The Ruger Letter of 1989

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Ruger Letter of 1989

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:10:53 PM EDT

I know this is probably old news to most of you but I only heard of this right now and wanted to share it. I looked up Mini 14 on Wikipedia and look what I learned:

Controversy
After a spate of high profile shootings and incidences with the Ruger Mini 14 rifle, along with a number of unsavory associations the Mini 14 had gained with militias and extremist movements during the late 1970s and early 1980s, William B. Ruger expressed a highly unpopular position (amongst firearms owners, users and enthusiasts) by stating his personal views on the "sporting" nature of certain firearms.

In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Mr. Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

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 rifles" 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 prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.
In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by "The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

This position, coming from an important firearms manufacturer such as Mr. Ruger, caused outrage in the shooting sports community and led to a boycott of Ruger products that is still practiced by many firearms purchasers to this day. "The Ruger Letter" is widely accepted as being the genesis for those parts of legislation that were drafted 5 years later in the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban which prohibited the manufacture of any magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition for civilian sale.

While it is unknown what the true motives behind "The Ruger Letter" really were, it is widely speculated that his position on magazine capacity was more a matter of smart business than one of individual philosophy. Given the legislative climate regarding firearms during that time (the late 1980s/early 1990s), the prospect of an outright ban that may have impacted one of Rugers most popular and profitable models (the Mini 14) was a very real possibility.

By taking preemptive measures to shift the focus from the "guns" to the "magazine capacity", this would allow Sturm, Ruger Inc. to continue production with their Mini 14 line of firearms for civilian sale. Any legislation regarding magazines would have had zero impact on their bottom line, given that Ruger maintained a company policy refusing to sell Mini 14 magazines over 5 rounds (which wouldn't have been affected), even prior to the 1994 legislation mandating such.

What a traitorous motherf...er!! He is the reason for the AWB! SCUMBAG RAT BASTARD!

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:14:04 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
By taking preemptive measures to shift the focus from the "guns" to the "magazine capacity", this would allow Sturm, Ruger Inc. to continue production with their Mini 14 line of firearms for civilian sale. Any legislation regarding magazines would have had zero impact on their bottom line, given that Ruger maintained a company policy refusing to sell Mini 14 magazines over 5 rounds (which wouldn't have been affected), even prior to the 1994 legislation mandating such.

If true, that is just shrewd business...

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:17:39 PM EDT

[#2]

FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.

FREE

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:27:51 PM EDT

[#3]

Thanks I had never sen the actual text

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:35:47 PM EDT

[#4]

"Chill, dudes. He's sweeping up the brass from my Beta C even as we speak."

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:36:32 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Thanks I had never sen the actual text

That is not the "Letter"

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:44:20 PM EDT

[#6]

Leaving aside the fact that we all would have been arguably better off if, as Ruger wished, only mags were banned (not firearms), do you have any other sourcing for this "letter"?

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:45:56 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.

FREE

Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:48:23 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I know this is probably old news to most of you but I only heard of this right now and wanted to share it. I looked up Mini 14 on Wikipedia and look what I learned:

Controversy
After a spate of high profile shootings and incidences with the Ruger Mini 14 rifle, along with a number of unsavory associations the Mini 14 had gained with militias and extremist movements during the late 1970s and early 1980s, William B. Ruger expressed a highly unpopular position (amongst firearms owners, users and enthusiasts) by stating his personal views on the "sporting" nature of certain firearms.

In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Mr. Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

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 rifles" 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 prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.
In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by "The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

This position, coming from an important firearms manufacturer such as Mr. Ruger, caused outrage in the shooting sports community and led to a boycott of Ruger products that is still practiced by many firearms purchasers to this day. "The Ruger Letter" is widely accepted as being the genesis for those parts of legislation that were drafted 5 years later in the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban which prohibited the manufacture of any magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition for civilian sale.

