The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 11, 2013, 03:21 PM   #51
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
Remington is owned by a large investment group and must follow the directions of the trustees, all of whom must answer to stockholders. And stockholders are about the money, not philosophy.
And by taking the money of the governmental entities that wish to reduce the very rights that help to keep them in business, I choose not to support them with my money. There is nothing that Remington makes that's really unique. Other companies that support my 2A rights make basically the same products. I can get the same thing from another company, and know that part of the money I spend on a product with those companies will likely go towards protecting my rights. Remington is only in business to serve shareholders? That's cool, those shareholders care nothing of my rights, so I care nothing of their gilded pocket books.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:35 PM   #52
larryh1108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 613
Quote:
Between the performance testing, the offered deal and prices, and the other criteria like simply which company most likely possesses or has demonstrated in the past that it possesses the ability to best satisfy the contract, they were award the prize.
So, what's to stop them from filling the orders while they build elsewhere and when the new plant opens, they move the operation? Unless they signed a no move agreement with the government which would show the collusion we all feel there is. If they earned the contract then they should be able to build them anywhere that they wish (meaning out of NYS). If they were awarded it for political reasons as well then there is that dark cloud....
__________________
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:40 PM   #53
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
Being professionally involved with the DOD bidding process, my experience tells me that the rifle contract was one that had likely been negotiated and planned for almost a year, if not longer. This was not a quick-fix deal. So tinfoilhattery notwithstanding, Remington is a large DOD contractor and would be foolish not to provide the contracted goods in accordance with the provisions in the agreement. We peons can do what we please to coax them out of NY. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 05:34 PM   #54
barnettamb
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2013
Posts: 44
i guess i see this... although i would rather them make their guns here in america then somewhere over seas. remington hires 1000s of americans. just because they are located in new york doesnt mean they have to agree with the people making these laws... just my opinion
__________________
Never, Never, Never give up. -Winston Churchill

Last edited by Vanya; April 11, 2013 at 05:35 PM. Reason: invective.
barnettamb is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 05:39 PM   #55
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,932
Warning: I've edited a couple of posts. Let's discuss this like adults, please, without throwing insults around.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 05:51 PM   #56
Grizz12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2012
Posts: 310
supporting and protecting our 2A rights is far more important than any number of jobs in any state.

I had a 700 in mind for this fall but will now be looking at some companies that do support my/our 2A rights
Grizz12 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:24 PM   #57
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,311
Quote:
We are now insisting that all gun and gun related companies leave all states that have imposed restrictive laws otherwise we boycott?
Or... Why would the state of NY allow an entity of Remington's size build weapons so dangerous that the citizens of its own state cannot own them w/out close parental (read: state) supervision?

It's a bit like allowing a local company to make meth for export only. My moral bs-ometer is red-lined. Sorry, I know that the word "moral" offends some people.

Why would I pay for a Remington that is built in NY and help pay for the operation of a state government to keep its own citizens from using what is built there? I realize that the Remington offices may not be able to make a stand as they are not in charge of their corporate destiny, but I can. I choose to avoid the Remington aisle. I always avoided Mossberg, so...

In local news, I was a lotta bit bummed about Magpul leaving, but if Colorado is going down the "we don't trust you normal peons with big boy rights" route, then Magpul has every right to walk. If the state began putting random limits, levies and penalties on what I and other citizens could do in my field of livelihood, I would probably have to leave as well.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:29 PM   #58
larryh1108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 613
Quote:
...is obligated to spend (probably tens of) millions of dollars and move their operations to a gun friendly state. In addition to the above cost of moving, some posters feel Remington should forgo the $80 million defense contract that they have been negotiating for several years.
Well, many times, states that court potential businesses offer some sweet packages to lure them. Many times the land to build is "donated" or sold at a substantial discount with infrastructure included. States can easily do this in the name of progress and infrastructure improvements from state and federal grants. Also, who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY? Either way, Americans will be making them.

At this point of this steamrolling by the government we have few choices. #1 is to vote out the people who are voting for these new laws. #2 is to boycott companies that do not support our rights by staying where they cannot even legally sell the product they make. Think about it, New York residents make a gun they cannot legally buy? This is right?

