Gun Industry Backs Some Clinton Proposals

rod · May 8, 1999, 02:26 PM

Check out:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gunfight/gunfight.htm"> Washington Post Story On Gun Industry Support </a>.

=rod=

Gwinnydapooh · May 8, 1999, 03:44 PM

Oh goody, compromise. I've said all along that if we would just let the anti-gunners have a few small sensible concessions, they'd leave our rights intact and leave us alone, just like after GCA 68 and the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban and the bans on high caps and the . . . . HEY, WAIT A MINUTE!!

James K · May 8, 1999, 04:17 PM

The Washington Post never tells the whole story and their lies about guns are near legendary, but it sounds to me like they are supporting proposals to do what existing law already does.

The gun industry wants support from gun owners (represented by the NRA) when they are in trouble, but their bottom line is their bottom line. Basically, most gun companies today are owned by conglomerates who don't care a rat's hind end about principle or rights. If they can continue to make money selling guns they will do it; if guns are banned, they will sell screendoors for submarines, or whatever else makes money.

That is why we gun owners can't depend on gu gun industry support for our rights.

Jim

JHS · May 8, 1999, 05:10 PM

Has anyone enlighten Ricker& Delfay?
No one can make a deal with the Devil.He will just take more and more.

------------------
Keep the Faith and the Constitution

Mikey · May 8, 1999, 06:16 PM

In case you missed it, our impotent leadership in the NRA is backing the same crap. We have been offered up by our own organization for the "kinder and gentler" public image it will generate.

Get ready for:

1) No guns 'till you're 21.

2) Only one a month.

3) No more ANYTHING that even resembles an "assault" weapon - definitions will follow - and all currently owned examples to be turned in.

4) Probably a 6 round magazine limit with no grandfathering.

5) NICS check on all sales, dealer or private.

6) Permanent records retention on all sales - they'll wait till later to have all owners "declare" their arsenals.

and more and more etc....

I don't know what kind of pictures Clinton has on LaPierre, Heston and the gun industry but he's damn sure getting his way!

Mikey

jimmy · May 10, 1999, 12:04 PM

I thought that in a compromise everybody gave and received about equally. This doesn't seem true with "compromises" involving guns. For anti-gunners, compromise means getting some of what they want now and getting the rest later. For pro-gunners, compromise means losing some of what we have now and losing the rest later. Or so it seems to me.

Paul B. · May 10, 1999, 02:11 PM

Well, I still experience great difficulty getting into TFL, but somehow I made it today. Some of you have read my posts, and have seen my motto when I sign off. "COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!"
I think all who read this who are NRA members should immediately write "Moses" Heston, and "Jack-booted back down wimp La Pierre, and let them know we will accept NO COMPROMISE, Period! I have already done so.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

Rob Pincus · May 10, 1999, 02:19 PM

The number to the NSSF (Bob Delfay) is inthe book, under National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newton, Connecticut.

Remember that NSSF represents Businesses in the shooting industry, not indivdual shooters.

Jim, IME, your view of "most" gun companies is 100% wrong.

John/az2 · May 10, 1999, 06:09 PM

Rob,

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey, but have you read the letter from Ruger? They are accepting many of the "compromises" that HCI and their ilk are pushing.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/misc/rdbk.html

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com

Ed Brunner · May 10, 1999, 07:45 PM

I know that I am old and slow but I didnt see anything in Ruger's letter to fear. Essentially all it does is tadvocate enforcement of the laws we already have.
My own is that I want to see the Second Amendment enforced.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

Rob Pincus · May 10, 1999, 10:14 PM

My interpretation agrees with Ed's. They are making the same point that their VP made on 60 minutes a few months back when the lawsuit issue was hot.

The gun industry and individual FFLs should not have to be an auxillary to the ATF.. If the ATF did their jobs and enforced the laws we already have, there would be no problem.

I am not saying I like the laws we have, I am just saying that if we have them, they should be enforce before trying to add new ones.

Jeff Thomas · May 11, 1999, 01:26 AM

Does anyone else think the air is getting a bit foul on one of these 'compromises' in particular? Specifically, the compromise of requiring private sales to go through the same paperwork as sales of new firearms? If you're a gun manufacturer, aren't you happy as can be to go along with discouraging private sales of used guns?

John/az2 · May 11, 1999, 02:03 AM

It's still compromise. And it isn't good. Winchester took a much stronger stand.

