Y'all forgive me. I done messed up.

The correct number is

480-949-9700

Will had the wrong area code on his first post, but his corrected post is right. In fact, this is the same number I posted here on page 3 of this saga.

I called them at this number too late, but I got a Saf-T-Hammer recorded message. The message said their working hours are 8am-5pm, MST.

Note that Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings time. We're on Mountain Standard Time twelve months a year. This means that in the summer, our time is the same as Pacific Savings Time (PST).
 
I have great faith in markets.

Those that predict the demise of the American firearms industry by limiting the top two or five, or even ten, into their current list of consideration, does not recognze the powerfull dynamics of capitalism.

It will be sad to see S&W go; I am extremely fond of their revolvers. But others, perhaps small-time operations now, will rise to the occasion. Let not the demise of a single manufacturer weigh one iota in anyone's thinking. There WILL be alternatives, you just watch.

The boycott is still on. That the current agreement is not being enforced means nothing. The willingness to sacrifice "one of our own" will, and is, sending messages so powerfull that the opposition cannot ignore.
 
The easiest way to bring the two sides together is for the 'thing' to be salvaged to tear up the argreement. Until that happens there will be two camps; those supporting the boycott and those that don't. If S&W doesn't repudiate the agreement then that is their choice and it is my choice not to purchase S&W products.

The easy and noble end to all of this is in their camp.
 
Let's run em in the ground. One less manufacturer in the mix and less guns will show HCI. Frankly I believe if a gold brick showed up in the President of Smith & Wesson's fecal matter, some here would find a scratch on it. I may have to eat my words but I hope that Saf-T-Hammer will stay the course and void the agreement in a legally correct and calculated manner. Doing this may not be as easy as we are led to believe. I think they are in the process of just that and I am willing to give them a chance. Color me naive if you will.
 
but I hope that Saf-T-Hammer will stay the course and void the agreement in a legally correct and calculated manner.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. You don't seem to be reading other's posts carefully. With only one exception that I'm aware of, that's what all the rest of us want.


Doing this may not be as easy as we are led to believe.
Click to expand...

Uh, Will, that's kind of the point. We all recoginize that it will not be easy. It will not be cheap.

But you haven't explained to us how buying guns from them before they've made any progress on that will motivate them to proceed with what we all know will be a difficult and expensive process.


I know I'm repeating myself, but will you please explain that to us?

Preferably without a lot of "cain't we all jus' git along" platitudes. We're looking for logic here, not touchy feely soccer momisms.
 
Geez, WillBear, you just can't get off of that refrain, can you? It was wrong when you first started singing it, and it is wrong now.

And you just can't get past the fact that one company lost is worth it if no other companies sign on to this agreement.

You also don't seem to get the fact that HCI/the anti-gun crowd is NOT getting what it wants if the single company that signed this agreement goes out of business due to consumer backlash, and that fact alone keeps other companies from signing this agreement.

I'll say it again.

HCI/THE ANTI-GUN CROWD WANTS ALL FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT.

I'll also say this again, but I won't shout.

If losing Smith & Wesson means that no other company signs this agreement, that's a loss we should be willing to take. HCI and the anti-gun crowd then gains NOTHING.

S&W has proven itself unworth of the support of the shooting public, even though some refuse to see the enormity of the sell out.

I may well be one of the top 5 S&W afficionados on this site, and have been for years. For me to say that I'm willing to watch S&W die, and to have a hand in its death, should tell you something.

But, to show you that I am reasonable, I'm MORE than willing to work with "the other side" as you say, to ensure continued vitality for S&W.

One condition, though, and it is NOT negotiable.

The agreement must be repudiated. Unconditionally, and unequivocably.

Until that is done, there is nothing to be worked toward.
 
" But, to show you that I am reasonable, I'm MORE than willing to work with "the other side" as you say, to ensure continued vitality for S&W.

One condition, though, and it is NOT negotiable.

The agreement must be repudiated. Unconditionally, and unequivocably.

Until that is done, there is nothing to be worked toward. "
.....................................................................................................
I will second the above.

For the unenlightened, here is ONE of the agreements that Saf T Hammer has pleged to honor.
http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=31&1=View

Sam.....ex S&W dealer
 
S&W was working on an integral safety device long before the agreement was signed. You can thank Billy Ruger for the mag capacity limits. Sig is also working on an integral device as well.

