User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:56:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you were given the option to buy two of the same gun at roughly the same price point, would you buy the brand you know or the one you don't. Yes marketing and brand recognition come into play a lot. Ever worked or dealt with anything related to sales or marketing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep hearing that on this forum, that the LC9 is a "ripoff". If it's a ripoff then it must be a better one than the original it's ripping off. Didn't the LC9 win some awards? Plus it was selling like crazy a year ago. Of course it sells, it says ruger and they market it well My point is if it's a knockoff why isn't the original it's ripping off getting any attention? Ruger has better marketing? That's the only reason? I get it. So the only reason the LC9 sells so well is brand recognition and marketing. It's a piece of shit ripoff but it has a brand name that's recognizable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:56:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ruger received criticism from gun owners for suggesting that rather than ban guns, that Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.  On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
"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[9] Within the context that guns themselves were on the table for a ban... Banning capacity exclusively was the better of two evils. Keep in mind... Democrats were the majority. Democrats had control. Clinton's gun ban is similar to Obama's health care law. The context of the time was that majority-Democrats were going to do *something* to ban guns at the national level. And Rugers, "ban just magazines" pales in comparison to Obama, "Comprehensive restrictions to gun rights. Ruger (and every other manufacturer) thought Clinton, Reno, and majority Democrats were going to ban everything. Everything. Do I agree with Ruger. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But looking back at the context, I can see he (and SW, and Winchester, etc etc) was between a rock and a hard place... Rugers comments cannot compete with Clinton, and Reno, and Obama... Ruger was a Fudd. Plain and simple. He was a Fudd who honestly screwed up. But why didnt Ruger do the same while Reagan was in office. Or Bush sr?! They could have did a ban similar to Clinton!?!?! Ruger thought Clinton and Reno and majority Dems were going to destroy all gun rights and all gun companies. He honestly did... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:57:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still make subpar budget guns Like I said before, that is simply ignorant bullshit. You are not a fan, fine. But almost everything you say is completely false intrewebs bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:57:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My apologies sir, troll on  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By bad effect Like I said earlier, put down the bottle and go to bed. You made the accusations, you need to back them up with facts, not assumptions. Aren't you the guy who posted some deeply disturbing crap and later said it was from taking Ambien? If not I'll apologize in advance. If so take your stupid ass to bed. My apologies sir, troll on |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:58:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get it. So the only reason the LC9 sells so well is brand recognition and marketing. It's a piece of shit ripoff but it has a brand name that's recognizable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I keep hearing that on this forum, that the LC9 is a "ripoff". If it's a ripoff then it must be a better one than the original it's ripping off. Didn't the LC9 win some awards? Plus it was selling like crazy a year ago. Of course it sells, it says ruger and they market it well My point is if it's a knockoff why isn't the original it's ripping off getting any attention? Ruger has better marketing? That's the only reason? I get it. So the only reason the LC9 sells so well is brand recognition and marketing. It's a piece of shit ripoff but it has a brand name that's recognizable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:00:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like I said before, that is simply ignorant bullshit. You are not a fan, fine. But almost everything you say is completely false intrewebs bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They still make subpar budget guns Like I said before, that is simply ignorant bullshit. You are not a fan, fine. But almost everything you say is completely false intrewebs bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:06:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: A company.....scratch that...multiple companies as you claim.......designs and patents were ripped off by Ruger and they did absolutely nothing about it?????? You provide the fucking facts as you made the claims. The only speculation there has been around here is your opinion. Keep trolling though.Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By bad effect Like I said earlier, put down the bottle and go to bed. You made the accusations, you need to back them up with facts, not assumptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:06:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they're not. Not even close. Not even in the same solar system. You tried to excuse the democrat party by claiming you only heard Bush Sr speaking, did you fall into a coma when Clinton was running around the nation demanding his gun ban? (or Obama) Are you going to sit there and make the ludicrous claim that Bill Ruger was doing the same thing? Ruger made a couple of dumb statements, condemn him for all I care, but this retardation of blaming him for the 94 ban? Pure silliness. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ Getting a little off track here, but liberal dem's acting like liberal dem's isn't worth discussing to me. They are clear enemies of the 2A; I assume that's understood and not worth re-stating. I will fully acknowledge that I have problem with a lot of republicans (Lindsey Graham, Peter King, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, many others). You guys seem to rationalize and accept when R's act like progressives. The quotes from Bill Ruger are as far left as anything I've read from BHO or either Clinton. You choose to rationalize Ruger's words. That's fine; you choose to accept liberal behavior when it's slightly less liberal than the alternative, I do not. Just different levels of BS we are willing to accept I guess. No, they're not. Not even close. Not even in the same solar system. You tried to excuse the democrat party by claiming you only heard Bush Sr speaking, did you fall into a coma when Clinton was running around the nation demanding his gun ban? (or Obama) Are you going to sit there and make the ludicrous claim that Bill Ruger was doing the same thing? Ruger made a couple of dumb statements, condemn him for all I care, but this retardation of blaming him for the 94 ban? Pure silliness. I know it's late, but I'm starting to question your ability to comprehend what I've written. I said that as a child, Bush Sr. was the first politician who I remember advocating magazine restrictions. I acknowledge that just because something occurred prior to my birth, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That said, even as a child, I expected (but not excused, expected and excused mean two different things) that type of behavior from liberal democrats because I knew they despised the 2A. I was genuinely surprised as a kid to see Bush Sr. enact an import ban and support a magazine restriction. My parents and other adults in my life told me that Republicans are strong supporters of the 2A. As a kid who couldn't wait until I was old enough to own some of the rifles in question, I felt puzzled and betrayed by Bush Sr's actions and statements. I see this sense of betrayal I felt as a child offends the establishment, big-gov't Republican within you. Clinton signed a ban that restricted magazine capacity and outlawed certain features. Bill Ruger said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and that he never intended civilians to own rifles with folding stocks. I know in your mind this "isn't even in the same solar system", but to me, the two Bill's had pretty similar perspectives. Edit to address the question in red: Yes (as posted by me and several others) Ruger received criticism from gun owners for suggesting that rather than ban guns, that Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds. On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating: "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[9] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:07:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryYes. Go sell guns for a couple months. Marketing is 99% of the work. Ever wonder why so many people bought the Taurus Judge? Oh I'm not arguing with you. I understand the power of marketing and how it's essential to selling a product. When I started this thread I wanted to hear everything about Ruger, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I admit I am a Ruger "fanboy" and am proof of what you're saying. Just never got the hatred for them I hear here and elsewhere. And I don't think the LC9 is a bad gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:08:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still make subpar budget guns Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be clear, I've never gotten a Ruger that didn't function. Some may have sketchy triggers, or some may have more over travel than I'd like, but absolutely nothing has been defective. Yep, I know it's not tier one. I'm not tier one. I'm a computer systems admin. I can respect a person that actually shoots. At least you don’t talk smack about things you know nothing about. My experiences mirror yours. 