Yes, enforce those already on the books and then work to repeal the redundant and crippling ones.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited May 11, 1999).]

Ipecac · May 11, 1999, 03:17 AM

I guess my libertarian ideals are more sensitive than Ed's and Rob's because I saw much to fear. "Instantaneous, point-of-sale background checks. In the computer age, there is no reason why a person's criminal and mental health record cannot be electronically checked at the point of sale." Innocent until proven guilty of a crime, guys, not guilty until proven innocent enough to own a gun. And my medical records, all of them, are my business, not the state's.

Also, Ruger's stance on firearm storage is wrong-headed; it merely fuels the anti's fire to enact legislation which would jail innocent people whose firearms have been stolen. If a thief can break into your house, they can break your triggerlock. Not to mention that your defense weapon is next to useless if it is locked up. If you have small children or careless adults in your house, by all means use whatever is necessary to keep firearms out of their hands. I have neither children nor careless untrained adults in my home, and I will not have yet another legal burnden dumped on me. If someone steals my guns and then misuses them it is because they broke the law, not I.

"Increased scrutiny of retail firearms sales" I buy most of my firearms through a friend with an ffl, who obviously will not be allowed to purchase Rugers as he is not an authorized dealer. He only sells to friends, operating out of his home, the way thousands of dealers used to before the Clinton administration. Now, if you can think of a dealer who stands a smaller chance of selling to a criminal or psychotic I'd be interested in learning of his existence. But, Ruger in its letter says he (and by extension, me) is not good enough for them to be considered ethical.

Any infringement is unacceptable.

I'm done buying Rugers, that's for sure.

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 11, 1999).]

Ed Brunner · May 11, 1999, 08:10 AM

Does a criminally insane person have the right to buy a gun? What do you think? How does the dealer know?
An instant check? Or what?
How about a felon?
How about a communist or a vegetarian?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

Spectre · May 11, 1999, 10:58 AM

Ed,

People are-or, at least, should be judged by their actions. Criminally insane folks should not be running around the street, if they are demonstrably criminally insane. Don't you agree?

Too many felons get off easily. Encourage lawful utilization of our firearms freedoms, and you will see less violent felons alive. Get rid of laws outlawing "victimless" crime, and you will find fewer legitimate felons. I'm not really concerned if the guy who had a few oz of weed has a gun; I'm concerned if the guy who wants to steal my money has one. I hope I'm being clear, here. America needs to decriminalize a lot of behaviors. Then, it needs to enforce the laws already on the books for violent, dangerous felons. This approach- getting rid of the useless laws, enforcing the good laws that are trivialized in the heap of so many- and encouraging lawful gun ownership and usage- will dramatically reduce the problems of individual accountability and crime in America in general. If you disagree, feel free to propose a better solution.

Rob Pincus · May 11, 1999, 10:59 AM

Oh, no, not the vegetarian thread again.....

.

While I am not excited about losing the right to private sales, it is coming. Think about it though, I can't privately sell a car either. At laest, if I do, I have to put it in a garage and not use it, becuase I have to register the car and get a title before I can get plates and drive it around. It is not "fair" or "right," but it is reality.

Personally, I think buying guns from friends and trading with them is great, but I am hard pressed to stroll into a gun show and buy a gun privately anymore... especially an gun I would consider a "Bargain.".. No one is going to like me saying it, but:
Haven't any of you ever walked out of a gunshow ith your knew revolver that you bought for $50 less than it eve should've been offered and then wondered in the back of your mind why it was being sold so cheaply?? I know I have.
What is the point of a private sale, if you just need to take the gun to your FFL buddy to make sure it is not stolen anyway??

Shotgun · May 11, 1999, 12:13 PM

Mikey, the craven performance of the NRA lately, is why I urge all to join the GOA, and the JFPO. They are much more effective and hardnosed in batteling bad legisation against gun owners.
GOA (Gun Owners of America)
JFPO (jews for the preservation of firearms ownership)

Paul B. · May 11, 1999, 12:22 PM

When people do not learn from history, then they are doomed to repeat it.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, a large amount of the lobbying money to get it passed came from the gun industry itself. They wanted to ban the mail order guns that were making serious inroads on their profits.
Check it out, it's a matter of record.