We could contine this for another six pages. I understand why the vast majority of you feel the way you do. Emotional? Yes I am. Idealistic? Yes I am. I also believe since lawyers have mangled the mix and this is not a cut and dried deal. Smith must get away from the deal but I do not want them to go under in the process. I am willing to give the new owners a chance.
 
Emotional? Yes I am.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that.


Idealistic? Yes I am.
Click to expand...



Nothing wrong with that, either. THe problem is that you are letting both supercede logic. There is nothing at all logical in your position. I have asked you twice to explain how your method gets us where we want to go, and you haven't even made an attempt to do so, Will.

Why? Because there is no way to do so. There is no cause and effect that you can elucidate to show how buying guns from them now will further the cause of getting the agreement repudiated. Because the plain fact is, that for the boycott to end now will only result in Safety Hammer concluding that the agreement is no longer a threat to the profitablility of S&W. THere is no other conclusion that any rational person could reach.


And, just like a soccer mom, you are still not reading and responding to the factual content of other's arguments. Instead, you trot out purely emotional pleadings devoid of logic, throw in a few non sequiters (integral safety devices), and 'accuse' us of holding views we have specifically repudiated.

Things like:

  • "this is not a cut and dried deal" We know that, Will. We've been saying that. I'll say it again - that's the point.
  • "I do not want them to go under in the process." As I noted above, with one exception, so are we.
  • "I'm willing to give the new owners a chance" Again, as I noted above, with one exception, so are we.


The question remains, Will, how to best motivate them to enter upon, and see through to the end, this difficult process of killing the agreement completely.


We're still waiting for you to explain that. And, I don't think I'm too far out of line in speaking for Mike and others, we are waiting with open minds. If you can give us some logic, some reason (in the full sense of the word) to agree with you, we will. We are willing to be convinced, but you'll have use something more than the silly, empty emotionlism we are accustomed to seeing from the MMM types.
 
The logic is that Saf-T-Hammer is trying to get through this and we are looking at a completely new organization. Did I boycott Smith when it was under the name of Tompkins PLC? You betcha. The old Smith and Wesson is no longer. Why penalize a group of people who got together to try to keep the flame burning?

The funny thing is if an anti-gun congress and president came into power in four years and mandated even worse regulations there's not a single manufacturer out there who would not comply boycott or no boycott. Do you really
think Glock, Sig or Beretta would just walk away from the LEO/Military market to protect Joe Citizen?
 
An integral safety device?

To that I say, SO WHAT.

Handguns have had integral safety devices for over 100 years.

Bill Ruger wrote the mag. limitation. Not a very nice thing to do, but again, so what? Does it affect your ability to purchase a firearm?

No.

S&W's agreement is different. It wasn't a law passed by Congress. It was "passed" by stick and carrot, underhanded, extra-legal maneuvering.

It has no time frame limitation.

It SERIOUSLY threatens the way a company can do business, and it poses a SERIOUS threat to future firearms purchasers because of its open-ended conditions, the amount of control it gives the government in the daily operation of a company that produces a legal products, and the ability of independent deals to sell legal products NOT manufactured by the company.

What I can't understand is your seeming willingness to accept this sort of crap, and your desperate desire to be an apologist for this company and its tactics.

Look, do everyone a favor.

Stop trying to introduce absolute non sequitors that have no bearing on this discussion.

It wastes everyone's time.

It detracts from the discussion at hand.
 
"Do you think Glock, Sig or Beretta would just walk away from the LEO/Military market to protect Joe Citizen?"

Damn, Will, do you really think that the LEO/Military market holds a candle to the civilian market in this country?

Here's a hint for you.

Not a chance.

I'm pretty certain in saying that of all the firearms manufacturers in this country, Glock comes the CLOSEST to having more police sales than civilian sales, but I'm also pretty certain that civilian sales STILL constitute a larger proportion of its sales.

Beretta's military/police contracts are a drop in the bucket compared to its civilian sales. Same with Sig.



"Why penalize a group of people who got together to try to keep the flame burning?"

Nice emotional tug at the heart strings, but NOT an explanation. You're not penalizing a group of people. You're penalizing a company for its business practices.

Stop trying to change the subject to an emotional call to "SAVE THE POOR PEOPLE!" It sounds vaguely Helen Lovejoyish of the Simpsons, when she's constantly saying, in an hysterical voice "Won't Someone Think of the CHILDREN!"

