S&W defense of the 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.

DustyGmt

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
4,011
Location
Green Mountains
Anybody else feel a strong urge to go out and purchase/support S&W products to reward them for being stalwart defenders of 2A and not tucking tail and placating the rabid anti gun jackwagons?

Aside from the fact that I'm not necessarily in favor of their decision to call alot of their products "M&P (Military and Police) for the simple fact that it could send a conflicting message in a broad sense, I have always loved their products and the way they conducted themselves in this latest House Oversight Committee inquisition/witch hunt makes me an even stronger supporter of them, so much that I may have the perfect excuse to go buy myself a new S&W.

https://www.guns.com/news/2022/08/16/smith-wesson-issues-total-chad-statement-on-2a

Quote from a S&W Representative:

“A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies. But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.

It is no surprise that the cities suffering most from violent crime are the very same cities that have promoted irresponsible, soft-on-crime policies that often treat criminals as victims and victims as criminals. Many of these same cities also maintain the strictest gun laws in the nation. But rather than confront the failure of their policies, certain politicians have sought more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously continuing to undermine our institutions of law and order. And to suppress the truth, some now seek to prohibit firearm manufacturers and supporters of the 2nd Amendment from advertising products in a manner designed to remind law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light.

Instead, Smith & Wesson provides these citizens with the means to protect themselves and their families.

We are proud of our 170-year history. We are proud of the commitment of our employees to making a quality product. We are proud to provide law-abiding citizens and law enforcement – our customers – with the tools to provide for their security and independence. We are proud of our responsible business practices.

We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods. We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points. We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.”


I am glad S&W decided to go this route instead of bowing down like so many others. If Bill Ruger was still alive and was at this hearing, it would have been a major setback with his attitude and commentary about the "honest man, blah blah blah". But such as it is and the way our media is, nobody will ever see this response from S&W but at least a few of us will. All this nonsense about dragging the manufacturers through the mud and assigning blame to them is a bunch of bull and they know it, their bleeding hearts and soft on crime policy failures are directly to blame for alot of the casualties they are so "outraged by".

It's funny, it has recently been pointed out to me that just under 100K new IRS positions have just opened up. I looked up the number of public schools in the country and it is eerily close to the number of positions that just opened up. If they were so steadfast about keeping the children safe, they could dispense with the new IRS jobs (that we don't need) and put an armed security person in every school and for alot less at the expense of the taxpayer. But sadly these people aren't really looking for a solution......

Just a bit of random thought vomit, but good on S&W. I think I'll go out and buy a 642 :D
 
Last edited:
Anybody else feel a strong urge to go out and purchase/support S&W products to reward them for being stalwart defenders of 2A
The only problem with that suggestion is I'm not enamored with any of their offerings. I have no use for an AR15 so that's out. Perhaps if they ditched the internal lock on their revolvers I might, might possibly, maybe one day be interested in one of their 357s. Other than that, I'm not fan of their offerings and I've always felt like the M&P name a) sent the wrong message and b) suggested they favored military and police over civilians. So no.
 
I've always felt like the M&P name a) sent the wrong message and b) suggested they favored military and police over civilians. So no.

Agreed. I'm sure they have caught plenty of flak for that,especially this day and age, but I sort of cut them a lil bit of slack since those models/series have been around for what, 70+ years when nobody was trying to connect those dots politically and it's easier to market an established brand.
 
That M&P designation never used to bother me. It was just an advertising ploy meant to establish the notion that they were somehow better, stronger, more suited to heavy use than yours and mine.

But since the (most recent) virulent attacks on the Second Amendment, I've become sensitive to that designation for the same reasons as the OP's.

I applaud what S&W is saying as pointed out by the OP. But regardless of your like or dislike of S&W products, that seems to be a new departure on the part of manufacturers and retailers of 2A items.

They will no longer buckle under, but rather, "buckle up."

I'm hoping S&W's (apparently) new stance has awakened us to fight for an ultimate decisive victory soon.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
Good for S&W!

There is so much liability litigation out there that I highly doubt any gun company would remove a safety system in place. Especially a safety thats been on there for as many years as “The Hillary Hole” has been in the newer S&W’s.

