If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Those government agencies that are against citizens owning guns may find themselves not owning guns thanks to those who make owning guns possible   (cnsnews.com) divider line 411
    More: Strange, a hit, manufacturers  
•       •       •

11566 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2013 at 1:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



411 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-10 09:15:44 AM
I hope they all get on the bandwagon with this.
 
2013-03-10 09:17:17 AM
Do they really want to draw attention to themselves, after the NRA has taken the heat for them?
 
2013-03-10 09:33:44 AM
Good.  They know what side their bread is buttered on.  Civilian sales outnumber sales to government agencies by a large margin.  The only thing government contracts are good for is a *GUARANTEED* profit on X number of guns that is lower than what they can sell them for to civilians.

Plus, they seem to have gotten religion after seeing what happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago.  We just need the big boys (Glock, S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc.) to get on board.

The problem is that those with government contracts can't just stop them, they have to obligate them.  I don't expect them to take that kind of a financial hit (loss of profit from the sales *AND* having to defend themselves against a breach of contract suit).  It would be nice to get a statement saying "Unless the laws are changed, we will no longer sell to government agencies that are in restrictive states once our current contracts expire".
 
2013-03-10 09:34:39 AM
sed 's/they have to obligate them/they are obligated to honor them/g'
 
2013-03-10 09:43:08 AM

dittybopper: Good.  They know what side their bread is buttered on.  Civilian sales outnumber sales to government agencies by a large margin.  The only thing government contracts are good for is a *GUARANTEED* profit on X number of guns that is lower than what they can sell them for to civilians.

Plus, they seem to have gotten religion after seeing what happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago.  We just need the big boys (Glock, S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc.) to get on board.

The problem is that those with government contracts can't just stop them, they have to obligate them.  I don't expect them to take that kind of a financial hit (loss of profit from the sales *AND* having to defend themselves against a breach of contract suit).  It would be nice to get a statement saying "Unless the laws are changed, we will no longer sell to government agencies that are in restrictive states once our current contracts expire".


There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.
 
2013-03-10 10:16:01 AM
Probably not the best thread to debut this in, but whatever

There seems to me to be a new kind of hypocrite, the "Just because" kind.

There are many who will say "Just because tyranny could happen if guns are tightly controlled doesn't mean it will happen". Likewise, there are those who hold on to the belief that "just because the government can kill American citizens in warzones without due process does not mean that it will happen on our own soil".

I have noticed that there are many who hold one as true and the other as false. Contradictory indeed.
 
2013-03-10 10:30:31 AM
No government in the history of mankind has been able to make weapons. OMG What will we do!
 
2013-03-10 11:11:06 AM
Keep in mind athat if they don'at sell, someone will. All they'd be doing is costing themselves money. A lot of money.
 
2013-03-10 11:15:23 AM

cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.


Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.
 
2013-03-10 11:17:12 AM
I think it is amusing.  It certainly is not a sustainable protest by any means...but they are getting their point across and making big splashes in the media, and national attention...which is exactly what they want.
 
2013-03-10 11:26:01 AM

serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.


This has nothing to do with principals. They're just whoring themselves out for the free publicity.
 
2013-03-10 11:26:59 AM
Funny how if you actually look at the list of 'Gun Makers' that have decided to stop selling to the government , many of them are just resellers and don't actually make anything. But I guess the gun nuts aren't really interested in anything other than sensational headlines, regardless of the truth.
 
2013-03-10 11:28:50 AM

SilentStrider: Keep in mind athat if they don'at sell, someone will. All they'd be doing is costing themselves money. A lot of money.


Right now, that "someone will" company, if it's American, would be creating negative PR for themselves, and negative press outweighs profits, at least for the short term.

Of course, if the "someone will" company is foreign, then it should make interesting headlines when the DC or Chicago places their first order of weapons from Russia.
 
2013-03-10 11:30:42 AM
i199.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-10 11:32:49 AM

superdolfan1: SilentStrider: Keep in mind athat if they don'at sell, someone will. All they'd be doing is costing themselves money. A lot of money.

Right now, that "someone will" company, if it's American, would be creating negative PR for themselves, and negative press outweighs profits, at least for the short term.

Of course, if the "someone will" company is foreign, then it should make interesting headlines when the DC or Chicago places their first order of weapons from Russia.


The company that makes Glocks is from Austria, so its not like there isn't precedent for a foreign company supplying weapons to US agencies.
 
2013-03-10 11:32:50 AM

dittybopper: Plus, they seem to have gotten religion after seeing what happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago. We just need the big boys (Glock, S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc.) to get on board.


The lists I've seen so far don't include anybody that agency purchasers would notice. The biggest actual move I've seen to date is Magpul threatening to pull out of Colorado if they pass the bills for control currently in the legislature.

