Could we really do this?

jimpeel

New member
Smith & Wesson is for sale. The price is ~161 million dollars. If 1,610,000 people were to each throw $100 in a pot, the asking price could be met. The problem is that there would be no operating capital.

Then, again, if 1,610,000 people were to throw $200 in a pot, the asking price could be met with another 161 million dollars left for operating capital.

For every one million dollars under the asking price, one million extra dollars would be available for operating capital.

The new "owners" could tell the feds to shove it, mount a counter suit -- perhaps even a R.I.C.O. action -- and continue an American tradition. They could even suspend all operations at the company without shutting it down although that would eliminate new capital through product sales.

Each "owner" would get one share in the company, no vote, no control, no guarantee they would ever see their $200 again. Here's the problem:

Each owner would also be liable as a John Doe in any new action against the company. Of course, even in the event that the bad guys won a suit, even a 100 million dollar suit, their share would be $62.11 each. That is assuming there is no insurance payout. Here's the good part:

For every suit filed, the 1,610,000 "owners" would file a counter suit. Each suit would have to be addressed and fought even if there were no other action taken by any member. The counter suits would be filed in every state in the union whereas their suit would be filed in Springfield, Mass. We would need one battery of lawyers, they would need fifty.

We would need a holding company made up of a good pro-Second attorney or attorneys who would act on our behalf for the purchase but not until the sufficient number of "owners" had been met.

All funds would have to be in postal money orders or cashiers checks and must be accompanied by a self addressed stamped envelope. If the number of "owners" was not met by a date certain, the uncashed checks or money orders would be returned in the SASE's.

The time is ripe to do this as almost everyone in the nation is going to have a couple hundred bucks free when they get their tax refunds.

Whatcha think? Could we really do this? NRA has 3.5 million members alone -- over twice the needed number of "owners".

Is the real question, though, "Is there this much intestinal fortitude left in America"?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited March 18, 2000).]
 
Personally, I'd have a real hard time coming up with $200 in then next year. I think I could be talked into it for this. But I doubt you could get over a million people to do the same. Remember the FOUP?
 
Count me in :) But all I want is two handguns of my choice a year :D

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
Don,

FOUP?

loknload,

If everyone got that, even at cost of production, it would bankrupt the company in the first year.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
I'm game. Would each investor become a stockholder in the company? If so, I'll pony up.

We'd have to have a gun-loving management team that would make decisions based on hard data, not emotions--or coercion. There's probably a lot of fat that could be trimmed immediately from the company to make it more productive, too.

It's nice to dream, isn't it?
DAL

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, NRA
 
I'll pass. Let the Japanese or British or French have it. I would imagine the company is loaded with poison pills and golden parachutes. Better to put money into something that drags less baggage into the deal. Start fresh, and buy their equipment if you are really serious about it. You may even be able to get some real nice machinery to make Pythons from Colt.
 
I think I've already suggested something of the sort, and got told by an investment banker that there was some problem with it. Pulling together the $200 is no problem, but wouldn't S&W continue to be bound by that agreement they signed with the government even if we DID buy them?

The companies we should be buying are the ones which haven't yet entered into potentially enforcible surrender agreements. I hear H&K is up for sale...

How much capital WOULD it take to start a firearms firm? I'm a mechanical designer, although I haven't done anything firearms related beyond some doodling. "TFL Arms", manufacturer of politically incorrect guns... Sounds attractive, doesn't it?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
This seems like quite an enticing idea. However, since they decided to roll over on us, I think it would be better and sweeter to boycott them, have them declare bankruptcy and then buy the dead horse at bargain basement price, rename it and go from there. TFL Arms - the company formerly known as S&W - Spineless and Whipped.
 
Yeah, I like that. :D But I still want two guns a year. :D

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:


How much capital WOULD it take to start a firearms firm? I'm a mechanical designer, although I haven't done anything firearms related beyond some doodling. "TFL Arms", manufacturer of politically incorrect guns... Sounds attractive, doesn't it?

[/quote]


Yes it does!!
But, for a company like Smith and Wesson (however hallowed the name), you'd not only be buying the company, but a lot of unattractive baggage with it (ever worked in a large corporation?).
I think the future is in companies like Kahr, Seecamp...maybe even Keltec (if they can get their quality standards up to snuff).
Even the specialty manubacturers (Kimber, Wilson Combat, etc.) may be more viable candidates.

All the older "traditional" manufaturers carry a lot of dead weight (heard the term "Lean Manufacturing"?).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ezeckial:

Yes it does!!
But, for a company like Smith and Wesson (however hallowed the name), you'd not only be buying the company, but a lot of unattractive baggage with it (ever worked in a large corporation?).
I think the future is in companies like Kahr, Seecamp...maybe even Keltec (if they can get their quality standards up to snuff).
Even the specialty manufacturers (Kimber, Wilson Combat, etc.) may be more viable candidates.

All the older "traditional" manufaturers carry a lot of dead weight (heard the term "Lean Manufacturing"?).
[/quote]
 
Firearm
Owner
Unification
Project

The idea was a full-page ad in USA Today declaring that we, as gun owners, would not accept one more unconstitutional law, to include a list of names of the donors who paid for the ad. However, despite valiant efforts, too few people ever paid to be able to post the ad.
 
Back
Top