Y'all forgive me. I done messed up.

Let's just get this clear.

Current non-enforcement does NOT mean that the agreement will never be enforced!

Don't you all understand that? Just because we have a gun-friendly administration in the White House right now DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ALWAYS WILL!

Don't you realize that as long as it remains a codified agreement that it remains in effect, whether it is being enforced of not?

How long do you think it will take the next Democratic Administration (and it's coming, sooner than you would like to think), or even a Republican of the John McCain style of Constitutional Rights, to begin enforcing the agreement?

As long as the agreement remains UNREVOKED and UNREPUDIATED, it remains an immense danger to our rights!

The boycott MUST continue, if for no other reason than to get Saf-T-Hammer/Smith & Wesson off their collective corporate duffs to start pushing for formal revocation and repudiation of the agreement.

Without that, the agreement will, eventually, be enforced.
 
MLK18,

Once again, you're either ignoring, or not seeing, the obvious correlation. Step aside for a moment from the specific reasons why the Birmingham Bus Boycott and the S&W Boycott began. Or, better yet, tell me exactly why you don't believe the two boycotts are similar.

But, here's another attempt.

Correlation between the Birmingham Boycott and the S&W Boycott:

Both started as methods of effecting change through direct action against the financial basis of the offending party.

Both began as quasi-grassroots movements. (The Birmingham Bus Boycott actually began as a grassroots effort before Dr. King took the pulpit and became its driving force.)

Both boycotts were about the personal rights -- in the Birmingham case the right to be treated equally, in the S&W case, the personal rights left to us by the men who forged this nation.

Both boycotts had their detractors, even detractors in the very groups affected.

The Birmingham boycott was successful in effecting sweeping change.

The Smith & Wesson boycott is having a significant effect on S&W. It just remains to be seen what its long-term impact is.

I don't know how I can be any clearer in drawing the correlation.

Would you rather I substitute Mohandes Ghandi's Indian boycotts against British cloth or salt?

Or how about the original boycott, Irish tenant farmers boycotting Charles Boycott? This one is probably more like the S&W boycott in that no single individual ever emerged as the focal leader for the disaffected people.

But in all of the historic cases that I cite, the boycott achieved the desired results -- effecting change in a situation that was found to be intolerable by a particular group of people.

Whether or not the S&W boycott is successful long-term remains to be seen. Short term, however, the point has been very effectively made, not only to S&W, but to other firearms manufacturers, none of which have signed a similar agreement.
 
WillBearArms,

Of course Smith & Wesson's historic actions mean something.

They're very nice to look at, read about, etc.

But what are they doing for gunowners now? Not a lot.

History is just that. History. It's not dynamic.

It's not history that I'm worried about. It's the future. And as long as this agreement remains in place, the future is a lot darker, a lot cloudier, and potentially a lot more restrictive.

When the preservation of individual rights is the issue, it is TRULY a case of "What have you done for me today."

To rest on one's laurels is to be buried in them.

And I personally don't intend to be buried in Smith & Wesson's laurels, at least not without one hell of a fight.

To be totally crass and blunt about it, one could have made the same sort of argument prior to America's entry into World War II.

Why should we be messing with Germany? Look at what they have given the world, culture, art, literature, science.

So what if they're stomping on the rights of non-Aryans?

Far too many people in Germany actually felt that way in the 1930s, and look how far it got them.
 
1) S&W entered into a cowardly agreement with the Clinton administration that opens the floodgates for the government to control the gun industry;

2) The dealers and buyers slam-dunked the Clintons by refusing to buy S&W products while the agreement is in effect (“boycott”);

3) Ergo, the essence of the boycott is to stop the government (in the future, since Bush is now in office but the agreement is still valid) from gaining control via the agreement's terms;

4) So, in any argument about the boycott, is there any reason to listen to anybody who hasn’t even read the agreement ? Can the non-readers possibly have anything cogent to offer ? If they do, they’re keeping it well hidden. I think the first question for us to ask is, "Have you read the agreement?"

This is the third thread of this nature in the last few weeks. We (the boycotters) talk about how the government is trying to get control via a back door, and they (the S&W apologists) talk about how good to us S&W used to be; we talk about how the new owners have not repudiated the agreement, and they talk about how good the grips feel.

But, all of this is on record somewhere; all of these messages are a good record of who stands where. If there's ever a Second Revolution this information will help determine who were the heroes who stood tall against the Socialists. Maybe the others here can make a contribution in some other way.
 
WillBearArms,

Actually, yes, the Clinton Administration DID rule by fiat, crafting an agreement containing many of the issues that Clinton wanted to pass through Congress, but which Congress refused to discuss.