You sure as fuck don’t know what you are talking about. You hate Bill Ruger. Okay, I get that. Dude is dead. I still haven't even heard an argument as to why their guns are subpar. You listed a few in a previous post, but the company has several lines of guns, and the majority of the most popular have not been discussed as to why they are subpar (which is a highly subjective term in this context). Any data about the Redhawk timing issues? Or is this just your observation of a few dozen Redhawks while working a gun counter? Is that really a fair sample size? I'm going to assume that they have sold well over a million Redhawks. I happen to have seen several Kimber and Sig 1911's that suck. Does that mean that Kimber and Sig 1911's suck? I won't be buying them, but I do realize that it is chance. They make millions of guns and have tons of happy customers. Alleged intellectual theft aside, what is functionally wrong with the SR556? The 1911? The LCR? Blackhawk? GP Revolvers? I own some of these, and am considering purchasing more. So this isn't some internet fanboy debate for me. Honest and accurate feedback from someone who worked a gun counter would be valuable to me. Mechanical evaluations based in fact are useful. Biased judgements due to current political opinions based off of history are of no interest to me. I agree that the SP101 seems to be quality. I've always wanted one. I've always wanted Colt and Smith revolvers, but they are really fucking proud of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:09:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A company.....scratch that...multiple companies as you claim.......designs and patents were ripped off by Ruger and they did absolutely nothing about it?????? You provide the fucking facts as you made the claims. The only speculation there has been around here is your opinion. Keep trolling though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you like me to bring you the guns to disassemble? I can hold your hand and walk you through the steps if need be. Some of those pins and such can be mighty tricky Quoted: A company.....scratch that...multiple companies as you claim.......designs and patents were ripped off by Ruger and they did absolutely nothing about it?????? You provide the fucking facts as you made the claims. The only speculation there has been around here is your opinion. Keep trolling though.Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By bad effect Like I said earlier, put down the bottle and go to bed. You made the accusations, you need to back them up with facts, not assumptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:11:17 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like to hit what I'm aiming at? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Badeffect, a hi point goes bang every time. This does not equate to quality What more does it need? That is the #1 thing I want in my guns, they go bang every time. Going bang every time does not equate to quality. What. The. Fuck. Hi-Point rear sights are adjustable for windage and elevation. If the gun has a defect, it will be repaired for free, and they send a new mag back with it. When I became a police officer in 1980, I made 250.00 a week before taxes. I had to supply my own duty gun, so I bought a security six. It was heavy, but extremely accurate, and stone reliable. I later got a model 19, and had timing problems after 5k rounds. I doubled that in the Ruger, and never had an issue. Wish I had never sold it. My first pistol was a P95. Still have it, and it has never missed a beat. Mec Gar 17 round mags work great. I am a gun whore, and the ones that seem to stay around are Rugers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:12:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh I'm not arguing with you. I understand the power of marketing and how it's essential to selling a product. When I started this thread I wanted to hear everything about Ruger, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I admit I am a Ruger "fanboy" and am proof of what you're saying. Just never got the hatred for them I hear here and elsewhere. And I don't think the LC9 is a bad gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. Go sell guns for a couple months. Marketing is 99% of the work. Ever wonder why so many people bought the Taurus Judge? Oh I'm not arguing with you. I understand the power of marketing and how it's essential to selling a product. When I started this thread I wanted to hear everything about Ruger, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I admit I am a Ruger "fanboy" and am proof of what you're saying. Just never got the hatred for them I hear here and elsewhere. And I don't think the LC9 is a bad gun. My hatred comes 80% from Bill, 10% from the rednecks I had to deal with them on a daily basis and 10% because I'm a fucking gun snob
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:12:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still haven't even heard an argument as to why their guns are subpar. You listed a few in a previous post, but the company has several lines of guns, and the majority of the most popular have not been discussed as to why they are subpar (which is a highly subjective term in this context). Any data about the Redhawk timing issues? Or is this just your observation of a few dozen Redhawks while working a gun counter? Is that really a fair sample size? I'm going to assume that they have sold well over a million Redhawks. I happen to have seen several Kimber and Sig 1911's that suck. Does that mean that Kimber and Sig 1911's suck? I won't be buying them, but I do realize that it is chance. They make millions of guns and have tons of happy customers. Alleged intellectual theft aside, what is functionally wrong with the SR556? The 1911? The LCR? Blackhawk? GP Revolvers? I own some of these, and am considering purchasing more. So this isn't some internet fanboy debate for me. Honest and accurate feedback from someone who worked a gun counter would be valuable to me. Mechanical evaluations based in fact are useful. Biased judgements due to current political opinions based off of history are of no interest to me. I agree that the SP101 seems to be quality. I've always wanted one. I've always wanted Colt and Smith revolvers, but they are really fucking proud of them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still haven't even heard an argument as to why their guns are subpar. You listed a few in a previous post, but the company has several lines of guns, and the majority of the most popular have not been discussed as to why they are subpar (which is a highly subjective term in this context). Any data about the Redhawk timing issues? Or is this just your observation of a few dozen Redhawks while working a gun counter? Is that really a fair sample