Posted: 4/30/2009 7:43:16 PM EDT
|
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars? (link) Remember the Smith & Wesson built-in locks? Yeah. Well... More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public... If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence.
This public service announcement is brought to you by DLoken and Obama voters everywhere. EDIT: Food for thought: ...former HUD secretary Jack Kemp... [advocated] during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, "Ban it any way you can," in response to host Tim Russert's question about his views on the "assault weapons" law.
Any restriction on 2A amendment rights should be viewed in the light of this statement. |
|
Not likely.
Obama's rationale for socializing banks and automobile manufacturers, and dictating their corporate policy, is that they are too large to fail. There are no gun manufacturers that are large enough that there is a reasonable justification for a government bailout. Furthermore, even those manufacturers that currently derive a substantial portion of their profits from government contracts could probably survive on civilian sales alone, especially in the current seller's market created by Obama. And if S&W were to fold under government pressure again, it will be their loss. There are plenty of smaller manufacturers that can take up the slack. |
|
I have often dreamed of the opposite.
It would be great if a weapons manufactuer created a revolutionary firearm and refused to do business with the government until it returned to its Second Amendment restrictions. I konw that Barret did a watered down version of this with California, I still get a laugh out of that. |
|
Quoted:
I have often dreamed of the opposite. It would be great if a weapons manufactuer created a revolutionary firearm and refused to do business with the government until it returned to its Second Amendment restrictions. I konw that Barret did a watered down version of this with California, I still get a laugh out of that. It is. Other manufacturers have to play ball with California laws, too in order to be able to have their products sold here. Heck, Impact Guns has an entire portion of their websitie devoted to California purchasers. It's craziness. I know kinda off the point, but take magazines. Back in Oregon I got looked at funny for asking about 10 round Sigma magazines before I moved. No one carries them in stock there (they can be ordered), but that's all I can have here. So S&W has to manufacture these magazines in order for consumers can buy and operate their product in this state. |
|
Quoted:
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars? (link) Remember the Smith & Wesson built-in locks? Yeah. Well... More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public... If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence.
This public service announcement is brought to you by DLoken and Obama voters everywhere. Most of the companies with major gov contracts live & die by those contracts, and have minimal civvie sales anyways.... Except FN, but the US govt 'dictating terms' to the ultimate multinational arms company is unlikely..... |
|
I don't see it every happening.
There would just be several small time manufacturers who stepped to the plate if that where the case... Now what would be possible is if the .gov beefed up their laws on who can manufacture guns so the point where only the head names could afford to keep up, maybe then it would work. In the mean times there are people licensed to make guns commercially with just a few hundred thousand invested. It would be kinda hard to sell them a government bail out.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have often dreamed of the opposite. It would be great if a weapons manufactuer created a revolutionary firearm and refused to do business with the government until it returned to its Second Amendment restrictions. I konw that Barret did a watered down version of this with California, I still get a laugh out of that. It is. Other manufacturers have to play ball with California laws, too in order to be able to have their products sold here. Heck, Impact Guns has an entire portion of their websitie devoted to California purchasers. It's craziness. I know kinda off the point, but take magazines. Back in Oregon I got looked at funny for asking about 10 round Sigma magazines before I moved. No one carries them in stock there (they can be ordered), but that's all I can have here. So S&W has to manufacture these magazines in order for consumers can buy and operate their product in this state. Why do they cater to California? Money. As always, you don't like that, don't buy from them. |
|
This public service announcement is brought to you by DLoken and Obama voters everywhere.
Fuck the both of them. Ayn Rand pretty much sums up all this bullshit, it's almost prophetic. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion––when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing––when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors––when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you––when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice––you may know that your society is doomed.
The obozo wants to compel GM and Chrysler to build his products, even though he has never produced a single thing of value in his life. He wants to compel the banks to loan to his approved borrowers. And yes he would like to compel gun manufacturers to sell only boondoggle laden pieces of shit, or restrict sales completely. Chicago is synonymous with graft. This country is finished, welcome to the United States of Africa |
|
You might worry about ammo manufacturers but there are so many gun companies that dont do government contracts I wouldnt lose any sleep.