Now they want to do the same thing on private sales. Why? Do they think they will sell more guns?
While I would like to buy more firearms for my small collection, I not only don't have to, but will refuse to under the background check B.S. they propose. I consider it an invasion of my privacy.
It is my firm belief that it is none of the governments business what I own!!!!
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

jimmy · May 11, 1999, 12:38 PM

To me, it seems foolish for firearms manufacturers to ally themselves with Clinton in any part, because:

(1) If manufacturers participate in Clinton's proposals, are they not admitting that gun makers really can do something about the illegal abuse of their products? I wonder if Clinton is consulting gun makers at all merely as a backdoor way of undermining their defense against municipal lawsuits.

(2) Anti-gun zealots, Clinton included, are as insatiable as greedy children. They will not stop until they get everything they want--concessions and "compromises" notwithstanding. Appeasement will be no more effective against the anti-gunners of today than it was when Neville Chamberlain tried it against Hitler in 1938.

BTW, maybe the manufacturers have done a marketing survey to the contrary, but it seems to me that gun makers and gun owners are interdependent. Despite all the hype and hysteria of the moment, I hope the manufacturers realize that antagonizing their community of customers is not a good way to do business.

Just my $0.02.

DC · May 11, 1999, 01:00 PM

Jimmy....atta boy!!

Check this from Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1999 HR 1342, SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON MANUFACTURE OR IMPORTATION OF
UNSAFE HANDGUNS.:

(4) This subsection shall not be construed to preempt or limit in any way any
causes of action available under Federal law or the law of any State against a
manufacturer of a firearm.'

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

[This message has been edited by DC (edited May 11, 1999).]

jimmy · May 12, 1999, 11:16 AM

Thanks, DC. The proposed law sounds to me like a license to hunt gunmakers. Reading between the lines I see the word "agenda" repeating over and over.

I saw in the newspaper last night that S&W, Glock, and Mossberg attended Clinton's "leadership conference" on youth violence. IMHO they walked into an ambush. Supposedly the conference was "fair" and without finger-pointing. However, one of the other conferees, Steve Case of AOL, said "Everybody recognizes that they [the gunmakers] are part of the problem, they need to be part of the solution." Case has a warped concept of fairness, since he makes the vicious assumption that gunmakers are responsible for gun abuse. It sounds to me like Clinton stacked the deck dealt at this conference--hardly a surprise, considering the way he operates. However, I have to question whether S&W, Glock, and Mossberg are as concerned as we are about the constitutional protection of their products.

BTW, no AOL for me, thanks to Steve Case's slimy comment.

Another $0.02.

John/az2 · May 12, 1999, 11:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Steve Case of AOL, said "Everybody recognizes that they [the gunmakers] are part of the problem, they need to be part of the solution." [/quote]

I guess we could say the same to him concerning pornography on the net.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com

Ipecac · May 13, 1999, 06:14 PM

Looks like I have to add S&W to my don't-buy list now; I'd have never purchased a Glock or Mossberg anyway.

Let us never confuse rights and privileges. Owning and ooperating a motor vehicle is a privilege, owning and operating a firearm is a right.

Jimmy, you are exactly correct. We all need to boycott those businesses which spend their money to destroy something we all belive in passionately. I don't even buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream, for cripe's sake, because they give money to HCI. If even a small percentage of gun owners would boycott and tell the companies why, we would see some changes made. It's simple economics. Unfortunately, many of us will sigh, mouth hollow platitudes about "political realities" and continue to be herded along the path to serfdom, at best draggin our feet.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>While I would like to buy more firearms for my small collection, I not only don't have to,but will refuse to under the background check B.S. they propose. I consider it an invasion of my privacy. It is my firm belief that it is none of the governments business what I own!!! Paul B. [/quote]

Go Paul!!

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 13, 1999).]

May 8, 1999, 02:26 PM	#1
rod Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 1998 Location: AZ Posts: 101	Check out: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gunfight/gunfight.htm"> Washington Post Story On Gun Industry Support </a>. =rod=

May 8, 1999, 03:44 PM	#2
Gwinnydapooh Retired Screen Name Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 978	Oh goody, compromise. I've said all along that if we would just let the anti-gunners have a few small sensible concessions, they'd leave our rights intact and leave us alone, just like after GCA 68 and the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban and the bans on high caps and the . . . . HEY, WAIT A MINUTE!!

