Y'all forgive me. I done messed up.

Didn't someone who was was pro the S&W boycott post something about how the "divide and conquer" technique was tearing us apart and hurting our support for the 2nd ammendment? Seems more relative to me now, and I apoligize if I disagreed with him.


Please go watch this flash movie, as disgusting as it is:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/activism/heston/movie.asp


Then try and understand that I don't think 'we' are the 'enemy' because we don't support the S&W boycott in it's current form. That doesn't mean we think the agreement is ok and it doesn't mean that we are buying S&W handguns every paycheck. And for g__ sakes that doesn't mean I haven't read the agreement. Everything I was trying to say from my first post until this one is simply this: I don't think S&W is the enemy, I think they made a stupid mistake trying to protect themselves. After watching the above short movie you will see who I think the enemy is. I believe we should apply more of our focus and energy on the groups actively fighting against us than infighting. And please do not question my patriotism or my defense of the 2nd ammendment because I disgree with you on one of 1000 gun control / gun rights issues.

mlk18
 
Know who your friends are!

Sorry, don't have any enemies right now but I think we can tell who our friends are. And who they aren't. -ddt

P.S. we are all sticking together and except for you few collaborators we seem to be a pretty united front. Join Our Team. Be a Winner. Or go drink yor tea with the brits or the nazi's or commies or whatever else your heart bleeds for. -ddt
 
Mike Irwin - I have sparred with you before as we discussed S&W history and firearms specifics and have been on the learning end most often. In this thread, however, I must say you have outdone yourself. Reading your posts, I found myself shaking my head up and down over and over again.

I WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PURCHASE A NEW SMITH AND WESSON FIREARM UNTIL AND UNLESS THE COMPANY COMPLETELY AND PUBLICLY REPUDIATES THE ONEROUS, DESPICABLE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLINTON/CUOMO AGREEMENT, PERIOD!!
 
Well this will be the last post on this thread since I am being boycotted for not holding the party line. Based upon the above financial data, I would say Smith has the message.

I'll bet most of you are the type that if some harm came to your family, you'd take the law into your own hands. Yeah you'd show em'. You might spend the rest of your life in prison and not be able to support your family causing far more harm but you'd show em'.

I'll bet many Pro-Boycotts would have said to push the Clinton impeachment all the way into the ground. After the Republicans got pounded in the elections and thrown out of office since many in their ranks have had illicit affairs when Clinton was engaging in his would have been okay beacuse they would have shown them.

And now with Smith & Wesson, they should ignore the rule of law and repudiate all agreements post haste instead of carefully working their way through this legal mess to stay solvent. They might be sued into oblivion but they would show em'.

Here's wishing all of you a great weekend and a safe and productive Dove hunt in the next few weeks. Stick a fork in me, I am done.
 
AR-10, are you feeling okay today?

You gave up logical discussion some time back.
Click to expand...


:confused: :confused: :confused:


When did he start?



I'll bet many Pro-Boycotts would have said to push the Clinton impeachment all the way into the ground. After the Republicans got pounded in the elections and thrown out of office
Click to expand...


HEY WILL!!! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE A PARROT FOR THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA?

The Republicans got pounded into the ground precisely because they didn't carry out their oaths of office and remove the most corrupt President in history from office. REAL conservatives were so disgusted with their cowardice that they stayed home from the next elections! The mainstream media painted it just the way you parrotted it to scare middle of the roaders (like you) away from standing for principle.


Willy boy, you need to do several things if you ever expect to be taken seriously:


  1. Stop getting your "news" from Dan Blather, et al.
  2. Take a basic course in logic.
  3. Study some election results. No, not from CNN or ABC. The actual results, and what the candidates actually did and said.
  4. Take a basic course in logic.
  5. Study some history. No, not what you 'learned' in the government schools. The real thing.
  6. Take a basic course in logic.

    [/list=1]
 
Last edited:
The most important thing about a handgun after reliability is the way it fits in your hand. I dont care how accurate the gun is fired from a Ransom Rest... if it doesnt fit your hand you wont be able to use it to it's full potential.
 
Well, Will, I for one am NOT be boycotting you.

That's as bad as the head-in-the-sand attitude expressed by those who believe that gun owners have nothing to fear from the S&W agreement.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

That seems to be relatively appropriate.
 
"Stick a fork in me, I am done."

That was a fait accompli long ago.

Your cheap ad hominem attack confirms it.

