Guillermo
member
That is absolutely right, 4 members of the court either have distain for the Constitution or are unable to read plain English.
Either way, there is a lot of work left to do
New Heller Commemorative S&W
- Thread starter Guntalk
- Start date
- Status
That is absolutely right, 4 members of the court either have distain for the Constitution or are unable to read plain English.
Either way, there is a lot of work left to do
EddieCoyle
Member
As a career marketing guy, I have to say that this commemorative is just one more indication that S&W really knows what they're doing.
and oh yeah.. locks suck.
and oh yeah.. locks suck.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Not To Be Obtuse
. . . or anything . . .
The lock is abhorrent for two primary reasons:
1) It is often seen as lawyers solving a problem that didn't exist so as to avoid blame for accidents ("Well, we GAVE you a lock; all you had to do was USE it!), hence the "lawyer lock" epithet.
2) It adds another point of failure; a lock that malfunctions is more likely to cause a Failure To Fire and render the gun inoperable than it is to permit unwanted firing when it fails.
3) Oh, one other thing, it's seen as a blemish, an unnecessary interruption of the otherwise clean lines of a fine piece of machinery.
The supposed convenience (obviating the external trigger lock) is overshadowed by the discomforting fact that this lock is -- unlike an external device -- always present, since it's part of the gun, meaning that -- unlike the external device -- you can't leave the lock and key at home. You must now carry the key to the gun lock at all times when carrying said gun because, should the lock ever engage unbidden, the absence of the key awards you a pistol-shaped paperweight.
Gawd, we are SO brilliant.
. . . or anything . . .
The lock is abhorrent for two primary reasons:
1) It is often seen as lawyers solving a problem that didn't exist so as to avoid blame for accidents ("Well, we GAVE you a lock; all you had to do was USE it!), hence the "lawyer lock" epithet.
2) It adds another point of failure; a lock that malfunctions is more likely to cause a Failure To Fire and render the gun inoperable than it is to permit unwanted firing when it fails.
3) Oh, one other thing, it's seen as a blemish, an unnecessary interruption of the otherwise clean lines of a fine piece of machinery.
The supposed convenience (obviating the external trigger lock) is overshadowed by the discomforting fact that this lock is -- unlike an external device -- always present, since it's part of the gun, meaning that -- unlike the external device -- you can't leave the lock and key at home. You must now carry the key to the gun lock at all times when carrying said gun because, should the lock ever engage unbidden, the absence of the key awards you a pistol-shaped paperweight.
Actually, shouldn't we have seat belt locks? I mean, what if little Johnny disconnects his seat belt while riding in the back seat. Suddenly, he's at risk (remember, you're going to have an accident) and you can't reach him to fasten it. But wait! Our legal team has the answer! An integrated seat belt lock to prevent unwanted and unexpected opening of the belt.
Gawd, we are SO brilliant.
Guillermo
member
amen Arfin
amen
amen
Second Amendment Foundation and Smith & Wesson Partner on Commemorative Revolver
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Smith & Wesson have partnered to create a commemorative revolver designed to recognize the historical significance of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision and to acknowledge the six original plaintiffs that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington, D.C.
As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs - Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller - for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The commemorative revolver is available for consumer purchase and Smith & Wesson will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization's pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
The Smith & Wesson Model 442 will be laser engraved with an insignia to commemorate the ruling by the Supreme Court. On the right side plate of the revolver, the scale of justice is depicted with the wording "D.C. vs. Heller" across the scale. The balance is in favor of the "Heller" name with the court date of "June 26, 2008" positioned across the top. Underneath the scale, the side plate reads "Second Amendment" and "The right to keep and bear arms" in white lettering.
Product Number: 150505
MSRP: $575.00
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Smith & Wesson have partnered to create a commemorative revolver designed to recognize the historical significance of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision and to acknowledge the six original plaintiffs that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington, D.C.
As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs - Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller - for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The commemorative revolver is available for consumer purchase and Smith & Wesson will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization's pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
The Smith & Wesson Model 442 will be laser engraved with an insignia to commemorate the ruling by the Supreme Court. On the right side plate of the revolver, the scale of justice is depicted with the wording "D.C. vs. Heller" across the scale. The balance is in favor of the "Heller" name with the court date of "June 26, 2008" positioned across the top. Underneath the scale, the side plate reads "Second Amendment" and "The right to keep and bear arms" in white lettering.
Product Number: 150505
MSRP: $575.00
Attachments
S&W tells me the actual selling price will be under $500.
That "affordable" price was a big reason for choosing this model.
Of course . . . . if you really hate the lock, order a Model 40 and pay for them to laser engrave the same info on it. I have no idea if they would do it, but it's worth asking.
Cosmoline: Thanks for the catch on "V" rather than "VS" in the case name. I passed that along to S&W. This whole thing was done in a matter of days, which is unheard of. A new model usually takes 6 to 12 months at S&W. It was frantic, to say the least.
That "affordable" price was a big reason for choosing this model.
Of course . . . . if you really hate the lock, order a Model 40 and pay for them to laser engrave the same info on it. I have no idea if they would do it, but it's worth asking.
Cosmoline: Thanks for the catch on "V" rather than "VS" in the case name. I passed that along to S&W. This whole thing was done in a matter of days, which is unheard of. A new model usually takes 6 to 12 months at S&W. It was frantic, to say the least.