size? I'm going to assume that they have sold well over a million Redhawks. I happen to have seen several Kimber and Sig 1911's that suck. Does that mean that Kimber and Sig 1911's suck? I won't be buying them, but I do realize that it is chance. They make millions of guns and have tons of happy customers. Alleged intellectual theft aside, what is functionally wrong with the SR556? The 1911? The LCR? Blackhawk? GP Revolvers? I own some of these, and am considering purchasing more. So this isn't some internet fanboy debate for me. Honest and accurate feedback from someone who worked a gun counter would be valuable to me. Mechanical evaluations based in fact are useful. Biased judgements due to current political opinions based off of history are of no interest to me. I agree that the SP101 seems to be quality. I've always wanted one. I've always wanted Colt and Smith revolvers, but they are really fucking proud of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:13:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hi-Point rear sights are adjustable for windage and elevation. If the gun has a defect, it will be repaired for free, and they send a new mag back with it. When I became a police officer in 1980, I made 250.00 a week before taxes. I had to supply my own duty gun, so I bought a security six. It was heavy, but extremely accurate, and stone reliable. I later got a model 19, and had timing problems after 5k rounds. I doubled that in the Ruger, and never had an issue. Wish I had never sold it. My first pistol was a P95. Still have it, and it has never missed a beat. Mec Gar 17 round mags work great. I am a gun whore, and the ones that seem to stay around are Rugers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Badeffect, a hi point goes bang every time. This does not equate to quality What more does it need? That is the #1 thing I want in my guns, they go bang every time. Going bang every time does not equate to quality. What. The. Fuck. Hi-Point rear sights are adjustable for windage and elevation. If the gun has a defect, it will be repaired for free, and they send a new mag back with it. When I became a police officer in 1980, I made 250.00 a week before taxes. I had to supply my own duty gun, so I bought a security six. It was heavy, but extremely accurate, and stone reliable. I later got a model 19, and had timing problems after 5k rounds. I doubled that in the Ruger, and never had an issue. Wish I had never sold it. My first pistol was a P95. Still have it, and it has never missed a beat. Mec Gar 17 round mags work great. I am a gun whore, and the ones that seem to stay around are Rugers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:14:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it. So the only reason the LC9 sells so well is brand recognition and marketing. It's a piece of shit ripoff but it has a brand name that's recognizable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep hearing that on this forum, that the LC9 is a "ripoff". If it's a ripoff then it must be a better one than the original it's ripping off. Didn't the LC9 win some awards? Plus it was selling like crazy a year ago. Of course it sells, it says ruger and they market it well My point is if it's a knockoff why isn't the original it's ripping off getting any attention? Ruger has better marketing? That's the only reason? I get it. So the only reason the LC9 sells so well is brand recognition and marketing. It's a piece of shit ripoff but it has a brand name that's recognizable. They bought it because it was unique, and affordable. Sort of a novelty thing. I will shamefully admit to being excited to shoot a .410 pistol. Immediately afterwords he asked what I thought. Had to lie right to his face "cool" escaped my lips as I was thinking stupid and pointless. This "too many quotes" thing is highly annoying |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:14:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the SP101 seems to be quality. I've always wanted one. I've always wanted Colt and Smith revolvers, but they are really fucking proud of them. To cut through some of the dumbfuckery here, let me say the SP101 is a fine revolver. If you have not shot one, you should. In .357 they are worth every penny. I prefer the 2.5”version. ymmv. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:14:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clinton signed a ban that restricted magazine capacity and outlawed certain features. Bill Ruger said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and that he never intended civilians to own rifles with folding stocks. I know in your mind this "isn't even in the same solar system", but to me, the two Bill's had pretty similar perspectives. I have argued with Pensky for days on end... But he is 100% spot-on right with you. You are indeed being purposefully disingenuous. Clinton's involvement in negotiating a ban was to satisfy ignorant soccer moms, and his anti-gun Democrat base. Rugers involvement was to limit the damage Clinton (and Democrats) were going to get away with... Two *completely* different starting-points... And frankly they both wanted two different end-results. Ruger just wanted to protect his company. Clinton wanted to divide soccer moms from conservatives and keep Democrats happy. Rugers philosophy was, "cut my toe off, but leave my leg." Clinton (and democrats) was the one with the knife... Pensky is spot-on. You are being purposefully disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:19:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's only a date if one of wears a dress. Flip for the "woman"? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:19:43 PM EDT
[#20]
I have a Ruger SR1911, a GP 100 and an LCP and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:23:18 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a Ruger SR1911, a GP 100 and an LCP and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns Amen. I have a Ruger Single Six, a 10/22, and an LC9 and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:26:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To cut through some of the dumbfuckery here, let me say the SP101 is a fine revolver. If you have not shot one, you should. In .357 they are worth every penny. I prefer the 2.5”version. ymmv. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree that the SP101 seems to be quality. I've always wanted one. I've always wanted Colt and Smith revolvers, but they are really fucking proud of them. To cut through some of the dumbfuckery here, let me say the SP101 is a fine revolver. If you have not shot one, you should. In .357 they are worth every penny. I prefer the 2.5”version. ymmv. Yeah I prefer a second gun to a second mag. I really debated LCR and SP101. I ended up going with the LCR. A great gun that does what it is supposed to in my experience. It is light and nice to carry, but challenging to shoot .357 Mag. I honestly have never had the time to devout to becoming really proficient with it. I consider it really unlikely I will ever use a snub nose. My wife has pretty much taken it because it is easier to carry, so it usually has .38. I'm thinking an SP101 2.5" would be better with .357 and overall fit for my purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:26:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "One of us" you mean??...drunk ass. Dress is for you. I never have to question what I need to wear. My options never includes ladies clothing. You can be the bitch!! Keep trolling though. I'm done. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's only a date if one of wears a dress. Flip for the "woman"? And if you like I can correct your grammar mistakes, you know, since I'm a drunk ass