See you around...:cool:
 
What's wrong with impeaching any politician who is a proven lier ? That would include adultry. Get rid of a lot, maby the vast majority, of politicians at all levels. Should thin the ranks of all parties too. For the better.

Sam
 
You've got a good point, Sam. For those who'd like to do some homework, check the voting records of our 'servants' in Congress. An interesting pattern appears, for those who care to see. Oh, not a 100% absolute no exception hard and fast guaranteed rule, but a strong pattern nonetheless:

Those who hold traditional moral values (the "social conservatives") are the last to vote for bigger government, the last to vote for more taxes, and the last to vote to restrict your freedoms. Uh, it should be obvious that the Bob Doles and Trent Lotts are not counted in that group.


We can't really evaluate how Libertarians would vote because there aren't enough of them in office anywhere to see what they really do, as opposed to what they say they would do. I'm not saying they wouldn't, just pointing out that data is lacking.


Oh, and Will, I'll not boycott you either. Any time you want to present some argument about something, I'll be glad to listen. If it's empty emotionalism, I'll say so. I'd really rather hear some logic, though.
 
And now that I've calmed down sufficiently, after reading your last post, Will, I'll respond.

Once again, you do yourself a disservice by making illogical leaps across to subjects that have no bearing on this discussion, and use examples that are extremely poorly chosen.

As per Mr. Clinton, he lied, under oath, to a Federal Grand Jury.

That's called perjury. That would get someone like you or me thrown into jail.

As for the S&W agreement, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this agreement can only very tenuously be considered to be "rule of law."

Why?

Because there is no apparent legal authority to back it up, or to allow it to stand on its own.

It was in response to no laws passed by Congress. It was, in fact, in response to laws that Congress REFUSED to pass.

It is, in essence, a contract entered into between two parties, and not a response to the authority of the Gov't.

In so much as the Gov't has already broken the specifics of the contract, it is a good bet that, if it were to be taken to court, the Gov't would lose on those grounds alone.

It was, in essence, a contract entered into under some duress due to the apparent methodology used by the Gov't (sign, or we'll sue you to the ends of the earth), and could possibly be found to be invalid on that front.

Please, Will. You've brought this on yourself, first by feigning contrition, then by repeatedly lashing out at your detractors and offering specious arguments and off-point examples to back your claims.

Don't try to play the injured party.
 
Thank you, PKAY.

After having my car crash and burn (figuratively) this afternoon on the way home from work, that was a nice thing to read.
 
Will's got some valid points

This is a new company, why not give them a chance. I'm in sales and if my numbers looked liked SW saleguys probably do I'd be worried and scratching managements eyes out to do something -- so I'd guess they have the messageby now, but no harm in whacking them with emails/letters/etc. Rather than driving them into the ground before they get started, why not pressure them to act like you want them to.

And, as a side note, this whole Clinton arguement, which, in dealing with the media is similar to our fight for gun rights - bravado can't play here - we'll get killed in the minds of Jennifer Voter. We have to win this war and it has to be done with a facade Jennifer likes and aggressive work with the Congress and the Senate and $$$ support for the NRA in the background.
 
Mike, one thing is for sure about this whole affair we have been on. If Smith does some out and negate the agreement and make a public apology, I believe you would be the first to lead the charge to give them a second chance.

Ed2, that is exactly my point, behind the scenes they are being positively influenced to make a chance and do it now.

Y'all have a good un.
 
Will,

I have over $1,000 earmarked for a Smith & Wesson mountain bike.

ED2,

Unfortunatly, there are times when the sins of the father MUST be the sins of the son, until the son proves that he is more worthy than the father.

This is just such a case, and quite frankly I wouldn't care if the Sisters of Charity had purchased S&W and were planning on using all profits for uplifting the poor and unfortunate.

Suppose that the new owners of S&W are NOT what they would apparently like us to believe, that they actually either don't care about the agreement, or in fact support it.

An easing of the boycott could give them wiggle room to allow them to keep putting back decision on the agreement.

Time passes, and all of a sudden, we have a strong anti-gun Democratic president, House of Representatives, and Congress.

The best chance to have the agreement repudiated will have passed, and those gunowners who favored an easing of the boycott would only have themselves to blame.

Are you willing to take that chance, given the effect that this agreement, if compliance was forced to the letter?

I'm not, and thus, until S&W's new owners act, I will NOT let my guard down for a moment.

I have repeatedly stated this -- that the potential for damage to the rights of law-abiding gun owners is simply too great for us to take a chance and ease the boycott.
 
