Are Colt & S&W off your list due to there betrayals?

[Tamara]

Alan Fud,

Am I to understand that I can still buy a new Pocket-Nine and a new Magnum Carry

No, you can't.

You also can't buy a new Model 49, Model 58, Model 581, Model 13, Model 19, Model 27.... Companies discontinue product lines all the time without sinister overtones being read into it, especially when they are hemmorhaging red ink like Colt was in the late-'90s. Maybe if they'd introduced the Magnum Carry (without troublesome QC issues) around the same time that Ruger, Taurus, and Smith introduced their little magnums, rather than half a decade late, they wouldn't have been in such dire straits in the first place.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Maybe if they'd introduced the Magnum Carry (without troublesome QC issues) around the same time that Ruger, Taurus, and Smith introduced their little magnums, rather than half a decade late, they wouldn't have been in such dire straits in the first place.

Amen

 

[Augustwest]

Not in the market right now for anything either of them sells, but I would do business with Colt, and won't with Smith until they publicly repudiate their betrayal.

 

[Thumper]

Remember to keep in mind that Saf-T-Hammer, the company that bought Smith, was the original "smart gun technology."

'Course, it wasn't seen as such a big deal at the time, just kinda neat..

 

[El Rojo]

I think S&W learned their lesson. I would buy from both, but less likely from Colt. I already have my 1911. My wife wants a Lady Smith 9mm.

 

[Rebel Gunman HK]

The only "Smart gun" im interested in is the ones they used in Judge Dredd! DOUBLE WHAMMY!!!!!

 

[Balog]

Ruger: I'll buy second hand, but not if they'll receive any profit from it.
S&W: Same as Ruger. I'll wait to see if the new management keeps up the trend of defying the agreement. Probably still wouldn't buy new even if they repudiated it, because I hate that stupid little lock.

Colt: I will never own one of these, not even if they would receive no profit. Not because of the "smart gun" fiasco, but because of the M-16. Whatever you may think of the design (I hold it's fundamentally flawed), when it was issued it was useless. Colt and that idiot McNamara pushed this abortion through over the objection of the military. They said it didn't need to be cleaned, so they didn't issue enough cleaning kits. In the middle of a war, they issued a massively unreliable, underpowered POS with out adequite training.
In short, they made a massive profit on the deaths and injuries of US servicemen. They can all burn in hell, those m*****f***ing bastards. Along with the political whores who helped push it through. I'd recommend John Leppelman's book Blood on the Risers for a detailed look at the M-16 in all it's glory. Here's a quote to illustrate what the situation was like for the grunts who got stuck with this POS. Taken from http://gunlover.8m.com/custom4.html

In May, 1967, one Marine wrote home about it:


"I just got your letter today aboard ship. We've been on an operation ever since the 21st of last month. I can just see the papers back home now - "Enemy casualties heavy, Marine casualties light". Let me give you some statistics and you decide if they were light. We left with close to 1400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. I knew I was pressing my luck. They finally got me. It wasn't bad though, I just caught a little shrapnel. I wish I could say the same for all my buddies.

...believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Before we left Okinawa, [we] were all issued this new rifle, the M16. Practically everyone of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. There was a newspaperwoman with us photographing all this and the Pentagon found out about it and won't let her publish the pictures. They say that they don't want to get the American people upset. Isn't that a laugh?"

 

[Silver Bullet]

Alan Fud
The post you quoted from ahadams is profoundly significant to this issue. Twice, now, in various THR threads (including the one you copied that post from) I have asked if anyone else could confirm it, and nobody speaks up.

Can you confirm that his statement is accurate and relevant ? If so, what are your legal qualifications and background ? I'm not criticizing you, I'm just looking for credible validation of ahadams' point. I sincerely hope he is correct.

 

[CGofMP]

This type of senitment tells all gun companies "these people can't be reasoned with or mollified.

This statement is incorrect sir. I, and others like me CAN indeed be mollified. Remember I said " but until they renounce their betrayal..." Renounce and I am mollified.

The "THEY" no longer exist. Why some people fail to grasp such a simplistic concept is beyond me.