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:28:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know it's late, but I'm starting to question your ability to comprehend what I've written. I completely understand what you are writing and at this point I'm simply mocking what you write because it is so fucking silly. You hate republicans and you do that typical moral equivalence tap dance that people that don't want to look like they're defending democrats do. Like claiming a fucking letter is equivalent to a sitting president campaigning for gun control. Most people would be too ashamed to write something that dumb. Seriously, just stop. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:30:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have argued with Pensky for days on end... But he is 100% spot-on right with you. You are indeed being purposefully disingenuous. Clinton's involvement in negotiating a ban was to satisfy ignorant soccer moms, and his anti-gun Democrat base. Rugers involvement was to limit the damage Clinton (and Democrats) were going to get away with... Two *completely* different starting-points... And frankly they both wanted two different end-results. Ruger just wanted to protect his company. Clinton wanted to divide soccer moms from conservatives and keep Democrats happy. Rugers philosophy was, "cut my toe off, but leave my leg." Clinton (and democrats) was the one with the knife... Pensky is spot-on. You are being purposefully disingenuous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Clinton signed a ban that restricted magazine capacity and outlawed certain features. Bill Ruger said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and that he never intended civilians to own rifles with folding stocks. I know in your mind this "isn't even in the same solar system", but to me, the two Bill's had pretty similar perspectives. I have argued with Pensky for days on end... But he is 100% spot-on right with you. You are indeed being purposefully disingenuous. Clinton's involvement in negotiating a ban was to satisfy ignorant soccer moms, and his anti-gun Democrat base. Rugers involvement was to limit the damage Clinton (and Democrats) were going to get away with... Two *completely* different starting-points... And frankly they both wanted two different end-results. Ruger just wanted to protect his company. Clinton wanted to divide soccer moms from conservatives and keep Democrats happy. Rugers philosophy was, "cut my toe off, but leave my leg." Clinton (and democrats) was the one with the knife... Pensky is spot-on. You are being purposefully disingenuous. I keep resisting the urge to put you on "ignore" (I've never actually done that). Re-read the part in bold above. Absolutely nothing I've posted has been disingenuous. Instead of rationalizing things like a battered woman, look at the facts. The Clinton ban outlawed folding stocks and magazines over 10 rounds. Bill Ruger said that civilians shouldn't own folding stocks or magazines over 10 rounds. These are unquestionable facts, yet you rationalize Bill Ruger the same way you do Romney. Please don't reply unless you have something new to say. I'm tired of your stale talking points, excuses, and reasons why it's OK for republicans to be slightly less liberal than democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:30:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What agency allowed you to carry a security six? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Badeffect, a hi point goes bang every time. This does not equate to quality What more does it need? That is the #1 thing I want in my guns, they go bang every time. Going bang every time does not equate to quality. What. The. Fuck. Hi-Point rear sights are adjustable for windage and elevation. If the gun has a defect, it will be repaired for free, and they send a new mag back with it. When I became a police officer in 1980, I made 250.00 a week before taxes. I had to supply my own duty gun, so I bought a security six. It was heavy, but extremely accurate, and stone reliable. I later got a model 19, and had timing problems after 5k rounds. I doubled that in the Ruger, and never had an issue. Wish I had never sold it. My first pistol was a P95. Still have it, and it has never missed a beat. Mec Gar 17 round mags work great. I am a gun whore, and the ones that seem to stay around are Rugers. One that required American Made, 38 or 357. and 4" barrel. Dept standards were revolver only when I started. Why not carry a security six? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:33:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One that required American Made, 38 or 357. and 4" barrel. Dept standards were revolver only when I started. Why not carry a security six? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What agency allowed you to carry a security six? One that required American Made, 38 or 357. and 4" barrel. Dept standards were revolver only when I started. Why not carry a security six? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:39:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Within the context that guns themselves were on the table for a ban... Banning capacity exclusively was the better of two evils. Keep in mind... Democrats were the majority. Democrats had control. Clinton's gun ban is similar to Obama's health care law. The context of the time was that majority-Democrats were going to do *something* to ban guns at the national level. And Rugers, "ban just magazines" pales in comparison to Obama, "Comprehensive restrictions to gun rights. Ruger (and every other manufacturer) thought Clinton, Reno, and majority Democrats were going to ban everything. Everything. Do I agree with Ruger. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But looking back at the context, I can see he (and SW, and Winchester, etc etc) was between a rock and a hard place... Rugers comments cannot compete with Clinton, and Reno, and Obama... Ruger was a Fudd. Plain and simple. He was a Fudd who honestly screwed up. But why didnt Ruger do the same while Reagan was in office. Or Bush sr?! They could have did a ban similar to Clinton!?!?! Ruger thought Clinton and Reno and majority Dems were going to destroy all gun rights and all gun companies. He honestly did... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ruger received criticism from gun owners for suggesting that rather than ban guns, that Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds. On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