May 8, 1999, 04:17 PM	#3
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The Washington Post never tells the whole story and their lies about guns are near legendary, but it sounds to me like they are supporting proposals to do what existing law already does. The gun industry wants support from gun owners (represented by the NRA) when they are in trouble, but their bottom line is their bottom line. Basically, most gun companies today are owned by conglomerates who don't care a rat's hind end about principle or rights. If they can continue to make money selling guns they will do it; if guns are banned, they will sell screendoors for submarines, or whatever else makes money. That is why we gun owners can't depend on gu gun industry support for our rights. Jim

May 8, 1999, 05:10 PM	#4
JHS Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 1998 Location: Goodwell,Ok. Posts: 505	Has anyone enlighten Ricker& Delfay? No one can make a deal with the Devil.He will just take more and more. ------------------ Keep the Faith and the Constitution

May 8, 1999, 06:16 PM	#5
Mikey Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 1998 Location: Tennessee Posts: 885	In case you missed it, our impotent leadership in the NRA is backing the same crap. We have been offered up by our own organization for the "kinder and gentler" public image it will generate. Get ready for: 1) No guns 'till you're 21. 2) Only one a month. 3) No more ANYTHING that even resembles an "assault" weapon - definitions will follow - and all currently owned examples to be turned in. 4) Probably a 6 round magazine limit with no grandfathering. 5) NICS check on all sales, dealer or private. 6) Permanent records retention on all sales - they'll wait till later to have all owners "declare" their arsenals. and more and more etc.... I don't know what kind of pictures Clinton has on LaPierre, Heston and the gun industry but he's damn sure getting his way! Mikey

May 10, 1999, 12:04 PM	#6
jimmy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 1999 Location: Texas Posts: 1,796	I thought that in a compromise everybody gave and received about equally. This doesn't seem true with "compromises" involving guns. For anti-gunners, compromise means getting some of what they want now and getting the rest later. For pro-gunners, compromise means losing some of what we have now and losing the rest later. Or so it seems to me.

May 10, 1999, 02:11 PM	#7
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,936	Well, I still experience great difficulty getting into TFL, but somehow I made it today. Some of you have read my posts, and have seen my motto when I sign off. "COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!" I think all who read this who are NRA members should immediately write "Moses" Heston, and "Jack-booted back down wimp La Pierre, and let them know we will accept NO COMPROMISE, Period! I have already done so. Paul B. COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

May 10, 1999, 02:19 PM	#8
Rob Pincus Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Hotels Posts: 3,668	The number to the NSSF (Bob Delfay) is inthe book, under National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newton, Connecticut. Remember that NSSF represents Businesses in the shooting industry, not indivdual shooters. Jim, IME, your view of "most" gun companies is 100% wrong.

May 10, 1999, 06:09 PM	#9
John/az2 Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 1999 Location: Arizona Posts: 2,729	Rob, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey, but have you read the letter from Ruger? They are accepting many of the "compromises" that HCI and their ilk are pushing. http://www.ruger-firearms.com/misc/rdbk.html ------------------ John/az "Just because something is popular, does not make it right." www.countdown9199.com

May 10, 1999, 07:45 PM	#10
Ed Brunner Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Natchez, MS, USA Posts: 2,562	I know that I am old and slow but I didnt see anything in Ruger's letter to fear. Essentially all it does is tadvocate enforcement of the laws we already have. My own is that I want to see the Second Amendment enforced. ------------------ Better days to be, Ed

May 10, 1999, 10:14 PM	#11
Rob Pincus Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Hotels Posts: 3,668	My interpretation agrees with Ed's. They are making the same point that their VP made on 60 minutes a few months back when the lawsuit issue was hot. The gun industry and individual FFLs should not have to be an auxillary to the ATF.. If the ATF did their jobs and enforced the laws we already have, there would be no problem. I am not saying I like the laws we have, I am just saying that if we have them, they should be enforce before trying to add new ones.

May 11, 1999, 01:26 AM	#12
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Does anyone else think the air is getting a bit foul on one of these 'compromises' in particular? Specifically, the compromise of requiring private sales to go through the same paperwork as sales of new firearms? If you're a gun manufacturer, aren't you happy as can be to go along with discouraging private sales of used guns?

