Smith & Wesson continues to Sell Out Gun Owners

N

NationalCCW

New member
The head of Smith & Wesson today made it clear that he is looking to sell out gun owners by trying to settle anti-gun lawsuits. The company, with its executives, care nothing of the Second Amendment-they only care about the bottom line. The news at the "snake" icon at:
National CCW Reciprocity Foundation http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw.html

Trouble viewing the site? Disable java support on your web browser.

------------------
National CCW Reciprocity: http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw.html
 
One thing folks don't understand is that Smith and Wesson is a business and not an ideology. Their goal is to stay in business and make a profit.

Too many tinfoil hat wearers propose self-destructive strategies like voting for fools like Buchanan or a decent but no chance guy like Keyes. Companies don't have that luxury.

If gun owners were a potent political force that could actually use its potential, SW would not have to look for such measures to survive.

What do we offer SW? - most gunowners seem apathetic and we have significant group here
that prefers to elect Gore so then
they can howl at the moon later.

One reason the RKBA is in sad shape is the totally unrealistic and rigid approaches people take.

Draw a line in the sand - someone said recently. It's worth the same as a sand castle against the tide.

Unless there are reasonable strategies to get the center of the political spectrum to support the RKBA - the game is over.

It might already be that way.

That's where the action is. Arguing to vote
for loons like Buchanan is a strategy that if I was a CEO for a gun company would make me
start investing in smart gun technology right now.
 
I think the term "tinfoil" refers to those who beleive/perpetuate conspiracy theories and the like. The tinfoil hat is sort of like a receptor for every perceived biological threat (ie: chemtrails), shadow government operation, and New World Order type of stuff. Y2K kind of shook up the ranks a little bit.


Some tinfoils hang out here:
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/cgibin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro


And they are usually here:
http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.html


And the hardcore types might be found here:
http://www.reptoids.com/ind2.htm

Probably more information than you wanted, but it's fun reading the stuff... :)

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

"Is your church BATF approved?"
 
I was told to wear a tinfoil hat to keep the government from beaming radio waves into my brain. The guy said that it would stop the voices in my head :) John
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NationalCCW:
The head of Smith & Wesson today made it clear that he is looking to sell out gun owners by trying to settle anti-gun lawsuits. The company, with its executives, care nothing of the Second Amendment-they only care about the bottom line. The news at the "snake" icon at:
National CCW Reciprocity Foundation http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw.html

Trouble viewing the site? Disable java support on your web browser.

[/quote]

Hmmmm, let's see. Should I stay in business and continue to make money by settling a lawsuit, or should I fight the lawsuit, and possibly go out of business?

Despite its flaws, S&W is a business. Just like despite the encroachment of gun control on our rights, gun businesses have never been doing better. Every time new gun controls get proposed, more people go out and buy guns.
 
Hey Glenn;

Nice post, very well put.

But I have to ask, Where does S&W stand to make more money, In an early 40's Germany like legal situation, or a early 40's American legal situation?

I mean, if you were S&W, and as a business, your only duty is to the stockholders, would you stand to make more money suppling arms to a government that lorded over a disarmed population with an iron fist, or would you do your stockholders better by supplying arms to a free people?

Just a question, iz all.
 
dog3,

When we have safe "smart" guns, it is only logical for the Government, in the interest of public safety, to OUTLAW and confiscate dangerous "stupid" guns.

Yes, they can! AND it is totally legal.

Imagine that you run General Motors. You develop a new "smart" car that reduces the number of accidents. The Government, in the interest of public safety, orders all old "stupid" cars off the road within three years. You are going to sell alot of expensive new cars and make plenty of money.



------------------
 
S&W looking at the bottom line? SURE THEY ARE! In our free market economy all private industries and businesses must look at the bottom line. BUSINESSES CAN NOT OPERATE AT A LOSS.

The altruistic view that any of these gun companies can afford to really care about our Second Amendment rights is very naive. They are merely looking out for their business interest and if the gun business is no longer profitable they will simply produce other products. Many of these gun companies are already diversified so it will be a simple "cold business decision" to pursue more profitable product lines.

In the long term, market forces will prevail as many of these gun companies leave the market and those that remain will charge higher prices for their products. Eventually the gun market will find its equilibrium, when the forces of supply and demand determine a new price structure beyond the reach of the average citizen.

We are currently witnessing the end of the era of affordable guns. The best advice I could give is: buy what you want now because you will not be able to afford them in the future and hold on to your best guns because you may not be able to replace them.

My view is that current litigation against gun companies follows a deliberate plan to make it impossible for the average citizen to buy a gun. It is part of an elitest plan that includes the Brady and Lautenberg laws designed to disarm ordinary citizens. The wealthy, politically influencial rulers will have total power over their subjects, meaning us!

In closing, Smith & Wesson's seeking a settlement reflects the reality of the high cost of litigation. It is nothing more that legal extortion by our corrupt judicial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top