"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[9] Within the context that guns themselves were on the table for a ban... Banning capacity exclusively was the better of two evils. Keep in mind... Democrats were the majority. Democrats had control. Clinton's gun ban is similar to Obama's health care law. The context of the time was that majority-Democrats were going to do *something* to ban guns at the national level. And Rugers, "ban just magazines" pales in comparison to Obama, "Comprehensive restrictions to gun rights. Ruger (and every other manufacturer) thought Clinton, Reno, and majority Democrats were going to ban everything. Everything. Do I agree with Ruger. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But looking back at the context, I can see he (and SW, and Winchester, etc etc) was between a rock and a hard place... Rugers comments cannot compete with Clinton, and Reno, and Obama... Ruger was a Fudd. Plain and simple. He was a Fudd who honestly screwed up. But why didnt Ruger do the same while Reagan was in office. Or Bush sr?! They could have did a ban similar to Clinton!?!?! Ruger thought Clinton and Reno and majority Dems were going to destroy all gun rights and all gun companies. He honestly did... I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:43:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I completely understand what you are writing and at this point I'm simply mocking what you write because it is so fucking silly. You hate republicans and you do that typical moral equivalence tap dance that people that don't want to look like they're defending democrats do. Like claiming a fucking letter is equivalent to a sitting president campaigning for gun control. Most people would be too ashamed to write something that dumb. Seriously, just stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know it's late, but I'm starting to question your ability to comprehend what I've written. I completely understand what you are writing and at this point I'm simply mocking what you write because it is so fucking silly. You hate republicans and you do that typical moral equivalence tap dance that people that don't want to look like they're defending democrats do. Like claiming a fucking letter is equivalent to a sitting president campaigning for gun control. Most people would be too ashamed to write something that dumb. Seriously, just stop. You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 9:59:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I keep resisting the urge to put you on "ignore" (I've never actually done that). Re-read the part in bold above. Absolutely nothing I've posted has been disingenuous. Instead of rationalizing things like a battered woman, look at the facts. The Clinton ban outlawed folding stocks and magazines over 10 rounds. Bill Ruger said that civilians shouldn't own folding stocks or magazines over 10 rounds. These are unquestionable facts, yet you rationalize Bill Ruger the same way you do Romney. Please don't reply unless you have something new to say. I'm tired of your stale talking points, excuses, and reasons why it's OK for republicans to be slightly less liberal than democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clinton signed a ban that restricted magazine capacity and outlawed certain features. Bill Ruger said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and that he never intended civilians to own rifles with folding stocks. I know in your mind this "isn't even in the same solar system", but to me, the two Bill's had pretty similar perspectives. I have argued with Pensky for days on end... But he is 100% spot-on right with you. You are indeed being purposefully disingenuous. Clinton's involvement in negotiating a ban was to satisfy ignorant soccer moms, and his anti-gun Democrat base. Rugers involvement was to limit the damage Clinton (and Democrats) were going to get away with... Two *completely* different starting-points... And frankly they both wanted two different end-results. Ruger just wanted to protect his company. Clinton wanted to divide soccer moms from conservatives and keep Democrats happy. Rugers philosophy was, "cut my toe off, but leave my leg." Clinton (and democrats) was the one with the knife... Pensky is spot-on. You are being purposefully disingenuous. I keep resisting the urge to put you on "ignore" (I've never actually done that). Re-read the part in bold above. Absolutely nothing I've posted has been disingenuous. Instead of rationalizing things like a battered woman, look at the facts. The Clinton ban outlawed folding stocks and magazines over 10 rounds. Bill Ruger said that civilians shouldn't own folding stocks or magazines over 10 rounds. These are unquestionable facts, yet you rationalize Bill Ruger the same way you do Romney. Please don't reply unless you have something new to say. I'm tired of your stale talking points, excuses, and reasons why it's OK for republicans to be slightly less liberal than democrats. Good grief. Put me on ignore. This isn't a 13-year-old-girl popularity contest... You are one to talk about posting the same stuff over and over. Look in a mirror. Pensky is spot-on with you. Ruger was a Fudd concerned about his company *currently* getting sued by Democrat mayors, with a Democrat President, a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat Janet Reno. Clinton wanted to satisfy the base that just elected him. Two *completely* different starting-points... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:00:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:03:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:06:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know it's late, but I'm starting to question your ability to comprehend what I've written. I completely understand what you are writing and at this point I'm simply mocking what you write because it is so fucking silly. You hate republicans and you do that typical moral equivalence tap dance that people that don't want to look like they're defending democrats do. Like claiming a fucking letter is equivalent to a sitting president campaigning for gun control. Most people would be too ashamed to write something that dumb. Seriously, just stop. You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. No, it doesn't count because he had no power to make it count. Unlike a sitting president campaigning for years to ban guns, like Obama and Clinton. Who you equated to some clown writing a letter. Which is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:10:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. I would never encourage a magazine ban... But the context of supporting a magazine ban over an outright ban on weapons is important here... Ruger wasn't supporting a magazine ban in a vacuum. He was supporting a magazine ban in lieu of an outright ban on firearms. And look at the context... No American gun manufacturer was spotless here. They all were reacting out of fear for their livelihoods... Even SW went full-retard back then... Ruger was wrong. It was a very Fudd thing for him to do. But Clinton and Reno would have taken more if they could have... Your sentence should read, "...Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban instead of an outright gun ban doesn't..." Between a magazine ban and a outright ban on guns... The lesser evil is magazines... The context was a democrat majority... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:10:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
The thread today talking about how Ruger will no longer be selling to CA brought this to my attention again. Throughout the years I've seen a lot of shit talking here about Ruger's semi auto handguns and occasionally their rifles as well. I also listen to a radio show, Guns Over Texas, on Sundays and the hosts also talk shit about Ruger handguns from time to time. I've never heard anything specific just that they "suck". So what specifically sucks about them? Enlighten me. In an effort to shut out his competition, Bill Ruger helped to write the '94 ban so that his products were exempted from the ban. "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:10:34 PM EDT
[#36]
While he definitely screwed us over with the "no honest man" remarks, I'll give the guy credit for making some really popular and successful firearms.
I'm more than pleased with my Mark I's, II's, Blackhawks, Super Blackhawk, Single Six, P-series pistols, and American Rimfire As to the Mini-14 while the older ones couldn't shoot worth a shit compared to the AR, prior to the AR platform becoming as affordable and commonplace as it is now the Mini was at one time your only choice if you wanted a .223/5.56 semi auto and didn't want to pay the price Colt was charging for a SP1. Did Bill fuck us over, YES. However, the Ruger company of today is not the same as the Ruger Company in the late 80's-early 90s |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:10:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
The thread today talking about how Ruger will no longer be selling to CA brought this to my attention again. Throughout the years I've seen a lot of shit talking here about Ruger's semi auto handguns and occasionally their rifles as well. I also listen to a radio show, Guns Over Texas, on Sundays and the hosts also talk shit about Ruger handguns from time to time. I've never heard anything specific just that they "suck". So what specifically sucks about them? Enlighten me. In an effort to shut out his competition, Bill Ruger helped to write the '94 ban so that his products were exempted from the ban. "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:11:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. The Democrat Party wanted a gun and mag ban years before Ruger said anything and they were going to get it with or without some letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:11:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Amen. I have a Ruger Single Six, a 10/22, and an LC9 and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have a Ruger SR1911, a GP 100 and an LCP and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns Amen. I have a Ruger Single Six, a 10/22, and an LC9 and there is nothing wrong with these 3 guns. Damn it i forgot I also have a 10/22 but I had centerfire on the brain, sorry |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:13:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. Congress was controlled by Democrats. Democrat mayors were currently suing gun manufacturers. A Democrat president sat in the Oval Office. Janet Reno was Attorney General. Gun manufacturers were scared they were going to be out of jobs, and maybe in prison (if you listened to the mayors)... Good grief. Ruger was a bonafide Fudd. Janet Reno was a card-carrying Commie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:14:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One that required American Made, 38 or 357. and 4" barrel. Dept standards were revolver only when I started. Why not carry a security six? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hi-Point rear sights are adjustable for windage and elevation. If the gun has a defect, it will be repaired for free, and they send a new mag back with it. When I became a police officer in 1980, I made 250.00 a week before taxes. I had to supply my own duty gun, so I bought a security six. It was heavy, but extremely accurate, and stone reliable. I later got a model 19, and had timing problems after 5k rounds. I doubled that in the Ruger, and never had an issue. Wish I had never sold it. My first pistol was a P95. Still have it, and it has never missed a beat. Mec Gar 17 round mags work great. I am a gun whore, and the ones that seem to stay around are Rugers. One that required American Made, 38 or 357. and 4" barrel. Dept standards were revolver only when I started. Why not carry a security six? In 1980 every deputy and cop down here in my area had revolvers too |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:15:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In an effort to shut out his competition, Bill Ruger helped to write the '94 ban so that his products were exempted from the ban. "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds..." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The thread today talking about how Ruger will no longer be selling to CA brought this to my attention again. Throughout the years I've seen a lot of shit talking here about Ruger's semi auto handguns and occasionally their rifles as well. I also listen to a radio show, Guns Over Texas, on Sundays and the hosts also talk shit about Ruger handguns from time to time. I've never heard anything specific just that they "suck". So what specifically sucks about them? Enlighten me. In an effort to shut out his competition, Bill Ruger helped to write the '94 ban so that his products were exempted from the ban. "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds..." I don't know where you got that information from, but whomever it was was lying to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:15:48 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Democrat Party wanted a gun and mag ban years before Ruger said anything and they were going to get it with or without some letter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. The Democrat Party wanted a gun and mag ban years before Ruger said anything and they were going to get it with or without some letter. I get it there are a lot of apologists in this thread , that are willing to remember it differently than it was. Thats the problem and the next time someone comes in and speaks for American gun owners and opines that Americans are ok with losing their rights, I am sure that many here will be able to gloss that over and be apologists for them also. No thanks , not me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:17:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun" Hey people change. I voted for Carter the first time. Now I'm all enlightened voting for Romney 'n shit. Bill Ruger changed too. He doesn't give a crap how many rounds you can put in your gun any more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:17:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good grief. Put me on ignore. This isn't a 13-year-old-girl popularity contest... You are one to talk about posting the same stuff over and over. Look in a mirror. Pensky is spot-on with you. Ruger was a Fudd concerned about his company *currently* getting sued by Democrat mayors, with a Democrat President, a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat Janet Reno. Clinton wanted to satisfy the base that just elected him. Two *completely* different starting-points... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clinton signed a ban that restricted magazine capacity and outlawed certain features. Bill Ruger said that no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and that he never intended civilians to own rifles with folding stocks. I know in your mind this "isn't even in the same solar system", but to me, the two Bill's had pretty similar perspectives. I have argued with Pensky for days on end... But he is 100% spot-on right with you. You are indeed being purposefully disingenuous. Clinton's involvement in negotiating a ban was to satisfy ignorant soccer moms, and his anti-gun Democrat base. Rugers involvement was to limit the damage Clinton (and Democrats) were going to get away with... Two *completely* different starting-points... And frankly they both wanted two different end-results. Ruger just wanted to protect his company. Clinton wanted to divide soccer moms from conservatives and keep Democrats happy. Rugers philosophy was, "cut my toe off, but leave my leg." Clinton (and democrats) was the one with the knife... Pensky is spot-on. You are being purposefully disingenuous. I keep resisting the urge to put you on "ignore" (I've never actually done that). Re-read the part in bold above. Absolutely nothing I've posted has been disingenuous. Instead of rationalizing things like a battered woman, look at the facts. The Clinton ban outlawed folding stocks and magazines over 10 rounds. Bill Ruger said that civilians shouldn't own folding stocks or magazines over 10 rounds. These are unquestionable facts, yet you rationalize Bill Ruger the same way you do Romney. Please don't reply unless you have something new to say. I'm tired of your stale talking points, excuses, and reasons why it's OK for republicans to be slightly less liberal than democrats. Good grief. Put me on ignore. This isn't a 13-year-old-girl popularity contest... You are one to talk about posting the same stuff over and over. Look in a mirror. Pensky is spot-on with you. Ruger was a Fudd concerned about his company *currently* getting sued by Democrat mayors, with a Democrat President, a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat Janet Reno. Clinton wanted to satisfy the base that just elected him. Two *completely* different starting-points... Yet they both wanted the same outcome: a ban on folding stocks, waiting periods for purchases, and magazine capacity ban. Some insiders believe that Ruger's desire for a ban was to help him gain a competitive advantage over other gun makers. BTW, don't worry, I won't put you on ignore. It's just that the same tired old defenses of Romney, Bill Ruger, and other R's who sell out the 2A gets old (no need give yet another vigorous defense of Romney, I know where you stand). In some strange way, maybe I'm trying to help you see the light that I found a while back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:22:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it there are a lot of apologists in this thread , that are willing to remember it differently than it was. Thats the problem and the next time someone comes in and speaks for American gun owners and opines that Americans are ok with losing their rights, I am sure that many here will be able to gloss that over and be apologists for them also. No thanks , not me. Either Democrats held every branch of the Federal Government... Or they didn't. Facts don't lie. Either Janet Reno was "investigating" claims made by Democrat mayors against gun manufacturers or she wasn't... Facts don't lie. Clinton didn't need to campaign to middle-America. Perot made it so Clinton only needed to make promises to Democrats. Clinton campaigned on gun control. Facts don't lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:23:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it there are a lot of apologists in this thread , that are willing to remember it differently than it was. Thats the problem and the next time someone comes in and speaks for American gun owners and opines that Americans are ok with losing their rights, I am sure that many here will be able to gloss that over and be apologists for them also. No thanks , not me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I lived through it. Bill Ruger screwed over the American Citizen. And Clinton and Janet Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it... Hmmmmm... I did not say that, but if you do not think they did not take his opinion as a sign that it was feasible , you are wrong as wrong gets. People in the gun industry acting as the mouth piece of gun owners and saying shit like he did absolutely helped get a ban through Congress. The Democrat Party wanted a gun and mag ban years before Ruger said anything and they were going to get it with or without some letter. I get it there are a lot of apologists in this thread , that are willing to remember it differently than it was. Thats the problem and the next time someone comes in and speaks for American gun owners and opines that Americans are ok with losing their rights, I am sure that many here will be able to gloss that over and be apologists for them