Individuals who exploit firearms industry to turn a buck?
- Thread starter Aragon
- Start date
- Status
we are not amused
Member
"Guns of the Rich and Famous"
Now that is a show I would watch.
Now that is a show I would watch.
Actually it's pretty straight forward.
If you have ever seen your typical anti-gunner satirical cartoon, this foolish jacket kind of puts that sterotype into play.
Our opposition loves to use three "R" words to describe us: Racist, redneck and republicans.
This jacket could EASILY be painted as racist.
Just saying.
If you have ever seen your typical anti-gunner satirical cartoon, this foolish jacket kind of puts that sterotype into play.
Our opposition loves to use three "R" words to describe us: Racist, redneck and republicans.
This jacket could EASILY be painted as racist.
Just saying.
I had seen posts about some of his stuff on other forums. I believe there are other manufacturers that offer a lot more value for the money. Do I care what he markets or does? Not really. The firearm industry is just that an industry. It is not a moral apex but rather an endeavor to make money. Like someone else posted I don't think Jesse James will last long. The firearms industry is very competitive.
Aragon
member
The firearms industry exists under a great deal more public scrutiny than most other industries. It does make me wince for example when an arrest is made and the camera pans from some ugly looking monsters in cuffs to a table of legal and identifiable firearms. Some would like to suggest there is no linkage or that others don't make a connection but they do.
I wish t-shirts, bikes or hamburgers had worked out for jj so people wouldn't associate him with firearms. Hopefully this venture will go belly-up before it ever really gets started.
I wish t-shirts, bikes or hamburgers had worked out for jj so people wouldn't associate him with firearms. Hopefully this venture will go belly-up before it ever really gets started.
I think you've established how you feel quite well, but others disagree, and its certainly within their right to. I'm not sure you are going to change anyone's mind regarding JJ no matter how you restate your opinion. You don't think he should market guns. Others do. There is room for both opinions, and most feel the market should decide his future in this industry, rather than either of our opinions. The funny part is you keep repeating how these other ventures "didn't work out for Jesse". I'm sure his accountants would disagree with that particular assessment. You are entitled to your own opinions regarding his product lines, but to say his previous ventures haven't "worked out" is somewhat laughable.
Last edited:
Nom de Forum
Member
Guns are the only consumer product sold that is tenuously protected by the U.S. Constitution from being legislated off the market. Since all of us posting are consumers interested in ensuring our favorite consumer product remains available for sale; we should all do our best to discourage the marketing of products such as those in this thread. We should also discourage the mindset that creates a market for similar products. These products are bad PR for the Pro-2A supporters.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
"Discourage a mindset that creates a market"? I believe in free speech, RKBA, and free commerce. I may not like what is being said or offered for sale, but a free market of ideas and goods should decide the viabiIity of such things. I am not inclined to participate in censorship or shunning of ideas unless they are manifestly injurious to an individual's rights or safety. I have seen no such idea or product discussed here thay would rise to such an objectionable level, regardless of poor taste.
Aragon
member
This thread is not about free trade, restraint of trade, right of free speech or anything like that. However some of the comment made me think of some situations where I actually would be pleased to see some individuals, organizations and/or products discriminated against, at least by other private individuals or concerns.
I would never want to see a group of Neo Nazis peddling "Hitler Lugers" or a bunch of rednecks pushing KKK M1911s at the SHOT or NRA shows for instance. While it might be financially lucrative for all involved to allow something like that given the huge amount of publicity it would generate, most of that publicity would also be tainted and it would no doubt tarnish the firearms industry in a great many peoples' eyes. I would therefore support such discrimination or "restraint of trade" by the NRA or NSSF.
I'd also hate to see a court force the show operators to allow such entities (or say anti-2A groups) to display. [I'm sure they would be (and likely have been) rejected in an astute enough manner so as not to allow them legal victory anyway.] In the end I will still feel concern when questionable individuals, organizations and/or products become associated with the firearms industry.
I would never want to see a group of Neo Nazis peddling "Hitler Lugers" or a bunch of rednecks pushing KKK M1911s at the SHOT or NRA shows for instance. While it might be financially lucrative for all involved to allow something like that given the huge amount of publicity it would generate, most of that publicity would also be tainted and it would no doubt tarnish the firearms industry in a great many peoples' eyes. I would therefore support such discrimination or "restraint of trade" by the NRA or NSSF.
