It also
could have been one or more "trolls" on that other board just sending an anti-Ruger jab up the flagpole to see if some brand-loyal fellow salutes it.
And too, a lot gets made of the
alleged "politics" of the Ruger company - all of it over a letter Bill Ruger sent to our beloved government and not even the entire letter, just the comment that said (paraphrasing) Bill Ruger did not think civilian gun-owners
needed large capacity magazines.
The 2nd Amendment is not about the "need" of the people - it's about the
right of the People. But Bill Ruger never said it was. He did not address the "right, he simply said the "need" wasn't there and the
1st Amendment gives him (and all of us) the right to say that if it is what we believe.
! And for the record, the 2nd Amendment addresses firearms, not 30-shot clips.
But Ruger's comment has been picked up and stretched and folded and bent and taken from context and otherwise manipulated by some people to the point where it has no more to do with the "politics" of the company than Integrity has to do with the people who keep repeating it.
It might just be that Ruger was trying to nudge the focus of restrictive legislation
away from the guns and onto
magazines so we could at least hang onto our Mini-14s with lesser magazines and our 1851 Navies! And I'll go on record saying
I don't think civilians "need" 30-shot clips either - simply because I've not needed any such thing ever and I've spent many years using guns in many venues. But neither do I particularly care if someone has a 30-shot clip and neither do I think someone else's clip is subject to my approval.
Here is a synopsis of "The Ruger "Politics"...
"After a spate of high profile shootings and incidences with the Ruger Mini 14 rifle, along with a number of unsavory associations the Mini 14 had gained with militias and extremist movements during the late 1970's and early 1980's, William Ruger expressed a highly unpopular position (amongst firearms owners, users and enthusiasts) by stating his personal views on the "sporting" nature of certain firearms.
In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Mr. Ruger stated in what has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives."
In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by "The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"
This position, coming from an important firearms manufacturer such as Mr. Ruger, caused outrage in the shooting sports community and led to a boycott of Ruger products that is still practiced by many firearms purchasers to this day. "The Ruger Letter" is widely accepted as being the genesis for those parts of legislation that were drafted 5 years later in the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban which prohibited the manufacture of any magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition for civilian sale.
While it is unknown what the true motives behind "The Ruger Letter" really were, it is widely speculated that his position on magazine capacity was more a matter of smart business than one of individual philosophy. Given the legislative climate regarding firearms during that time (the late 1980's/early 1990's), the prospect of an outright ban that may have impacted one of Rugers most popular and profitable models (the Mini 14) was a very real possibility.
By taking preemptive measures to shift the focus from the "guns" to the "magazine capacity", this would allow Sturm, Ruger Inc. to continue production with their Mini 14 line of firearms for civilian sale. Any legislation regarding magazines would have had zero impact on their bottom line, given that Ruger maintained a company policy refusing to sell Mini 14 magazines over 5 rounds (which wouldn't have been affected), even prior to the 1994 legislation mandating such. "
___________________________________________________________________________
Local opinions may, and are welcome to, vary.
