1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Honoring the Boycott

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ceestand, Dec 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ceestand

    ceestand Well-Known Member

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

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    However you plan on honoring the boycott, the most important thing is that you write the company and tell them what you're doing and why.
  3. Ala Dan

    Ala Dan Member in memoriam

    Greeting's All-

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

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

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

    Best Wishes,
    Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2003
  4. mtnbkr

    mtnbkr Well-Known Member

    I agree with Ala Dan.

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

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

  5. Dave R

    Dave R Well-Known Member

    I feel the need to honor appropriate boycotts.

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

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

    I'm interested in others' opinions.
  6. Checkman

    Checkman member

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

    seeker_two Well-Known Member

    I'm with Checkman on this one for his reasons & a few more...

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

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

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

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

    bountyhunter member

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

    Goet Well-Known Member

    A simple law of economics states that where there is demand, supply is not far behind.

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

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

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

    Buying used STILL helps S&W.
  10. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

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

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

    kumma Well-Known Member

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

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

    Balog Well-Known Member

    Ala Dan: just curious. Do you apply that standard to every aspect of your consumer life? If you found out a company that was selling a product you wanted was also engaged in something morally repugnant to you (supporting Al Qaeda, supporting the Aryan Nation, selling child porn in Europe etc) would you still buy from them?
  13. 461

    461 Well-Known Member

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

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

    Civillian sales of firearms are a drop in the bucket to these companies anyhow.
  14. CZ52GUY

    CZ52GUY Well-Known Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Best wishes,

  15. Ala Dan

    Ala Dan Member in memoriam

    Greeting's Balog-

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

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

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

    Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
  16. rangerbill

    rangerbill Well-Known Member

    i didn't honor the boycott...

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

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

    Silver Bullet Well-Known Member

    Nothing stupid about Balog’s question. You stated in your previous post that, with regards to firearms, you buy what you want without regard to a company’s morality (which you referred to as “hypeâ€). Balog is merely asking if you apply the same blind eye to non-firearms products.
  18. Ala Dan

    Ala Dan Member in memoriam

    by Silver Bullet:

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

    As to answer Balog's question:

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

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

    Best Wishes,
    Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
  19. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

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

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

    Silver Bullet Well-Known Member


    I do understand the topic, thank you. I'm merely explaining Balrog's question, at least as I understand it. I have no doubt that he could explain it better than I, and maybe I should have left it to him.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page