View Single Post
Old January 22, 2013, 09:57 AM   #17
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 787
Quote:
The point I am making, for those not too obtuse to understand it, is that the *mainstream* manufacturers are not going to do some pie in the sky boycott of providing their products to goverrnment purchasing agents in order to make a point.
I understand your point, and I agree (to a degree), but I think you may have overstated it.

It is true that no gun manufacturer is going to turn away a lucrative contract without an absolutely compelling reason to do so. They are not going to do this just based on principle.

But all of the gun manufactuers remember what happened to Smith&Wesson in the late 1990s. All the gun makers were approached by Clinton Administration to voluntarilly incorporate gun locks and other nonsense. S&W agreed, and the gun buying public pummelled them. Their sales dropped to a tiny fraction of what they had been, and government contracts did not come close to making up for the lost civilian sales. I think it took about 18 months for them to go effectively bankrupt... I don't recall if they actually declared bankruptcy or if they were simply sold off for a fraction of their prior value. Believe me, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Remington, Winchester, Colt, HK, Walther, etc have not forgotten about the punishment that was dealt to S&W.

So if the US gun buying public was motivated to boycott a gun manufacturer or ammo maker that bid on NY state or municipal contracts, I think the gun makers and ammo companies would sit up and take notice. Not a boycott of all government contracts, just NY...

Jim
btmj is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04616 seconds with 7 queries