Companies boycotting unfriendly states but what about us??

[jon_in_wv]

I'm sure most of you have read how many companies have finally gotten a pair and are starting to boycott states that pass laws to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. Notable heroes are Magpul, Olympic Arms, and possibly Beretta if they leave Maryland. The big question is what happens when large departments like the NYPD renew their contracts with a company like Glock when it comes time? I completely agree with the stance of some of the gun makers they will NOT knowingly support criminal behavior and when the state of NY uses its authority to usurp the 2nd Amendment right of its citizens they will not sell them weapons to enforce it but when it comes time, will people support Glock when they decide to continue arming the NYPD? Or would you rather they take the same stance and refuse to renew its contract with them? Would it effect your purchasing decisions in the future if they did continue to arm the police in states where they choose the oppress people's rights? I was in the market for a Glock this year but personally I'm going to wait and see how they handle the situation. I'm spending money on those companies that are taking a stand.

Edit: After reading the rules of this portion of the forum I thought I would clarify to be a bit more "concise". What I am proposing is that we support the companies that are taking a stand for the 2nd Amendment against the states that are oppressing it by showing our support to those companies to offset the cost of that stand AND we show our displeasure with those companies who don't support that position by showing them we will no longer buy their products if they support states like Colorado, NY, and Maryland. I would also suggest we avoid spending ANY money in those states. Money talks louder than words in many cases. Additionally, I want your opinion on whether or not companies supplying the law enforcement of those states will factor into your future purchasing decisions.

 

[joeschmoe]

Like this?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=704706

 

[jon_in_wv]

I'm referring more to us as a consumer. Its great if these businesses take action but if they go out of business because we don't support them or they are still doing competition with the businesses that do sell to NY then what is gained? Its on us to put our money where our mouths are.

 

[oneounceload]

If Glock stopped, someone else would step up - who is going to pass up an order for 40,000 guns, plus training, parts, etc?

 

[JERRY]

thier $$$ carry more importance than your rights.

 

[hso]

Consumer sales are reported to be greater than any single government sale (excluding the fed). We could have an impact on the bottom line of manufacturers.

 

[jon_in_wv]

If Glock stopped, someone else would step up - who is going to pass up an order for 40,000 guns, plus training, parts, etc?

Well thats the point isn't it. Glock sells those weapons heavily discounted. If the lose an equal percentage of sales from the rest of us because we don't buy a Glock then what? How can we sit here and support the companies that take actions like the ones above if we continue to show just as much support to those who don't? 40,000 pistols isn't such a large number in the bigger picture of private sales and like you said, WE can step up and buy from someone else too. I have no problem if they sell to the other million cops in the US but I do have a problem if they don't stand with us for our rights.

BTW, I'm sure there are plenty of companies who made a lot of money doing business with oppressive governments and I'm sure their excuse was, "hey if we don't do it someone else will, we might as well make the money." Just because someone someone else will do it doesn't make it right.

HSO, that is a good point. I'm not sure I would apply that same standard to a Federal contract. ATK, supplies a HUGE amount of ammo to the Feds and the US military. I'm not sure that company would even survive without those contracts. Without ATK ALL of us would be in a really bad situation when it comes to ammo. I think the end result could be that the feds would "bail out" the company then use its assets for its own purpose and say the hell with the rest of us. Or they would produce their own ammo and leave the rest of us to do without. I do think there are exceptions but If we stand behind the companies that do boycott the oppressive states, and boycott those who support it we can send a clear message (whether its approval or disapproval) to the manufacturers and those states.

 

[HankR]

Glock and Beretta probably sell a lot of guns to private citizens by publicizing the fact that they provide the official gun for for the NYPD, or US Army, or .... That is, they don't make the money off of the (discounted) large contract, but leverage that into sales to citizens. If we make it clear that the second part of this won't happen the OPs premise has merit.

 

[Bill4282]

Last I read, 65% of LE Agencies which includes Federal, States and locals carry Glocks. We all know Glock is "headquartered" in GA but most are built and owner in Austria. Gaston, in my opinion, isn't interested in the Second Amendment issue since his customer base is largely unaffected. It's about the money. Watch Lord of War.

 

[WALKERs210]

I think its time that southern states Governors should be on the phone with these firearm manufactures in N.E. and invite them to relocate here in the south. Where we a have a very skilled work force,, states will bend over backwards to get tax breaks for any company really wanting to relocate. I can point to one area where land is available on a major interstate highway and close enough that rail can be easily tapped to service their company here now.

 

[jfrey]

After recently reading "Glock-America's Gun", old man Gaston Glock cares a lot more about his young wife and money than he ever will about our thoughts in this country. If you don't believe it, just ask his EX wife and kids. A guy in a LGS told me last week a rep stopped by to see them and said Glock has a 1,000,000 gun back order. So you think they really care what we think. They can sell their wares to other countries and drug dealers around the world. If NYC brings in the cash they will sell them the guns.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I'm not saying we would drive Glock out of business, I'm not sure where you think I said that, but rather if they lost more sales by providing guns to states like NY than they made by doing it I think that would prove the point to the manufacturer and more importantly the state in question. I'm not talking about shutting down international businesses like Glock so lets stop throwing that into the conversation like that is anyone's goal.

BTW, this might be another good reason why we should "buy American" when foreign companies don't give a spit about us or our rights then why do we show such loyalty to them when it comes to our hard earned money?

I didn't say Glock "cares what we think". I said its about the MONEY and the PRINCIPAL. If Glock loses sales (money) they WILL care and if we buy on principal that is what might happen.

Glock is the current supplier to most LEOs but I wasn't talking about Glock specifically but all manufacturers in general. There are more companies out there than Glock.

Personally I agree with the manufacturers in question that they would be supplying these agencies who are knowingly engaging in criminal behavior and I won't buy one product from any of them that do it. I don't care if anyone else does. Standing on your principles doesn't require that everyone agrees with you nor is following the crowd standing on principle.