Bill Ruger Shows His Colors, Again

R

RickD

Moderator
Copied from a friend at azrkba@asu.edu

<snip>

Anyone who thought that Bill Ruger is a true defender of RKBA can put that notion to rest. Here is a report from the SHOT show about Ruger's plans to introduce a compact pistol for the concealed carry market. It will show up to the market about the same day Bill Clinton believes he ever did anything wrong.

I don't mind Ruger being a businessman. However, let no one mistake his position...he IS a BUSINESSMAN, not an RKBA advocate.

Tim


http://www.shotshowreports.com/page2.html

RUGER - Ruger has no plans to offer any compact, concealed carry, pistols. EVER!! The official position from Bill Ruger is that Ruger only produces sporting arms. The sales division would love to get in on the wave of CC legislation, but it ain't gonna happen. Bill Ruger does not want to cause
waves. When I asked how do they explain the fact that some LE agencies carry the Ruger pistol all I got was a shrug. Ruger is toying with an alloy frame for the SP101 though. We may never see it, but if we do remember tha you heard it here first. Ruger is known for announcing and even showing
prototype guns that never get to market. Remember the pump shotgun and the XGI? This revolver was not shown, but may be the only way Ruger could get any business from the CC market.


see also:
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-papabill.html
 
http://www.shotshowreports.com is being run by TFL's own JeffOTMG. The posting to which you refer was his personal experience on the floor at the SHOT Show. This may or may not necessarily reflect the "official" position of the Ruger Co., though.

BTW, I've never thought of Bill (10rd) Ruger as a defender of RKBA, that's for sure. :(
 
No compact firearms? What exactly does Ruger consider the SP101? Always interesting the see the mental gymnastics necessary to keep in line with (percieved) political correctness.
 
What I think is a bit of poetic justice is the criticism that was levelled at Bill Ruger and his company in the book 'Making A Killing: The Business of Guns in America' by Tom Diaz. For Bill Rugers desires to appear a manufacturer of 'sporting guns' that are not politically incorrect, he is presented as a greedy capitalist that sells dangerous products. 'For as you shall sow, so shall ye reap'.
 
I get the impression a few here might
not by Rugers because of some of this
information.
But can you boycott Ruger and still buy the
NRA's mag that promotes them in almost every issue.
I guess I cant talk I never complained about my
Ruger.22 and my RugerP90 in fact I often used
that as my part of my screename since it was my
very first gun ,bought them both used!

Isnt it time for the NRA to give Ruger yet ANOTHER
award for some crap he didnt do!?!?
Awesome info thank you I will be passing
these aritcles on RickD.
 
I love it *sarcasm mode on* when they bash S&W...

and wax poetic about their *pure* Rugers when this rotten apple has been in the barrel all along.
 
CCW does not define RKBA

Remington, Winchester, Mossberg, Dan Wesson, Desert Eagle, and a buch of other companies do not make CCW guns. So what? Are you going to complain that Glock doesn't make a revolver, or a shotgun? Companies choose their product lines, specialization or diversity, on many factors. Now, the 10-rd aspect of Ruger's life is regrettable, but gimme a break. Anyone (and there are lots of folks) who can tote a full-size 1911 for CCW can carry a P97 just as easily.

That said, I think if Ruger took the quality and economy of the P95/97 and shrunk it down to Kahr or mini-Glock size, they could dominate the market!
 
I would still not buy one.

And, said to say, my first gun I ever purchased was a used 1976 Ruger Blackhawk, 45Colt, 7.5" barrel.
 
RICKD-- I think me and you just dont enjoy
being basically told that were too stupid
to be trusted with more than 10 rounds
and that are lives arent valuable enough to ensure
that have such ammo if such need arose, as do most
uniformed officers paid by our tax dollars.
(and so they should)
Or maybe we should keep quiet and realize that its
more important for Ruger to eliminate the slight
gap their was when Glock was selling 17-19 round
9mm magazines when Ruger only made up 10 15 rounders.
This also should not lead us to beleive that Ruger
would bail out or plain sell us out again
should the legislation help to once again line his pockets
or lever the playing field for his business.
I mean wasnt he just as helpful when it came to
the so called 'assault weapons' ban of 94.
Where do you think Ruger will be if Bush gets a
chance to help the 94 ban sunset and we lawabiding
citizens have a chance to purchase the standard capcity
mags at an afforable price again.

The temperature of the pot just went up 10 degree's,
some of us Frogs are still sitting in it saying we can
still take the heat and Ruger helped turn it up on us.
 
Read the actual text of the 1994 "It's a Crime, Bill", 18 U.S.C. 922 and Appendix I. ATF is specifically prohibited from listing the Mini-14 as an assualt weapon. There's the payoff for Ruger's support for the ban.

I really hate to say it but I hope that when I visit Ruger's grave sometime in the future, I have a full bladder.

I have to give it to Ruger, he's psychic. Whenever I'm thinking about getting a Ruger (after all, I tell myself that he's out of the company so it won't help him, right?) they make another statement that reinforces my resolve.
 
So why isn't there a "Ruger ban" happening? If S&W "must die" because of the agreement they signed, it would seem a Ruger boycott would be just the thing...
Must be too much trouble....
 
