Exiled And Addicted
Retired Screen Name
OK, I've been off the net for over a week. Yikes, I've been flamed. Well, OK, probably deserve it, but I still stick by my original contentions. I still think you are mistaken, DC and Grayfox, and I think it is exactly you're kind of thinking that get the Clintons of the world elected. I still think you're thinking like sheep. Yes, we should stand together, WITH MANUFACTURERS WHO TAKE A SOLID STANCE, as does the NRA, and as we do as the rank and file.
DC, what you cannot seem to comprehend is that OUR INTERESTS AIN'T RUGER'S INTEREST. Our interests as gun owners are not one and the same. They diverge sharply. I am a businessman and of course I am going to make decisions to protect my business, and support political measures that keep me in business; as does Ruger. I don't blame them at all for doing so; I do blame US if we don't take steps to make door number 2 more attractive to Ruger (line int the sand re gun control). That way, when they make their (understandably) self-serving decisions, they will be the correct ones, not the incorrect ones. By giving them the "gee, it's OK, those meanie legislators were gonna really hurt you bad if you didn't compromise", we are doing nothing more than encouraging more future acts of appeasement. If they go out of business, it will be a long long time coming, and the remaining companies will inevitably increase their stock via our replacement dollars. In other words, the industry as a whole at any one time will not suffer; it will have the same amount of economic/political power. You guys miss the point: It's not that they will be driven out of business; they won't; instead they will wake up and realize we're serious about protecting our rights, and end their appeasement policies. They will change (unless they're morons, and they aren't). They will be stronger than ever; only difference is they'll appeal to lovers of freedom, and not just the sheep of the world. To those who accuse me of monday morning quarterbacking: what kind of idiot would you have to be to NOT assess and analyze any situation that has happened, in order to determine the best future course of action? I am not second-quessing Bill Ruger's decision as a business-man. I'm quite sure I would have done the same thing AS A BUSINESSMAN in his shoes. The thing is, I ain't in his shoes. I (as you) wear a different hat entirely, that of trying to save the freedoms we have in my beloved USA. I am trying to get you guys to agree in spirit that boycotts should be undertaken in an ongoing manner against not only antis in general, but also gun industry firms who appease. The flaw in your "stand-united" argument is that if we stand united as a big bunch of concession-makers, our rights will continue to dwindle over time as they have in the past. Listen to this axiom and think about it for a minute: IF SOMETHING DON'T CHANGE, AIN'T NOTHING GONNA CHANGE. If you don't start doing more to protect our rights (i.e. quit propounding the sheep attitudes of DC and Grayfox), then the continuation of decades of erosion will continue. Then you can take your grandkids shooting with the single-shot .22 stored at the range. Once we agree in principle that my logic is basically sound, then we can have a thorough discourse as to "what was done? how bad? relative to other firms? boycott feasible? advisable? or too tenous/mild an infringement?" Oh, and you still didn't answer my question. Why don't you be honest will your acqaintances here at TFL, DC and Grayfox, and tell us, yes or no: Have you ever cast a vote in favor of Bill Clinton as president? Just curious.
Grayfox, letters to them are a good idea, but let's think for a minute about how they operate as businesses. They get some outrage and fire the offenders (or retire them) who make concessions. And swear they won't do it again. Gee, thanks, it's too late for what you've already done. Then they get a bunch of letters condemning them, so they give a bunch of lip service about "you're so right, we were wrong, it's not gonna happen again". Does that right the wrong? No. Does it force them to actually do something that may be difficult for them (i.e. a legislative battle to repeal the offending law, which costs money and could hurt their image as a "reasonable" manufacturer)? No. They just give some lip service and go on their merry way, ready to do it again the next time. What will they actually do the next time? Obviously, they will pull a Clinton: do what they promised not to do, and then apoligize like crazy to their constituents (in this case, we the consumers of their products) until it's forgotten; and the cycle repeats itself, over and over again, until we have not rights. Look, I am all for keeping the gun industry as strong as is humanly possible, but why? It's because they have the economic muscle ($) to do what we want for our rights. So, when they take all of the enormous profits they make, and decide to engage in appeasement so that every senior VP can have the 5-figure Christmas bonus, instead of shelling out some cash to fight against every little infringement (lobbying is expensive), then they have sold our asses out. Big time! Can't you guys see that? They are the only one with big money whose interests run at all along similar lines to ours (they want to sell guns; we want to be able to buy and bear them). No anti group would ever push for anything remotely pro-gun. So, when the big boys like Ruger are wheeling and dealing at the capitol, we must make every effort to tweak their similar interest to "one and the same" interest as ours (i.e. NO concessions). In other words, we must try to channel their goals to be in line with ours through the use of our economic clout as consumers, and when necessary, boycotters. They will continue to engage in the appease-then-apologize Clintonian tactics UNTIL WE DRAW AN UNEQUIVOCAL LINE IN THE SAND. It works for Clinton because, unfortunately, the American public as a whole is dumb as a sack of rocks. But let's try not to be like them. Aren't we as freedom-lovers a cut above the general public in our intelligence and far-sightedness? Of course we are. Let's show it by nipping the appeasement support in the bud. Make them hurt. Buy the products of companies who sell guns and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with NRA's policies (who learned a long time ago that concessions do not work in stemming the insatiable appetite for gun control of the anits). Nuf for now.
