CK
Member
Wonder if anybody read this yet? Last heard he was endorsing his own brand of vodka.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5116124.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5116124.stm
Mikhail Kalashnikov and Arm Control.
- Thread starter CK
- Start date
- Status
Working Man
Member
Gotta love them broad brush statements.
Hmmmmm, that's just good advertising right there.
So is this just passing the buck, CYA, sales/price boost, or a more sinister
direction? I have been thinking about getting an AK or some variant for a
while now, guess I should make it sooner rather than later. I just don't know
much about them except they'll be around longer than me and working just
as good as day one.
Well at least Barrett is not for more gun control but this trend of MFG's for more
GC is rather disturbing.
CK
Member
Unlike the 1911 or M4 which are seen and perceived more as the firearms of the good guys, the AK are more prominently featured in the arm of terrorist. Osama and his tango buddies has been always seen with one in the background in their video address. I guess when you see your own invention as a tool of choice and symbol for terrorist and bad guys alike on tv, it would break you down.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-kal12.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-kal12.html
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
The "man on the street" thinks of the Hollywood infinate capacity magazine and figures that any goofball can pick up one of these and "spray" 100's of rounds in a few seconds.
If only.I'm not so sure this is a new trend. Let's face it...the jackpot money for a firearms manufacturer is in selling arms in large quantities to government or pseudo-government entities. Barrett may have gotten started by making a big-boomer for "civilian enthusiasts"...but he made his bucks selling his rifles to Uncle Sam and his foreign allies.
If you are chasing government contracts...and the government says that an armed citizenry is bad...then unless you are a rare breed...you'll say an armed citizenry is bad. After all you can still sell to the state.
And then you go the way of the dixie chicks. If it wasn't for the civilian market Barrett WOULDN'T HAVE any product to sell to the government. Likewise with many other things like the Remington 700 etc... Trijicon ACOG and other great products there were civilian first, military later.
H&K put all their eggs in the government sales XM8 basket and last I heard the project had been suspended indefinitely. Bet they wish they released a civilian version of their G36 now. Meanwhile FN is making a killing selling their PS90s and FS2000s to us peasants.
H&K put all their eggs in the government sales XM8 basket and last I heard the project had been suspended indefinitely. Bet they wish they released a civilian version of their G36 now. Meanwhile FN is making a killing selling their PS90s and FS2000s to us peasants.
Is FN's bread really going to get buttered by the scattered thousands of PS90s and FS2000s that they sell? Or is their bread going to be buttered by the hundreds of thousands of rifles, LMGs, HMGs and associated parts sold to the US and other militaries?
Additionally...what precisely is the "way of the Dixie Chicks?"
Additionally...what precisely is the "way of the Dixie Chicks?"
Going the way of the dixie chicks is alienating your formerly paying customers by telling them you don't need them.
FN might not make as much selling to civvies as government contracts, but sales are sales and civvie cash is just as green as government dollars. If tommorrow the US military decided to switch to Kalashnikovs they won't be in as sorry shape as H&K after the OICW and XM8 fell through.
FN might not make as much selling to civvies as government contracts, but sales are sales and civvie cash is just as green as government dollars. If tommorrow the US military decided to switch to Kalashnikovs they won't be in as sorry shape as H&K after the OICW and XM8 fell through.
GTSteve03
Member
Just an aside, but the Chicks have been #1 on the Billboard chart for a few weeks now with their new CD. Not sure if you've got a good comparison there.
#1 on the charts but cancelling shows due to poor sales all over the country. Last I heard they had to go over seas to find an audience that wanted to listen to them.
Of course the media and their critics would support the bush bashing trio. But consumers who vote with their dollars are doing otherwise.
Of course the media and their critics would support the bush bashing trio. But consumers who vote with their dollars are doing otherwise.
GTSteve03
Member
Uh, you do know Billboard numbers are based on CD sales, right?
Or are you suggesting it's a big conspiracy by the RIAA and other music industry types to prop up the Chicks as a way of bashing Bush?
Yep, who knows who is buying those CDs? There could be a huge pile of paid for dixie chick CDs lying at the bottom of the ocean bought by Sony or whoever just to make the numbers look good.
If they were really as popular as the billboards say they wouldn't be cancelling shows due to low attendance all over America.
If they were really as popular as the billboards say they wouldn't be cancelling shows due to low attendance all over America.
PATH
Member
Well, Kalashnikov is thinking about his impending departure from the planet. Who knows what the hell is going through his mind.
