I guess my libertarian ideals are more sensitive than Ed's and Rob's because I saw much to fear. "Instantaneous, point-of-sale background checks. In the computer age, there is no reason why a person's criminal and mental health record cannot be electronically checked at the point of sale." Innocent until proven guilty of a crime, guys, not guilty until proven innocent enough to own a gun. And my medical records, all of them, are my business, not the state's.
Also, Ruger's stance on firearm storage is wrong-headed; it merely fuels the anti's fire to enact legislation which would jail innocent people whose firearms have been stolen. If a thief can break into your house, they can break your triggerlock. Not to mention that your defense weapon is next to useless if it is locked up. If you have small children or careless adults in your house, by all means use whatever is necessary to keep firearms out of their hands. I have neither children nor careless untrained adults in my home, and I will not have yet another legal burnden dumped on me. If someone steals my guns and then misuses them it is because they broke the law, not I.
"Increased scrutiny of retail firearms sales" I buy most of my firearms through a friend with an ffl, who obviously will not be allowed to purchase Rugers as he is not an authorized dealer. He only sells to friends, operating out of his home, the way thousands of dealers used to before the Clinton administration. Now, if you can think of a dealer who stands a smaller chance of selling to a criminal or psychotic I'd be interested in learning of his existence. But, Ruger in its letter says he (and by extension, me) is not good enough for them to be considered ethical.
Any infringement is unacceptable.
I'm done buying Rugers, that's for sure.
------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken
[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 11, 1999).]