While it is unknown what the true motives behind "The Ruger Letter" really were, it is widely speculated that his position on magazine capacity was more a matter of smart business than one of individual philosophy. Given the legislative climate regarding firearms during that time (the late 1980s/early 1990s), the prospect of an outright ban that may have impacted one of Rugers most popular and profitable models (the Mini 14) was a very real possibility.

By taking preemptive measures to shift the focus from the "guns" to the "magazine capacity", this would allow Sturm, Ruger Inc. to continue production with their Mini 14 line of firearms for civilian sale. Any legislation regarding magazines would have had zero impact on their bottom line, given that Ruger maintained a company policy refusing to sell Mini 14 magazines over 5 rounds (which wouldn't have been affected), even prior to the 1994 legislation mandating such.

What a traitorous motherf...er!! He is the reason for the AWB! SCUMBAG RAT BASTARD!

Did you even read what you posted? "he is the reason for the AWB".

As for the effect on business, it would have had the same effect on ALL rifle makers and we would never have had all the preban/postban bullshit.

ETA: It was on Wikipedia, so it must be true.

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:48:46 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.

FREE

Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Not really...but that has nothing to do with politics!

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:51:36 PM EDT

[#10]

Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:51:59 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.

FREE

Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Already have. Is there a particular reason one shouldn't? I can't say that I've heard of any anti-RKBA issues from either company...

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:52:18 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Leaving aside the fact that we all would have been arguably better off if, as Ruger wished, only mags were banned (not firearms), do you have any other sourcing for this "letter"?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_3_45/ai_60598174/pg_2

Not the same letter, but it goes to pattern. There are a couple other mentions but they are all on paid subscription services.

Posted: 7/14/2006 3:59:44 PM EDT

[#13]

This is why I don't own any Rugers and never will. Bastards.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:01:22 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.

FREE

Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Already have. Is there a particular reason one shouldn't? I can't say that I've heard of any anti-RKBA issues from either company...

Gee:

Today computers can do just that. A computer can't make the ultimate call, but they can narrow the work down to a point where manual examination is feasible. ATF is now making this computer technology available to police authorities around the country through the National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN). This network is a joint effort between ATF and the FBI to provide the latest technology to our state and local partners. Under this arrangement ATF will be responsible for the ballistics technology and the FBI will provide the computer network that will join the state and local systems together. Currently this provides a valuable tool for law enforcement authorities that will allow us to associate a suspect or a firearm with seemingly unrelated crimes. The future of this technology offers even greater potential. ATF is currently conducting a pilot project with Glock, wherein they will capture digital image a test fire shell casing for handguns they manufacture. That image will be associated with the serial number of the firearm in a computer database. Later if a shell casing is recovered at a crime scene it could be compared against the Glock database. This comparison could lead to the identification of the exact weapon that fired the round. Without ever recovering a firearm ATF could then trace the weapon used in the crime.

www.atf.gov/press/speech/fy00/040700ggdsymposium.htm

And S&Ws HUD agreement. Some here will say new owner's, etc, but until S&W goes to court to get the order (it was entered into as a court order) rescinded, it is still in effect. It is just not being enforced right now, but if a dummycrat gets back in office, it will be.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:02:02 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:10:28 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
FU** ruger.

He sold us out to save a few sales.

He is dead along with the ban he supported.
FREE

I wish! Permanent ban in NYS.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:10:50 PM EDT

[#17]

I don't own any Rugers, Glocks OR Smiths, and never will.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:13:01 PM EDT

[#18]

One amusing anecdote, however...

The only true preban black rifle I own is a 10/22 I bought in 1990. It's got a folding stock, flash hider (LOL...how much flash is there from a rimfire), pistol grip, and I have tons of preban 30 round magazines for it.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:26:27 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Let's not forget Colt while we're pointing fingers.

The simple fact is that Bill Ruger is a Fudd of the worst possible kind. S&W and Glock are handgun manfs. primarily, and have capitulated to government pressure at various times. However they never testified in a senate hearing that people didnt need certain things, and they have never mistaken firearms as something people only have for the sake of hunting.

