<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SmithNut wrote: I want to clearly state that I am in no position to "defend" S&W for any of this. My personal position is that I want to see what the "real" story is before jumping to any conclusions. The real problem we have is that our Government is targeting businesses, applying all the pressure that YOUR tax dollars and mine can possible apply (remember the old saying that you "can't fight city hall"?), and effectively going "around" the legislative process. THIS IS UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, AND IF IT ISN'T IT SHOULD BE DOWNRIGHT ILLEGAL.
There is a very effective campaign here against gun owners, and S&W. Think about the press releases about "preferential" treatment for S&W in law enforcement sales. Can you think of anything more damning than to show the world that S&W has abandoned private sales for nothing more than profit? If this works as planned, WE stop buying from S&W, and then they go out of business, which is far more troubling to me than this so called agreement. Now, I have thought this through very carefully the past couple days. In effect the folks here and other forums have "targeted" their disspleasure at S&W, when all along we need to remember that they are owned by Thompkins PLC. It was in the press a couple months back that they (Thompkins) wanted to sell S&W for 100 million pounds (about $160 million). The government told them go ahead, but that they were still liable in the lawsuits. Now this is starting to make sense to me. The management of Thompkins helped craft this piece of crap "agreement" to get them to the point that their company could be sold and they could be "rid" of the American political problems. If there is any shred of truth to my opinion here, I truly feel sorry for Mr. Ed Shultz for having to sign this deal. He is a really fine person, and now he will not be the one remembered for saving S&W in the early 90's, but as the one that "sold them out" as has been expressed here and elsewhere. Whether you like this opinion or not, we need to remember one thing. The problem is with our government and their conserted efforts to take away our rights. If we now continue to fight among ourselves (ala Rugers Assualt Weapons ban, Colt abandoning the private market, and now this) we will continue to feed into their strategy. We are doing their work for them is we help put S&W out of business. Think about it fellows. Let's think logically if we can. Emotion will only get us to fight among ourselves and help their agenda. Let's vote these idiots out of office, and get someone in that can get us this thing recinded, and back to enjoying our Constitional Rights. If you got this far, thanks for reading. Later. .......SmithNut[/quote]
S&W, like all corporations, is in business to make a profit. If they fail to make a profit, they will not remain in business very long. It is obvious that they have carefully examined all of their options and felt that their best course of action would be to enter into this agreement to save themselves from countless legal action that OUR government (a government for the people by the people) is bringing against them which could drain all of their financial resources.
This does not imply that I agree with what they did. The whole thing leaves me with a very uneasy feeling but I understand where they are coming from. After all, it is not up to a corporation to defend our constitutional rights -- that rests on our shoulders. They are merely reacting to the pressures being placed on them by OUR government.
If there is any blame to be placed, it falls upon us for failing to elect representatives (Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, etc.) who have a favorable view of our firearm rights. It is also our fault for not properly educating the non-shooting public that an armed society is a safer society (just look at the states that allow CCW and compare the violent crime rate against the states that do not allow CCW) and for failing to bring more people to the shooting sport.
According to estimates, there are about 80,000,000 handgun owners in this country. Yet, the NRA membership is only about 3,000,000 -- around 1% of the population. Granted, I may not have agreed with everything that the NRA has stood for in the past and I may not agree with some of the things that they say now but the fact remains that they are our first and last line of defense in defending our firearms rights. Without their efforts, we would be a lot worse off than we are now.
Let's say that half of those 80,000,000 gun owners are LEO or others who need to carry a firearm as a result of their job and have no other interest in guns besides that. That still leaves 40,000,000 handgun owners. Let's further assume that half of them are criminals, gang members, etc.; and therefore use firearms for illegal purposes. Now, we're down to 20,000,000 handgun owners. If only half of them were members of the NRA, them the NRA could claim a membership of 10,000,000 members instead of only 3,000,000. Elected officials would take things a little bit more seriously than they do now.
If you're not a member, then it's time to join and if you are a member, then try signing up other people that you know.
Since I started this trend talking about S&W, let me end there as well. Many have said (in other trends) that they will no longer buy S&W products because of this agreement. Well, sooner or later, most (if not all) gun makers will follow or risk financial failure due to government lawsuits. Many have said that they would then only purchased used guns.
Well, the more you shoot a gun, the more wear and tear that it will experience and sooner or later to will begin to give out. What happens then? Parts will not be available. If you don't shoot it and just put it in the safe for home defense, it will still affect those of us who like to go the the range for fun. Additionally, if you do not practice with the gun, you're shooting skills will be lacking when it comes to having to use it in a self defense situation.
Finally, I see a way out of this aagreement that S&W has entered into but it would depend on us -- the 20,000,000 (or whatever number of) gun owners in this country to put our money where our mouth is. We're quick to critize S&W for putting profits before our rights, but are we willing to take a similzr risk?
We could form two corporations. The first corporation would buy S&W. Now that action by itself wouldn't accomplish anything but after buying S&W, we would disolve it and sell all of the equipment, plant, land, copyrights, etc. to our second corporation. With S&W disolved, the agreement that they entered into would unenforceable because S&W would no longer exist. The second corporation (the one that purchased all of the copyrights & equipment) would then be free to continue making products without this binding agreement. Obviuously, this is just a simplified way of how things would work.
