JPFO attacks Kimber

N

Nnobby45

New member
Was visiting the KABA site and ran across a reference by Bruce Kraft to an interesting article written by Neil Smith for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms called "The Kimber Kiss-up".

http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080605.htm

After praising Ronnie Barret for refusing to sell his famous .50 cal. to 2d Amend. restrictive city governments, he points out that Bill Ruger had little understanding of the 2A, and was responsible for the High cap magazine ban. Seems Bill was good at giving the government "tips" and what kind of firearms should be sold (his:rolleyes:).

The article then attacks Kimber for kissing up to California police agencies by making firearms specifically for city governments that strip their citizens of the right to keep and bear arms. Los Angeles, mainly.

While not affiliated with the Jewish faith, I find the article very interesting.
 
Wow, that is really stupid thinking: drive another major American gun maker into bankruptcy with a ridiculous boycott. Just how will doing that help promote the rights of gun owners in the USA?

Incredibly dumb and short sighted article. They are not looking at the big picture at all, and are instead focusing on an issue that is trivial at best.

.
 
So, Kimber is selling a variation of it's 1911 to an LA police unit? How is that news? How is that anti-gun? This isn't anything like the SW debacle or even Bill Ruger's comments on the 10 round mag limit.
 
Wow, that is really stupid thinking: drive another major American gun maker into bankruptcy with a ridiculous boycott. Just how will doing that help promote the rights of gun owners in the USA?
Click to expand...

Quotes from the article:

"Kimber has acquired a bad habit: kissing up disgustingly to the destroyers of individual liberty by creating weapons especially dedicated to various California police agencies. In Hanson's words, these guns were specifically "designed for a local government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own this same gun."

"I agree with Hanson about the need for gun owners to react to Kimber's suicidal stupidity, but I would suggest also dealing with the problem at the other end. Why not a written pledge, to be taken and signed by individual police officers, that they will never attempt to confiscate weapons from civilians, whether it's during disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or as a result of local, state, or federal legislation."

Nobody wants Kimber out of business. Just out of the business of kissing up to those types of jurisdictions. Seems to me there are plenty of 2A friendly cities that they can market their products to.

So far, it doesn't look like the above two posters will be joining in just yet.:cool::D

Maybe Kimber could take a lesson from Ronnie Barret, who sells no rifles to anti 2A jurisdictions, and won't repair any they might already have.
STI, also, will not sell it's pistols to any California LE agency because of the recent micro-stamping requirements signed into law by the Liberal-nator Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Be nice to see Kimber show a little more loyalty to the gun folks like us who really made them what they are.
 
I was under the impression lawmakers banned the 50 in CA, not the police departments. Educate me though, I'm probably wrong.
 
"Some gun companies and their executives care only about the bottom line"

Private business has to answer to their investors or stock holders. If they make no profit they are out of business.
The Government is the ony ones without a bottom line.

Hmmm my comment was edited...sad as i am jewish.
 
Last edited:
Be nice to see Kimber show a little more loyalty to the gun folks like us who really made them what they are.
Click to expand...

And just how would they accomplish that? By allowing foreign companies like Glock, SIG, Beretta, or HK to instead sell guns to LAPD? Do you honestly think that foreign owned companies are going to view this as a 2nd Amendment issue?

Or do you want them to stop selling guns in California period? That would really be showing loyalty to all of the consumers that live in that state. Punishing them for the actions of their government.

Criticizing American gun makers for anything that is really the fault of politicians is dumb. We have outsourced just about every possible industry there is from our country. I guess some would have no problem with the US gun industry fading away also.

.
 
Criticizing American gun makers for anything that is really the fault of politicians is dumb. We have outsourced just about every possible industry there is from our country. I guess some would have no problem with the US gun industry fading away also.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we were all out of line for criticizing S&W for imposing their own restrictions while dancing on the puppet strings of the Clinton administration to save themselves from lawsuits.

As you may recall, Smith and Wesson was near bankruptcy caused by an unofficial boycott (gun owners where just mad at them) when they sold the company back into American hands where it should be.

Those sales in California are for special units only, with pistols for on and off duty.

They make up a small % of sales compared to guns sold to citizens whose rights they could be a little more respectful of by not marketing their products to cities that won't allow citizens to buy the same product for protection from violent criminal attack when the Kimber armed police (or any other) aren't around--which is almost always the case.

Jeez, that was a long sentence.:D

This is like a small boil on Kimbers' A*@ that needs to be removed before it becomes a bigger problem.:cool:
 
"Capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them"

Lenin said that (or something very close). Bash Kimber all you want, it matters not to me, but remember they are in business to make a profit. Not to defend our rights. That's our job. And in Ca (along with a loit of other places) we haven't done a very good job.

The situation with Barrett is different. CA banned his guns to civilians, and he then (rightly so) said, fine! Since I can't sell to the people, I won't sell to the CA Govt that forbids ownership to the people. A bold political statement (and one that makes many of us proud), but also onew he could afford to make. Compared to the loss of civilian sales, I don't think he lost all that much more by refusing to sell to the state of CA.

The Kimber situation is different in several ways. Their products are not prohibited to the public in CA, all they are doing is selling a specific model to LA, to meet their request. Even though they are not gun friendly, their money is the same as your and mine. Given the choice, I think they made a good business decision. American workers benefit. American stockholders benefit. While possibly not the best political decision, Kimber is not in the business of politics, they are ion the business of selling guns to make money.

Not the same as the S&W/Clinton agreement either. S&W's owners (at the time) voluntarily entered into an unethical and illegal agreement for percieved profit and political gain. All Kimber is doing is selling a special model to a specific customer. Not even remotely the same. Many makers have models sold for "law enforcement only", and have done so for generations. This is (as I see it) no different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top