For refs search LoC Thomas listings.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:31:04 PM EDT

[#20]

yeah he did say that he also said years later he regreted it and gave millions of dollers to the NRA.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:32:19 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Let's not forget Colt while we're pointing fingers.

The simple fact is that Bill Ruger is a Fudd of the worst possible kind. S&W and Glock are handgun manfs. primarily, and have capitulated to government pressure at various times. However they never testified in a senate hearing that people didnt need certain things, and they have never mistaken firearms as something people only have for the sake of hunting.

For refs search LoC Thomas listings.

Yeah, S&W only completely caved to the Clinton admin and Glock is VOLUNTARILY participating in the BF program at the Federal level.

Yeah, make excuses for them.

How about a link to his testimony.

I guess Ruger thinks the P-series pistols are only for hunting, huh.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:34:01 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
yeah he did say that he also said years later he regreted it and gave millions of dollers to the NRA.

He said he tried to compromise and learned that you can't compromise with the fanatics.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:41:18 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Let's not forget Colt while we're pointing fingers.

The simple fact is that Bill Ruger is a Fudd of the worst possible kind. S&W and Glock are handgun manfs. primarily, and have capitulated to government pressure at various times. However they never testified in a senate hearing that people didnt need certain things, and they have never mistaken firearms as something people only have for the sake of hunting.

For refs search LoC Thomas listings.

Yeah, S&W only completely caved to the Clinton admin and Glock is VOLUNTARILY participating in the BF program at the Federal level.

Yeah, make excuses for them.

How about a link to his testimony.

You know, that's a good point. I don't think I've ever seen any kind of link to any alleged Congressional testimony by Ruger, but everybody claims he did so.

If he did, then please provide a first-hand source for the claim.

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:46:01 PM EDT

[#24]

That and the fact he wont sell "Hi-Caps" to us peons is why I will NEVER own a ruger product, and I wanted a mini for YEARS

Posted: 7/14/2006 4:51:50 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
That and the fact he wont sell "Hi-Caps" to us peons is why I will NEVER own a ruger product, and I wanted a mini for YEARS

Well, Browing only sells 5 round mags for the BAR II. To hell with them as well.

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:03:32 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Let's not forget Colt while we're pointing fingers.

The simple fact is that Bill Ruger is a Fudd of the worst possible kind. S&W and Glock are handgun manfs. primarily, and have capitulated to government pressure at various times. However they never testified in a senate hearing that people didnt need certain things, and they have never mistaken firearms as something people only have for the sake of hunting.

For refs search LoC Thomas listings.

Every time this comes up I bring up Colt, never get a bite.

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:11:53 PM EDT

[#27]

"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

Simple civilians? WTF!

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:52:52 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

Simple civilians? WTF!

Provide a link to that statement. Even in the unfounded and unproven statements others have posted, no one ever said he used the term "civilian".

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:54:02 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ruger will NEVER get a penny of my money nor will I ever own anyy Ruger firearm even if it's offered to me for free.

Ruger can go F**K themselves. And they can blame their dead asshole boss for it.

With friends like that asshole, we don't NEED any enemies.

CJ

But, you would buy a Glock or S&W, wouldn't you.

Let's not forget Colt while we're pointing fingers.

The simple fact is that Bill Ruger is a Fudd of the worst possible kind. S&W and Glock are handgun manfs. primarily, and have capitulated to government pressure at various times. However they never testified in a senate hearing that people didnt need certain things, and they have never mistaken firearms as something people only have for the sake of hunting.

For refs search LoC Thomas listings.

Every time this comes up I bring up Colt, never get a bite.

Just like with Glock and S&W, you will have those who try to dismiss what they did with lame excuses, yet bash the hell out of Ruger in the same breath. When you ask for proof, they always link to the same magazine article.