I'd also hate to see a court force the show operators to allow such entities (or say anti-2A groups) to display. [I'm sure they would be (and likely have been) rejected in an astute enough manner so as not to allow them legal victory anyway.] In the end I will still feel concern when questionable individuals, organizations and/or products become associated with the firearms industry.
Aragon
member
Very well said. I agree very strongly.
Comparing a picture that may be some as stereotypical to ANYTHING Hilter-related is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Using a picture some may find controversial in advertising materials is different than Jesse J promoting his guns as "Cholo Killers" "Essay Whackers" or the like....You may not see the difference, but I think its a valid difference all the same. The picture, whether you like it or not, is world's away from KKK !911's or Hitler Lugers being marketed today. Advertising is provocative sometimes. Are you just as disgusted with Dillon's Blue Press and its use of attractive females in their advertising? What do women in lingerie have to do with guns? Very little....but they've certainly been used to sell guns and related equipment by various vendors. While I get a sense of what you're outraged about, singling out one person using provocative/controversial advertising to market an item...even guns...is silly considering how commonplace such advertising is in the real world, both in the gun industry and outside of it.
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
Jessie James is a loser. He's a racist tool who is whoring his name for every last dime before he's done. He failed at making bikes, went bankrupt, and then the worse: He cheated on Sandra! (Come on she's America's sweetheart)
The gun community needs to push him out, and quick. Show of force, like Will Hayden. They all need to go.
The double lightning bolts don't help.
The gun community needs to push him out, and quick. Show of force, like Will Hayden. They all need to go.
The double lightning bolts don't help.
we are not amused
Member
In other words, "I believe in free speech, the Second Amendment, Free enterprise and the market! Except when I don't like what it does!" 
Nom de Forum
Member
Some people posting here need to climb down off their self-righteous soapboxes so they can crack open a dictionary to learn that the definition of "discourage" is not same as for "censor", "restrict", "shun" or "oppress". Discouraging behavior by speaking-up to make it known that you do not believe a persons actions support the protection of the very thing you both cherish is not an attack on "free speech, RKBA, and free commerce", "free speech, the Second Amendment, Free enterprise and the market", or anything else. If anything hyperbolic and inaccurate comments equating my post #58 to an attack could be interpreted as an attempt to cyber-bully me into silence.
Nom de Forum
Member
I agree with Voltaire, but that does not mean I will agree to not let you know I disagree with you and attempt to discourage you from statements that harm the very thing we both seek to preserve.
Aragon
member
"Essay Whackers"? Good grief. I suspect you mean "esé".
Aragon
member
So true. I didn't ask if people like jj should be legally limited or prohibited from smearing gunk onto the firearms industry and some tried to redirect this thread into that. I asked "I'm curious what others here think of people who exploit the firearms industry in a negative manner only to make money?"
There is nothing wrong with lamenting the existence of jj's (he's certainly not alone) in the firearms industry. Doing so however in no way suggests one would favor legal limits or prohibitions on such individuals.
Last edited:
we are not amused
Member
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
This whole discussion is silly and stupid, except for the fact that it gives a lot of publicity to JJ and his new venture.
His taste and mine don't mesh, so I will give his business a pass. But a lot of people like stuff I think is trash, and vice versa.
I pointed out before that I suspect that the whole idea was to give JJ some publicity, something I am even more convinced of now.
If you don't like what he is doing, then I suggest you contact him and let him know. I am sure he will give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
This whole discussion is silly and stupid, except for the fact that it gives a lot of publicity to JJ and his new venture.
His taste and mine don't mesh, so I will give his business a pass. But a lot of people like stuff I think is trash, and vice versa.
I pointed out before that I suspect that the whole idea was to give JJ some publicity, something I am even more convinced of now.
If you don't like what he is doing, then I suggest you contact him and let him know. I am sure he will give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
Aragon
member
For whatever reason(s), some simply cannot or will not answer the question "I'm curious what others here think of people who exploit the firearms industry in a negative manner only to make money?" Yet that doesn't keep them from cluttering up the thread with unrelated comments.
Their struggle to change the question I asked into one about capitalism, free trade, restraint of trade, right of free speech, etc. is most telling. Why the diversion? Why the effort? It's not as if they are fooling anyone with their comments. The more desperate they become, the more boorish they become, that much is certain. One has to wonder if they actually like jj's personal public history (wouldn't it be sad if they did?) or if they actually like the products being displayed on jjfu.com?
Their struggle to change the question I asked into one about capitalism, free trade, restraint of trade, right of free speech, etc. is most telling. Why the diversion? Why the effort? It's not as if they are fooling anyone with their comments. The more desperate they become, the more boorish they become, that much is certain. One has to wonder if they actually like jj's personal public history (wouldn't it be sad if they did?) or if they actually like the products being displayed on jjfu.com?