[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited March 08, 1999).]
DC, what you cannot seem to comprehend is that OUR INTERESTS AIN'T RUGER'S INTEREST. Our interests as gun owners are not one and the same. They diverge sharply. I am a businessman and of course I am going to make decisions to protect my business, and support political measures that keep me in business; as does Ruger. I don't blame them at all for doing so; I do blame US if we don't take steps to make door number 2 more attractive to Ruger (line int the sand re gun control). That way, when they make their (understandably) self-serving decisions, they will be the correct ones, not the incorrect ones. By giving them the "gee, it's OK, those meanie legislators were gonna really hurt you bad if you didn't compromise", we are doing nothing more than encouraging more future acts of appeasement. If they go out of business, it will be a long long time coming, and the remaining companies will inevitably increase their stock via our replacement dollars. In other words, the industry as a whole at any one time will not suffer; it will have the same amount of economic/political power. You guys miss the point: It's not that they will be driven out of business; they won't; instead they will wake up and realize we're serious about protecting our rights, and end their appeasement policies. They will change (unless they're morons, and they aren't). They will be stronger than ever; only difference is they'll appeal to lovers of freedom, and not just the sheep of the world. To those who accuse me of monday morning quarterbacking: what kind of idiot would you have to be to NOT assess and analyze any situation that has happened, in order to determine the best future course of action? I am not second-quessing Bill Ruger's decision as a business-man. I'm quite sure I would have done the same thing AS A BUSINESSMAN in his shoes. The thing is, I ain't in his shoes. I (as you) wear a different hat entirely, that of trying to save the freedoms we have in my beloved USA. I am trying to get you guys to agree in spirit that boycotts should be undertaken in an ongoing manner against not only antis in general, but also gun industry firms who appease. The flaw in your "stand-united" argument is that if we stand united as a big bunch of concession-makers, our rights will continue to dwindle over time as they have in the past. Listen to this axiom and think about it for a minute: IF SOMETHING DON'T CHANGE, AIN'T NOTHING GONNA CHANGE. If you don't start doing more to protect our rights (i.e. quit propounding the sheep attitudes of DC and Grayfox), then the continuation of decades of erosion will continue. Then you can take your grandkids shooting with the single-shot .22 stored at the range. Once we agree in principle that my logic is basically sound, then we can have a thorough discourse as to "what was done? how bad? relative to other firms? boycott feasible? advisable? or too tenous/mild an infringement?" Oh, and you still didn't answer my question. Why don't you be honest will your acqaintances here at TFL, DC and Grayfox, and tell us, yes or no: Have you ever cast a vote in favor of Bill Clinton as president? Just curious.
Grayfox, letters to them are a good idea, but let's think for a minute about how they operate as businesses. They get some outrage and fire the offenders (or retire them) who make concessions. And swear they won't do it again. Gee, thanks, it's too late for what you've already done. Then they get a bunch of letters condemning them, so they give a bunch of lip service about "you're so right, we were wrong, it's not gonna happen again". Does that right the wrong? No. Does it force them to actually do something that may be difficult for them (i.e. a legislative battle to repeal the offending law, which costs money and could hurt their image as a "reasonable" manufacturer)? No. They just give some lip service and go on their merry way, ready to do it again the next time. What will they actually do the next time? Obviously, they will pull a Clinton: do what they promised not to do, and then apoligize like crazy to their constituents (in this case, we the consumers of their products) until it's forgotten; and the cycle repeats itself, over and over again, until we have not rights. Look, I am all for keeping the gun industry as strong as is humanly possible, but why? It's because they have the economic muscle ($) to do what we want for our rights. So, when they take all of the enormous profits they make, and decide to engage in appeasement so that every senior VP can have the 5-figure Christmas bonus, instead of shelling out some cash to fight against every little infringement (lobbying is expensive), then they have sold our asses out. Big time! Can't you guys see that? They are the only one with big money whose interests run at all along similar lines to ours (they want to sell guns; we want to be able to buy and bear them). No anti group would ever push for anything remotely pro-gun. So, when the big boys like Ruger are wheeling and dealing at the capitol, we must make every effort to tweak their similar interest to "one and the same" interest as ours (i.e. NO concessions). In other words, we must try to channel their goals to be in line with ours through the use of our economic clout as consumers, and when necessary, boycotters. They will continue to engage in the appease-then-apologize Clintonian tactics UNTIL WE DRAW AN UNEQUIVOCAL LINE IN THE SAND. It works for Clinton because, unfortunately, the American public as a whole is dumb as a sack of rocks. But let's try not to be like them. Aren't we as freedom-lovers a cut above the general public in our intelligence and far-sightedness? Of course we are. Let's show it by nipping the appeasement support in the bud. Make them hurt. Buy the products of companies who sell guns and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with NRA's policies (who learned a long time ago that concessions do not work in stemming the insatiable appetite for gun control of the anits). Nuf for now.
[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited March 08, 1999).]