And yes, I believe Congress DID pass legislation on part of the S&W agreeement.

The HUD agreement promised S&W "most favored company" treatment OUTSIDE of HUD procurement contracts -- something which had to be approved by Congress.

When it came before Congress, it was shot down.

Neal Bloom,

Cripes! I forgot totally about the Coors beer boycott by the Teamsters. That one took a long time, but it was eventually effective. Coors caved.
 
mlk18 writes:
My point was that in the big picture of protecting our second ammendment rights, we need to do much more than simply boycotting manufacturers who fall prey to the power of the federal government.
Click to expand...
I would venture to guess that you are not the only one here that writes your congressman, mlk. We’re arguing the merits and effectiveness of this specific action: boycotting Smith and Wesson.
We need to actively SUPPORT the firearms industry, we must be politically active, we must teach young people the truth about safe and responsible firearms ownership, we must foil the anti-gun propaganda, we must write letters, discuss the issues with our family and friends, we must work 10% harder and with more resolve than those people who would strip us of our RKBA.
Click to expand...
Again, what makes you think we’re not doing these things? How did this conversation, debating the merits and effectiveness of this specific action, end up with the assertion that people involved in the boycott are just sitting around on their couch yelling at anyone who owns a Smith? If there’s anyone out there who supports the firearms industry, it is most definitely us - shooters and RKBA activists.

But I draw the line and will not support an entity that throws my rights on the trash heap just because they are a member of the ‘firearms industry’. I’m a member of the American militia and my rights are more important than S&W or the whole firearms industry put together. If every gun maker in the country signed that document I’d quit buying guns in a New York minute and start stocking up on reloading parts and body armor, because the balloon’s about to go up.

We were lucky that only one manufacturer signed that atrocity, so we could make an example out of them for all the others to see with the minimum amount of bloodshed; thereby showing, in no uncertain terms, who is really in charge here - it is us, not the feds, and not the firearms industry. By crushing S&W we hope to send a clear message to the rest of the industry through individual grassroots activism that this is not going to be tolerated, and therefore prevent any more manufacturers from being needlessly harmed by boycotts.

The firearms industry needs to realize that in a free country, the only thing they have to fear is the wrath of their customers; not federal lawsuits. We are in a battle to hold our ground, and, hopefully very soon, we may be able to begin taking back ground we have already lost. We must all stand together, and towards that end: deserters will be shot. Make no mistake, Smith and Wesson deserted us in our time of need, and we are meting out justice in a time of war as it is rightly done.

Does Will Beararms have a right to buy a Smith? Of course he does, and no one has a right to stop him. But when he comes on here and asks for an apology from those who have forgone many nice shiny new Smith weapons, those who have spent hours and hours and hours debating this topic and slowly and gradually getting people to truly understand the issue, he knew exactly what he was doing. I want a new 610, I want a Performance Center V-Comp, but I’ve crossed them off the list because I don’t buy from sell-out cowards. I’d rather make my own damn gun than support the effort to whiteout the 2nd Amendment. I don’t buy Smith & Wesson for the same reason I don’t send money to HCI or “People Who Care About Kids”.

And enforcement has nothing to do with it. I’m glad the agreement isn’t being enforced, but S&W screwed the pooch in a major way and they need to tear up the document and face the music before they get my respect and money again. It’s that simple.
Surely you must agree that the TFL member who just doesn't buy S&W firearms, but does nothing else to support the cause, is not actively protecting firearms ownership.
Click to expand...
I thought earlier you said that you did not mean to imply that a boycott was passive, or even semi-active, but active? And where are these people, the ones who’s only contribution to the effort is the boycott? I thought we were discussing the merit and effectiveness of this specific action. Some do more, some less. Anyone who’s helping is our friend, no matter how small the contribution. How much do you think the people who can’t even restrain themselves from buying S&W products are doing? Maybe alot, maybe not. But the boycott seems a pretty simple thing to do. Just don’t buy their gear...how hard is that.

In general, I want to comment on the whole “agree to disagree”, “personal opinion” and “open-mindedness” thing. An open mind allows one to process new information and adjust their position to incorporate that new information. I feel that in almost every issue, there is a position that is right, and a position that is wrong. Someone’s ‘opinion’ is irrelevant to anyone but themselves. I am not interested in opinions; I am interested in facts, logic and reason. Boycotting Smith & Wesson is either the right thing to do, or it’s not. I have yet to hear anything that changes my position that boycotting S&W is absolutely the right thing to do, and it’s not for lack of listening.

- Gabe
 
*sigh*

This is so simple.