As for the Dixie Chicks I met someone with an interesting perspective. My friend was making copies of the Dixie Chicks music and handing them out. I asked him why he was doing that. He explained that people could have the music without paying money. Isn't that illegal I queried. Maybe so says he! I ain't making a nickel off anything. I still think it is illegal says I. I don't give a damn says he. Interesting perspective on the Dixie Chicks. I have not seen him since he moved but I wonder if he is still pushing Dixie Chicks music?
As for the Dixie Chicks I met someone with an interesting perspective. My friend was making copies of the Dixie Chicks music and handing them out. I asked him why he was doing that. He explained that people could have the music without paying money. Isn't that illegal I queried. Maybe so says he! I ain't making a nickel off anything. I still think it is illegal says I. I don't give a damn says he. Interesting perspective on the Dixie Chicks. I have not seen him since he moved but I wonder if he is still pushing Dixie Chicks music?
I thought that was the reason you were mentioning the Dixie Chicks...and I'm not sure it holds up.
As already stated their new album has sold nearly a million copies (may even be more than that by now) and although they have cancelled some shows in the heartland...they've also been selling out 20,000 seat arenas in Toronto in like eight minutes. Their last tour was the highest grossing of 2003...so saying that their sales are down only means they aren't on pace to beat the numbers from their previous tour...where they grossed like $60 million. So this time they might only gross $40 million in US ticket sales...in favor of how much money earned in CA and overseas?
Long story short...I think they are doing fine...despite having "turned their back" on their fan base.
Much in the same way that a firearms manufacturer could do if they shifted away from civilian sales in favor of chasing military contracts. Again...the civilian market for FN is not where they are making their bucks....it is a supplemental revenue stream for them.
I doubt that any major manufacturer of military firearms is terribly interested in supporting citizen arms ownership. Civilian sales through dealers and distributors would get you orders in quantities of what? 100? 500? 1000? That doesn't even rate next to an order for 100,000 rifles from a government. Contract pricing, guaranteed payment...less regulatory headaches, etc.
So...I would contend the following.
1) It shouldn't be a surprise that a guy who designed a military arm for the "people's army" of the Soviet Union thinks that the weapon should only be wielded by militaries.
2) Large arms manufacturers who chase government dollars don't have any substantial interest in protecting the rights of "armed citizens."
3) Barrett is the exception not the rule.
As already stated their new album has sold nearly a million copies (may even be more than that by now) and although they have cancelled some shows in the heartland...they've also been selling out 20,000 seat arenas in Toronto in like eight minutes. Their last tour was the highest grossing of 2003...so saying that their sales are down only means they aren't on pace to beat the numbers from their previous tour...where they grossed like $60 million. So this time they might only gross $40 million in US ticket sales...in favor of how much money earned in CA and overseas?
Long story short...I think they are doing fine...despite having "turned their back" on their fan base.
Much in the same way that a firearms manufacturer could do if they shifted away from civilian sales in favor of chasing military contracts. Again...the civilian market for FN is not where they are making their bucks....it is a supplemental revenue stream for them.
I doubt that any major manufacturer of military firearms is terribly interested in supporting citizen arms ownership. Civilian sales through dealers and distributors would get you orders in quantities of what? 100? 500? 1000? That doesn't even rate next to an order for 100,000 rifles from a government. Contract pricing, guaranteed payment...less regulatory headaches, etc.
So...I would contend the following.
1) It shouldn't be a surprise that a guy who designed a military arm for the "people's army" of the Soviet Union thinks that the weapon should only be wielded by militaries.
2) Large arms manufacturers who chase government dollars don't have any substantial interest in protecting the rights of "armed citizens."
3) Barrett is the exception not the rule.
Ruger just stopped short of this......Colt too by collapsing to the anti demands back in 1989. At least Colt has new leadership. Ruger still won't sell high capacity magazines to mini 14 owners..
Mikhail is a senile old commie trying to get in to Heaven now......Libs who would care less about what he has to say have only jumped on this to promote their own agenda.
carterbeauford
member
Kalishnikov is still alive? Learn something new every day.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Mikhail Lives
Alive and doing pretty well, too. I read that he is aghast that his rifle is favored by terrorist organizations, even though it's not his fault. "His" rifle became the property of the Soviet Government, who, in turn sold or gave it away to any who wanted them and hated America...including the rights to manufacture to the Red Chinese...who also exported the Kalashnikov rifles
in quantity to third-world nations in good faith that they would someday use them against us or our allies.
He stated that he developed it in order to safeguard his country from more of the same that Nazi Germany provided. I guess it was his way of saying: "Git some!"
I watched a documentary on his life. A brilliant, interesting, and very humble old gentleman who only loved his country and wanted to do what he could to protect the future of the Russian people from those who would engage in acts of aggression against them. Who can fault him for that?