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:55:04 PM EDT

[#30]

Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Already have. Is there a particular reason one shouldn't? I can't say that I've heard of any anti-RKBA issues from either company...

Yeah, S&W signed away our 2nd Amendment rights for contracts. But at that time S&W had foreign ownership. Since then the company has reverted to US ownership (the employees?) and backed out of that deal. Glock jumped into the Ballistics Testing thing with both feet, and the person responsible for that was fired, I believe. Both companies have repented of their sins.

Ruger still won't sell you 20 or 30 round mags for your Mini-14.

At one time I had 5 Mini's. I have gotten rid of three of them, and will do so with the remaining two. I will never own another Ruger product. Ever.

Posted: 7/14/2006 5:58:51 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Would you buy a Glock? A Smith and Wesson?

Already have. Is there a particular reason one shouldn't? I can't say that I've heard of any anti-RKBA issues from either company...

Yeah, S&W signed away our 2nd Amendment rights for contracts. But at that time S&W had foreign ownership. Since then the company has reverted to US ownership (the employees?) and backed out of that deal. Glock jumped into the Ballistics Testing thing with both feet, and the person responsible for that was fired, I believe. Both companies have repented of their sins.

Ruger still won't sell you 20 or 30 round mags for your Mini-14.

At one time I had 5 Mini's. I have gotten rid of three of them, and will do so with the remaining two. I will never own another Ruger product. Ever.

First, the S&W agreement is still in force. They HAVE NOT gotten it rescinded by a judge. They can't just "back out".

Second, the person that was fired was immediately rehired in a consulting position and Glock has not stopped their program with BATF.

Lame attempts at dismissing and excusing what they did and can be documented while bashing Bill Ruger with, as yet, any documented evidence.

Even if what you say is true, Bill Ruger admitted he made a mistake trying to compromise with the gun grabbers and spent the rest of his life fighting them. You and others won't accept that but will excuse Glock and S&W in a heartbeat.

Browning won't sell anything but 5 round mags for the BAR II.

Colt doesn't willingly sell noban ARs to the public even though people are getting them through side channels.

It's called hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:24:47 PM EDT

[#32]

Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:27:04 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:27:40 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Uh huh. Just like the AR10 rants...

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:28:34 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Just curious.
I've seen your AR10 rantings, so I was wondering if there was a pattern.

ETA: Flamingglory is on the ball.

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:29:47 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Uh huh. Just like the AR10 rants...

How is that? How is it irrelevant that only ArmaLite and their Eagle Arms division make the AR10 .

Actually, it IS irrelevant to this thread but you seem to like to follow around with your inane bullshit.

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:30:37 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Just curious.
I've seen your AR10 rantings, so I was wondering if there was a pattern.

ETA: Flamingglory is on the ball.

Which rants would that be? The ones that state the fact that only ArmaLite and Eagle Arms make the AR10?

So, the two of you really have nothing factual to contribute to this thread so you try your little hijack. Figures.

I guess it's a rant to point out the blatant hypocrisy and lack of facts in this thread, huh.

Posted: 7/14/2006 6:53:33 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Just curious.
I've seen your AR10 rantings, so I was wondering if there was a pattern.

ETA: Flamingglory is on the ball.

Which rants would that be? The ones that state the fact that only ArmaLite and Eagle Arms make the AR10?

So, the two of you really have nothing factual to contribute to this thread so you try your little hijack. Figures.

I guess it's a rant to point out the blatant hypocrisy and lack of facts in this thread, huh.

Hypocrisy? Pointing out that comparing two handgun manfs., one foriegn and one that was sued repeatedly capitulated to pressure from the government. Then distinguishing them from the outward hostility of one other company who actively sought out legislation that would make their products more attractive legally. This hardly constitutes hypocrisy.

It is a fact, no matter what happened later or what happened earlier, that William Ruger attempted to capitalize on the shootings at a CA school in I believe november 1989 by actively propositioning members of congress to institute a magazine ban.