Glock, HK, FNH and Colt are the primary supplier of weapons here. Glock sells and markets direct to officers with discounts for LEOs, not to agencies themselves. HK sells mostly to governmental agencies, they don't seem to care at all about the civilian market. FNH wants its product in the armories and is pitching to replace the M9--they won't do anything to jeopardize that. Colt really seems to manufacture almost exclusively for government contracts now.

None of these companies are going to rock the boat. The only way NY-style laws are going to get flushed down the drain will be through new legislation or court challenges. Nobody is going to notice that Cheaper Than Dirt or Olympic arms are boycotting business they don't play in anyhow.
 
2013-03-10 11:45:53 AM

serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.


What is the principle here?
 
2013-03-10 12:00:32 PM

Endive Wombat: I think it is amusing.  It certainly is not a sustainable protest by any means...but they are getting their point across and making big splashes in the media, and national attention...which is exactly what they want.


Hell yeah, I didn't even know this company existed:

Wilson Combat, a custom pistol manufacturer located in Berryville,

Now I want to buy a gun from them.
 
2013-03-10 12:10:26 PM

GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?


Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!
 
2013-03-10 12:30:34 PM

Dinki: GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?

Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!


Yes, like NY's minor AWB and confiscation law....
 
2013-03-10 12:39:42 PM

Fark It: Dinki: GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?

Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!

Yes, like NY's minor AWB and confiscation law....


You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.
 
2013-03-10 12:46:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: Dinki: GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?

Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!

Yes, like NY's minor AWB and confiscation law....

You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.


But they could maybe!  And because there is a non-zero chance they could, it's the same as actually coming for them!

It's NRA logic.
 
2013-03-10 12:52:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.


I live in NY also. Have owned or still own rifles, shotguns and pistols. Not one of them is banned, restricted, or any way mentioned in the latest law. The people panicking over this are the biggest cry babies I've ever seen.
 
2013-03-10 12:59:33 PM

Dinki: cameroncrazy1984: You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.

I live in NY also. Have owned or still own rifles, shotguns and pistols. Not one of them is banned, restricted, or any way mentioned in the latest law. The people panicking over this are the biggest cry babies I've ever seen.


NYC vs all the rest of NY.

I went with a girlfriend to visit her mom in Marcellus, NY and I don't think they barely had a police station.
 
2013-03-10 01:02:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: Dinki: GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?

Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!

Yes, like NY's minor AWB and confiscation law....

You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.


It is illegal to transfer so-called "assault weapons," the definition of which was broadened by instituting a "one-feature test."  When you die, rather than the property you paid for and legally owned going to your heirs, it is seized by the state via the registry that they've also created.  The law also allows police to seize your weapons without a warrant if they have probable cause the person might be mentally unstable or commit a crime.

And we all know we can trust the cops when it comes to probable cause.....
 
2013-03-10 01:25:15 PM

Fark It: cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: Dinki: GAT_00: serpent_sky: cameroncrazy1984: There are literally thousands of gunmakers in the country. All these companies are doing are screwing themselves out of big orders.

Sometimes, principles have to outweigh money. I say good for them.

What is the principle here?

Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!

Yes, like NY's minor AWB and confiscation law....

You do know there's no confiscation, right? I actually own a gun in New York and they haven't come for it yet.

It is illegal to transfer so-called "assault weapons," the definition of which was broadened by instituting a "one-feature test."  When you die, rather than the property you paid for and legally owned going to your heirs, it is seized by the state via the registry that they've also created.  The law also allows police to seize your weapons without a warrant if they have probable cause the person might be mentally unstable or commit a crime.

And we all know we can trust the cops when it comes to probable cause.....


I think you have a rather odd view of what "confiscation" means.

And citation needed on that last bit, this is the first I've heard of it and I live in this state.
 
2013-03-10 01:38:20 PM
Gabby Giffords' Husband, Mark Kelly, Testifies Against AR-15s - Then Goes Out and Buys One

"Only after the purchase was discovered did Mark Kelly post on his Facebook indicating that the AR-15 purchase was an impulse buy, and that he would be turning it over to the Tuscon PD as soon as he got it from the gun store."
 
2013-03-10 01:38:23 PM

GAT_00: What is the principle here?


I presume that is a rhetorical question.
 
2013-03-10 01:38:24 PM
I'll just leave these here
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares wind up plowing for those who kept their swords."
 
2013-03-10 01:39:15 PM

hasty ambush: Gabby Giffords' Husband, Mark Kelly, Testifies Against AR-15s - Then Goes Out and Buys One

"Only after the purchase was discovered did Mark Kelly post on his Facebook indicating that the AR-15 purchase was an impulse buy, and that he would be turning it over to the Tuscon PD as soon as he got it from the gun store."


Why would he need to put it on Facebook before people found out about it?
 
2013-03-10 01:41:00 PM
Fine by me.
 