Something to think about. Of course, we, as owners of this gun-making company, would be at risk to the same type of lawsuits that S&W was facing.
Share what you know, learn what you don't
There is a very effective campaign here against gun owners, and S&W. Think about the press releases about "preferential" treatment for S&W in law enforcement sales. Can you think of anything more damning than to show the world that S&W has abandoned private sales for nothing more than profit? If this works as planned, WE stop buying from S&W, and then they go out of business, which is far more troubling to me than this so called agreement. Now, I have thought this through very carefully the past couple days. In effect the folks here and other forums have "targeted" their disspleasure at S&W, when all along we need to remember that they are owned by Thompkins PLC. It was in the press a couple months back that they (Thompkins) wanted to sell S&W for 100 million pounds (about $160 million). The government told them go ahead, but that they were still liable in the lawsuits. Now this is starting to make sense to me. The management of Thompkins helped craft this piece of crap "agreement" to get them to the point that their company could be sold and they could be "rid" of the American political problems. If there is any shred of truth to my opinion here, I truly feel sorry for Mr. Ed Shultz for having to sign this deal. He is a really fine person, and now he will not be the one remembered for saving S&W in the early 90's, but as the one that "sold them out" as has been expressed here and elsewhere. Whether you like this opinion or not, we need to remember one thing. The problem is with our government and their conserted efforts to take away our rights. If we now continue to fight among ourselves (ala Rugers Assualt Weapons ban, Colt abandoning the private market, and now this) we will continue to feed into their strategy. We are doing their work for them is we help put S&W out of business. Think about it fellows. Let's think logically if we can. Emotion will only get us to fight among ourselves and help their agenda. Let's vote these idiots out of office, and get someone in that can get us this thing recinded, and back to enjoying our Constitional Rights. If you got this far, thanks for reading. Later. .......SmithNut[/quote]
S&W, like all corporations, is in business to make a profit. If they fail to make a profit, they will not remain in business very long. It is obvious that they have carefully examined all of their options and felt that their best course of action would be to enter into this agreement to save themselves from countless legal action that OUR government (a government for the people by the people) is bringing against them which could drain all of their financial resources.
This does not imply that I agree with what they did. The whole thing leaves me with a very uneasy feeling but I understand where they are coming from. After all, it is not up to a corporation to defend our constitutional rights -- that rests on our shoulders. They are merely reacting to the pressures being placed on them by OUR government.
If there is any blame to be placed, it falls upon us for failing to elect representatives (Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, etc.) who have a favorable view of our firearm rights. It is also our fault for not properly educating the non-shooting public that an armed society is a safer society (just look at the states that allow CCW and compare the violent crime rate against the states that do not allow CCW) and for failing to bring more people to the shooting sport.
According to estimates, there are about 80,000,000 handgun owners in this country. Yet, the NRA membership is only about 3,000,000 -- around 1% of the population. Granted, I may not have agreed with everything that the NRA has stood for in the past and I may not agree with some of the things that they say now but the fact remains that they are our first and last line of defense in defending our firearms rights. Without their efforts, we would be a lot worse off than we are now.
Let's say that half of those 80,000,000 gun owners are LEO or others who need to carry a firearm as a result of their job and have no other interest in guns besides that. That still leaves 40,000,000 handgun owners. Let's further assume that half of them are criminals, gang members, etc.; and therefore use firearms for illegal purposes. Now, we're down to 20,000,000 handgun owners. If only half of them were members of the NRA, them the NRA could claim a membership of 10,000,000 members instead of only 3,000,000. Elected officials would take things a little bit more seriously than they do now.
If you're not a member, then it's time to join and if you are a member, then try signing up other people that you know.
Since I started this trend talking about S&W, let me end there as well. Many have said (in other trends) that they will no longer buy S&W products because of this agreement. Well, sooner or later, most (if not all) gun makers will follow or risk financial failure due to government lawsuits. Many have said that they would then only purchased used guns.
Well, the more you shoot a gun, the more wear and tear that it will experience and sooner or later to will begin to give out. What happens then? Parts will not be available. If you don't shoot it and just put it in the safe for home defense, it will still affect those of us who like to go the the range for fun. Additionally, if you do not practice with the gun, you're shooting skills will be lacking when it comes to having to use it in a self defense situation.
Finally, I see a way out of this aagreement that S&W has entered into but it would depend on us -- the 20,000,000 (or whatever number of) gun owners in this country to put our money where our mouth is. We're quick to critize S&W for putting profits before our rights, but are we willing to take a similzr risk?
We could form two corporations. The first corporation would buy S&W. Now that action by itself wouldn't accomplish anything but after buying S&W, we would disolve it and sell all of the equipment, plant, land, copyrights, etc. to our second corporation. With S&W disolved, the agreement that they entered into would unenforceable because S&W would no longer exist. The second corporation (the one that purchased all of the copyrights & equipment) would then be free to continue making products without this binding agreement. Obviuously, this is just a simplified way of how things would work.
Something to think about. Of course, we, as owners of this gun-making company, would be at risk to the same type of lawsuits that S&W was facing.