also. No thanks , not me. Nobody gave a fuck about Bill Ruger in 1994. The MSM -the media wing of the DNC then as now- didn't crow about some "gun company quisling" and politicians weren't holding him up as an example. Outside of gun magazine editorials- nobody gave a damn. That's the way it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:27:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet they both wanted the same outcome: a ban on folding stocks, waiting periods for purchases, and magazine capacity ban. Some insiders believe that Ruger's desire for a ban was to help him gain a competitive advantage over other gun makers. BTW, don't worry, I won't put you on ignore. It's just that the same tired old defenses of Romney, Bill Ruger, and other R's who sell out the 2A gets old (no need give yet another vigorous defense of Romney, I know where you stand). In some strange way, maybe I'm trying to help you see the light that I found a while back. Rugers involvement being totally selfish does not explain the odd behavior of the rest of the gun manufacturers... Democrats seeking to eliminate gun rights, and Democrat mayors suing gun companies... Yeah... That explains the odd behavior. You and you alone is who brought up the ignore feature... I don't give five craps who reads what I write... Democrats had Ruger by the balls. They had every single manufacturer by the balls... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:34:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would never encourage a magazine ban... But the context of supporting a magazine ban over an outright ban on weapons is important here... Ruger wasn't supporting a magazine ban in a vacuum. He was supporting a magazine ban in lieu of an outright ban on firearms. And look at the context... No American gun manufacturer was spotless here. They all were reacting out of fear for their livelihoods... Even SW went full-retard back then... Ruger was wrong. It was a very Fudd thing for him to do. But Clinton and Reno would have taken more if they could have... Your sentence should read, "...Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban instead of an outright gun ban doesn't..." Between a magazine ban and a outright ban on guns... The lesser evil is magazines... The context was a democrat majority... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. I would never encourage a magazine ban... But the context of supporting a magazine ban over an outright ban on weapons is important here... Ruger wasn't supporting a magazine ban in a vacuum. He was supporting a magazine ban in lieu of an outright ban on firearms. And look at the context... No American gun manufacturer was spotless here. They all were reacting out of fear for their livelihoods... Even SW went full-retard back then... Ruger was wrong. It was a very Fudd thing for him to do. But Clinton and Reno would have taken more if they could have... Your sentence should read, "...Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban instead of an outright gun ban doesn't..." Between a magazine ban and a outright ban on guns... The lesser evil is magazines... The context was a democrat majority... Ruger wrote the letter encouraging Congress to enact a magazine ban on March 30, 1989. Bill Clinton didn't become president until 1993. If then president Bush Sr. was such as friend to the 2A, why would Bill Ruger fear an outright gun ban? Maybe Ruger's motives weren't as pure as the wind driven snow, or maybe Bush Sr wasn't a friend of the 2A that you and your buddy claim that he was. It's one or the other. What was the "headshot" comment you made to me earlier? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 10:48:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ruger wrote the letter encouraging Congress to enact a magazine ban on March 30, 1989. Bill Clinton didn't become president until 1993. If then president Bush Sr. was such as friend to the 2A, why would Bill Ruger fear an outright ban? Maybe Ruger's motives weren't as pure as the wind driven snow, or maybe Bush Sr wasn't a friend of the 2A that you and your buddy claim that he was. It's one or the other. What was the "headshot" comment you made to me earlier? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're good for a laugh. To you, Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban doesn't count as advocating a ban because he wasn't the president. Gotcha. Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do despise liberal politicians, especially the ones that have an (R) after their name. I would never encourage a magazine ban... But the context of supporting a magazine ban over an outright ban on weapons is important here... Ruger wasn't supporting a magazine ban in a vacuum. He was supporting a magazine ban in lieu of an outright ban on firearms. And look at the context... No American gun manufacturer was spotless here. They all were reacting out of fear for their livelihoods... Even SW went full-retard back then... Ruger was wrong. It was a very Fudd thing for him to do. But Clinton and Reno would have taken more if they could have... Your sentence should read, "...Ruger's letter sent to every member of congress encouraging a magazine ban instead of an outright gun ban doesn't..." Between a magazine ban and a outright ban on guns... The lesser evil is magazines... The context was a democrat majority... Ruger wrote the letter encouraging Congress to enact a magazine ban on March 30, 1989. Bill Clinton didn't become president until 1993. If then president Bush Sr. was such as friend to the 2A, why would Bill Ruger fear an outright ban? Maybe Ruger's motives weren't as pure as the wind driven snow, or maybe Bush Sr wasn't a friend of the 2A that you and your buddy claim that he was. It's one or the other. What was the "headshot" comment you made to me earlier? Pensky has destroyed your arguments... He has delivered effective answers to your slanted one-sided arguments... Ruger was a Fudd. No doubt. It was Clinton, Reno, and a Democrat Congress who passed anti-gun laws. The letter Ruger wrote was to a Democrat congress... Meh. All of the gun manufacturers acted weird. SW signed an agreement with Reno that their guns would not be sold in stores where kids could see the gun sales. Impossible to enforce. SW guns were sold by FFLs all over the country in stores and shops where kids could enter. impossible to enforce But they signed it nonetheless. They all acted foolishly towards gun rights. I Can't say that Rugers motivations in dealing with a democrat controlled congress were selfish when S and W was meeting with Janet Reno to discuss how to sell their guns where kids won't see the guns... Ruger was a bonafide Fudd... Nobody is arguing with you on that... But it was Democrats who were pushing gun control... |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
