S&W, in agreeing to abide by something they know they won't have to is little different then Bush agreeing to sign a new Assault Weapon ban IF it came to his desk. Yet Bush is the savior of gun rights and S&W the bad guy? 
If you want to get steamed about a company blowing your rights, I direct you to Ruger. Not facing ANY lawsuits, Bill Ruger went to congress and SUGGESTED a magazine capacity ban. The ownership of that company has not changed.
S&W had it's back to the wall and agreed to something evil to stay afloat, so you can still buy their guns today. I don't see anyone organizing donations for a legal fund to help S&W out of this toothless agreement, yet some of you expect a Corporation to fight a legal agreement on principle??? Really, that's too much.
S&W is not abiding the agreement, and they still exist to sell nice guns at very reasonable prices - at probably the highest quality levels of any domestic line. I'm satisfied. Perhaps we should be more worried about all the gun money we send oversees instead of spending it with one of the few US companies that has shown any consistancy over the years.
If you want to get steamed about a company blowing your rights, I direct you to Ruger. Not facing ANY lawsuits, Bill Ruger went to congress and SUGGESTED a magazine capacity ban. The ownership of that company has not changed.
S&W had it's back to the wall and agreed to something evil to stay afloat, so you can still buy their guns today. I don't see anyone organizing donations for a legal fund to help S&W out of this toothless agreement, yet some of you expect a Corporation to fight a legal agreement on principle??? Really, that's too much.
S&W is not abiding the agreement, and they still exist to sell nice guns at very reasonable prices - at probably the highest quality levels of any domestic line. I'm satisfied. Perhaps we should be more worried about all the gun money we send oversees instead of spending it with one of the few US companies that has shown any consistancy over the years.