I posted this message (under the underscored line) in the General Handguns section a few days ago. Quite frankly, I'm rather stunned that some people view the spontaneous boycott of S&W as somehow being a maneuver that hurts us as gunowners.
Let's get something straight. If, by S&W going out of business for lack of sales prevents another manufacturer from signing a similar agreement, then IT IS WORTH IT TO SEE SMITH & WESSON DIE.
S&W CHOSE to sign this agreement. Do those of you who are castigating gunowners for opposing this agreement really KNOW what it entails?
Do you have ANY idea as to what could happen to our ability to purchase new firearms in this country if EVERY other manufacturer were to sign on to it?
Somehow you seem to think that the Government wants us to kill S&W. To that I say...
NO.
The Government wanted EVERY manufacturer to sign this agreement. They wanted consumers to do exactly what you're doing, IGNORE the horrific potential of this agreement, and blindly go about business while the Gov't forced other manufacturers into line.
Well, guess what, guys?
Those of you who continue to purchase S&W products?
You're the ones who are activly participating in the promotion of this agreement to all firearms manufacturers.
Quite frankly, YOU are the ones who are playing right into the Gov'ts hands.
Smart move, gents. You're going to be used like pawns, and you're going screw future generations.
Now that is something of which to be proud, don't you think?
Anyway, on to the message I posted in General Handguns.
------------------------------------------------------------
To all of those who think that gunowners are "cutting off our noses to spite our faces," I can only ask...
HOW?
If gunowners gave the impression that we simply didn't care about the agreement that S&W signed with the Government, even given the onerous provisions that the agreement entails, just how long do you think it would take other gun manufacturers to fold, too?
Where, then, would that leave us?
Take a REALLY good look at the provisions of S&W's agreement with the Government, and then try to imagine what the effect would be if EVERY manufacturer signed on as an active participant.
Here are just a few immediate consequences...
Try, for example, the "new guns won't accept high-cap magazines made before Sept. 1994."
No matter that such magazines are still LEGAL. No matter that that particular agreement has an expiration date on it. Essentially, a Glock 17 or a Sig 228 made under the terms of this agreement can't use perfectly legal magazines.
There's also an ancillary cost involved with that, the re-engineering costs. How much might that add to the cost of a new gun?
How about the "manufacturers will not sell guns that are resistant to fingerprints?"
Just what does that mean? How about no more Glocks, or any of the other polymer framed guns with impressed checkering or pebbling?
How about "authorized user technology"? Want to make a bet on what that will eventually entail? Computer-chip controlled firearms? How much cost will THAT add to a new gun? And, an even more critical question, will the Government be given the codes to these chipped guns that will allow them to develop a technology to disable them?
Think that's a pipedream, or an unrealize fear? Consider how far computers have come in the past 20 years. The system sitting on my desk at work has more power than 1,000 comparable 1980-era computers daisy chained together.
Do those of you who think "enough is enough" actually expect the Government to believe that this agreement is enough, or to fully comply with its own agreement?
Perhaps you've forgotten that S&W was promised relief from lawsuits ("city, state, county and federal parties agree to dismiss the parties from the pending suits"), which still hasn't materialized.
Perhaps you've also forgotten that the Government's promise of "most favored firearms manufacturer status" was rejected by Congress?
Read through the provisions of the agreement again. Look for open-ended statements that would allow the Government to come in and make extremely excessive demands of the manufacturer, dealer, or retailer. There are quite a few of them.
Ask yourself just how long it would be until the Government decides that "hey, NONE of Glock's firearms pass the safety requirement" because the trigger in the trigger isn't sufficient. How much will THAT add to re-engineering costs of a new gun?
How would all of you who are willing to forgive and forget S&W's sell-out if this sort of agreement were injected into other products that you're in contact with in your daily life?
Radios, televisions, computers, refrigerators, books, automobiles?
How about automobiles? How about this for starters...
"Within 36 months, all automobiles will be equipped with a hands-free driving system."
"Within 36 months, all automobiles, SUVs, trucks, and minivans have to get a minimum of 75 miles per gallon."
"All new automobiles manufactured after X date will have to run only on XXX fuel, and not be capable of accepting petroleum distillate fuels."
"All automobile dealers will have to carry $1 million in insurance to cover lawsuits arising after an automobile they legally sell is involved in an accident."
I will admit, there is an enormous difference between what is happening with S&W and what might happen to automobiles. But perhaps that's why the Constitution doesn't have an ammendment in the Bill of Rights covering modes of transportation, but there is one that covers firearms.
I'm truly sorry, but those of you who are willing to accept S&W's sellout, and the terms forced upon it and gunowners by the Government, just aren't stopping to consider the potential long-term costs.
One of the legacies left to us by our ancestors was of a nation of free, law-abiding men and women whose right to own firearms for personal protection and the common defense was unquestioned.
By caving in to the Government's demands and accepting S&W's betrayal, we would send the message that we no longer care about the legacy left to us by men such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or the rest of this nation's Founding Fathers, nor do we care for the sacrifice made by millions of men and women who have fought in this nation's defense in times of war, or who have stood watch over it in times of peace.
That, I believe, is truly the sadest outcome of this debacle.