Don't forget that the gun manufacturing firms are not "Mom & Pop" operations where the tradition of the RKBA drives decisions.

Profit is the driving force.

If any of the manufacturers feel that their long term survival is enhanced by climbing into bed with the Fed by entering into an agreement similar to S&W, they'd sign.

Showing our support for the RKBA by not patronizing S&W sends a powerful signal: your consumer sales are at great risk. It's a sacrifice for a lot of us, because we generally like the S&W product. I feel they make the best revolvers on the planet. But it's time to seperate the men from the boys, and determine who is really standing for the RKBA or their own whimsical desire.

I'll not buy another S&W until the agreement is null and void, trampled & destroyed. I'll support them on that day by buying one of their guns whether I need it or not, just as I did when Taurus refused to sign. If they can build bicycles & make folding knives to stay in business, fine. But unless they can get out from under the agreement - legally - their handgun business can go under.

Anything less is selling out the next generation's rights.

Period. End of story.
 
Huh? I thought this thread was about Will Beararms buying a Smith & Wesson 3953.

When I say that "we need to" don't infere or assume that I said no one was doing these things but me. As far as arguing the merits of boycotting S&W, I think this thread has many different angles and opinions than that. I think I even read some great stuff about saf-t-hammer.

As to the rest of your statements, I am glad you feel so strongly and are fighting for what you believe in. You say Potato and I'll say Potatoe, but it is still all about protecting the 2nd ammendment. I would be willing to be that we agree on 99% of the related issues, just not this one. My opinions and beliefs were already covered in earlier posts so I will save TFL some bandwidth and just say goodnight.

mlk18



And not to peeve anyone off, but I just read on www.lineofduty.com that some town just bought something like $50,000 worth of S&W .45's and another bought 115 some .40's. Just mentioning it because it we germaine and not trying to stoke any fires. I have always been partial to Glock's for police work.
 
Huh? I thought this thread was about Will Beararms buying a Smith & Wesson 3953.
Click to expand...

It is - I'll capsulize it for you.

Buy a new S&W product: send a signal that you feel it is OK for the gun manufacturer to become married to the Fed by The Agreement and will continue to support them with your $$.

Refuse to buy a new S&W product: send a signal that you do not support any marriage via The Agreement & you will not support them with your $$.

There is the "short bandwidth" version. :rolleyes:
 
"And not to peeve anyone off, but I just read on www.lineofduty.com that some town just bought something like $50,000 worth of S&W .45's and another bought 115 some .40's. Just mentioning it because it we germaine and not trying to stoke any fires."

And that's surprising, or germane, how?

Governmental entities act (hopefully) in the manner that they feel best serves the departmental budget, the tax payers, and the people who carry the guns.

The people who make these types of decisions may or may not be gun people.
 
My point was that if government agencies are purchasing S&W firearms at that rate, and the nonpolitical gun people who do not subscribe to forums or gun mags are ignorant to the issue and may still be buying S&W firearms, then are they losing money or being hurt by the 50-60% of firearms enthusiasts who are boycotting them? I believe that is germane to the "effectiveness of the boycott". But again, brought it up for information purposes only because I don't know. Anyone have profit reports for S&W pre and post agreement?

mlk18
 
I want to make clear also, that I believe we do most likely agree on 99% of these things, but it’s this last percent that’s on the table. Don’t misunderstand me as disparaging anyone’s efforts for RKBA, I’m just trying to get to the bottom of the S&W issue. If I’m wrong, and this boycott is a mistake, convince me. Show me why it’s wrong. If I see evidence or reasoning that is superior to that which I have seen in the past, I’ll join Will and head right to the shop for that 610 I’m dying to have. Show me why boycotting S&W is a bad idea, mlk. Mike is a reasonable guy, too. I’m sure he’s looking for a new Smith; if you and Will are right, prove it. We’re all ears.

As for the TFL bandwidth, I doubt Rich minds us discussing this on his dime; after all it’s only the whole point of the place. If there are people out there lurking who are tired of this discussion, you always have the option not to click on the link and start reading.

But back to the fray, as it were: even without a profit report in front of you, I dare say it’s hard not to notice how badly S&W has been hurting since the boycott: their sales went in the tank, gun stores by the dozen stopped carrying Smiths, they've been sold off, their old CEO is making lawnmowers in England now, they have incurred the wrath of the freedom fighters and have got nothing from the feds they were told they would get to ease their suffering.