Alive and doing pretty well, too. I read that he is aghast that his rifle is favored by terrorist organizations, even though it's not his fault. "His" rifle became the property of the Soviet Government, who, in turn sold or gave it away to any who wanted them and hated America...including the rights to manufacture to the Red Chinese...who also exported the Kalashnikov rifles
in quantity to third-world nations in good faith that they would someday use them against us or our allies.
He stated that he developed it in order to safeguard his country from more of the same that Nazi Germany provided. I guess it was his way of saying: "Git some!"
I watched a documentary on his life. A brilliant, interesting, and very humble old gentleman who only loved his country and wanted to do what he could to protect the future of the Russian people from those who would engage in acts of aggression against them. Who can fault him for that?
CaCrusin
Member
I am deeply involved in the US firearms manufacturing business and I can tell you that you are dead wrong. Ronnie is a great guy and very vocal, but he is not the only gunmaker fighting for our rights. Almost every US gunmaker and gun accessories company belongs to and supports the NSSF, the trade organization the defends our rights and works to better educate the media, politicians and the public about gun owners. This is a small industry and everybody knows everybody else. Most are fighting and contributing to protect our rights.
CaCrusin
Not the first time and I can promise it won't be the last...but in your experience, which major military arms manufacturer can you point to other than Barrett...that act in such a manner as to express support for an armed citizenry....to the exclusion of government monies for their products?
If you phrase the question that way then almost all manufacturers would not qualify. Why would a manufacturer see it as a mutually exclusive proposition? Bushmaster, Armalite, Beretta, FN, Sig, IMI, and others cater to both military and civilian markets, but I do not see them doing so at the cost of one or the other. Military contracts bring in a lot of revenue for a company, but they do not provide enough consistent revenue to keep most companies afloat. If a company puts priority to a military contract and holds off on civilian production while completing the contract, does that mean they are sacrificing their civilian business? No, it means they are acting like a good business. If a company is awarded a government contract then they are guaranteed a certain amount of revenue, and they have a certain timeframe to fill that order. It would not make sense for a company to hamper military orders in order to produce more civilian firearms. Sure, one can point to Colt, HK, and Ruger as companies that have a less than stellar record of supporting civilian firearm ownership, but you also have to take into account the other companies that do support civilian ownership. In 2004 Bushmaster produced 41,652 rifles, how many of those does one realistically think went to fill government contracts and how many went for civilian sale?
This is kind of the point I was trying to reach....Barrett is the exception...not the rule. I don't think that any smart business person says no to any opportunities to make money.
I'm not certain that they see it that way...but when push comes to shove they will likely act in such a way.
Gun companies make guns and if they don't have a civilian market what market do they have besides governments? If you accept the premise that business people will act in the interest of their wallet first (as a rational businessperson should) then if forced to choose between selling military style arms to civilians or selling to foreign and domestic agencies...I just think they will choose the contract over the civilian market.
cuchulainn
Member
I'm not surpised that an old-school Soviet would believe in government control as a solution.
How is Barrett the exception? Because they told California to shove it? Ronnie Barrett may be one of the most vocal supporters of civilian firearm rights, but there are other ways of supporting civilian rights. Beretta makes a lot of products for the civilian market as well as for the LE/Military market and markets towards both. Sig, IMI, and Bushmaster do the like. They can and do support both markets. They do not have to choose.
But why do they have to choose between the two? If they were forced to only focus on one market then a lot of the companies would go out of business. Civilian sales matter to gun manufacturers. Saying that they would choose military contracts over civilian sales if they were forced to is structuring the argument in your favor, and does not reflect the empirical reality of how companies have to operate.
Agreed. Framing the argument this way is how I make my point. I again ask my question...what major military arms manufacturer can you point to that has taken a public stance precluding sales of weapons to governments and their attendant agencies because said governments are infringing upon the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear besides Barrett?
Would you argue that government contracts are not what military arms manufacturers chase as their holy grail? The history of some of the largest operations says otherwise.
It is one thing for Beretta and others to make fancy shotguns, join industry groups and offer support for the "shooting sports"...but it is another altogether for them to stop selling 92 series pistols to Uncle Sam in order to make some kind of political statement.
I'm trying to get at the core of the reasoning behind the 2A...and asking the question...which side does an arms maker take when it comes down to it? Kalashnikov has indicated how he feels...and all I am saying is that I would not be surprised, and in fact I contend that many other "muckity-mucks" at some of the larger military arms manufacturers likely feel the same way in their heart of hearts.
This is however....the armchair opinion of someone outside the firearms industry...who doesn't personally know any "muckity-mucks" on which to base my opinion. I reach my conclusions based upon the historical actions and motives of military arms makers.
YMMV....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