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
I think the examples shown on the JJFU site are not my cup of tea either. Crass and trashy, frankly, aesthetically unpleasing, an not exactly fine workmanship from what I saw.
So, what do I think of people who "exploit" the firearms industry in a "negative manner" only to make money?. No, I don't like it. I'm all for people exploiting the industry in a positive manner only to make money. The problem with the question is the subjectivity of the term "negative." For example:
Are you also inferentially asking what can or should be done about it?
JJFU is, IMHO, producing custom items that will find a very limited market, and hence is likely going to be an economically unviable business. They're not getting any of my hard-earned income. I also must repudiate any racist or anti-social elements of JJFU's products or marketing. I hope others would as well.
I agree JJFU is hawking tacky items, and JJ himself may be a questionable character. But, frankly, he's just the latest of a long line of questionable characters who have drifted into the industry at one time or another. And they will get weeded out, one way or another.
He has a right to try to start a business. I have a right to not patronize his business. And I have a right to chuckle when and if he goes out of business.
He has the right to say stupid and perhaps offensive things in his marketing. So far, JJFU is dancing on the dangerous edge of the issue with some racial/ethic/social marketing ploys. I reserve further opinion depending on how much further they go. It would be amusing, though, to see 2a supporters arm-in-arm with other social activists in protesting something overtly offensive (2a supporters and ACLU have joined forces on limited issues in the past). But I suspect this is all really a tiny tempest in a teapot, unnoticed by most except those in this thread.
I apparently was perceived as getting on a soapbox. So be it. I stand by my comments - the OP's question is part of a macro issue. Sorry some of you don't see it that way. As to the inference of cyber bullying ... not going to dignify that in the least. This is a grown up debate, or at least should be. I perceive that some of you folks don't want to here from other folks who don't necessarily agree 100% with you.
So, what do I think of people who "exploit" the firearms industry in a "negative manner" only to make money?. No, I don't like it. I'm all for people exploiting the industry in a positive manner only to make money. The problem with the question is the subjectivity of the term "negative." For example:
- I don't like Hornady's Zombie Max line of ammo (the zombie fetish itself casting a bad light when linked with the firearms industry, IMHO)
- I didn't like it when Guns an Ammo runs a bit on "How to Pick the Best Zombie Pistol"(http://www.gunsandammo.com/blogs/zombie-nation/how-to-pick-the-best-zombie-pistol/)
- And zombie targets, and zombie shoot competitions.
- And don't dig the customizations on the JJFU site, being crass and tacky.
- and on and on and on ...
Are you also inferentially asking what can or should be done about it?
JJFU is, IMHO, producing custom items that will find a very limited market, and hence is likely going to be an economically unviable business. They're not getting any of my hard-earned income. I also must repudiate any racist or anti-social elements of JJFU's products or marketing. I hope others would as well.
I agree JJFU is hawking tacky items, and JJ himself may be a questionable character. But, frankly, he's just the latest of a long line of questionable characters who have drifted into the industry at one time or another. And they will get weeded out, one way or another.
He has a right to try to start a business. I have a right to not patronize his business. And I have a right to chuckle when and if he goes out of business.
He has the right to say stupid and perhaps offensive things in his marketing. So far, JJFU is dancing on the dangerous edge of the issue with some racial/ethic/social marketing ploys. I reserve further opinion depending on how much further they go. It would be amusing, though, to see 2a supporters arm-in-arm with other social activists in protesting something overtly offensive (2a supporters and ACLU have joined forces on limited issues in the past). But I suspect this is all really a tiny tempest in a teapot, unnoticed by most except those in this thread.
I apparently was perceived as getting on a soapbox. So be it. I stand by my comments - the OP's question is part of a macro issue. Sorry some of you don't see it that way. As to the inference of cyber bullying ... not going to dignify that in the least. This is a grown up debate, or at least should be. I perceive that some of you folks don't want to here from other folks who don't necessarily agree 100% with you.
WVsig
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,063
I have absolutely no problem with it.
My opinion is not absolute so something that I find "exploitative" other people may not. What I find offensive others may not. People have different aesthetic when it comes to matters of taste and decorum.
Your question assumes that there is a universal nature to opinion which I believe is false. To believe that there is a universal "negative" which is exploitative does not have any truth value for me. Maybe it does for you which I guess proves why I have no problem with it.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
