independently wealthy and can afford to burn half your bridges. We're not, we can't, we won't. I don't blame Armalite for getting every penny they can get while they can get it.

Unless you want people in YOUR business?
CraigC, I just can't agree with you on this one. Principally because this isn't business and politics. This is businesses serving two markets - government and consumer. And thus, they are inexorably intertwined.
We have to cause company's to question their actions in the context of possibly having to choose which market they will get the opportunity to serve. If they pursue the government market in a firearm unfriendly state, then they will get to serve only that market. Consumers should shut off access to their market by buying products from companies who make a different choice.
It may very well work out that some companies will choose to serve governments and others will serve the private sector. Alternatively, the companies will protest government decisions as hurting their business and perhaps those policies will moderate.
In the end, we can think this through like a chess game and do nothing until we fully understand the end game or we can act. I prefer action. Thus I would support a boycott of companies who choose to value government business above private sector priorities in those states who are anti-gun owner extremists.
Others can make other choices. I would like to see a 'scorecard sticky' that shows company's, their actions, and the states in which they act. We can thus act as our hearts and minds dictate.
B

Art Eatman
February 21, 2013, 10:53 PM
"I would like to see a 'scorecard sticky' that shows company's, their actions, and the states in which they act. We can thus act as our hearts and minds dictate."

Which is the why of the Activism forum.

If you enjoyed reading about "Armalite is supporting NY by still selling AR rifles to police. DONE WITH ARMALITE!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!