You say that the "THEY" no longer exist. Unless I misunderstand how corporations work, with all due respect YES they do sir. The corporation is an entity with a still standing agreement that would seek to grease the skids to destroying our rights. Whether or not the English owners are gone, the legal entity, eg: the corporate entity DOES exist as its own legally continuing entity and in my opinion has the responbsibility to repudiate their failures of the past. Your so called 'simple concept' is in my opinion quite flawed because it is oversimplified, does not take into account a STANDING agreement, and the fact that the entity that signed the agreement still is bound to it.

If Mr Fud/Adhams is correct in his statement that "by the time whoever comes after him gets into office the government will have allowed the agreement to lapse due to the fault of the government, which means S&W gets off scott free as long as they keep their mouths shut." this would mittigate my position somewhat and I'd CONSIDER buying S&W (those stupid locks would have to go first however) BUT someone is going to have to PROVE to me that this is the case. I frankly doubt it and I know politicians well enough that they'd bring out their cadre of lawyers to still try and enforce it... in an environment that at THAT time would be harder to win in.

In my opinion, better for S&W to foorce the issue now when we have a friendly majority and some court decisions are going our way (product liability and shall issue stuff for instance) than to wait until the dack is stacked against us by a Clinton type administration and Democrat controlled congress.

If S&W truly does mean what they now say, then there will be a fight, the question is WHEN.

I'll concentrate on the other 98% of the market and ignore the fringes."

Finally, if this gives other companies a wrong message, ie: if my standing up for your rights as well as my own makes me a 'fringe element' (something I have never been labeled before) well so be it. If they ignore me that is their perogative but I am not inclined to make decisions made on principle bassed on what a third entity will do in the future.

In any evennt, I think we can all agree that the backlash S&W visited upon istelf was quite effective. I opine that should any other company wish to enter in to such a stupid agreement in the future, that they would be quite derilect in their duties to the owners and stockholders to NOT remember and to take into account the scourging and purging that S&W received because of their poor decissions.

To those that say that its sad that gun-grabbers got their way by the near death of S&W I'd only point out that S&W did it to themselves by (in my opinion) becoming part of the gun grabber's camp.

I am not sure if this is analogous or not:
When your best general goes to the other side, it IS INDEED a loss for your side.. but Benedict Arnold was not OUR fault, his actions were his own fault, and had he been killed by our troops it would not be us attacking ourselves now would it? No, it would be us attacking someone who for whatever reason decided that the safest path lay with the enemy and not the people that made him great.

The sad thing to me is that I am an all time S&W fan. The older versions of their product are simply outstanding pieces of work. I have put many thousands of rounds through my 586 and my family and I have other older S&W products in our vault that are spectacular. (I have heard, but not personally seen, charges that some of the new stuff has fallen off a bit and I dearly hate the idea of an intergral lock but thats not the point). The thing is that if S&W would clean their bed, I'd be very happy to consider their products again. I really truly AM a fan of their revolvers and have at various times reccommended them to classes I helped teach and have had patches, mugs and other 'groupie' items that I used.

switching gears:

As for the M16 problems and Balog boycotting Colt... I think you'll find an article written by Major Dick Culver on the M16 in Nam to be very interesting indeed. Its a brief 'boots on the ground' account of what happened and it shows just how repulsive a corporate entity and politicians can be when people's lives are at stake. Have a look here: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/


Charles

 

[Trisha]

I buy what I like. I look for quality.

I'm from Finland. Does that mean I'll never buy something made in Germany, or one of the old Soviet-bloc countries? No.

I put this in the same context as other boycotts. Is all of my clothing only produced in countries that have eliminated child labor, or do I own a vehicle made completely in the USA? Do I buy Japanese electronics? Do I vote for politicians who slur the LBGT community? The applicable list is endless.

We make choices every day. Political activism is a wonderful, healthy expression of personal values. I choose to pursue 2A activism at the source - the politicians.

Trisha

 

[GSB]

With all due respect YES they do sir.

No, they don't, and I will comment no further on it.