You know, mlk (and, by proxy, other anti-boycott folks), I confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. One minute you say that boycotts are effective, then you say that we're just pissing into the wind. One minute boycotts are active actions, the next they're just laziness. One minute you say that people aren't doing everything they can for RKBA, then you say that participating in the boycott is just not worth the effort (even if you were the uber-freedom fighter, the ace #1 letter writing maniac, the RKBA organizer of the century, the Righteous Citizen Soldier of All Time, it still wouldn’t make it OK to buy a Smith. How much does one have to do for RKBA to get enough points stored up that it’s OK to send $20 to HCI? Or close down gun shows? Or spread dangerous propaganda and lies? Or register gun owners? Or...). One minute we're talking about the boycott, the next we're talking about Will Beararms pistol purchase? How is the boycott not relevant to his purchase? Should we talk about the quality of the overhead lighting in the gunshop he went to?

Will came here to the veritable headquarters of the boycott movement and asked to be absolved of guilt for breaking ranks with us and walking home with that which almost every boycott participant wants to walk home with: a new Smith. Just what was he expecting? A pat on the back and a "Gee, I guess you're right, Will, screw the boycott! I'm with you! Let's support S&W and send a message to them and all the other gun manufacturers that it's tough out there in our litigious society and we, the gun owners and freedom fighters, really understand that and we feel for you, and if you sign on the dotted line and give me and our whole country the permanent shaft we'll support you just the same and buy buy buy buy everything in sight. Just so you know that we really care and understand how hard it is to stand up to the feds and as long as you keep making something resembling a gun, I’ll get in line and take it where it hurts because we all need to stand together. This way we’ll send a clear message that the only thing that’s really important to us is that we all like guns, not that we believe in freedom or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or responsibility for one’s actions or any of that. Besides, boycotting is the activism of the lazy and doesn’t work anyway and it’s just one or two guns I’m buying, what difference does it make anyway?”

Why this is so hard to comprehend I have no idea. Did S&W sell us out, or not? If they did, then how best to reward them for it and make the point that selling us out is NOT OK? Buy more of their products? Make them the #1 in sales in the country? What does that say to the other manufacturers? “Sell us out and get rich” Is it a shame that S&W is going to go down in flames? Sure, what a bummer. But I’ll tell you, if every gun maker in the land signed that agreement and you couldn’t buy a gun without getting an anal probe that the makers voluntarily agreed to subject all their customers to, I wouldn’t buy any more guns. Will, on the sly in another thread, made a comment that Ruger and Walther and lord knows who else has caused some damage to us as well. That’s true. But to think that Bill Ruger’s 10 round mag limit is even in the same ballpark as this agreement, you’re got to be smoking crack (as well as not have read the thing). By the same logic, nobody kicked Bill Ruger in the pants when he shafted us with the 10-rnd mag, and look where it got us. Maybe if he had been sent to the unemployment line way-back-when S&W would have dug in a little deeper and found enough spine to tell the feds to go stuff themselves.

I'm getting the distinct feeling you haven't read the agreement and have snapped your mind shut like a clam that got poked with a stick. It is said that you shouldn't waste time arguing with a 'true believer', as facts and reason have no effect on them. If it wasn’t for Rainbow Six’s recent enlightenment, I’d be tempted to think that everyone who isn’t on board with the boycott at this late date is just that: a true believer.


- Gabe
 
Seriously, actually read my posts and not people's interpretations of my posts. There is no hidden messages or abstract meanings. They are pretty straight forward and simple. It's amazing how I say that the sky is blue, then get 3 replies asking how I can justify claiming the sky is purple. Then get 2 more asking why I changed my story on the color of the sky. I have beaten the dead horse, and those willing to hear my side of the arguement have heard it. Those of you who weren't willing, obviously didn't. The fat lady has sung and I for one am going back to enoying TFL. And please do me the favor of not finding some hidden message in this post as well. Thanks, good luck and god speed.

mlk18
 
The Sellouts & Weasils corporation was sold to an American company. That alone is not enough. The instant the new ownership repeals the evil agreement, I will celebrate and reward them by immediately buying a brand new Smith & Wesson.

Until then, I boycott and will do so until the day I die.
 
I`m Proud as can be that the BEST two gunshops in my area DROPPED stink & weasle as soon as the sighing was anounced:D I will not buy from someone that even carry`s them. The new owners have not denouced it, and probibly never will :mad:!
If there was not a boycott of *&* it would have made it a little easier for the others to cave, which to their credit never considered it, but rejected it :) Smith&wesson spit on the citizens of this country, and we had better not reward them for it!
 
Saf-T-Hammer knew what the rerrain would be like before they bought S&W from Tompkins PLC. I believe they are listening and that within a year, many of you will be buying Smiths again.

