While it certainly looks bad, how do we know it's not a standards issue(ie, the vehicle being used isn't secure enough or something) and not an anti gun issue?
Because it says the company is canceling "because it is used in conjunction with a company that deals in the weapons industry." It doesn't say anything about canceling because it "isn't secure enough or something." It seems pretty straight forward to me.
Added: A claim of possible anti-gun bias should not be dismissed out of hand. I see where Chicago Mayor Rahm is trying to squeeze a couple of major banks to quit financing firearms related companies, including the bank where Smith and Wesson has a $60 million line of credit. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/...ng-gun-makers/
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
no guns = might makes right
Last edited by KyJim; January 25, 2013 at 02:50 PM.