2013-03-10 01:41:36 PM

Dinki: Funny how if you actually look at the list of 'Gun Makers' that have decided to stop selling to the government , many of them are just resellers and don't actually make anything. But I guess the gun nuts aren't really interested in anything other than sensational headlines, regardless of the truth.


So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

I guess the gunophobes are not interested in anything other then authoritarian movements.
 
2013-03-10 01:42:34 PM

atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?


If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?
 
2013-03-10 01:43:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?


Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"
 
2013-03-10 01:44:21 PM
Funnily enough, New York State has had an assault weapons ban for as long as I can remember and I've owned a firearm since I was 21.
 
2013-03-10 01:44:42 PM

Dinki: Don't you know? Imposing minor restrictions on the sale of certain gun types and magazine sizes is exactly like banning all guns everywhere. It's the end of civilization as we know it!


You have a strange definition of minor restriction.

Trying to ban hundreds of models of firearms that have a single 'evil' feature, with penalties of 5 years in prison for so much as adding a pistol grip to a shotgun is not minor.  Restricting magazines to an arbitrary number with penalties of 5 years in prison for having new ones over that number is also not minor.

You seem to ignore that this is in addition to the numerous other restrictions on firearms.  So yeah, even more people are saying that enough is enough.
 
2013-03-10 01:45:31 PM
Gee, how will the government survive without the services of all these manufacturersassemblers of gun kits.
 
2013-03-10 01:45:35 PM

atomicmask: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"



assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire, utilizing an intermediate-powercartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow onl ysemiautomatic fire.
Come on, I don't think you're that stupid, are you?
 
2013-03-10 01:45:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?


You're right to bear arms has been infringed, yes.

If science fiction books are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to free speech?
 
2013-03-10 01:46:14 PM

pedrop357: Trying to ban hundreds of models of firearms that have a single 'evil' feature, with penalties of 5 years in prison for so much as adding a pistol grip to a shotgun is not minor


But it IS minor. Can you still own a firearm? Yes or no.
 
2013-03-10 01:46:51 PM

atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?


Idiots who think that any of the very modest proposals being debated right now come anywhere close to violating the second amendment are.
 
2013-03-10 01:47:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"


assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire, utilizing an intermediate-powercartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow onl ysemiautomatic fire.
Come on, I don't think you're that stupid, are you?


Ok, now tell me how "looking like a military rifle" makes it any greater a killing machine then a regular rifle without the looks?
 
2013-03-10 01:47:10 PM

cman: "Just because tyranny could happen if guns are tightly controlled doesn't mean it will happen".


The problem with this statement is that private gun ownership (or not) means nothing when it comes to tyranny. Those are unrelated topics. Private weaponry won't stop a tyrant. Not in the US.

/When will the gun-nuts who claim Obama is the second coming of Hitler rise against him?
 
2013-03-10 01:47:26 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

You're right to bear arms has been infringed, yes.

If science fiction books are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to free speech?


You don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Do you not have a right to free speech?

Oops, looks like your analogy is already put into practice! Forgot about that, didn't you!
 
2013-03-10 01:47:33 PM

atomicmask: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"


Funny thing about legal terms is that the people who can write the laws get to decided what they mean.
 
2013-03-10 01:48:26 PM

atomicmask: Ok, now tell me how "looking like a military rifle" makes it any greater a killing machine then a regular rifle without the looks?


Please explain to me why no army in the world uses a "regular rifle"?
 
2013-03-10 01:48:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?


IMO the debate about "assault rifles" (whatever they are) is a red herring.
 
2013-03-10 01:48:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Trying to ban hundreds of models of firearms that have a single 'evil' feature, with penalties of 5 years in prison for so much as adding a pistol grip to a shotgun is not minor

But it IS minor. Can you still own a firearm? Yes or no.


Bullshiat reasoning is bullshiat.

Are you implying that a restriction is minor so long as you can own 'a' firearm?
 
2013-03-10 01:49:02 PM

cptjeff: atomicmask: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"

Funny thing about legal terms is that the people who can write the laws get to decided what they mean.


Wrong. The judicial branch doesn't write the laws.
 
2013-03-10 01:49:03 PM

cptjeff: atomicmask: cameroncrazy1984: atomicmask: So anyone interested in keeping a constitutional right is a nut?

If assault rifles are banned, do you suddenly not have a right to bear arms?

Define assault rifle and we can discuss this further. As it stands, assault rifle is "any gun with tactical looks that a cop or military person my hold at some point"

Funny thing about legal terms is that the people who can write the laws get to decided decide what they mean.



atomicmask: Ok, now tell me how "looking like a military rifle" makes it any greater a killing machine then a regular rifle without the looks?


If it's a completely unimportant distinction that doesn't affect anything, why do you care if they're banned? Why not buy one of these other weapons that are, according to you, exactly the same?
 
Displayed 50 of 411 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report