We have to choke the state's revenue with our pocketbooks. Or, we can write more letters and emails that were ignored, we can make more phone calls that some minimum wage person fields and rolls their eyes at, we can march at more and more rallys where we are clearly the majority and we are clearly ignored because the lawmakers already made up their mind or we can show any future state that is considering these laws that we will not go there on vacation, we will not buy anything made in their state and we will do whatever we can to keep our money out of their packets. We have our votes and we have our cash. They don't listen to anything else. Yes, if they don't want to support us then they are supporting them. It has become that serious. They are not only not backing off, they are going forward at a faster pace. One state at a time.
__________________
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Last edited by larryh1108; April 11, 2013 at 06:35 PM.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:54 PM   #59
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
What did they do that was so bad? They had the misfortune of being located in a state that, over the years, turned ever more anti-gun.

Bingo!!!
i will continue to buy Remington products.


The folks who run Remington have absolutely no say in the matter of moving.

The head of Cerberus Global Investments is former vice president Dan Quayle. i'm sure he would take any complaints about the failure of Remington to move to another state.

http://investing.businessweek.com/re...ivcapId=139449
thallub is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:56 PM   #60
Venom1956
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 3,025
that's to bad. I don't have much need for anything Remington so i suppose This wont affect me much but if i do it'll certainly be used... No new money from me.

Ha. You know how much money the COULD make if they moved? I bet my state/city would LOVE it if a brand new manufacturing company came with a back order of over 12 months and could potentially create upto 1,200 jobs. I bet they'd give them all kinds of tax breaks.
__________________
E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system.- Yeah I can do that.
I guarantee you will know it if a bicyclist hits your house going 1000 mph.
Venom1956 is online now  
Old April 11, 2013, 07:10 PM   #61
Waspinator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2013
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 394
Quote:
larryh1108 Wrote:
Also, who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY?
Actually, they most likely do care. Working for a shop that has done work for government/military and major corporations, I know the hoops you have to jump through to win a bid for a job. During the vetting process you have to conform to a lot of stuff and part of it is the facility itself. If you upped and moved your shop after winning a bid that probably took a while to get everything in order, you would most likely void the contract and the bidding would start all over again (competitor bidders would cry foul in a heartbeat if it didn't).
Waspinator is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 07:41 PM   #62
barnettamb
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2013
Posts: 44
I dont think it makes since for a company like remington to move there entire manufacturing plant. the people at remington cant control what the state legislature does. all i know is that all of my remington guns are great guns and thats what i care about. i am a fan of remington but id have to say my favorite gun company is ruger. they just seem to do it right.
__________________
Never, Never, Never give up. -Winston Churchill
barnettamb is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 08:19 PM   #63
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 537
Quote:
who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY?
My father was a defense contractor for most of my life. Most of our work was for the Corps of Engineers and one of the stipulations, for whatever reason, was that we use only union labor.

That might be an additional consideration.
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 02:18 AM   #64
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,152
Remington takes the money from NY/Pentagon deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoghornLeghorn View Post
My father was a defense contractor for most of my life. Most of our work was for the Corps of Engineers and one of the stipulations, for whatever reason, was that we use only union labor.

That might be an additional consideration.
Yes, if you do business with the govt you will play by their rules and these often include favors to political supporters of the current admin, though this one has been in there for some time through multiple administrations and is baked on now.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 10:44 AM   #65
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
I dont think it makes since for a company like remington to move there entire manufacturing plant. the people at remington cant control what the state legislature does. all i know is that all of my remington guns are great guns and thats what i care about. i am a fan of remington but id have to say my favorite gun company is ruger. they just seem to do it right.
It's not about them not moving, at least for me. That's only a part of the equation. It's the fact that they took a sweet deal from a government entity that seeks to limit citizens Constitutional rights, and haven't done anything to publicly denounce the proposed and passed laws. In my eyes, it's a big giant middle finger from Remington to all the people that have supported it in the pass. It's as if they released a statement that says:

"$80 Million in our coffers is far more important than that 'little book' you call a constitution."

Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do.

By the way, on Mossberg and them not moving, they have at least publicly denounced proposed and passed gun laws. Remington hasn't done that. Remington is happy to take your money while watching the Constitution go up in flames.

