Time for the Industry to cut off NY government and LE

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say they shouldn't stop selling. I say they should only sell what is legal there. "You want 7 rounds for civilians? Okay, your cops get 7 rounds as well."
 
Skribs, I agree. Higher capacity magazine for your Glock or AR... sorry, those aren't legal in this state.
 
Yep, just like Barrett did with the .50 in California. It's only fair. I especially hope companies like Magpul and Troy would do this but I doubt it since if there were no civilian sales, these would be the bulk of your customers you'd be ticking off.
 
Magpul can say "just to keep it out of the wrong hands in case there is a theft prior to arriving at the LEO office, we have decided to restrict ALL magazines into NY City. This is due to the push by some legislators wanting to hold the manufacturer responsible for felonious use of firearms."
 
I say they shouldn't stop selling. I say they should only sell what is legal there. "You want 7 rounds for civilians? Okay, your cops get 7 rounds as well."

Agreed. No full auto, no short rifles or shotguns, no 30 round mags. If they believe people only need limited capacity magazines and neutered title I firearms, well, cops are people too.
 
It would be colossally ignorant and petty for the firearms and ammo manufacturers to put the lives of citizens and tax payers of these states at risk by refusing to sell them the tools necessary for the defense of self or others.

First, S&W, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Benelli, Olin, etc. etc. are in the business of selling firearms and ammunition. The state and municipalities of NY are customers engaged in buying those tools to protect their citizens. No one on either side is strengthened or weakened by those companies reducing their sales just to strike some petty political affect.

Also, no corporation should breech its fiduciary duty to it's shareholders, employees and/or private ownership through reducing its revenues by stopping sales of it's products on the basis of political grandstanding.

Finally, the fact that LEO in NY buy these magazines, rounds, weapons etc. is a signal that those tools are effective in the defense of self and others. So effective in fact that the state uses tax payer dollars to purchase them. Refusing to sell them to affect a political statement undercuts one of the strongest rationale's for keeping the weapons, magazines and ammo available to the public: they work so well, LE uses them. By refusing to sell them, the mfgrs undercut the very public rationale for the need for their products.
 
Illinois is still a free state ~ and soon to be freer yet in four months. So please don't lump us (at the time) in with the rest of that sour ilk. We are home to many GREAT firearm makers. NO AWB, .50 BMG, or mag ban here. Nope. And we aims to keep it thataway.
 
It would be colossally ignorant and petty for the firearms and ammo manufacturers to put the lives of citizens and tax payers of these states at risk by refusing to sell them the tools necessary for the defense of self or others.

See there I think you're wrong....

It would be irresponsible for these comPanies to continue to sell to the govt. that which is illegal for a civilian.

They are making it possible for the govt to be better armed than its people, and there is no reason in a free country why that should be the case
 
Gossamer, your entire argument summarizes exactly why the LE and Governmental groups shouldn't expect to get what they wish to ban from others. If it's good for them, it's good for us.
 
It's already been proven that NYC cops are dangerous to the public. Give them night sticks and a donut.
 
Well, I'm not sure they should stop selling to the LE and Gov't agencies BUT they should move their manufacturing to "gun friendly" states. Remington should pack up and head South!!
 
Gossamer, you also suppose that the cops have a duty to protect you. According to the supreme court they do not.

I think if the government and media are held to the same standards as citizens (i.e. the reporter holding a 30-round magazine in DC), they'll start to realize that maybe gun control actually does hurt the law-abiding.
 
It would be colossally ignorant and petty for the firearms and ammo manufacturers to put the lives of citizens and tax payers of these states at risk by refusing to sell them the tools necessary for the defense of self or others.

First, S&W, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Benelli, Olin, etc. etc. are in the business of selling firearms and ammunition. The state and municipalities of NY are customers engaged in buying those tools to protect their citizens. No one on either side is strengthened or weakened by those companies reducing their sales just to strike some petty political affect.

Also, no corporation should breech its fiduciary duty to it's shareholders, employees and/or private ownership through reducing its revenues by stopping sales of it's products on the basis of political grandstanding.

Finally, the fact that LEO in NY buy these magazines, rounds, weapons etc. is a signal that those tools are effective in the defense of self and others. So effective in fact that the state uses tax payer dollars to purchase them. Refusing to sell them to affect a political statement undercuts one of the strongest rationale's for keeping the weapons, magazines and ammo available to the public: they work so well, LE uses them. By refusing to sell them, the mfgrs undercut the very public rationale for the need for their products.
There won't be any crime because NY has passed laws that prevent violence so they have no need for firearms,ammo,mags or other supplies.
 
Let their police, including SWAT, carry revolvers and pump shotguns. Hey it worked fine at one time and that way someone won't steal deadly 'semi automatic automatic assault weapons' and 'high capacity killing magazines' and hurt people.
 
Has anyone considered where the various gun and ammo mgrs' money for NRA donations, campaign donations, lobbying money, advertising money, and political willpower comes from? It doesn't come from political stunts, it comes from sales. If the mfrs stop selling what they can lawfully sell, they have less money to put towards resources required to protect RKBA.