As I've stated before, Saf-T-Hammer has to PROVE that it's going to change before it can be given a chance.

You don't think that Saf-T-Hammer knows that?

Do you really think that they're quite that incompetent in business matters that they can't draw a cause-effect correlation?

That they don't realize that the boycott started virtually the same day that S&W signed the agreement with the gov't?

And that they don't know what they need to do to get American gunowners to lift the boycott?
 
For cying out loud Mike, Saf-T-Hammer does understand. The thing we must remember here is that you are looking at a totally new company not some Red Coat conglomerate ruh by a slime ball like Ed Schultz who slips around having barbeque with DOJ and HUD officials of the Clinton Regime.

For me it is emotional. I am a salesman, how do you think I make most of my sales? Through emotion. Just promise me you will keep an eye on Smith and make a phone call or write a letter to encourage the new owners to do the right thing. I know you have in the past and you will again.
 
Hey Mike? Maybye those of us on this side of the gun issue should use emotion to appeal to the great unwashed. It worked for Clinton fwiw.

I know. Nice block but no forward movement of the proverbial ball.
 
"The logic is that Saf-T-Hammer is trying to get through this and we are looking at a completely new organization."

UH-HUH!:rolleyes:

That would be what, a half-dozen guys who are running their newly acquired company under the same old smelly contract that the previous owners signed.

Screw them. I care about my rights, not whether or not they can afford to give themselves raises next year. If they want to prosper, they better at least pretend that they care about my rights too.

I think I see the problem here. Taking a page from the Bill Clinton Master-debater Manual is not a winning strategy. We're more interested in facts. Like the fact that the new owners have not issued a press-release saying that they are attempting to dismantle the agreement.

They have to know that the mere hint of such intent would double their quarterly sales immediately. All those fence-sitters who are just dying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't that make you wonder why we don't hear a peep out of them??? It couldn't be that they plan to run the company as is. Not possible. After all, that would be un-American.

But yet we should support them. It's the American thing to do.
 
The logic is that Saf-T-Hammer is trying to get through this
Click to expand...


Who says? You? So what? We're waiting to see some evidence. Some action.


So far we have only your word that there's even any talk of repudiating the agreement. Forgive us if that's not quite good enough. Talk is cheap.


I'm probably just wasting bandwidth, but I'll take another shot at it. Here goes, one more time:

What is Safety Hammer's motivation to repudiate the agreement going to be if we all start buying guns again? Can you answer that question with something resembling facts? Logic?

Oh, the warm fuzzy feeling that you got from them? Thanks, but we'd like something better.

Now, if you can (I won't hold my breath) answer that, here's the second question you have to answer, again, with something resembling facts and logic:

What will the motivation be for other manufacturerers to resist such agreements in the future (like when Bush loses in 04) if we cave in now?


The funny thing is if an anti-gun congress and president came into power in four years and mandated even worse regulations there's not a single manufacturer out there who would not comply boycott or no boycott.
Click to expand...

Well, DUH! That's called LAW, Will. THe S&W agreement is NOT law - it's a cowardly and stupid business decision. That's what the boycott is (quite successfully) about - motivating other manufacturers to not sell us out.

And although the boycott is primarily a business action, it does have political ramifications. If the politicos see us cave in now, that sends a message. The wrong message. The converse is also true.
 
You're going to have to repent or cry uncle, Will. It's one or the other. This is starting to look more like a beating than a debate. I doubt the moderators are going to throw in the towel for you, either. :)

- Gabe
 
"Saf-T-Hammer does understand."

Oh?

Well, lord knows no one in corporate America ever lied to the general public before, so it must be OK. It's OK, everyone, we can TRUST S&W. The OLD corporate S&W screwed us over, but the NEW corporate S&W, well, wow, they're different. They would NEVER screw us God fearing, gun toting Americans over!

What you fail to see, WillBear, is that Smith & Wesson and the Agreement are ONE, no matter who owns the corporation.

New organization? So what? What difference does that make when this agreement is hanging over our rights?

Does Saf-T-Hammer really understand?

Let them prove it first.

They know what needs to be done. Let them do it. Every day that they delay is THEIR onus, not ours.

The way to the future is not found by holding onto the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top