I will not boycott Will.

I don't see any point in debating with him further
on this issue, because I don't think he's read the agreement, and I don't
think he's debating in good faith; that is, I think he's just stringing us
along for his own amusement. I hope he's not trying to use this platform to
undermine the boycott, although he has as much right to do so as I have to promote the boycott. I do wonder about the motives of people who seem to be attempting to undermine the boycott.

But he's one of us; he has a lot more in common with us than differences
with us. We don't have to agree on every issue.

I do think it's pointless to argue the boycott with anyone who hasn't read
the agreement because the boycott is entirely about the agreement. If
someone hasn't read and refuses to read the agreement, then I think we're spinning our wheels. If someone convinces me that the boycott is improper regardless of what S&W promised in the agreement, then I will change my mind and listen. Right now, given the contents of the agreement, it's hard to imagine what that argument would be: maybe something like "It doesn't matter what S&W agreed to, Congress just passed a new law making S&W the only company allowed to sell firearms in America and therefore we can't put out of business the only company left" or perhaps "Every other gun company in the world just signed agreements ten times worse, so S&W is now the least villainous of a very bad bunch."

Don't go away, Will; we need everybody here.

And, in answer to your original post, I don't forgive you.
 
Will, there's tenacity that comes out of conviction, and there's bullheadedness that comes out of ignorance.

The first is commendable.



Ed2, we are giving them as much of a chance as we can afford to. Just as soon as they SHOW us something all will be well. This is a battle. One important battle in a long war. We do not yet have any evidence that Safety Hammer is on our side.

I think I can hear someone say, "Well, we don't have any evidence that they're not!"

Well, we have some small indication that they may not be, but that is beside the point.

We don't yet have ANY evidence that they ARE. On a battlefield, the unknown is not your friend. They are, at best, to be watched carefully. To assume that any who is not an overt, obvious enemy is is therefore a friend is to get yourself killed sooner rather than later.

So, we are watching. And waiting. When they clearly prove themselves to be friends, you will see the biggest mass gun buying frenzy this country has known. (Well, maybe other than Y2K)

Until there is PROOF, we wait. No, you don't give them the benefit of the doubt. You give freedom the benefit of the doubt, and that means you don't give a possible enemy a chance.
 
Did I miss something?...

I followed the link posted by Silver Bullet concerning increased stock activity for the new owners..... and that led me to another article which states that S&W will now be manufacturing receivers for Remington Arms rifles. I hadn't heard anything about this, even in a S&W rant as long as this one has become. So, what do you think, fellas? Does the boycott now extend to Remington as well? If this has already been discussed here, I couldn't find it using the search function. Here's the link....

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010726/2130.html


P.S. just want to add how great it is to have a website where a topic can be this HOTLY debated without resulting in a flame-fest. So many people have forgotten how to behave these days, especially in the impersonal realm of the web. It's good to be among Ladies & Gentlemen, whatever their opinion. Safe shooting!
 
I appreciate everyone's support and I have during this learining experience become frustrated to the point of injecting some dry humor-------------I admit that.

Yes I did read the agreement line for line, word for word and I could not believe that Smith let alone Ed Schultz would have even considered this. I know this is not pertinent to our discuss but I can't help but think about those missing FBI files when I consider Ed Schultz's actions and those of other S&W Officials. I truly believe the Clinton Administration's ultimate goal was to start the destruction of what they call the "gun culture" to which I proudly belong.

I do believe the boycott was justified and the only course of action. I also believe that a new owner is in place and I am willing to give them a chance.

For the record, this is the first S&W firearm I have ever owned. I have used many and was raised around them from an early age. I must also confess that this was purely an impulse decision. I went into the gun shop, fondled the 3953 and said to myself: "Wow this thing is the best feeling handgun I have ever held." Then I as I reflected back on all those times at the range I had shot my friends S&W 9mm and .40 Autos with extreme accuracy, the weakness got stronger. The clincher was the price tag of $379.00 new-in-the-box. Then I went home, got on the web and realized there must be a million holsters made for this thing. The next day I caved and to tell you the truth I still don't feel good about the buy.

I stated earlier that my next purchase will be a Smith 486 .357 and it won't be . I have thought enough about what everyone has said here to make the decision that I won't buy another S&W until a clear signal is launced against the agreement.

That said, nothing would infuriate the anti's more than S&W and the rank and file of the gun culture coming back together once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top