As to the AR10 rants, I believe thedoctors308 and I were merely pointing to a pattern of past behaviour as a rabid "name" defender. Which of course has bearing on this conversation.

I told you quite simply where to find evidence of Bill Ruger's doings. They are contained in the Congressional reporter for 1989 which is housed at the Library of Congress among other places. The Violence Policy Center also has a an account in their paper "A Farewell To Arms" or something similar, I dont tend to read their material.

Posted: 7/14/2006 7:10:29 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Thanks I had never seen the actual text

That is not the "Letter"

correct but i assumed the parts in quote was the pertinent excerpt

all i had ever heard was second and third hand info that Bill Ruger sent a letter a letter calling for a hi cap magazine ban

I was pleased to see it presented in context

what's so

about that

Posted: 7/14/2006 8:02:45 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Larryg - how many ruger products do you own?

4, but that's really irrelevant.

Just curious.
I've seen your AR10 rantings, so I was wondering if there was a pattern.

ETA: Flamingglory is on the ball.

Which rants would that be? The ones that state the fact that only ArmaLite and Eagle Arms make the AR10?

So, the two of you really have nothing factual to contribute to this thread so you try your little hijack. Figures.

I guess it's a rant to point out the blatant hypocrisy and lack of facts in this thread, huh.

Hypocrisy? Pointing out that comparing two handgun manfs., one foriegn and one that was sued repeatedly capitulated to pressure from the government. Then distinguishing them from the outward hostility of one other company who actively sought out legislation that would make their products more attractive legally. This hardly constitutes hypocrisy.

It is a fact, no matter what happened later or what happened earlier, that William Ruger attempted to capitalize on the shootings at a CA school in I believe november 1989 by actively propositioning members of congress to institute a magazine ban.

As to the AR10 rants, I believe thedoctors308 and I were merely pointing to a pattern of past behaviour as a rabid "name" defender. Which of course has bearing on this conversation.

I told you quite simply where to find evidence of Bill Ruger's doings. They are contained in the Congressional reporter for 1989 which is housed at the Library of Congress among other places. The Violence Policy Center also has a an account in their paper "A Farewell To Arms" or something similar, I dont tend to read their material.

This is not about a name, it is about a lack of facts and hypocrisy. What Glock did, and still does, and the agreement that S&W signed, and is still in effect, are far worse and that is documented.

If you know of something in the Library of Congress, post it.

As for citing VPC, give me a break.

As for the "capitalizing on a school shooting", how about some proof, something documented. It's easy to post stuff and not back it up.

As for the AR10, you and the others can criticize me all you want, but when someone calls their non-ArmaLite/non-Eagle Arms rifle an AR10, I will say something about it. If that is a rant, so be it.

BTW, did you even read the supposed "letter". He allegedly proposed a 15 round limit and leave the guns themselves alone, thus no preban/postban crap. It would not have benefited him any more than any other mfg.

He has ZERO to do with the 10 round limit and the AWB as it came about was the exact opposite of what he allegedly proposed.

He did say later he realized that he should never have tried to compromise with the anti-gun fanatics.

Some of you wrongly claim that Glock and S&W have mended their ways (they have not), yet you are not willing to give Bill Ruger that same credit.

Also, you are just making excuses for Glock and S&W. Funny how that works.

Posted: 7/14/2006 9:35:40 PM EDT

[#41]

the fact that ruger relized his mistake and shelled out millions of dollers of his own money to the NRA over the years. is a hell of alot more the what Smith and Wesson and Glock have done to make ammends.
try calling up colt right now and saying yes i would like to order a ar15. sorry you cant directyly get one from them you have to go to a place thats violating there agreement with Colt to only sell to LEO with letter head. I was at the shot show after the sunset all of colts no bans had little tags on them "for Law enforcment and goverment use only"

Posted: 7/14/2006 9:46:25 PM EDT

[#42]

Rugers are ghey anyway

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Ruger Letter of 1989

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us