FN? Seriously I couldnt give a rat's ass. Beretta, SIG and Glock well I will live and I havent bought a Colt for years and dont intend to unless its used anyway. 
|
|
Quoted: Not likely. Obama's rationale for socializing banks and automobile manufacturers, and dictating their corporate policy, is that they are too large to fail. There are no gun manufacturers that are large enough that there is a reasonable justification for a government bailout. Furthermore, even those manufacturers that currently derive a substantial portion of their profits from government contracts could probably survive on civilian sales alone, especially in the current seller's market created by Obama. And if S&W were to fold under government pressure again, it will be their loss. There are plenty of smaller manufacturers that can take up the slack. No. He wants to control the free-market. The easiest way to do that is to control financial institutions. If anyone actually believes America will fail because a large company goes out of business, they need to move to Guyana and have a nice cup of fruit punch Kool-Aid. More likely, when the government becomes the sole provider of healthcare, taxes will go high enough that people will be glad to ban all firearms due to the "health-related costs" of gun violence. |
| I remember that Smith & Wesson signed onto one of Bill Clinton's schemes so that they would not be locked out of lucrative government contracts. Colt largely dropped out of the civilian market, they only produce a few high priced guns for collectors as most of their production goes to gov't contracts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not likely. Obama's rationale for socializing banks and automobile manufacturers, and dictating their corporate policy, is that they are too large to fail. There are no gun manufacturers that are large enough that there is a reasonable justification for a government bailout. Furthermore, even those manufacturers that currently derive a substantial portion of their profits from government contracts could probably survive on civilian sales alone, especially in the current seller's market created by Obama. And if S&W were to fold under government pressure again, it will be their loss. There are plenty of smaller manufacturers that can take up the slack. No. He wants to control the free-market. The easiest way to do that is to control financial institutions. If anyone actually believes America will fail because a large company goes out of business, they need to move to Guyana and have a nice cup of fruit punch Kool-Aid. More likely, when the government becomes the sole provider of healthcare, taxes will go high enough that people will be glad to ban all firearms due to the "health-related costs" of gun violence. You missed my point, which is that he used the size of the companies as an excuse to control them. He has no such excuse with gun manufacturers. And I don't remember hearing any predictions quite as dire as the failure of America, even from Obama. And, while we can agree that socialization is a bad thing, I think that you may have the tinfoil adjusted a bit too tightly if you think that there is a possibility of banning all firearms due to health care costs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not likely. Obama's rationale for socializing banks and automobile manufacturers, and dictating their corporate policy, is that they are too large to fail. There are no gun manufacturers that are large enough that there is a reasonable justification for a government bailout. Furthermore, even those manufacturers that currently derive a substantial portion of their profits from government contracts could probably survive on civilian sales alone, especially in the current seller's market created by Obama. And if S&W were to fold under government pressure again, it will be their loss. There are plenty of smaller manufacturers that can take up the slack. No. He wants to control the free-market. The easiest way to do that is to control financial institutions. If anyone actually believes America will fail because a large company goes out of business, they need to move to Guyana and have a nice cup of fruit punch Kool-Aid. More likely, when the government becomes the sole provider of healthcare, taxes will go high enough that people will be glad to ban all firearms due to the "health-related costs" of gun violence. You missed my point, which is that he used the size of the companies as an excuse to control them. He has no such excuse with gun manufacturers. And I don't remember hearing any predictions quite as dire as the failure of America, even from Obama. And, while we can agree that socialization is a bad thing, I think that you may have the tinfoil adjusted a bit too tightly if you think that there is a possibility of banning all firearms due to health care costs. They have different excuses for pushing gun registration/bans. Like mass murders in gun-free zones, crime, and Mexico drug dealers with grenades. |
|
Quoted:
I remember that Smith & Wesson signed onto one of Bill Clinton's schemes so that they would not be locked out of lucrative government contracts. And the resulting boycott among their civilian customers more than offset any potential sales to the government. Their greed cost them dearly. |