They may redesign it, move it or somehow change it, but I can’t see a safety going away. (I do hope I’m wrong, but living a work life with 350+ attorneys on staff has taught me they’re almost always pretty risk-adverse.)

As for the M&P name, I have an M&P that’s 1940’s-vintage. I have never equated the new M&P rifles or semi autos to be anything more than a name to reach-back to that earlier time.

0E2C32CE-C874-4843-891B-872D86130F36.jpeg

Stay safe.
 
I’m having trouble trusting much of anything right now. Not just elected and selected officials but CEOs as well. Who’s compromised and/or bribed. Nobody really knows what’s going on and who will cave after talking a good show.

I do like the statement though. It might make them a bigger target so we’ll see how ready for a fight they are. It’ll bring them patriotic customers too. Did I mention I don’t trust jack squat right now?
 
Glad to hear that S&W is stepping up -and sorry to hear about previous attempts to cater to folks who really want to see them out of business. To put it mildly I'm quite out of touch with their products since I left police work some 27 years ago now. I do still have the sidearm I was issued all those years ago though (last week of 1973...) a model 10 heavy barrel revolver and the handcuffs that (S&W brand) came with the sidearm. Some day they will pass on to someone else.
 
I applaud them as well.
One thing they should do to prove that they will no longer buckle is get rid of this contraption...
View attachment 1096780

I agree that it's an abomination, but I realize that this is mandated by law in areas where there is a substantial market. Although (as I understand it) Taurus has indicated it will stop putting it on their guns, that's a big and dangerous move that may cost a lot more than it's worth, business-decision-wise.

Since it is not a requirement in Colorado, I had a mechanic disable the little cam-arm that locked the gun through this hole on one of my main carry guns. I do carry the little keys for some other guns (Taurus and another Smith) on my key ring.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
What on God's green earth does that internal lock have to do with the Second Amendment besides nothing?

It has everything to do with it. You need to look at the larger picture.

I suggest you look at the link the other poster has up that talks about their "bad decisions".

This move now is nothing but a PR move. The pendulum has started to swing the other way and they want to be on the "winning" side. Springfield has a history of the same thing.

I support a company that will hold its course during the rough times, not take a dive when the heat is on.
 
I agree that it's an abomination, but I realize that this is mandated by law in areas where there is a substantial market. Although (as I understand it) Taurus has indicated it will stop putting it on their guns, that's a big and dangerous move that may cost a lot more than it's worth, business-decision-wise.

Since it is not a requirement in Colorado, I had a mechanic disable the little cam-arm that locked the gun through this hole on one of my main carry guns. I do carry the little keys for some other guns (Taurus and another Smith) on my key ring.

Terry, 230RN

Can you please site the source where an internal lock is required by law. As far as I know a lock is required in many places.....I want to say everywhere, but never say all, always everywhere. Most companies stick in a trigger lock in the box with new guns.

upload_2022-8-17_7-34-23.png

And that covers the letter of the lay saying it must have a lock.

I am really interested in where an internal lock is mandated by law.....I did a quick google search, I admit my google fu is weak old man, and came up with nothing.
 
What on God's green earth does that internal lock have to do with the Second Amendment besides nothing?
Do you REALLY need an explanation????

A gun maker caving to globalists/fascists/elitists who believe that U.S. citizens must be disarmed, and are doing their best to reach that goal, has much to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Hope that explanation helps.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, very well written response from S&W!

I've always been a self-proclaimed S&W fanboy, it makes up more than half of my collection. It's good to see they stand with us!

Moving their corporate HQ out of MA and into TN is probably giving them some confidence as well.
 
It has everything to do with it. You need to look at the larger picture.

I suggest you look at the link the other poster has up that talks about their "bad decisions".

This move now is nothing but a PR move. The pendulum has started to swing the other way and they want to be on the "winning" side. Springfield has a history of the same thing.

I support a company that will hold its course during the rough times, not take a dive when the heat is on.

Do you REALLY need an explanation????

A gun maker caving to globalists/fascists/leftists who believe that U.S. citizens must be disarmed, and are doing their best to reach that goal, has much to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Hope that explanation helps.

Read through the info in the link that mk-211 posted and you'll see that it has quite a lot to do with it.

Whoop de do.

Where's S&W's smart guns?

What happened to the 10 round magazine capacity?

