How Long to Hold Grudge

rcmodel said:

Forget about it.

In 2,000 when the deed was done, S&W was owned and controlled by a British investment company, Tompkins LLC.

They were later bought by Safety-Hammer,.
And later, reorganized as an employee owned company.

The present day American owned S&W company has absolutely nothing at all to do with the ownership, or policies in place 16 years ago when it was a British owned company.
Except the grand old name, and the fine guns they still make today.

If you want one, buy one.

It has nothing at all to do with what happened 16 years ago!!

rc

Click to expand...

+1

I swore I'd never buy another S&W. After Safety- Hammer acquired S&W I couldn't hold it against them for what the British investment company Tompkins LLC did. IMHO a British company had no business owning a American gun company and Icon. As far as C.T.D. I will never buy from them again if I have to have it or not. I'll do without first.

And later, reorganized as an employee owned company.

Click to expand...

I believe S&W holding company still owns them. Do you have a link to the news that S&W was sold to it's employees and is now employee owned? This is not likely to have happened. Especially as they state on their website that S&W Holding Corp. still owns them and that stock prices have been up. The list of officers contains many familiar names as well.

http://ir.smith-wesson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=90977&p=irol-investorHome

tipoc

You know surprised that a couple of names have not cropped up on this thread.

First being Dick Metcalf (yes, I hold a grudge against him) who has just about become a poster boy for the left on gun control.

Another is Jim Zumbo (yes, I hold a grudge against him also), that guy at least tried to make amends for his wayward rantings once he realized that his money stream was going to dry up. Power of the dollar made him at least keep his personal feelings bottled up inside. Still feel he is a determent to the cause.

One of zumbo's quotes...........

I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles.

Click to expand...

Fortunately both are no longer publicly doing much damage, but I still will not trust either of them until they are on the other side of the grass.







.

One can be stuck if the product offered ticks the right boxes. What do ya do select an alternate that misses a few of those nice features? Generally there are options so if company-store X has irritated you a competitor likely has a workable solution. I can think of plenty of stores over the years that have pushed me away and I will not buy from again.

I know I'm being totally unreasonable, but I would never buy anything with the Iver Johnson name on it. My first handgun in 1958 was an IJ Trailsman 66. It went back to the factory twice and still failed to index properly. The current IJ trademark has nothing to do with the old company, but as long as there are other options I won't buy an IJ.

not in the best interest

It is not in the best interest of anyone to resist sensible gun regulation. Take a look at gun deaths and see what would have reduced it.

A child takes a gun from his mother's purse; shoots and kill her. A thumb safety would have prevented this.

In Wisconsin we have a law that penalizes anyone who leaves a gun unattended which is then used by a minor to hurt or kill somebody. I agree with this law.

I have a gun safe which opens only with my fingerprint. Guns could be made so that only the correct fingerprint would allow the gun to be fired. If such a gun were available, I would buy it. The peace of mind that would go with 100% assurance that my grandchildren would never be a victim of this gun would be PRICELESS! I think the NRA is way off base opposing this.

The American auto industry should be a lesson. It fought efficiency standards from forever. Two of the three went bankrupt.

Gun laws "making it harder for terrorists and other mass murderers to get guns," are worthless.

Irish Grudges

I told this to a 100% Irish person, and he laughed. Irish Alzheimer's is when you forget everything but the grudges.

kkayser said:

It is not in the best interest of anyone to resist sensible gun regulation. Take a look at gun deaths and see what would have reduced it.

A child takes a gun from his mother's purse; shoots and kill her. A thumb safety would have prevented this.

In Wisconsin we have a law that penalizes anyone who leaves a gun unattended which is then used by a minor to hurt or kill somebody. I agree with this law.

I have a gun safe which opens only with my fingerprint. Guns could be made so that only the correct fingerprint would allow the gun to be fired. If such a gun were available, I would buy it. The peace of mind that would go with 100% assurance that my grandchildren would never be a victim of this gun would be PRICELESS! I think the NRA is way off base opposing this.

The American auto industry should be a lesson. It fought efficiency standards from forever. Two of the three went bankrupt.

Gun laws "making it harder for terrorists and other mass murderers to get guns," are worthless.

Click to expand...

You need to quit drinking the leftist Kool-Aid. If those things work for you, fine have at it. Don't mandate it for me.

Common sense gun laws is a lie told by the Democrats as a way to persuade the ignorant to their side. Look at how they label all their gun control legislation.