I do want to make it clear...I don't care if gun manufacturers stay in states that clearly infringe on 2A rights. I say this because the costs of moving in some cases can be too much for a company to handle. If a company chooses to move, that's great, and I fully support it. But if you can't move, that's fine, I just need a statement as to why you can't and showing support for the 2A.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:23 PM   #66
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
There is nothing that Remington makes that's really unique. Other companies that support my 2A rights make basically the same products.
Wrong. You weren't listening what you were reading. Only two companies met the criteria for the competition, Remington and Seko, Remington won. Don't even try to imagine that these sniper systems are anything like the other rifles you imagine other companies can make cause they are in a whole different class.

If you don't believe me then you go through the effort to hunt down the specifications for the contract and show me wrong, I have seen enough of them in the past.

As for who is giving who what, This is an Army Contract, the Army put it out, the Army ran the test, the Army announced the winner, The Army will be doing the paying.

The Army isn't Congress and the SF Community doesn't offer "backroom deals" for political reasons like this.

Everyone get's to make there own decisions on this, but I do not see a reason to boycott or badmouth Remington on this one. Not when I know who these rifles are for, our US Army Green Berets.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:32 PM   #67
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
by staying where they cannot even legally sell the product they make.
Ummm, Remington doesn't really make any weapons effected by New York's new laws. At least nothing that can't be "fixed" with a plug in a magazine. Remington doesn't make AR type rifles, some of their Defense Shotguns will be effected, maybe a handgun or two will need some special new magazines if they are Hi-Caps. That's about it unless I am missing something.

What Remington has made is the Army's and the Marines best sniper rifles for about the last 60 years.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:52 PM   #68
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 537
Quote:
Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do.
I think you need to research the topic before you go on record w/such statements.

Remington Arms isn't some family business that gets to make such statements as you demand. They were owned by Cerberus, which is a multinational investment corporation that only bought Remington Arms (and Bushmaster, etc) as a business entity. Cerberus specializes in buying distressed companies.

But after Sandy Hook, Cerberus has been divesting itself of Freedom Group (Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS) because of the stigma of manufacturing firearms in this climate.

Remington firearms are manufactured by a bunch of Joe Schmoes who have nothing to do with the people who make the decisions you're talking about. The people who have the power to do that, instead of making a pro-gun statement, are doing their best to distance themselves from Remington.

You're making demands of a group of people that are powerless to do what you say
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:55 PM   #69
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 537
Quote:
Remington doesn't make AR type rifles,
Except for the R15 and R25.

__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:58 PM   #70
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Sort of proves what i said in earlier posts on firearms manufacturers not selling to government agencies. In the end it all comes down to money if one stops selling others will be queuing to take their place. If some of the ones not selling were offered similar contracts you would see a change of attitude.
manta49 is online now  
Old April 12, 2013, 01:04 PM   #71
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
I was just going through their products list, those pages were slow.

It's why I said this ....
Quote:
That's about it unless I am missing something.
As for your earlier statement, it makes me wonder if you have been tracking my arguments at all.

I never said Remington should make any statements or take any stance.

I never said they even possess the freedom to do so, I do not know what they can and can't do as they are owned by Freedom Group.

What I did say is that this Contract was announced for competition over 3 years ago in 2009. It's old business. Only two companies were able or wanted to compete for it. Remington won it, and the award has nothing at all to do with a back room deal to keep Remington silent on the gun control debate.

As I said before
Quote:
This is an Army Contract, the Army put it out, the Army ran the test, the Army announced the winner, The Army will be doing the paying.

The Army isn't Congress and the SF Community doesn't offer "backroom deals" for political reasons like this.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 01:17 PM   #72
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Sort of proves what i said in earlier posts on firearms manufacturers not selling to government agencies. In the end it all comes down to money if one stops selling others will be queuing to take their place. If some of the ones not selling were offered similar contracts you would see a change of attitude.
Manta, I am not sure what you are saying here. I guess I missed it earlier.

Did you know that if the Government Opens a Contract for Competition that pretty much anyone can compete. You can even start your own brand new Company just to compete for a new contract. They are not generally closed to competition.

Actually, more correctly, there are what are called "Sole Source Contracts". These are supposed to be avoided when possible, but they are allowed if only a single source for the required product exists or if for some other reason it just makes too much sense to only buy from the one manufacturor selected.

