View Full Version : What's wrong with Ruger

February 13, 2002, 11:09 PM
Boston T. Party always says Bill Ruger is not pro 2nd amendment. How is that possible when you own a firearms co.? A buddy of mine ragged on me for buying a Ruger, but wouldn't get specific as to why. Did they cut some kind of deal with the gov.? I never heard of anything like that, maybe someone can give me the rundown. I would hate to support a company like that.

February 13, 2002, 11:29 PM
The Ruger company supported the 10 round magazine limit.

Pinched this off of www.gunnery.net/news/Goodbye-BillnBill.html

Want to know why I hate Bill Ruger and will never own a Sturm Ruger product?

Bill Ruger helped the antis prohibit so-called "Assault Weapons" and is the primary architect of the "evil features" that were effectively banned in Brady-2 and the "Assault Weapons Ban." "Evil" features selected not because they are truly evil or would have any effect on reducing crime, rather features selected simply because none of Ruger's guns had any of them. He is the author of the so-called "high capacity" [read full capacity] magazine ban, as well as several other loony anti-gun ideas. Yes friends, American arms manufacturer and machine-gun designer Bill Ruger is the anti-gun bastard who dreamed up the "10-round mag" idea.

He was filmed on television news with Tom Brokaw and said:

"No honest man needs more "than ten rounds in any gun," and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my twenty- or thirty-round mags or my folding stock."

and then said: "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."

This TV interview was used (with Bill Ruger's written permission) over and over again to rub our faces in the fact that "even a gun manufacturer thinks gun control is good."

Need more proof? The following is an excerpt from the March 30, 1989 letter Bill Ruger sent to every member of Congress. It is in the Congressional Record and has been reprinted in several newspapers and magazines.

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines.

By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item.
A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger
Sturm, Ruger Firearms

[ This letter was taken from the American Handgunner magazine, dated Sept 1992, page 18 ]


February 13, 2002, 11:33 PM
Was it not Bill Ruger who said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds?

February 13, 2002, 11:35 PM
In 1994, Bill Ruger testified to Congress for the Crime Bill in favor of the 10-round capacity limit for magazines. Supposedly, he said something to the effect of "no citizen needs more than 10 rounds in a gun." Not a very nice thing to do the gunowners of the U.S. Some people defend BR saying that he was really trying to thwart a 5-round limit. I don't know all the facts and I am sure someone can fill in the details.

February 13, 2002, 11:47 PM
He's not dead yet.:barf:

February 13, 2002, 11:57 PM
Thanks for the info guys, in '92 I was in high school too busy chasin' females, missed the Brokaw interview

Futo Inu
February 14, 2002, 11:57 AM
Any questions?


Ben Swenson
February 14, 2002, 12:28 PM
I thought Ruger wanted a 15 round maximum limit because that was the most any of his handguns took.

Regardless, doom on you, Slick Willy Ruger.

February 14, 2002, 12:29 PM
Blades, when Billy does buy the farm, it's a 6 of Rolling Rock to go for me. I'll probably have to stand in line but that will give me time to drink it and meet other TFL members. Ruger cannot go broke fast enough.

February 14, 2002, 12:37 PM
As I posted some time ago on the Ruger Forum: Some times when people get older they say silly things. The problem as I see it is that the Ruger sons did not contradict their father. I buy and use their products and reccommend them to others.

If I remember correctly Ronald Reagan said some silly stuff after leaving office and put up with that Bitch, Sara Brady and her unfortunate husband after he was shot.

And, wasn't it Pres. George Bush who signed the full auto domestic sale ban for new guns in 1988 or there abouts?

Adapt, drive on, and overcome.

February 14, 2002, 12:56 PM
KP95, nope, it was Ronny Raygun that signed the FOPA of `86 (gee, thanks NRA). Black Tuesday is May 19, 1986. No more Form 1s. Georgie Herbert gave us a EO in March 1989 that suddenly decided certain sporting rifles were not sporting afterall.

It was Raygun that gave Kalifornia its first gun control.

Ruger is a nest of traitors. You punish traitors or they will cut you again. We should not forgive Johnny bin Walker, but prosecute him. Further, Ruger must be driven into bankruptcy. I cannot support or recommend a traitor to my liberty.

February 14, 2002, 05:02 PM
I think Bill Ruger was just trying to do some damage control by supporting a 10rd magazine limit so as to avert an even worse 5 round magazine limit.

Futo Inu
February 14, 2002, 05:25 PM
KP, his sons taking over has got nothing to do with whether a boycott should continue, until specific affirmative helpful RKBA action is taken by Ruger the company to disavow the prior acts and undo them. :barf: Who's in charge at Ruger is no more relevant than whether Schultz is in charge at *&*. The only way to "overcome" a continual sellout of rights is to punish the wrongdoers economically; you are doing quite the opposite - rewarding active complicity in the infringement of our rights. It would be much simpler if you and the other folks with their heads in the sand, just admit that you are not principled on this issue, or that you love the guns so much that your personal satisfaction is more important the our long-term rights. Then we could move on to different conversation. But when you pretend that Ruger the company did nothing wrong, you distort the issue unfairly for those who have not yet made up their minds. I say, please admit you are simply unprincipled on the issue of using your money to promote rather than hinder our rights, OR stay silent altogether on the issue, and let those of us who are principled, counsel the noobs. Thank you. My BP should go down in an hour or so....

October 9, 2011, 08:25 PM
IIRC, Ruger wanted the ban to be on 15 rounds to get rid of his competition in the Glock 17, in favor of Ruger's P-85. But he got, us, shafted worse when they dropped it to 10 rounds.

I am not sure if he sold us out for profit, to squash his competition.

Smith and Wesson didn't treat us much better several years after that.

One thing is for certain: Pro-RKBA people never forget, and we vote, at the cash register as well as the ballot box.

Mike Irwin
October 9, 2011, 08:42 PM
For God's sakes, this is a 9 year old thread!

There's NO reason to resurrect this one.