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
It says 82 countries have them in their state arsenal and 14 nations manufacture them. The rifle fires 600 rounds a minute, is reliable and available for as little as $30 in some parts of Africa.
Gotta love them broad brush statements.Its report says light arms are killing 1,000 people a day.
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.The rifle fires 600 rounds a minute
Well at least Barrett is not for more gun control but this trend of MFG's for more
GC is rather disturbing.
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.And then you go the way of the dixie chicks.
Uh, you do know Billboard numbers are based on CD sales, right?Of course the media and their critics would support the bush bashing trio. But consumers who vote with their dollars are doing otherwise.
Going the way of the dixie chicks is alienating your formerly paying customers by telling them you don't need them.
3) Barrett is the exception not the rule.
you are dead wrong.
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?
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.
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.
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.