An Example would by Wireless Networking equipment. Unless this has changed recently, only one Company manufactures wireless networking equipment to sufficient standard that it can be used on Classified networks. Therefore if the Government want's to use wireless equipment, they must buy from this company, ergo, a sole source contract.

Also, if a contract calls for something that could come from other manufacturers, but the government already has invested significant resources and money into spares, warranties, etc, they can sole source because if they switched manufacturers it would cost them big money in wasted equipment they already have on-hand.

These are example that justify a sole source contract. Otherwise it's the wild west, everyone is invited to the party although US Manufacturers are given the prime seat at the table over foreign companies.

One thing about Military type contracts when it comes to tactical type equipment, there are usually very serious specifications for things like being able to operate in very harsh climates, and or specific requirements like in this one, the barrels had to be easily removed, ie ... buy the Snipers themselves, not just by an armorer or maintenance guys.

I hope this is helpful.

EDIT: I said I wasn't going to hunt this down but here is the contract notice anyway.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...f827e&_cview=1


Notice the date of this notice is Jan. 2008.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223

Last edited by lcpiper; April 12, 2013 at 01:29 PM.
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 03:01 PM   #73
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
Would not prevent me from buying a Remington if they had what I wanted.
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *┬ÂLet us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 03:20 PM   #74
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
Wrong. You weren't listening what you were reading. Only two companies met the criteria for the competition, Remington and Seko, Remington won. Don't even try to imagine that these sniper systems are anything like the other rifles you imagine other companies can make cause they are in a whole different class.
I wasn't talking about the contract. I was talking about products that Remington makes that I can use. There's really nothing unique about the company that make me have any loyalty whatsoever. They're in a state that wants to take away people's Constitutional rights and they haven't made a statement regarding it? Ok, I'll buy my bolt gun from Ruger instead. At least I'll know that a portion of my money will likely go to pro-2A groups, and to a company that has a vested interest in my rights. That's MORE than enough reason not to buy from Remington again, even without the contract.

Quote:
Remington Arms isn't some family business that gets to make such statements as you demand. They were owned by Cerberus, which is a multinational investment corporation that only bought Remington Arms (and Bushmaster, etc) as a business entity. Cerberus specializes in buying distressed companies.
That's part of my point. They don't have the luxury of making their customers feel good about where they're spending their money? Fine, that's their prerogative to serve their shareholders first and customers second. It's my prerogative to serve a company that supports my rights. If Remington (Cerberus) does support my rights...I have no idea because they haven't made a statement about it, except for a vague explanation of why they're selling off the Freedom Group.

I think I'm going to change the way I look at this then. This might make more sense and be more palatable. Don't think of it as me not giving my support to Remington, or other companies that don't seem to care about individual rights, as long as they're getting paid. Think of it as I'm going to go out of my way to support companies that will get in the thick of the debate, and do everything they can to support 2A.

Remington does what Remington does because they have to. That's fine. But if I can buy my new bolt gun from a company that is actively supporting and fighting for my rights, I'll buy from them instead.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 04:50 PM   #75
larryh1108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 613
Quote:
Don't think of it as me not giving my support to Remington, or other companies that don't seem to care about individual rights, as long as they're getting paid. Think of it as I'm going to go out of my way to support companies that will get in the thick of the debate, and do everything they can to support 2A.
Summed up perfectly.
Thank you.

I won't not buy from a particular company that is ambivalent but I will go out of my way to buy from companies active in preserving our rights, whether by moving, donating to our cause or making statements against the way things are being done to it's customers. All of my efforts did nothing to change the minds here in CT so I'll let my $$ do the talking. Money seems to be the driving force in this country. I'll go out of my way to make sure it goes to those who care about us.

My ex worked for a company that was bought by Cerberus. Cerberus is all about buying a struggling company, cutting jobs, cleaning up the bottom line and then selling it. They are cold, calculated and care only about the bottom line. That's fine. We can be the same way. If Cerberus owns Remington then all the more reason to see that they get none of my money. There are many more choices out there that makes similar products. Brand loyalty means less now than ever.
__________________
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
larryh1108 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14334 seconds with 7 queries