Hi!!!! Huh-----uh-----Huh------Uh. I am Mickey Mouth Breather. I refuse to acknowledge that Ruger was in step with Industry Leaders on the mag cap ban and thought the round count would be limited to 15 instead of ten. I refuse to accept the fact that none of this crap with Ruger, Glock, Sig or S&W would have ever happened had it not been for the free-loaders electing Democrats into office. I refuse to accept the fact that in America, Ruger can make what he wants to-----it's his choice.

Attack the real culprits here for once, the liberal, leftist politicians!
 
Ruger can make what he wants. But when he actively opposes the RKBA in direct and/or subtle ways, one can choose not to buy his products.

I can say I won't make handguns like Remington because it isn't in my market plan for business reasons. If Remington thought that they could do it, perhaps they would.

Ruger says he won't make concealable guns BECAUSE they
are concealable. That is an ideological position and not a business one.
 
MICKEMCK--Several of us just stated that we have not for
sometime nor ever will buy their products again
atleast not new.....
Why has their never been a call for an outright ban
on Ruger firearms mostly I think because so many of us
refuse to look at this as any sort of betrayal or attack
on our rights and instead view it as a business decision
or one of the many strides taken in politics that could
not be avoided sounds like Guncontrol 101 to me.
Also try finding a gundealer that will tell you anything
bad about Ruger or try reading through two of the NRA's
mags without seeing a Ruger gun add or find more than
one of the normal gun magazines that will bring up and discuss in detail this subject guns&ammo Handguns you name it they wont print it.
Then again someone else said we should blame those who
voted for the liberals who write such laws,I guess that means we should blame them for colt cutting back on
civillian firarms products blame them for S&W's agreeing
to gun control measures blame them for AT&T sending over 3
million to HCI and keep sending all of them our money...
right Will?
I suppose all this time were also suppose to tell ourselves
that its impossible for a gundealer or Firearms manufacturer
to be a leftist liberal democrat white taking our money
making more guns and supporting all 'moderate' restictions
on our rights since weve shown them they wont lose any money by doing so since these arent 'direct' attacks on our right or outright gun bans.

Support those who dont compromise your rights
http://www.gunowners.org
http://www.ccops.org
http://www.jpfo.org
http://www.keepandbeararms.com
 
Buzz Knox is right

Mike, you hit the nail on the head - Ruger must die - even more important than S&W, IMO. Many of us have been boycotting Ruger for some time, and always will - this is not new. The company sold us out far worse than S&W ever dreamed of doing. Politically advocating gun/magazine bans in the federal Congress, as Ruger did (this is indisputed), is far more culpable than simply entering a private agreement to try to save your company's ass, as S&W did. S&W must die, because the abandoned the industry's joint defense against the litigation assault. But Ruger has demonstrated it cares far far less about gun rights - not at all, in fact. Ruger must die a horrible ugly death, if we are to save the second amendment. Bill Ruger doesn't understand the meaning of the second amendment any more than Bill Clinton does, or if he does, he just doesn't care enough to make this supersede business decision. That's fine. He's free to make a business decision - we're free to boycott this RKBA traitor to end all traitors. Spread the word, and don't buy new or used Rugers unless you support disarmament, because that's what you'd be doing. NRA basically has to kiss this traitor's ass, because of all the money he gives them, but I think it's excessive even taking into account all the money they get from him. I don't like it either. If you don't like it, do what I do since NRA's nonstop Ruger asskissing: give to NRA - ONLY the membership dues; but give ALL extra RKBA money to Gun Owners of America instead.

CCW is not synonymous with RKBA, but it DOES have very close ties, because the REASON for owning firearms defines the extent of the RKBA, and the CCW reason supports the full meaning, whereas the sporting arms reason support a finding of no rights, or that society's interests outweigh the right (to duck hunt).

One other thing: any talk of "you're playing into thier hands" by killing these companies is pure hogwash. These days, there are PLENTY of fine gunmakers who stand ready, willing and able to fill the market void created by our boycotts, and who DO care about the RKBA - the list could go on for quite awhile.
 
Ok Futo, Who?

Name the domestic companies that can fill in the slack when S&W and Colt go under? I'd be interested to see the list.
Jennings, HiPoint, Lorcin, Ruger, Kimber, any more?

I still say you are playing into the antis hands, despite your good intentions. :)
 
If Slick & Weasel and Rouger go under, someone will buy their patents and equipment and make their stuff.

I don't buy Ruger and *&*.

There are plenty of manufacturers, both foreign and domestic which can take up the slack.

Rick
 
I decided years ago not to buy Ruger, but it wasn't based on the company's RKBA position, as I didn't know it at the time. It was based on the company's treatment of biker employees. Even though Ruger's home state (MA?) does not have a helmet law, Ruger decided that the company health insurance plan would not cover employees who had a motorcycle accident and were not wearing a helmet. An employee could drive drunk, have an accident and be covered, no problem. The American Motorcyclist Association hounded the company to no avail. To the best of my knowledge this is still the company's position.

Dick
 
Monkeyleg

I boycotted Ruger for years for the same reasons. I bought my first Ruger last year after, the AMA published an article on their website to the effect that Ruger had finally gotten rid of their bigoted policy.

I don't know if the article is still on the website or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top