May 11, 1999, 02:03 AM	#13
John/az2 Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 1999 Location: Arizona Posts: 2,729	It's still compromise. And it isn't good. Winchester took a much stronger stand. Yes, enforce those already on the books and then work to repeal the redundant and crippling ones. ------------------ John/az "Just because something is popular, does not make it right." www.countdown9199.com [This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited May 11, 1999).]

May 11, 1999, 03:17 AM	#14
Ipecac Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 440	I guess my libertarian ideals are more sensitive than Ed's and Rob's because I saw much to fear. "Instantaneous, point-of-sale background checks. In the computer age, there is no reason why a person's criminal and mental health record cannot be electronically checked at the point of sale." Innocent until proven guilty of a crime, guys, not guilty until proven innocent enough to own a gun. And my medical records, all of them, are my business, not the state's. Also, Ruger's stance on firearm storage is wrong-headed; it merely fuels the anti's fire to enact legislation which would jail innocent people whose firearms have been stolen. If a thief can break into your house, they can break your triggerlock. Not to mention that your defense weapon is next to useless if it is locked up. If you have small children or careless adults in your house, by all means use whatever is necessary to keep firearms out of their hands. I have neither children nor careless untrained adults in my home, and I will not have yet another legal burnden dumped on me. If someone steals my guns and then misuses them it is because they broke the law, not I. "Increased scrutiny of retail firearms sales" I buy most of my firearms through a friend with an ffl, who obviously will not be allowed to purchase Rugers as he is not an authorized dealer. He only sells to friends, operating out of his home, the way thousands of dealers used to before the Clinton administration. Now, if you can think of a dealer who stands a smaller chance of selling to a criminal or psychotic I'd be interested in learning of his existence. But, Ruger in its letter says he (and by extension, me) is not good enough for them to be considered ethical. Any infringement is unacceptable. I'm done buying Rugers, that's for sure. ------------------ "The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken [This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 11, 1999).]

May 11, 1999, 08:10 AM	#15
Ed Brunner Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Natchez, MS, USA Posts: 2,562	Does a criminally insane person have the right to buy a gun? What do you think? How does the dealer know? An instant check? Or what? How about a felon? How about a communist or a vegetarian? ------------------ Better days to be, Ed

May 11, 1999, 10:58 AM	#16
Spectre Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 23, 1998 Location: ATL Posts: 3,277	Ed, People are-or, at least, should be judged by their actions. Criminally insane folks should not be running around the street, if they are demonstrably criminally insane. Don't you agree? Too many felons get off easily. Encourage lawful utilization of our firearms freedoms, and you will see less violent felons alive. Get rid of laws outlawing "victimless" crime, and you will find fewer legitimate felons. I'm not really concerned if the guy who had a few oz of weed has a gun; I'm concerned if the guy who wants to steal my money has one. I hope I'm being clear, here. America needs to decriminalize a lot of behaviors. Then, it needs to enforce the laws already on the books for violent, dangerous felons. This approach- getting rid of the useless laws, enforcing the good laws that are trivialized in the heap of so many- and encouraging lawful gun ownership and usage- will dramatically reduce the problems of individual accountability and crime in America in general. If you disagree, feel free to propose a better solution.

May 11, 1999, 10:59 AM	#17
Rob Pincus Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Hotels Posts: 3,668	Oh, no, not the vegetarian thread again..... . While I am not excited about losing the right to private sales, it is coming. Think about it though, I can't privately sell a car either. At laest, if I do, I have to put it in a garage and not use it, becuase I have to register the car and get a title before I can get plates and drive it around. It is not "fair" or "right," but it is reality. Personally, I think buying guns from friends and trading with them is great, but I am hard pressed to stroll into a gun show and buy a gun privately anymore... especially an gun I would consider a "Bargain.".. No one is going to like me saying it, but: Haven't any of you ever walked out of a gunshow ith your knew revolver that you bought for $50 less than it eve should've been offered and then wondered in the back of your mind why it was being sold so cheaply?? I know I have. What is the point of a private sale, if you just need to take the gun to your FFL buddy to make sure it is not stolen anyway??