Regarding that thumbprint thing you love, it is dangerous and criminals will find away around it. They always do. Too many guns out there that don't have it for them to get. Honest citizens stuck with a complicated system that could fail them at the worst time.

Try suggesting that all LEO (including the special ones) carry guns that work that way and watch them scream.

Compromise means citizens of the US giving up more and more liberty. It needs to stop.

kkayser said:

It is not in the best interest of anyone to resist sensible gun regulation. Take a look at gun deaths and see what would have reduced it.

A child takes a gun from his mother's purse; shoots and kill her. A thumb safety would have prevented this.

In Wisconsin we have a law that penalizes anyone who leaves a gun unattended which is then used by a minor to hurt or kill somebody. I agree with this law.

I have a gun safe which opens only with my fingerprint. Guns could be made so that only the correct fingerprint would allow the gun to be fired. If such a gun were available, I would buy it. The peace of mind that would go with 100% assurance that my grandchildren would never be a victim of this gun would be PRICELESS! I think the NRA is way off base opposing this.

The American auto industry should be a lesson. It fought efficiency standards from forever. Two of the three went bankrupt.

Gun laws "making it harder for terrorists and other mass murderers to get guns," are worthless.

Click to expand...

It's pretty apparent to me that you know relatively little about firearms.

Do you know of a fingerprint reader that works through mud... or blood?

Can you CITE an example of a thumb safety stopping a child from firing a gun?

You have every right to add any sort of impediment to use to YOUR firearms. They're NEVER going to be on MINE, and nobody's going to MAKE me add them.

"Sensible gun regulation" is on a par with "sensible" Jim Crow and anti-sodomy laws.

It's hard to hold a grudge like that forever. If you do you'd have to be angry with companies like every American automaker that let quality slide, add in Harley Davidson and more then one firearms manufacturer. Many have pulled themselves out of the fire and I include S&W in that mix.

I believe those two auto companies that went bankrupt were controlled by lawyers and bean counters and not engineers like they should have been.

It seems pretty irrational to blame a brand/corporation for the actions of people. I can understand not wanting to enrich individuals who are underhanded or don't support your value system, but if those individuals are long since gone and the culture of the organization has changed, then why not give them a second chance. As someone who has worked for corporations all my life I can tell you that the executive leadership sets the culture for the organization. It evolves over time and can change quite quickly when there is turnover in executive leadership. If the new leadership group acknowledges mistakes and makes a commitment to a new direction I'm inclined to give another chance if they have products of value to me and seem sincere in their new direction.

kkayser said:

It is not in the best interest of anyone to resist sensible gun regulation. Take a look at gun deaths and see what would have reduced it.

A child takes a gun from his mother's purse; shoots and kill her. A thumb safety would have prevented this.

In Wisconsin we have a law that penalizes anyone who leaves a gun unattended which is then used by a minor to hurt or kill somebody. I agree with this law.

I have a gun safe which opens only with my fingerprint. Guns could be made so that only the correct fingerprint would allow the gun to be fired. If such a gun were available, I would buy it. The peace of mind that would go with 100% assurance that my grandchildren would never be a victim of this gun would be PRICELESS! I think the NRA is way off base opposing this.

The American auto industry should be a lesson. It fought efficiency standards from forever. Two of the three went bankrupt.

Gun laws "making it harder for terrorists and other mass murderers to get guns," are worthless.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your comments are based purely on emotion. If laws prevented child neglect and endangerment there would never be another child injured do to neglect or endangerment. It's already illegal to intentionally or neglectfully endanger a child yet thousands of kids are injured or killed each year due to neglect and child endangerment. How would special gun related safety laws prevent kids from getting hurt? I don't need sensible gasoline related safety law and training to know not to store the gasoline for my lawnmower in an open bucket so my toddler doesn't burn themselves to death. I don't need a special knife"law to tell me no to leave my sharp kitchen knives on the coffee table for kids to empale themselves on. Really think about it for a while and when you get past the emotion of it being a gun, and you get past all of the spoon-fed "guns are bad" guilt you have been fed and been told to care about, a gun is just yet another object around the house that can cause injury or death if misused. If you need an law to prescribe to you how to keep your kids safe then you should not become a parent in the first place. Oh, by the way, maybe someone could just make a law that says that it's illegal to assault, rob or kill people that way we won't need to be armed in the first place, you know, since laws prevent bad things from happening and all...