Model S&W SD9™ Gray Frame Finish
Caliber 9mm Luger
Capacity 16+1

Model M&P® 10MM M2.0™ Optics Ready Slide Caliber 10mm Auto Capacity 15+1

Model Performance Center M&P 9 M2.0 4.25" Barrel Pro Series Caliber 9mm Luger Capacity 17+1

The rest of that nonsense is meaningless blather.

Seriously, you people remind me of my father who went to his grave with a 40-year grudge against Whataburger because they made a mistake on his order.

So, tell us again what a lock has to do with the Second Amendment. Try using logic and reason this time.
 
And if I remind you of your father you remind me of a liberal, I don't have a leg to stand on in this argument so I will deflect and say hay look at all this good stuff they did. And what about those smart guns.

Sorry you demonstrate yourself (S&W in this case) to bend a knee to the anti's that is enough for me.

I would still like a 29, however it will be a used version, and that will put zero money into your pockets S&W.

And it looks like logic is lost on some. I don't care how bad they are, they are on my side......for now....so they are fantastic.....next year if november goes south and the anti's have a free hand again I bet you will see S&W bend that knee yet again.
 
Good for S&W!

There is so much liability litigation out there that I highly doubt any gun company would remove a safety system in place. Especially a safety thats been on there for as many years as “The Hillary Hole” has been in the newer S&W’s.

Just a quick note on this:

My instruction manual may be unique, but it clearly states that the internal lock alone is not sufficient for securing the firearm. I take that to mean I should also use the separate cable lock they provided. But as that is the same design of lock they provide for all their guns that don't have internal locks, I have to wonder if that alone would suffice. Logically that seems likely.

Which kinda makes me feel like S&W also thinks the Hillary Hole is totally useless. And if that is the case, it'd be really pro 2A if they just come out and say as much in a very public way.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note on this:

My instruction manual may be unique, but it clearly states that the internal lock alone is not sufficient for securing the firearm. I take that to mean I should also use the separate cable lock they provided. But as that is the same design of lock they provide for all their guns that don't have internal locks, I have to wonder if that alone would suffice. Logical that seems likely.

Which kinda makes me feel like S&W also thinks the Hillary Hole is totally useless. And if that is the case, it'd be really pro 2A if they just come out and say as much in a very public way.


I haven’t ever used the lock on any of the S&W revolvers I own that have them, so can’t say one way or the other if they work or not (48, 686, 317, 69, 642, 442…I think that’s it). But that additional info S&W has put in their literature is another layer of CYA that attorneys added to cover places that require a safety lock for gun purchases and/or the secure storage at home.

Example: Ca Penal Code 23735(a) states that all firearms sold or transferred through a licensed dealer must be accompanied by a firearm safety device (lock). Since private party sales have to go through a dealer, every legal gun sale has to come with one, even if it has an internal lock.

I have, literally, a pile of gun locks at home. Every new gun I buy comes with one. Even if I buy a used gun without a factory-supplied lock and bring one in when I pick it up, some dealers make you buy another one anyway. Now I go home with a gun and two locks. :fire:

This is another example of why I doubt that S&W will remove that “safety device” wholesale across their product line. (I know there are some limited guns without the lock, under the “ classic” line I believe.) I still really do hope I am wrong. :thumbup:

Stay safe.
 
The only S&W I am remotely interested in is the M&P 10mm.

Otherwise I base my interest in their firearms against their past business mistakes. Adding lawyer locks under Clinton. Advocating carve outs to be less affected by gun control bills. Springfield Armory did the same. Because they are showing support now, does not mean they always have or always will. It is just where the wind takes them.
 
There is so much liability litigation out there that I highly doubt any gun company would remove a safety system in place. Especially a safety thats been on there for as many years as “The Hillary Hole” has been in the newer S&W’s.

They may redesign it, move it or somehow change it, but I can’t see a safety going away. (I do hope I’m wrong, but living a work life with 350+ attorneys on staff has taught me they’re almost always pretty risk-adverse.)


View attachment 1096803

Stay safe.

Their semi-auto M&P series used to have this abomination as well, and they eventually got rid of it completely! Why should the revolvers be any different?
300145085_10160352367064284_2786246728708727018_n.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top