May 11, 1999, 12:13 PM	#18
Shotgun Senior Member Join Date: May 11, 1999 Location: Central Texas Posts: 202	Mikey, the craven performance of the NRA lately, is why I urge all to join the GOA, and the JFPO. They are much more effective and hardnosed in batteling bad legisation against gun owners. GOA (Gun Owners of America) JFPO (jews for the preservation of firearms ownership)

May 11, 1999, 12:22 PM	#19
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,936	When people do not learn from history, then they are doomed to repeat it. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, a large amount of the lobbying money to get it passed came from the gun industry itself. They wanted to ban the mail order guns that were making serious inroads on their profits. Check it out, it's a matter of record. Now they want to do the same thing on private sales. Why? Do they think they will sell more guns? While I would like to buy more firearms for my small collection, I not only don't have to, but will refuse to under the background check B.S. they propose. I consider it an invasion of my privacy. It is my firm belief that it is none of the governments business what I own!!!! Paul B. COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

May 11, 1999, 12:38 PM	#20
jimmy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 1999 Location: Texas Posts: 1,796	To me, it seems foolish for firearms manufacturers to ally themselves with Clinton in any part, because: (1) If manufacturers participate in Clinton's proposals, are they not admitting that gun makers really can do something about the illegal abuse of their products? I wonder if Clinton is consulting gun makers at all merely as a backdoor way of undermining their defense against municipal lawsuits. (2) Anti-gun zealots, Clinton included, are as insatiable as greedy children. They will not stop until they get everything they want--concessions and "compromises" notwithstanding. Appeasement will be no more effective against the anti-gunners of today than it was when Neville Chamberlain tried it against Hitler in 1938. BTW, maybe the manufacturers have done a marketing survey to the contrary, but it seems to me that gun makers and gun owners are interdependent. Despite all the hype and hysteria of the moment, I hope the manufacturers realize that antagonizing their community of customers is not a good way to do business. Just my $0.02.

May 11, 1999, 01:00 PM	#21
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: October 1, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,229	Jimmy....atta boy!! Check this from Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1999 HR 1342, SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON MANUFACTURE OR IMPORTATION OF UNSAFE HANDGUNS.: (4) This subsection shall not be construed to preempt or limit in any way any causes of action available under Federal law or the law of any State against a manufacturer of a firearm.' ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" [This message has been edited by DC (edited May 11, 1999).]

May 12, 1999, 11:16 AM	#22
jimmy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 1999 Location: Texas Posts: 1,796	Thanks, DC. The proposed law sounds to me like a license to hunt gunmakers. Reading between the lines I see the word "agenda" repeating over and over. I saw in the newspaper last night that S&W, Glock, and Mossberg attended Clinton's "leadership conference" on youth violence. IMHO they walked into an ambush. Supposedly the conference was "fair" and without finger-pointing. However, one of the other conferees, Steve Case of AOL, said "Everybody recognizes that they [the gunmakers] are part of the problem, they need to be part of the solution." Case has a warped concept of fairness, since he makes the vicious assumption that gunmakers are responsible for gun abuse. It sounds to me like Clinton stacked the deck dealt at this conference--hardly a surprise, considering the way he operates. However, I have to question whether S&W, Glock, and Mossberg are as concerned as we are about the constitutional protection of their products. BTW, no AOL for me, thanks to Steve Case's slimy comment. Another $0.02.

May 12, 1999, 11:47 AM	#23
John/az2 Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 1999 Location: Arizona Posts: 2,729	<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Steve Case of AOL, said "Everybody recognizes that they [the gunmakers] are part of the problem, they need to be part of the solution." [/quote] I guess we could say the same to him concerning pornography on the net. ------------------ John/az "Just because something is popular, does not make it right." www.countdown9199.com

May 13, 1999, 06:14 PM	#24
Ipecac Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 440	Looks like I have to add S&W to my don't-buy list now; I'd have never purchased a Glock or Mossberg anyway. Let us never confuse rights and privileges. Owning and ooperating a motor vehicle is a privilege, owning and operating a firearm is a right. Jimmy, you are exactly correct. We all need to boycott those businesses which spend their money to destroy something we all belive in passionately. I don't even buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream, for cripe's sake, because they give money to HCI. If even a small percentage of gun owners would boycott and tell the companies why, we would see some changes made. It's simple economics. Unfortunately, many of us will sigh, mouth hollow platitudes about "political realities" and continue to be herded along the path to serfdom, at best draggin our feet. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>While I would like to buy more firearms for my small collection, I not only don't have to,but will refuse to under the background check B.S. they propose. I consider it an invasion of my privacy. It is my firm belief that it is none of the governments business what I own!!! Paul B. [/quote] Go Paul!! ------------------ "The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken [This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 13, 1999).]