The Boycott has been effective in that the owners were motivated to sell the company back to an American entity. Is now the time for a mass exodous back to Smith? Indeed not. That said, we are at a point and time where if enough folks get the message across to Smith that they will be back once the agreement is null and void, I believe progress will be made.

Is Smith waiting for us to cave? I don't think this is an issue of capitulation. I believe they realize how serious this has been and what it has done for their business to go from, number one to number six. I feel the new owners are working even now to neagte the agreement and furthermore, I don't think for a minute they would have bought the company if they didn't think the Bush Administration wouldn't work with them to void this travesty of justice.

Let's face it, the Executives at Saf-T-Hammer are business people and they know that the margin dollars come from selling to the public. Was I disappointed with S&W? Yes. Am I still? Yes. Nevertheless, Ed Schultz is gone and I am intent upon letting Smith know I will stand with them if they will come back to our side.

Let it be known, had Tompkins not sold Smith, I wouldn't have one now. Yes, Mike I know the agreement is still in effect but you know and I know legal maneuvers take time and I just can accept that Saf-T-Hammer is not trying to get out of the shackles in the most expedient and legal manner possible.

Is there an emotional component here? Yes, I like may of you were raised on Smith and Wesson from the first .41 Magnum I saw on my Maternal Grandfather's table that was used to get the attention of a man stealing from his lumber business. I tried to ignore the workmanship Smith offers and sooth it with a Glock or a Sig but it didn't take.

Now is the time for us to channel the anger into a productive catalyst and guide Smith in the right direction. I know many of you are deeply hurt but I also know in your heart, you are not ready to see this once great entity go under if there is any way at all to salvage the damage done and get them back on the path of freedom and all that we hold dear. There is now a glimmer of light, faint as it may be at the end of the tunnel and we must decide if the glass is half full or half empty.

Guys I am sorry. I drive only American cars, I stand and salute the flag at the national anthem and I long for a day when we can say yes Smith did screw up but they had the courage to admit the wrongdoings and move forward and now they are once again at the pinnacle.
 
I feel the new owners are working even now to neagte the agreeme
Click to expand...


Where is the evidence for that? Is there any concrete fact you can point to that would support such an idea?

I like what John Farnam said to an interviewer when he was asked how he 'feels' about an issue. "Let's get one thing straight. I feel fine. Now let's talk about what I think."

There's too much 'feeling' and not enough thinking going on in America.


Now is the time for us to channel the anger into a productive catalyst and guide Smith in the right direction.
Click to expand...


How? By buying their guns and telling them all is forgiven just because someone else owns them now? When the agreement is still legally binding? When they haven't uttered one syllable to repudiate it? OR even say they think they might try?


How does that help? How does that send a message to S&W, the other manufacturers, and the politicians who are very definitely watching that we are not going to sit still for such garbage?

Just how does putting money in their pockets NOW help? Please explain that to me. What it is the mechanism here? They haven't moved one centimeter towards freedom, so how does buying from them move them in that direction? Is it to make them feel good, all warm and fuzzy and forgiven? So then they'll doi the right thing out of gratitude? Or does returning to profitability without having changed a thing about the agreement motivate them to change it? How?




When they repudiate the agreement, with vigor and finality, I'll borrow money if I have to to buy a new S&W. And so will a lot of others here.

THAT sends a clear message.
 
Posted by EricM:
"If all firearms manufacturers decide to put those restrictions in place, what will you do then?"

What the hell do you think the point of the S&W boycott is? Ya think it might be to prevent that very outcome?
 
The evidence is all around us. What gun dealer is abiding by even a semblance of the agreement and how many contracts has Glock lost to Smith on the grounds of the agreement.

Again I say: all is not lost. Do you really think the new owners want the agreement? They will abandon in a manner that does not throught the proverbial baby out with the bath water-----------have faith.
 
Will, you are waffling back and forth which makes you look less sincere by the day.

A few posts back you said to heck with all of us, your next gun would be a new Smith as well. That post was a little more believable than your latest.

Your most current thoughts are frought with desperate rationale and much straw-clutching.

What makes you think that the new owners are working to break the agreement? Their press releases contain statements that indicate they are willing to operate at the sales level they currently have. They would like a bigger market share, but they indicate that they are happy with what they have. How dangerous to their behind the scenes efforts would it be to state publicly that they will persue a legal remedy to the agreement??? They have made no such statements.

Your rationale of supporting them at this "difficult" period in the transition of ownership is flawed.

Quote- "Guys I am sorry. I drive only American cars, I stand and salute the flag at the national anthem and I long for a day when we can say yes Smith did screw up but they had the courage to admit the wrongdoings and move forward and now they are once again at the pinnacle."

Then try being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top