 

[10-Ring]

Nope, not entirely off my list, but not on the top of the list either.

 

[Silver Bullet]

This isn't about punishing the previous owners. This is about (1) keeping S&W down so that if a new administration decides to start enforcing the agreement, S&W's leverage with the dealers is minimized. It's also (2) a lesson to other manufacturers to not enter into this kind of agreement with the government in the future. With regard to item (1), the ownership of the company is irrelevant; the threat from the government remains.

This is why I think ahadams' point is very crucial. If he's right, at some point in the future (1) becomes nullified, and I suspect a lot of us may be satisfied that point (2) has been made.

For those of you new to this discussion who don't understand item (1), here's an excerpt from a thread on the ol' Firing Line:

Domino Theory

How does S&W agreement infringe on 2nd Amendment rights ? Try this:

1) HUD bears down on S&W and coerces them to sign the Agreement, leading to

2) S&W required by agreement to inform Dealers that they will be not allowed
to sell S&W products unless they conform to the terms of the agreement
pertaining to dealers, including the agreement term about not selling other
Manufacturers' products unless the other Manufacturers' products also
conform to the terms of the S&W agreement, leading to

3) The Dealers don't want to lose business by not selling S&W products, so they agree to the terms, leading to

4) The other Manufacturers want Dealers to keep selling their product, so they also must conform to the terms of S&W's agreement, leading to

5) The Consumer now has reduced options, forced "safety" features, higher
prices supporting anti-firearm advertising, and government intervention in
the firearms industry, leading to

6) HUD now calling the shots and overseeing an industry that previously was
market driven.

This was how HUD intended for the agreement to play out.

It didn't happen that way because 1) the Dealers rebelled and said they
would not carry S&W products under these conditions, and 2) the Consumers
boycotted S&W, which has the benefits of a) discouraging other Manufacturers from signing similar agreements, and b) supporting the Dealers who put their financial butts on the line to slam-dunk this deal.

We owe a lot to the Dealers for keeping domino (3) from falling. And, to
the big-picture Consumers who boycott S&W for the above reasons.

The little-picture Consumers who don't boycott seem unable to get past
ideas like, "putting S&W out of business is just what the antis want," or
"we can't put an American company with American workers out of business."

 

[Balog]

CGofMP: great article. Not sure what I was supposed to take away from reading it, tho'. I knew most of that beforehand, altho' he put it pretty well. I still hate Colt for profiting from the blood of good men. I'll still never forgive them. I still despise and loathe the government who led the charge, but I can't exactly boycott them.

 

[willyjixx]

i will buy a colt and an S&W.

i have an S&W now an i am very happy with it. i do not own a colt but there are a few of there products i like.

 

[CGofMP]

CGofMP: great article. Not sure what I was supposed to take away from reading it, tho'.

M16 woes may well deserve it's own thread.. hehehe
I did not post that for you to take away anything from it... I just thought it melded well with what we were talking about and I posted it as an educational device for anyone that had not heard of the hatred and dioscontent the M16 had brought the men in Vietnam. It was basically just one side of history for those who had not heard about this before from one of the guys that was knee deep in it.



Charles

 

[Alan Fud]

Tamara, I really would like a new D-frame snubbie in .357magnum (larger than the J-frame but smaller than a K-frame) ... Any suggestions?

Posted by Silver Bullet:
Alan Fud
The post you quoted from ahadams is profoundly significant to this issue. Twice, now, in various THR threads (including the one you copied that post from) I have asked if anyone else could confirm it, and nobody speaks up.

Can you confirm that his statement is accurate and relevant ? If so, what are your legal qualifications and background ? I'm not criticizing you, I'm just looking for credible validation of ahadams' point. I sincerely hope he is correct.

I have 12 credits in contract & business law from the mid-1980's when I was earning my MBA ... in the "legal" world, that doesn't mean ANYTHING so I have no legal qualifications which is why my reply was in the form of a quote with a link to that quote. My subsequent answer to your question is done in the same way ...