Gossamer, your entire argument summarizes exactly why the LE and Governmental groups shouldn't expect to get what they wish to ban from others. If it's good for them, it's good for us.
That's my point. Why undercut the argument that "if it's good for LE it's good for citizens" by then refusing to sell what is good when the law permits it? To make some point? what point? Sounds like the only point being made is "our weapons are so good at defense of self or others that we are going to negligently refuse to sell them to the very people seek to buy them for defensr of self and others." It undercuts our own argument: these weapons and ammo are effective in defending self and others. And if we truly believe these tools are valuable for the defense if self and others, this proposal says its okay to lose a few lives by refusing sales of the best defense tools possible in order to score some cheap political points. In short, it's the same BS the antis pull.

People who disagree with my position seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that these mfrs are in the business of making a profit. They have an obligation to make a lawful profit. If no law bars them from selling to LE of every state that wants to buy then they are obligated to maximize shareholder value by selling.


LE does, in point of fact, have an obligation to have the best tools they can afford to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution and citizens of that state or community. That is their oath and they take that oath seriously. I personally do not want any agency to be diminished in their capacity to uphold that oath so that mfrs can engage in political garbage. Nor do I want my or my fellow shareholders, dividend income and share price adversely afftected by the same. Nor do I want these employees' jobs put at any risk for same.

Leave the cheap politics to politicians.
 
Gossamer, you also suppose that the cops have a duty to protect you. According to the supreme court they do not.

I think if the government and media are held to the same standards as citizens (i.e. the reporter holding a 30-round magazine in DC), they'll start to realize that maybe gun control actually does hurt the law-abiding.
The proposal's logic - at its core - operates as follows: the RKBArms will be strengthened if the Arms makers sell less Arms.

This does not make logical sense to me.
 
Has anyone considered where the various gun and ammo mgrs' money for NRA donations, campaign donations, lobbying money, advertising money, and political willpower comes from? It doesn't come from political stunts, it comes from sales. If the mfrs stop selling what they can lawfully sell, they have less money to put towards resources required to protect RKBA.

That's why I'm saying to sell, but only sell what is legal to citizens. How many cops are going to say "yeah, sure, I only need 7 rounds." How many more are going to say "but my Glock holds 17 why are you dropping me down by ten...wait, my AR holds thirty...no!" Then again, British cops are disarmed.

We have to defend against the same criminals, often with less warning and less support than police have. Yet they get more than 4 times the ammo per officer in a standard AR magazine?

I've seen stuff like this suggested elsewhere. Make the White House a gun free zone and disarm the Secret Service (it works for our kids, why not the President?). Make the reporter holding a 30-round magazine in DC legally accountable for the laws he supports. Make the police officers follow the laws that those they protect have to follow as well. Maybe if we hold everyone to the same standard as they want to hold us, they'll realize just how silly what they're trying to accomplish is.

ETA: The proposal's logic - at its core - operates as follows: the RKBArms will be strengthened if the Arms makers sell less Arms.

No. It's that we won't support a fascist government.
 
No. It's that we won't support a fascist government.

That is not the logic evidenced in the proposal. Where does the proposal talk about "we" at all? It proposes that arms mfrs do something -- or more specifically, refrain from doing something they are legally permitted to do.

Where is the logic that the RKBA will be strengthened if arms makers refrain from doing something they are logically permitted to do?

Make the White House a gun free zone and disarm the Secret Service (it works for our kids, why not the President?).

I find that logic equally fatuous. I find any proposal absurd that suggests to curtail the number and quality of arms and ammo in the hands of those entrusted to protect and defend, be they LE or private citizens. Even if its intent is to make some larger, rhetorical point.

That rhetorical point is self-evident: these tools are effective in defense of self and others. It doesn't need to be reinforced, nor is it reinforced, by limiting the availability of these tools to anyone by anyone.

There is no direct evidence that the RKBA is strengthened by Arms makers making fewer arms available to anyone.

Make the police officers follow the laws that those they protect have to follow as well. Maybe if we hold everyone to the same standard as they want to hold us, they'll realize just how silly what they're trying to accomplish is.

And maybe someone will end up dead because of it.

I find these tools to be effective, so much so that I use them and suggest anyone and everyone who is capable use them responsibly.

I find that if I and others didn't use them, and were in a confrontation with a BG with a gun, someone could be hurt or killed. I take that seriously. More seriously than playing the "let's make a point" game in hopes that the possibility of a body count will make someone see something is "Silly." Especially considering the Antis have already proven time and again that death does not make them see anything is silly.
 
Last edited:
30 round magazines in LEO's ARs won't be used to protect you. They will be used against you, when so directed, when all of us are deemed criminals by the present administration, when we follow our oaths to the constitution.
 
Maybe someone will end up dead by them disarming and neutering the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. However, those who write the laws and enforce the laws are apparently above the laws, so they don't really see the danger.

I agree that these gun laws are unconstitutional, and we should promote their use. I think the AR-15 is about the best self defense weapon on the market, and primarily due to the high capacity. However, if they do want to put the gun laws into effect, they should cover EVERYONE, not just those who are apparently above the law.
 
Well, I'm not sure they should stop selling to the LE and Gov't agencies BUT they should move their manufacturing to "gun friendly" states. Remington should pack up and head South!!
I'm guessing that it's hard to make good products on a large scale without highly skilled and educated union labor that is available in places like NYS. where are they going to find the skilled workforce in Albama? If the south had anything to offer in that regard, the rest of america's industry would have moved there a long time ago. The auto manufacturing in the south largely is performed by robots/ in highly automated/mechanized plants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top