Guillermo
member
Wow Tom,
It must be nice to have the ear of gun manufacturers. We civilians can’t even get them to answer an email. I sent a very respectful letter to your buddies at Smith & Clinton asking a legitimate question and nothing back.
Of course they count on you guys to promote them. They obviously could not care less about the dumb-mass customers. It is especially such now that they have virtually no competition in the upper end of the revolver market.
It must be nice to have the ear of gun manufacturers. We civilians can’t even get them to answer an email. I sent a very respectful letter to your buddies at Smith & Clinton asking a legitimate question and nothing back.
Of course they count on you guys to promote them. They obviously could not care less about the dumb-mass customers. It is especially such now that they have virtually no competition in the upper end of the revolver market.
My wife get's the deals for S&W via e-mail ans she sent me this one. The first thing I said to her was that the darn lock will probably be a deal killer. There are a lot of Pro-2nd/anti-lock people who speak/vote with their $'s.
ETA I think it'd make a sweet carry piece if not for the lock. I've been eyeing my wife's 640 for a while now.
ETA I think it'd make a sweet carry piece if not for the lock. I've been eyeing my wife's 640 for a while now.
researchdoc
Member
Good thing this is in a revolver.. otherwise no one in DC would be able to have it.
Guillermo: What is your legitimate question for S&W?
Thaddeus: I "have the ear" only because these are my friends and people I work with in this industry. I sure don't tell them what to do, and they don't ask me what they should do.
I don't have to fight with lawyers on every decision (though there was some of that on this project), and I don't have to worry about the tight restrictions on a publicly-traded company.
I'm just guessing that it would be a mistake to imagine that S&W does not know how some people feel about the locks. That opinion has been expressed.
Only they will be able to make decisions on what they will do relative to that issue.
BTW, I know for a fact that 150 of the "Second Amendment Foundation" 442 revolvers just shipped!
Thaddeus: I "have the ear" only because these are my friends and people I work with in this industry. I sure don't tell them what to do, and they don't ask me what they should do.
I don't have to fight with lawyers on every decision (though there was some of that on this project), and I don't have to worry about the tight restrictions on a publicly-traded company.
I'm just guessing that it would be a mistake to imagine that S&W does not know how some people feel about the locks. That opinion has been expressed.
Only they will be able to make decisions on what they will do relative to that issue.
BTW, I know for a fact that 150 of the "Second Amendment Foundation" 442 revolvers just shipped!
Cosmoline
Member
Thanks!
W.E.G.
Member
Sounds like a great idea, but with poor execution.
That snubby .38 in the picture is the quintessential carry piece.
The Heller decision stands far in the distance from anything having to do with the right to carry.
Further, Heller filed his suit based on being denied his attempt at registering a 9-shot .22 buntline revolver.
Call me a spoil-sport, but geez - talk about casting a starlet to play the role of a real-life plain-jane!
That snubby .38 in the picture is the quintessential carry piece.
The Heller decision stands far in the distance from anything having to do with the right to carry.
Further, Heller filed his suit based on being denied his attempt at registering a 9-shot .22 buntline revolver.
Call me a spoil-sport, but geez - talk about casting a starlet to play the role of a real-life plain-jane!
JCMAG
Member
Man! I just bought a 442 a month ago! Where is my time machine??
Guillermo
member
Tom,
The way you asked it sounds as though you would consider forwarding my query. What a nice gentlemanly offer. I thank you.
I will respectfully decline. Over the last month I have changed my mind and will not be making the purchase that I was contemplating.
Once again, I am appreciative of your kindness.
The way you asked it sounds as though you would consider forwarding my query. What a nice gentlemanly offer. I thank you.
I will respectfully decline. Over the last month I have changed my mind and will not be making the purchase that I was contemplating.
Once again, I am appreciative of your kindness.
Yeah, I know it's not the perfect home defense gun. I know it's a carry piece.
But . . . it's a gun many people want and will buy. It's a gun that's affordable. It's actually a gun many people will carry. It's a gun which will generate money for the upcoming court battles.
And don't think for a minute that the decision has nothing to do with carry. It has to do with every aspect of gun rights and gun laws, as everyone will see over the coming years.
All the talk of "well it didn't do much" is so silly and uninformed as to be laughable. Want to ban "assault weapons?" I don't think that will be possible on the national level, because of this decision. Want to ban "Saturday Night Specials?" Same thing.
And on, and on, and on.
Of course, it's going to take 10 years to get a handle on it, and 20 years to really lock it down, but that's what happened with Brown v. Board of Education.
Me? I think it's a neat gun, and a wonderful expression of approval. I'm going to buy a couple.
But . . . it's a gun many people want and will buy. It's a gun that's affordable. It's actually a gun many people will carry. It's a gun which will generate money for the upcoming court battles.
And don't think for a minute that the decision has nothing to do with carry. It has to do with every aspect of gun rights and gun laws, as everyone will see over the coming years.
All the talk of "well it didn't do much" is so silly and uninformed as to be laughable. Want to ban "assault weapons?" I don't think that will be possible on the national level, because of this decision. Want to ban "Saturday Night Specials?" Same thing.
And on, and on, and on.
Of course, it's going to take 10 years to get a handle on it, and 20 years to really lock it down, but that's what happened with Brown v. Board of Education.
Me? I think it's a neat gun, and a wonderful expression of approval. I'm going to buy a couple.
Old School
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 307
GunTalk says:
+1
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