Posted by ahadams: Yo! Silver Bullet - I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Television. (actually my younger brother is a lawyer, but right now he's been recalled to be part of the USMC [he translates that as 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children'] contribution to the ongoing festivities, and therefore I can't get a comment from him either.)

I spent 1991-99 living inside the DC beltway and from time to time doing volunteer work for various *ahem* politically conservative causes *ahem* as it were. One of the noticable differences between the days of billy jeff and the days of Dubya is that the current administration does not ever say anything in a public place that is ever 'off the cuff'. When they released the item about the S&W agreement a little asking around came up with the fact that if an agreement remains unenforced for an extended period of time it effectively lapses - the govt's disinterest is indicated by their lack of enforcement, making any future enforcement very difficult if not impossible. Somehow this doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that President Bush would do by accident. And no I can't cite a specific portion of federal law on this one, you're going to have to find an experienced federal attorney to do that, because like I said, mine's currently unavailable.

anyway, sorry if I offended you! It's just that I sometimes get frustrated with people who don't understand that a *lot* of what happens in DC not only doesn't happen in the House or Senate, but is almost completely ignored by the liberal media - *they* only report what they want people to believe. FNC and a few others are better, but even they only cover high profile stuff most of the time - well that's what sells product, right?

The problem is that a lot of the stuff the conspiracy buffs think is conspiracy is, well, the only conspiracy is the liberal media conspiring to keep people in the dark. My wife and I have been gone from there going on four years now, so we're hardly 'wired in' to the current situation, but you've got to pay attention to the little stuff - including press releases and so forth and piece it together that way. Look at the pieces of the puzzle. You can't seen them all, but the outline of what's going on is clear if you get enough of the small pieces around the edge and a few of the bigger ones toward the center.

argh! now I'm ranting! sorry, I guess I better quit here

 

[Silver Bullet]

Alan Fud,

Thanks for responding, and thanks for bringing up Mr. Adams old post. I think it is very important to the resolution of this issue.

I keep hoping that some of the resident lawyers will chime in on this point, but either they have better things to do than read yet another S&W debate, or maybe their expertise is in a different area of law.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I choose to pursue 2A activism at the source - the politicians.

That sounds really good, and it is the correct general course for RKBA, in addition to taking cases to the Supreme Court, and most important of all the grassroots efforts to make shooters of fence-sitters.

However, in this case the game would have been over long before politicians did anything. It's the immediate action by the dealers and boycotters that trumped the Clinton Administration's plan.

What progress have you seen so far from the politicians regarding the HUD agreement with S&W ?

 

[MeekandMild]

I buy what I like and happen to have both brands.

I happen to have both brands too. Old only. Forever. "Think globally and act locally."

 

[Frenchy]

I have owned both old and relatively new Smiths...I will continue to by their product because of the quality I've received.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I will continue to by their product because of the quality I've received.

And, thanks to the boycott, you can continue to buy guns with the quality you have come to expect. If it hadn't been for the dealers taking a stand, you would be buying guns with the features that the government thinks are quality.

The dealers put their livelihood on the line to make this stand. Does everybody here appreciate this ?

 

[Balog]

CGofMP wrote:

I did not post that for you to take away anything from it... I just thought it melded well with what we were talking about and I posted it as an educational device for anyone that had not heard of the hatred and dioscontent the M16 had brought the men in Vietnam.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[sm]

Grew up with "smith for wheels and colts for 1911" [actually colts for semi's just only cared for the 1911 style]

I like the OLD , quality and craftsmanship. Patience and carry cash. Then the politics kicked in, still doing what I did before, politics -especially the wheelies-gonna assure I never change.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I did some research on the issue of expiring contract by virtue of inactivity, and I found this thread on The Firing Line. There were many threads on the S&W agreement , some of them very heated, but most of them were very lucid and brought together a wealth of knowledge and insight into the issue.

This thread is one of the best. Mr. Irwin’s reply to Robert on the subject of fear cuts right to the bone.

This thread also has some comments from Mr. Knox regarding the nonexpiration of agreements with the government, and he appears to have appropriate credentials for his opinion.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...xcited confiscation registration&pagenumber=1