Deanimator said:

Do you know of a fingerprint reader that works through mud... or blood?

Can you CITE an example of a thumb safety stopping a child from firing a gun?

You have every right to add any sort of impediment to use to YOUR firearms. They're NEVER going to be on MINE, and nobody's going to MAKE me add them.

"Sensible gun regulation" is on a par with "sensible" Jim Crow and anti-sodomy laws.

Click to expand...

I don't care if a fingerprint reader works through mud or snow. I do care that NRA demonizes any company who admits to working to develop one.

Can you CITE an example of a 3 year old disengaging a safety and firing a gun?

No one is proposing any gun regulation that will MAKE anyone DO anything. No law can MAKE anyone DO anything.

I don't care if a fingerprint reader works through mud or snow.

Click to expand...

Then it has no place at all on any defensive (or hunting) firearm.

You want to install one on your range toys? Fine. And if you don't understand the context of why the gun rights folks (such as ourselves) oppose development of this technology you need to read and think a little harder about how and why and upon the backs of whom laws requiring the use of such "common sense" items get passed.


However, this is all thread drift. Let that end here.

kkayser; said:

No one is proposing any gun regulation that will MAKE anyone DO anything. No law can MAKE anyone DO anything.

Click to expand...

So how would enacting more of them make anyone safer?

kkayser said:

No one is proposing any gun regulation that will MAKE anyone DO anything. No law can MAKE anyone DO anything.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. It can make me a criminal. That can cost me my gun rights. Your logic train is heading the wrong direction.

kkayser said:

I don't care if a fingerprint reader works through mud or snow. I do care that NRA demonizes any company who admits to working to develop one.

Can you CITE an example of a 3 year old disengaging a safety and firing a gun?

No one is proposing any gun regulation that will MAKE anyone DO anything. No law can MAKE anyone DO anything.

Click to expand...

The question was about "mud or blood"... you know, things that would get on a fingerprint reader in a desperate self-defense struggle? Apparently you don't care if somebody who got their hand cut fending off a knife attack is able to employ his firearm.

Obviously, you're unaware of an incident in which a thumb safety stopped a child from using a gun. I knew you would be.

NONE of this is EVER about CHOICE. It's ALWAYS about MANDATES.

NO, I REFUSE.

I bought some Winchester white box 9mm ammo; which stated on the 100 rounds. I know that it isn't a big deal, but when I transferred them to the cases that I use at the range there only 99 in the sealed box. When I transferred the other box and had the same result, I thought maybe I should contact Winchester; which I did. Actually I sent two emails to their ammo customer service email and received no answer either time. The fact that I didn't get two rounds doesn't bother me as much as I didn't get a reply. I don't buy Winchester any more.

A grudge is harder on the person holding it than on its target.

Don't put S&W in command of your purchasing decisions. That gives them control over you. Your grudge gives you no power over them.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

Do something

ljnowell said:

Ridiculous. It can make me a criminal. That can cost me my gun rights. Your logic train is heading the wrong direction.

Click to expand...

Read carefully, "no law can make anyone DO something." Making you a criminal is not making you DO something.

Sam1911 said:

Then it has no place at all on any defensive (or hunting) firearm.

Click to expand...

If you please, I would like to make that decision for myself.

Deanimator said:

Obviously, you're unaware of an incident in which a thumb safety stopped a child from using a gun. I knew you would be.

.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I have never heard or read a story that goes like this:

Mr. Smith left a loaded gun under his bed. One of his children found the gun and attempted to shoot a neighbor child. Fortunately, the thumb safety was engaged and the gun did not fire.

Deanimator said:

The question was about "mud or blood"... you know, things that would get on a fingerprint reader in a desperate self-defense struggle? Apparently you don't care if somebody who got their hand cut fending off a knife attack is able to employ his firearm.

Click to expand...

Do you really think you can accurately assume what I care about? I could retaliate by saying, "Apparently you do not care if a child accidentally shoots someone, even you own child."

But, of course, this is the High Road. Such comments are not in keeping with our mission. So i will hold my keyboard.

kkayser, you seem to be the type of person who will compromise our rights right up until the point we have none.

Please don't be a part of the problem.

Don't appease the tiger in hope he eats you last, we went through that with the last clinton gun regulation with some types. Fortunately a lot of them either got run out of the business, changed their tune or died.




.